Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $28,247
32%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 32% is in!! Please keep it coming in, folks. July is almost funded--now we need to cover August and September.

Posts by Titanites

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Magic Underwear & Magic Food

    08/02/2014 8:23:06 AM PDT · 441 of 554
    Titanites to Reddy; Alex Murphy

    Careful - he was predestined to talk like that.

  • 8 Amazing Drowned Buildings [Mostly Churches]

    07/18/2012 12:46:50 PM PDT · 12 of 15
    Titanites to JoeProBono
  • Improvising Illinois priest barred from pulpit

    07/13/2012 7:10:50 PM PDT · 154 of 173
    Titanites to Lurker
    Eating another human being, even symbolically, is beyond mere weird to me.

    Nobody if forcing Christianity on you.

  • Improvising Illinois priest barred from pulpit

    07/13/2012 6:34:15 PM PDT · 151 of 173
    Titanites to Lurker
    Dude

    Are you a teenager?

    there are people who believe that since a priest mumbles some words over a cracker and a sip of wine they actually become the flesh and blood of a dead man. If they believe that’s what they’re consuming, it’s cannibalism.

    Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, nor Anglican churches believe they are consuming the flesh and blood of a dead man. So, no it is not cannibalism.

  • Improvising Illinois priest barred from pulpit

    07/13/2012 4:15:25 PM PDT · 149 of 173
    Titanites to Lurker
    Pretty much. I'm uncomfortable participating in ritualized cannibalism in any form. Therefore I don't.

    That's good, since cannibalism is not. Now that it seems like I'm dealing with a non-Christian since you don't appear to take the Lord's instructions to heart, I can proceed with an answer.

    It is not cannibalism. To help you understand, you'll need to do a historical word study on "accident", and "substance" as used in philosophy. The substance we believe to be His living glorified body, soul, and divinity. Communion is not partaking of a dead piece of meat.

  • Improvising Illinois priest barred from pulpit

    07/13/2012 12:57:09 PM PDT · 144 of 173
    Titanites to Lurker
    I don’t particpate in this ritual in any form.

    So, where he says "do this in memory of me" you refuse?

  • Improvising Illinois priest barred from pulpit

    07/13/2012 12:22:41 PM PDT · 141 of 173
    Titanites to Lurker
    No, I do not.

    So, when He said "this is my body" you don't take it as symbolic?

  • Improvising Illinois priest barred from pulpit

    07/13/2012 11:57:40 AM PDT · 139 of 173
    Titanites to Lurker
    Therefore my question is still valid.

    What is your answer to my question?

  • Improvising Illinois priest barred from pulpit

    07/13/2012 10:45:26 AM PDT · 137 of 173
    Titanites to Lurker; NoGrayZone
    So you willingly engage in cannibalism?

    Do you willingly engage in symbolic cannibalism?

  • Improvising Illinois priest barred from pulpit

    07/13/2012 9:25:06 AM PDT · 134 of 173
    Titanites to spunkets; Campion
    As I tried to explain previously, neither you, nor I, nor any number of priests, gets to override what the Missal says.

    And that's what this thread is about. You improvised, spunkets, and it appears you are trying to blame the Church for the problems it caused you.

    What was the purpose of the prepared notes you forgot?

  • Improvising Illinois priest barred from pulpit

    07/12/2012 2:37:55 PM PDT · 124 of 173
    Titanites to spunkets
    and folks never did bring their own as a rule.

    There is no such rule. Some people do bring them, but it is not necessary as the printed Scripture readings are provided.

  • Improvising Illinois priest barred from pulpit

    07/12/2012 2:36:10 PM PDT · 123 of 173
    Titanites to spunkets
    No. Bibles were not used, as I pointed out

    They wouldn't need to, as the printed Scripture readings are provided.

  • Improvising Illinois priest barred from pulpit

    07/12/2012 2:34:14 PM PDT · 122 of 173
    Titanites to spunkets
    I see.

    I hope so.

  • Improvising Illinois priest barred from pulpit

    07/12/2012 1:18:28 PM PDT · 116 of 173
    Titanites to spunkets
    The Bible contains what is referred to as the Old Testamnet. The Catholic version of the O.T. doesn't agree with the O.T. held by the Jews

    True, at least for the Jews after the Council of Jamnia. The fact is, Scripture itself does not specify which books belong in the Bible, and the canon is a Tradition of the Church. Who's tradition do you use?

  • Improvising Illinois priest barred from pulpit

    07/12/2012 12:57:01 PM PDT · 115 of 173
    Titanites to spunkets
    I chose the reading.

    That's unfortunate. If you had chosen one of those prescribed by the Church it would have been at hand and available for all to read along.

    What was the purpose of the prepared notes you forgot?

    why a Bible was not and is not normally present at a Mass so that this reading was available and at hand to be read aloud.

    A Bible is normally present, but the Church provides the written Scripture readings for all. And again, the purpose of the Mass is not for Bible study as your study of the day's Scripture readings should be done before attending Mass. One of the reasons the Church provides the Scripture readings of the day through the Missal for everyone attending is because people often forgot their Bibles, just as you did.

  • John Calvin was America’s ’Founding Father’ [Presbyterian Rebellion Day]

    07/11/2012 1:33:35 PM PDT · 136 of 159
    Titanites to BlueDragon; Cronos
    And then you, (as has Titanites all along during this exchange) add additional insult? Where do you two get off?

