From Southern Baptist to Goddess Worship, Sue Monk Kidd

Way of Life Literature, Inc.; Fundamental Baptist Information Service ^ | May 09, 2012 11:01 | David Cloud

[imardmd1]

Excerpted:

What Catholic mysticism does is reject the Bible as the sole and sufficient and perfect revelation of God and tries to delve beyond the Bible, even beyond thought of any kind, and find God through mystical “intuition.” In other words, it is a rejection of the God of the Bible. It says that God cannot be known by doctrine and cannot be described in words. He can only be experienced through mysticism. This is a blatant denial of the Bible’s claim to be the very Word of God.

This opens the practitioner to demonic delusion. He is left with no perfect objective revelation of God, no divinely-revealed authority by which he can test his mystical experiences and intuitions. He is left with an idol of his own vain imagination (Jeremiah 17:9) and a doctrine of devils.

< snip >

She (Sue Monk Kidd) determined that she was willing to lose her marriage, if necessary.

"I would not, could not forfeit my journey for my marriage or for the sake of religious acceptance or success as a ‘Christian writer.’ I would keep moving in my own way to the strains of feminine music that sifted up inside me, not just moving but embracing the dance. ... I felt the crumbling of the old patriarchal foundation our marriage had rested upon in such hidden and subtle ways. Though both of us would always need to compromise, there was no more sacrificing myself, no more revolving around him, no more looking to him for validation, trying to be what I thought he needed me to be. My life, my time, my decisions became newly my own" (pp. 98, 125).

[ought-six]

I’m 64.

[ought-six]

I remember Gidget, but I thought that was Sandra Dee. Hell, I can’t remember just who it was. I just watched it for the bikinis. :)

[smvoice]

OH, you’re RIGHT! It might have been Sandra Dee. When I think of goofy teenage movies, I always think of Sally Field. Her and Annette Funicellosomethingsomething...I watched them for Moondoggie. :) Yeah, I’m a “she” :)

[ought-six]

Annette Funicello. So sad what happened to her, that terrible illness.

[smvoice]

I know. My brother-in-law has MS, has had it for 20 years and is confined to a wheelchair. His right hand is the only limb that he can use. But I cannot begin to tell you of his tremendous strength, and hope, and contentment. All I know is it comes from God. He is truly an inspiration.

[ought-six]

He sounds like it. God bless him.

[Elsie]

You do know that subsequent councils and diets abrogate or change the actions of earlier ones, right?

But WHY?

Did they get it right the FIRST time??

[Elsie]

Who held the original copyright, and where was it registered?

We have copyright laws today; and people can get in severe trouble by failing to abide by them.

However; not NEARLY as much trouble that they could get into by latching onto what the Catholic Church considered to be the SOLE owner of.

It may not have been a law on the books; but the way control was exercised over biblical data it was a defacto law in it's own right.

[Elsie]

I believe that anyone who has passed still exists as a spirit. I believe they can hear the pleas and entreaties and “howdy’s” of those still inhabiting temporal bodies, if those pleas and entreaties and “howdy’s” are directed towards them.

The bible has much to say about this subject.

---

Psalm 13:3
Look on me and answer, Lord my God. Give light to my eyes, or I will sleep in death,

 

Psalm 90:5
Yet you sweep people away in the sleep of death— they are like the new grass of the morning:

 

Daniel 12:2
Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.
 
 
John 11:12-13
His disciples replied, “Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better.”
Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural sleep.

 

1 Corinthians 15:51-52
Listen, I tell you a mystery:

We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed—in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet.

For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

 

Ephesians 5:14
This is why it is said: “Wake up, sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.”

 

 
1 Thessalonians 4:13
Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope.
 

[Elsie]

Well, GOD created the universe in six days...

---

Perhaps the concept of no, time in Heaven is influenced by the verse saying there'll be no night there.

---

Besides; Time is Nature's way of making sure that everything doesn't happen at once.

[Elsie]

Why should the CONTENT change?

Rome no longer preaching the same message??

[Elsie]

Whippersnapper!

[ought-six]

“Did they get it right the FIRST time??”

Actually, the “first time” (as far as Catholic dogma), would have been in the 1st century, and not in the cite you referenced from the 13th century.

In any event, if you want to support your argument with a cite it would be more appropriate to do so with something that is contemporary.

[ought-six]

“Your assumption that she MUST be ‘receiving prayers’ is your own.”

No, it’s basic logic. A sends something that is received by B. If B is dead (i.