    There is no need to make it personal.

    Through the discussions I have never denied there was a religious component to what happened. However, religion was not the primary factor. You can’t deny the role the French military played. In fact, Menéndez took advantage of Ribault being away from the French garrison at Fort Caroline to place an attack on Menéndez. Menéndez was victorious, which I’m sure irks some, and he showed mercy on the non-combatants and those who were Catholic. From the Florida Department of State:

      Menéndez arrived in 1565 at a place he called San Augustín (St. Augustine) and established the first permanent European settlement in what is now the United States. He accomplished his goal of expelling the French, attacking and killing all settlers except for non-combatants and Frenchmen who professed belief in the Roman Catholic faith.

    The French were threatening the shipping lanes and other interests of the Spanish and the King of Spain wanted it stopped. In your first post to me on this thread you started throwing around the word slander because I mentioned pirates from Fort Caroline. I’ve already shown you from one of your own preferred sources that soldiers from Fort Caroline were pirates who attacked Spanish vessels in the Caribbean.

    Once again, as I’ve stated numerous times previously, I don’t deny there was a religious component involved. The Catholics thought the Huguenots were heretics. Do you not think the Huguenots thought the Catholics were heretics? I do deny that religion was the primary factor for why the King wanted the French removed from Florida. And the evidence I’ve posted supports that. To spin this as a Catholic massacre against humble Huguenots simply building a church in Florida is misleading, at best. All I’ve been doing is refuting this deception. I can’t help it if that messes with your preconceived ideas.

  • Improvising Illinois priest barred from pulpit

    07/11/2012 10:14:12 AM PDT · 43 of 173
    Titanites to spunkets
    I was to do a reading during a Mass once and forgot my prepared notes.

    Which of the 3 Scripture readings were you doing? You don't need prepared notes unless you're doing the homily.

    I wasn't worried about it, because I figured they had a Bible there I could read from. I was wrong; there was no Bible.

    Why would there need to be a full Bible there for you to use, when the Scripture for that day is provided? You do know that the Mass is not a Bible study session, and that you should do your study of the day's readings in the context of the full Bible before you go to Mass, don't you? The Mass is a celebration of the Eucharist and Bible study is held separately.

  • John Calvin was America’s ’Founding Father’ [Presbyterian Rebellion Day]

    07/10/2012 12:48:56 PM PDT · 132 of 159
    Titanites to BlueDragon; Cronos
    Hey! Hold on there a second buddy.

    I'm not sure where you get the impression that I'm your buddy.

    Those statements which you are trying to characterize as what I offered as "history", were in answer to a question YOU asked

    Some people just can't help themselves when asked rhetorical questions.

    I never said that they were, yet even with only grabbing from that convenient source, it's far better than than what you yourself bring in establishing points key to your "version of truth" which is by and large sophistry and opinion, backed by wind.

    It's not my "version of the turth". I avoid using Wikipedia as a source of history. However, this "wind" is from your "convenient source" which you have proclaimed as far better than what I've used:

      In the meantime, the Spanish, who had long maintained a claim over Florida, had made preparations to find and oust the French from Fort Caroline. In early September Pedro Menéndez de Avilés, newly appointed adelantado of Florida, landed to the south of Fort Caroline and established the settlement of St. Augustine.

      Jean Ribault took his fleet south to pursue Menéndez on September 10. Learning that the majority of the French men at arms were gone from Fort Caroline, Menéndez ordered his infantrymen to march 40 miles north to Fort Caroline, during a hurricane. On 20 September, the Spanish captured the now lightly defended French settlement; 140 men were immediately put to death. In the eyes of the king of Spain, the acts of piracy committed by former residents of Fort Caroline made the entire settlement a dangerous nest of pirates and heretics.

    The Facts:
    1. France and Spain were at war.

    2. Spanish ships and settlements in the area were being plundered by pirates, at least some of which were Huguenots.

    3. Florida was a territory claimed by Spain.

    4. French Huguenots built a garrison in Florida.

    5. At least some of these Frenchmen were known to be pirates.

    6. The Spanish King charged Menéndez with removing the French garrison.

    7. The Spanish were victorious over the French. Menéndez was successful in his mission and the French never returned to build another fort.

    8. The story that this was simply a Catholic massacre of humble Huguenots only trying to practice their faith is a fairy tale.
  • John Calvin was America’s ’Founding Father’ [Presbyterian Rebellion Day]

    07/09/2012 11:54:19 AM PDT · 100 of 159
    Titanites to BlueDragon; Cronos
    Truth: Spanish King eliminates French garrison is Spanish claimed territory of Florida to protect shipping lanes and interests.

    Liberal Headline: Catholics massacre Huguenots building a church in Florida.

  • John Calvin was America’s ’Founding Father’ [Presbyterian Rebellion Day]

    07/09/2012 11:45:07 AM PDT · 99 of 159
    Titanites to BlueDragon; Cronos
    Not exactly, according to all historical accounts.

    Wikipedia is hardly "all historical accounts".

    Hard to say, but it would not have been as damaging if he had stuck to the "here be pirates" thesis you openly prefer, rather than the "here be heretics" declaration which he brazenly did. His doing so lends more credence to the thing being one of religion & empire, rather than a just policing of criminal matters.

    I don't openly prefer anything but the truth. That they were Huguenots is secondary. Spain was at war with France, and their shipping lanes were being pirated by the French. To help resolve this matter, the King sent Menendez to clear them from Florida not simply because they were Huguenots, but to protect his interests.

    Who knows? Without this additional act of hatred, more fuel for the fire of religious/political power struggles, perhaps even the later St. Batholomew's Day Massacre itself could have been avoided?

    That is pure speculation that is very improbable. The Huguenots turning against the French Monarchy, the invasion of a Huguenot army into Hainault, and the attempted assassination of Coligny all led up to the massacre.

    I guess she wanted to cover a few people's tracks, eh?

    On a more practical note perhaps, if the slaughter had not had such fiercely religious overtones, then the later mistrust of Catholics in the developing New World colonies would have had one less bloody massacre, historical "incident" to serve as cause for such mistrust, which only later and slowly were overcome.

    Rumors and silly theories don't make for accurate history.

    there are strong hints in the information we have both viewed, that that too very likely occurred.

    They aren't that strong. But even if it were true, it would just be a side story that Protestants would squeeze for all its worth. We know the reason Menendez was sent by the King to clear them from Florida was because they were French interlopers threatening the shipping lanes. Not because they were Huguenots.

  • John Calvin was America’s ’Founding Father’ [Presbyterian Rebellion Day]

    07/08/2012 3:51:06 PM PDT · 91 of 159
    Titanites to BlueDragon; Salvation
    In your own efforts to paint these men as simply (wannabe?) pirates, and nothing else

    I did no such thing. Look at how many times in my posts they've been called Huguenots. They were Huguenots and they were pirates. The only thing being portrayed in the original post is that they were Huguenots.Presumed wannabe pirates

    There's no presumption about it.

    Spanish territory?

    Whether you want to believe it was Spanish territory or not is irrelevant. The Spanish perceived it as theirs, and they set out to protect it.

    Note that he did not say "pirates".

    Would it have changed anything if he had? The fact is they were. The fact is he didn't like heretics. They were both to him, and they had pirated his own ships and taken his son. I wouldn't doubt he had some hatred against them.

    Tell me again about truth often seems like slander to those who cannot see?

    I haven't denied the religious component, and have in fact linked to discussion about it as you have shown. I don't deny it. However, that was not the only factor. I was not the one portraying these people as just Huguenots simply seeking to practice their religion. They were pirates plundering Spanish settlements and ships. Bad things happen to criminals. These were thieves and bad things happened to them. My argument is with portraying them as simply religious people minding their own business.

    I'll go with that

    I wouldn't suspect you'd do anything less. If you want to proceed with portraying these people as just peaceful Huguenots minding their own business, you have the right to do so. It would be a denial of the truth, but don't let that interfere. I can understand why some might be upset that Ribault was not the one who was successful in his initial attack, but that's history.

  • John Calvin was America’s ’Founding Father’ [Presbyterian Rebellion Day]

    07/08/2012 11:49:58 AM PDT · 89 of 159
    Titanites to BlueDragon; Salvation; AnalogReigns
    I'm not sure where exactly you get the information that these particular French Huguenots were pirating. That seems like a slander.

    The truth often seems like slander to those who cannot see. You can read some here:

      What de Coligny doesn't mention is a visceral hatred of the Spanish. Like the Buccaneers of Tortuga a century later, the Frenchmen of Fort Caroline saw Spain as their mortal enemy.

      From Fort Caroline, the freebooters went out and raided not only Spanish merchants and treasure ships but Spanish cities as well. Cartagena and Panama in South America both fell prey to the Protestant pirates. Cuba was hit particularly hard - probably due to proximity - with both Santiago and the well established capital of Havana sacked and plundered.

      Of course the Spanish weren't going to hold still for all these Froggy shenanigans. In 1565 King Philip II sent a force led by Captain General Pedro de Menendez of Avilles to deal with the problem. 30 ships left Cadiz in June carrying a force of 2,000 soldiers along with upwards of 500 settlers. The Captain General was charged by the king to handle the pirate problem and establish a Spanish fort in "The Florida". De Menendez was the right man for the job not only because of his ruthlessness but his business interests as well. He owned several merchant ships, one of which had recently gone missing in the area of Fort Caroline with his own son aboard.

    And here:

      Sitting Targets

      The Huguenots were naturally interested in capturing Spanish galleons.

      After the Spanish instituted their treasure fleet, the French continued their attacks on vessels, but it became much more difficult to accomplish their felonious tasks. After Jean Fleury was captured during an attack in 1527 and hanged as a pirate, the French privateers realized that while ships were becoming more and more difficult to capture, Spanish port cities were much easier targets. This changed the Huguenots' strategies significantly. As long as they timed their raids correctly, the Huguenots would be able to capture much of the Spanish treasure before it ever reached the treasure fleet. This plan of action paid off handsomely as they proceeded to attack ports in Puerto Rico, Havana, and Cartagena (modern-day Colombia), collecting an impressive amount of pirate booty.

      Fort Caroline

      As the religious civil war in France continued, many French Protestants found themselves exiled. In 1564, a group of them settled on Florida's coast, calling their new home Fort Caroline. Unlike most settlers whose ambition was to work the land, this group was comprised of soldiers and tradesmen who planned to use the area as a base from which pirate raids on both Spanish ships and Spanish ports could easily be conducted. Unfortunately for the French, the Spanish were growing tired of the Huguenot pirates, and they decided it was time to settle the score.

      In April of 1562, King Philip II sent Spanish nobleman Pedro Menendez de Avilles to the territories of the Spanish Main. Menendez was named the Captain General of the Spanish fleet, and his mission was to catch any pirates he could and deal with them ruthlessly. Menendez and his brother owned several merchant ships and he was very familiar with both trading and security. He made immediate recommendations that the port cities should be fortified, and that armed ships be on patrol in the Caribbean to protect the ports and ships while they were there.

    Yes, these Huguenots were pirates. I suppose if you want to believe these pirates set off to make their own fortune by selling Tupperware, it might make you feel better about it

    So what we see is that Menedez's actions were quite horrific.

    Yes horrific, but he killed only soldiers/pirates and let the women and children go. I suppose you can believe that if Ribault had reached Menedez’s outpost successfully he would not have killed any of them.

    Perhaps you both might apologize to that freeper?

    I don’t apologize for truth telling.

    He is quite intelligent, you know?

    That is a relative assessment that really has no meaning to anyone but yourself.

    And he brought no untruths here.

    No, just half-truths.

    In fact, it does appear that Titanites is the one hoping to spin here.

    The truth seems like spin to some.

    Pretty sick, huh?

    Yes, sick, but done to those murdering pirates were occupying Spanish territory, pirating Spanish ships and plundering Spanish settlements, and who had pirated Menedez’s own ships and killed his son.

  • John Calvin was America’s ’Founding Father’ [Presbyterian Rebellion Day]

    07/07/2012 7:06:16 PM PDT · 84 of 159
    Titanites to AnalogReigns; Salvation
    St. Augustine’s founder, Pedro Menéndez de Avilés, BUTCHERED OVER 500 French Hugueonauts who founded a French colony at Fort Caroline (in what is now Jacksonville, FL)....simply because they would not deny their faith and follow Rome.

    Salvation - the above post demonstrates to never expect more than half-truths from non-Catholics set on denigrating the church.

    From the NPS, here is the truth:

      The End of the Colony [Fort Caroline]

      The settlement barely survived that first year. Good relations with the Indians eventually soured and by the following spring the colonists were close to starvation. Twice mutinous parties had sailed off to make their own fortunes and some were eventually captured by the Spanish, revealing the presence of the French colony. The remaining colonists were about to leave Florida in August 1565, when they spotted sails on the horizon. Ribault had arrived with a relief expedition of supplies and 600 soldiers and settlers, including more women and some children.

      On learning of Ribault’s departure for Florida, Phillip II of Spain sent Admiral Pedro Menendez to remove the French from Florida. Menendez established a base to the south at St. Augustine. Ribault sailed down the coast seeking to attack the Spanish, but his ships were scattered by a hurricane and beached far to the south.

      Seizing the opportunity, Menendez marched north with 500 soldiers to attack the weakly guarded colony. It is believed that the Spanish camped overnight nearby, and attacked early. Forty or fifty French people, including Laudonniere, escaped and sailed for France. Out of the remaining 200 people, only about 60 women and children were spared.

      Menendez next marched south and found the shipwrecked Frenchmen, Ribault among them. They threw themselves on his mercy, but to Menendez they were heretics and enemies of his king. At a place later named Matanzas (Slaughter), he put to the sword about 350 men - all but those professing to be Catholics and a few musicians. France never again strongly challenged Spanish claims in North America.

    So, no these were not just innocent Huguenots minding their own business. The King had sent de Avilés to protect Spain's shipping lanes from pirates, including the 2 mutinous groups from Fort Caroline, and to remove the French from Spanish claimed territory. Also, de Avilés seized the opportunity and attacked Fort Caroline after Ribault launched a failed attack on the Spanish from Fort Caroline.
  • WELL JIM, ENJOY THE BED YOU HAVE MADE: Quix's latest Opus Installment

    07/06/2012 2:44:04 PM PDT · 1,442 of 1,618
    Titanites to Quix

    (Legal Disclaimer: This image is not from Photobucket. It in no-way
    infringes upon anyone’s bogus claim to Photobucket ownership or use
    of Photobucket bandwidth - whatever that may be.)
  • WELL JIM, ENJOY THE BED YOU HAVE MADE: Quix's latest Opus Installment

    07/06/2012 2:38:52 PM PDT · 1,441 of 1,618
    Titanites to Quix

    (Legal Disclaimer: This image is not from Photobucket. It in no-way infringes upon anyone’s bogus claim to Photobucket ownership or use of Photobucket bandwidth - whatever that may be.)
  • WELL JIM, ENJOY THE BED YOU HAVE MADE: Quix's latest Opus Installment

    07/05/2012 11:22:05 AM PDT · 764 of 1,618
    Titanites
  • Meet James Fulton, the Alleged Miracle for the Beatification of Fulton Sheen (Catholic Caucus)

    07/04/2012 4:59:49 PM PDT · 7 of 10
    Titanites to SVTCobra03
    It was Bishop Sheen that was quoted as saying that Rome and Mecca would be united via their common worship of Mary.

    Are you referring to this?

      Since nothing ever happens out of heaven except with a finesse of all details, I believe that the Blessed Virgin chose to be known as "Our Lady of Fatima" as a pledge and a sign of hope to the Moslem people, and as an assurance that they, who show her so much respect, will one day accept her Divine Son, too.
    It isn't the worship of Mary Bishop Sheen was referring to, it was the worship of her Divine Son.
  • The Presbyterian Rebellion [Happy Presbyterian Rebellion Day, everyone!]

    07/04/2012 4:41:56 PM PDT · 29 of 33
    Titanites to ReformationFan
    For starters, I would say true Presbyterians affirm the infallibility of the Bible in the original autographs.

    I'm not sure which of the Presbyterians have the "original autographs" to affirm, but I'm sure all Presbyterian denominations hold to the inerrancy of Scripture. It's just the variance in interpretation of those Scriptures that are at odds.

    I would also say they would affirm the Westminster Confession of Faith.

    Even the Presbyterian Church USA affirms the Westminster Confession of Fairth.

  • The Presbyterian Rebellion [Happy Presbyterian Rebellion Day, everyone!]

    07/04/2012 3:12:18 PM PDT · 27 of 33
    Titanites to ReformationFan
    The “Presbyterians” who accept those things are not true Presbyterians

    What authority sets the standards now days for what are "true Presbyterians"? I'm sure all Presbyterians can say about each other what you just did, and that they can all trace their roots along that convoluted/fractured chart of Presbyterianism.

  • The Presbyterian Rebellion [Happy Presbyterian Rebellion Day, everyone!]

    07/04/2012 1:18:08 PM PDT · 22 of 33
    Titanites to Cronos

    I should have pinged you to my previous post since I linked to an article you posted.

  • The Presbyterian Rebellion [Happy Presbyterian Rebellion Day, everyone!]

    07/04/2012 1:16:31 PM PDT · 21 of 33
    Titanites to Alex Murphy
    The Presbyterians of yesterday would not recognize modern Presbyterian acceptance of female ordination, acceptance of homosexuality, acceptance of abortion, or acceptance of gay ordination.
  • The Presbyterian Rebellion [Happy Presbyterian Rebellion Day, everyone!]

    07/04/2012 1:07:05 PM PDT · 20 of 33
    Titanites to Alex Murphy
    It is funny that today's Presbyterians lay claim to those of colonial America.

  • Book Review: 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura

    07/03/2012 7:27:55 PM PDT · 287 of 503
    Titanites to SENTINEL
    They also took the Book of Revelation out of the standard Catholic bible

    Please tell us specifically which Bible version, and provide a link if you can. You do know that the Book of Revelation is known to Catholics as the Apocalypse of John.

    And no wonder.

    Well, you do have to wonder where people come up with this kind of accusation.

  • Book Review: 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura

    07/03/2012 7:22:25 PM PDT · 285 of 503
    Titanites to SENTINEL
    Catholic leadership corrupted the Ten Commandments by deleting the 2nd (Thou shalt worship idols), and splitting the 10th commandment into two to get back to ten.

    The Catholics include this in the first of the commandments. Here is the whole commandement as can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

      THE FIRST COMMANDMENT

      I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them.

    I presume that the comment like yours comes from ignorance and not from malice. It is truly sad that this old canard is still being touted by non-Catholics to somehow denigrate the Church.

    To confirm your error please quote for yourself, from Scripture, the way the Decalogue is divided and enumerated. In fact, you won't find it enumerated in Scripture as you know the 10 commandments.

    Here is the Decalogue as presented in the Catholic Douay-Rheims Holy Bible Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. Note the references to "graven images".

    The division of the commandments as you know them is just as much a tradition as the tradition used by the Catholic Church, and is only a short-hand of the Decalogue for convenience. The early Church relied on the Decalogue as presented by Moses in Deuteronomy 5. Until the failed Reformation, the commandments were known by Christians in the order as received by the early Church fathers. And even today, Lutherans and Catholics still agree on this enumeration and arrangement.

    Calvin and other Reformers relied on Exodus 20 for the enumeration and arrangment of the 10 commandments, not that there is any thing wrong with that.

    Please read this article to educate yourself. From the article comes this table which illustrates how various groups divide the Ten Commandments:

      Jewish Reckoning Augustinian-Lutheran Reckoning Orthodox-Reformed Reckoning
    Introduction And God spoke all these words, saying, And God spoke all these words, saying, "I am the LORD your God." And God spoke all these words, saying, "I am the LORD your God."
    1st Word "I am the LORD your God." "You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image" "You shall have no other gods before me."
    2nd Word "You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image." "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain." "You shall not make for yourself a graven image."
    3rd Word "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain." "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy." "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain."
    4th Word "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy." "Honor your father and your mother." "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy."
    5th Word "Honor your father and your mother." "You shall not kill." "Honor your father and your mother."
    6th Word "You shall not kill." "You shall not commit adultery." "You shall not kill."
    7th Word "You shall not commit adultery." "You shall not steal." "You shall not commit adultery."
    8th Word "You shall not steal." "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." "You shall not steal."
    9th Word "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife." "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."
    10th Word "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife; and you shall not desire anything that is your neighbor's." "You shall not desire anything that is your neighbor's." "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife; and you shall not desire anything that is your neighbor's."


  • Following the Truth: Why I Cringe Every Time I Hear “Safely Home”!

    06/18/2012 4:21:31 PM PDT · 85 of 90
    Titanites to crosshairs
    Well sure. It's a big moneymaker.

    A big moneymaker for whom? And how much?

  • Who’s in Charge Here? The Illusions of Church Infallibility

    06/15/2012 11:18:22 PM PDT · 211 of 363
    Titanites to Springfield Reformer

    You are welcome to ignore the last sentence of my post. It does not affect the rest of the post.

  • Who’s in Charge Here? The Illusions of Church Infallibility

    06/15/2012 10:33:50 PM PDT · 208 of 363
    Titanites to boatbums
    The earlier comment was implying that only those who persevere will be saved

    It is not just implied:

      Matthew 24:13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved.

      2 Timothy 2:12 If we endure, We shall also reign with [Him.] If we deny [Him,] He also will deny us.

      James 1:12 Blessed [is] the man who endures temptation; for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him.

      James 5:11 Indeed we count them blessed who endure. You have heard of the perseverance of Job and seen the end [intended by] the Lord -- that the Lord is very compassionate and merciful.

      Revelation 3:10 Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth.

    If we stay in Christ and do not start to fall away, i.e. we endure temptation (James 1:12) we will indeed persevere through Christ.

    I can't help but think we talk past each other sometimes. If you truly believe that you are saved by faith and not by your works

    Faith with no action, e.g. prayer, love, charity, is dead and not real. Good works are the form of faith. Anyone who claims faith but does not act on it will not have everlasting life.

    Nothing we do can earn our way to Heaven. We must accept the free gift and believe. However, our actions can have the effect of us declining the free gift, e.g. by not believing, not obeying, succumbing to temptation.

    That same grace that gifts to us eternal life also enables us to live in holiness and we WILL persevere because it is Christ IN us - the hope of glory.

    Not if you reject the gift. It isn't the hope of glory if it is assured.

  • Who’s in Charge Here? The Illusions of Church Infallibility

    06/15/2012 8:48:42 PM PDT · 202 of 363
    Titanites to boatbums
    To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy— to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.(Jude 1:24-25)

    That was addressed to people persevering: building themselves up in faith, praying, keeping in the love of God, looking for Christ's mercy.

      Jude 1:20-24 But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, 21 keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. 22 And on some have compassion, making a distinction; 23 but others save with fear, pulling [them] out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh. 24 Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, And to present [you] faultless Before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy
  • Who’s in Charge Here? The Illusions of Church Infallibility

    06/15/2012 5:50:22 PM PDT · 188 of 363
    Titanites to metmom; MarkBsnr
    What kind of God do you serve who would leave you hanging like that in regard to your salvation and would let you come up short and send you to hell for it?

    A just God. There is no guarantee of salvation as can be seen by anyone familiar with the Scriptures:

      Rom. 5:2 - we rejoice in the “hope” (not the presumptuous certainty) of sharing the glory of God. If salvation is absolutely assured after accepting Jesus as Savior, why would Paul hope?

      Rom. 5:5 - this “hope” does not disappoint us, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit. Our hope is assured if we persevere to the end.

      Rom. 8:24 - this “hope” of salvation that Paul writes about is unnecessary if salvation is guaranteed. If salvation is assured, then why hope?

      Rom. 10:1 - Paul prays that the Jews “may be saved.” Why pray if it’s guaranteed? Further, why pray unless you can mediate?

      Rom. 12:12 - rejoice in your “hope” (not your certainty), be patient in tribulation, and be constant in prayer.

      2 Cor. 3:12 - since we have a “hope” (not a certainty), we are very bold. We can be bold when we are in God’s grace and our persevering in obedient faith.

      Gal. 5:5 - for through the Spirit by faith we wait for the “hope” (not the certainty) of righteousness.

      Eph. 1:18 - that you may know what is the “hope” to which He has called you, what are the riches of His glorious inheritance.

      Eph. 4:4 - there is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one “hope” (not the one certainty) that belongs to your call.

      Eph. 6:10-17 – Paul instructs the Ephesians to take the whole armor of God, the breastplate of righteousness, and the helmet of salvation, in order “to stand,” lest they fall. Paul does not give any assurance that the spiritual battle is already won.

      Phil. 3:11 - Paul shares Christ’s sufferings so that “if possible” he may attain resurrection. Paul does not view his own resurrection as a certainty.

      Phil. 1:20 - as it is my eager expectation and “hope” (not certainty) that I shall not be at all ashamed before Christ.

      Col. 1:5 - Paul refers to the “hope” (not guarantee) that Christ laid up for us in heaven.

      Col. 1:23 - provided that you continue in the faith, not shifting from the “hope” of the gospel which you heard.

      Col. 1:27 - to them God chose to make known His mystery, which is Christ in you, the “hope” (not the certainty) of His glory.

      1 Thess. 1:3 - remembering before our God your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of “hope” in Jesus Christ.

      1 Thess. 2:19 - for what is our “hope” or joy or crown of boasting before our Lord Jesus at his coming? Is it not you?

      1 Thess. 5:8 - we must put on the helmet of “hope” (not of certainty) of salvation.

      2 Thess. 2:16 - the Lord Jesus and God our Father who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good “hope” through grace.

      1 Tim. 1:1 - Paul describes Christ Jesus as our “hope” (not our guarantee). We can reject Him and He will allow this.

      1 Tim. 4:10 - Paul says we toil and strive because we have our “hope” (not our assurance) on the living God. This is not because God is unfaithful, but because we can be unfaithful. We toil and strive for our salvation.

      1 Tim. 5:5 - she who is a real widow, and is left all alone, has set her “hope” (not her assurance) on God. Our hope is a guarantee only if we persevere to the end.

      1 Tim. 5:15 – Paul writes that some have already strayed after satan, as God Himself tells us in 1 Tim. 4:1. They were on the right path, and then strayed off of it.

      2 Tim. 2:10 - Paul endures for the elect so that they “may also obtain salvation.” This verse teaches us that even the “elect,” from the standpoint of human knowledge, have no guarantee of salvation.

      Titus 1:2 - Paul says that he is in the “hope” (not the certainty) of eternal life. Paul knows that his hope is a guarantee if he perseveres, but his ability to choose sin over God makes his attainment of eternal life less than an absolute certainty until it is actually achieved.

      Titus 2:13 - awaiting our blessed “hope,” the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.

      Titus 3:7 - Paul says we have been given the Spirit so we might become heirs in the “hope” (not the certainty) of eternal life.

      Heb. 3:6 - we are Christ’s house if we hold fast our confidence and pride in our “hope” (not our certainty).

      Heb. 6:11 - we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness in realizing the full assurance of “hope” (not certainty) until the end.

      Heb. 6:18 - we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to seize the “hope” (not the certainty) that is set before us.

      Heb. 6:19 - we have a “hope” that enters into the inner shrine behind the curtain, where Jesus has gone before us.

      Heb. 7:19 - on the other hand, a better “hope” (not certainty) is introduced, through which we draw near to God.

      Heb. 10:23 - let us hold fast the confession of our “hope” without wavering, for He who promised is faithful.

      Heb. 11:1 - now faith is the assurance of things “hoped” for (not guaranteed), the conviction of things not seen (heaven).

      Heb. 12:1 – let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us.

      Heb. 12:15 – see to it that no one fail to obtain the grace of God; that no root of bitterness spring up and cause trouble, and by it many become defiled.

      James 1:12 - we must endure trial and withstand the test in order to receive the crown of life. It is not guaranteed.

      1 Peter 1:3 - by His mercy we have been born anew to a living “hope” through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

      1 Peter 1:13 - set your “hope” (not assurance) fully upon the grace that is coming to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

      1 Peter 1:21 - through Him you have confidence in God, who raised him from the dead so that your faith and “hope” are in God.

      1 Peter 2:2 - like newborn babes, long for spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation. How can you grow up to something you already possess?

      1 Peter 3:15 - always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who calls you to account for the “hope” that is in you.

      1 John 3:3 - and everyone who thus “hopes” in Him purifies himself as He is pure. These verses teach us that we must cooperate with God’s grace and persevere to the end to be saved. We can and do have a moral certitude of salvation if we persevere in faith, hope and love.

      Scriptures verses and commentary conveniently plagiarized from a post by MarkBsnr.

    Matthew 24:13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved.
  • Who’s in Charge Here? The Illusions of Church Infallibility

    06/15/2012 5:32:26 PM PDT · 185 of 363
    Titanites to metmom
    It’s interesting, isn’t it that Catholics continually lecture us about doing good works to get into heaven as if not one non-Catholic does any good works.

    I haven't seen where a Catholic has claimed that non-Catholics don't do good works. We are just having a discussion about faith and works.

    And, of course, they get to define what good works are and which ones qualify for entry into heaven.

    The beatitudes are very clear.

    What chutzpah.

    Consider the premise of your post, yes, what chutzpah.

  • Who’s in Charge Here? The Illusions of Church Infallibility

    06/15/2012 5:21:50 PM PDT · 184 of 363
    Titanites to metmom
    Titanites: That contradicts the entire message of the New Testament.

    metmom: Really?

    Yes, really. It is not just intent. You have to do. Intending to pray for someone is not the same as actually praying. The Scriptures from Matthew and John you quoted are not talking about intent. Hating someone is something you've actually done.

    Any works outside of the Law are sin. The Law DEFINES what good works are.

    No, the Law is in the Torah - circumcision, food laws, festival laws, etc. that applies to the Jews and not the genitle.

    If you don't realize that the Law really teaches what Jesus taught in the Beatitudes, you don't know the Law very well.

    Jesus didn't teach us to sacrifice animals, etc. and what Jesus taught is for Jew and gentile.

    Catholics really do misunderstand the Law.

    I don't think it is the Catholics who misunderstand. The Law of the Old Testament is not the same as the beatitudes.

  • Who’s in Charge Here? The Illusions of Church Infallibility

    06/15/2012 5:07:16 PM PDT · 183 of 363
    Titanites to metmom
    If you're going to quote someone, do try to have enough integrity next time

    It is not a matter of integrity. I've reread your post and see now what you meant. The point is the same, the works are recorded in the book; we don't need to remind God.

  • Who’s in Charge Here? The Illusions of Church Infallibility

    06/15/2012 5:06:23 PM PDT · 182 of 363
    Titanites to metmom
    So, if you’re depending on your good works to get you in, how do you know you did enough?

    It is not a matter of quantity, it is a matter of persevering, as Paul states:

      Romans 2:7 ... eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality

      Philipp 2:12 ... work out your own salvation with fear and trembling

    And how do you know you did the right ones?

    By the teaching of the Church and its Scripture.

    What if you come up short?

    If you don't persevere to the end, you will have no salvation.

    What kind of God do you serve who would leave you hanging like that in regard to your salvation and would let you come up short and send you to hell for it?

    If you do not persevere, it is not due to the fault of God.

  • Who’s in Charge Here? The Illusions of Church Infallibility

    06/15/2012 3:45:51 PM PDT · 174 of 363
    Titanites to metmom
    showing us what is required in intent, not just outward actions

    That contradicts the entire message of the New Testament. Salvation is by works - not works of the law, but works of faith. Faith with no action - prayer, love, taking care of your neighbor, etc. is dead and not real. Good works are the form of faith. So a man who claims faith but does not pray and live piously and charitably will die the death.

    Many non-Catholics confuse St. Paul preaching against attempting salvation by the works of the Law (the Old Covenant) - "For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law" (Romans 3.28), with achieving salvation by good works in Christ. Jesus explicitly said in Matthew 7.21-23 that he will be telling the evil believers crying out "Lord, Lord" to "depart from me". Those who live the faith by being charitable to their neighbor will be welcomed into the Kingdom (Matthew 25.31-46, James 1.22-27).

    Catholics misunderstand the Law.

    No, they do not. It is the old covenant.

    "Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law."

    Nobody is saying that we are.

    We are free from the obligation of trying to live by the Law when we've put our faith in Christ for salvation because we are now sons of God through faith.

    And faith without works is dead. Don't confuse those works with "works of the Law".

  • Who’s in Charge Here? The Illusions of Church Infallibility

    06/15/2012 3:24:19 PM PDT · 170 of 363
    Titanites to metmom
    good works are credited to our account.

    Yes, good works are credited to our account. You don't have to remind God of them, as was asked here and was the question I was responding to.

    Additionally, that is the judgment of the unsaved, those who rejected Christ's finished work on the cross and appealed to their own good works to save them.

    Yes, without faith their good works are dead, and vice versa.

    They want to get into heaven on their good works? God will judge them by that. And it's not going to turn out well.

    Yes, for those without faith, that will certainly happen.

  • Who’s in Charge Here? The Illusions of Church Infallibility

    06/15/2012 3:07:07 PM PDT · 164 of 363
    Titanites to metmom
    One is cleansed from all sins.

    All sins that one has committed and confessed.

      1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
    You can't confess sins you have not yet committed.

    We are set free. If Catholics want to put themselves under bondage to try to live a perfect life that nobody is capable of living and try to earn heaven by their own efforts, well, have at it.

    You are set free if you confess the sins committed. Catholics are not under bondage as long as they confess their sins and are truly sorry for them. If you are not confessing your sins, you are not doing it right.

  • Who’s in Charge Here? The Illusions of Church Infallibility

    06/15/2012 3:00:03 PM PDT · 161 of 363
    Titanites to metmom
    Titanites: That is an invented conflict of those who do not trust in the Scriptures.

    No, it's actually Holy Spirit inspired Scripture written by Paul. Galatians 2:21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

    The Holy Spirit inspired Scripture written by Paul that you quoted is talking about righteousness through the law, which is correct. We are not talking of works of the law:

      Romans 3:20 20 Therefore by the <>deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin.
    No, the works we are talking about are like in Matthew 25:31-46 where Jesus separates the sheep from the goats. Remember the questions:
      1. Did you feed the hungry?

      2. Did you clothe the naked?

      3. Did you give a drink to the thirsty, etc.

    And if you aren't doing those kind of works it will not be good for you:
      Matt 25:41-46 "Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 'for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 'I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.' "Then they also will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?' "Then He will answer them, saying, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do [it] to one of the least of these, you did not do [it] to Me.' "And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
    These are the same works talked about in James 2. It is surprising that people who claim to know Scripture do not know the difference between these works and works of the law.
  • Who’s in Charge Here? The Illusions of Church Infallibility

    06/15/2012 12:35:53 PM PDT · 149 of 363
    Titanites to NKP_Vet
    Tell that to the once-saved, always-saved, Jimmy Swaggart crowd.

    I'm trying, even with the Hobart's Glory Barn crowd.

  • Who’s in Charge Here? The Illusions of Church Infallibility

    06/15/2012 12:33:45 PM PDT · 148 of 363
    Titanites to CynicalBear; NKP_Vet
    I’m sure you will remind God what good works you did won’t you?

    He won't have to:

      Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is [the Book] of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.
  • Who’s in Charge Here? The Illusions of Church Infallibility

    06/15/2012 11:17:23 AM PDT · 143 of 363
    Titanites to NKP_Vet
    How so?

    Scripture makes clear it is both faith and works. It is not faith alone.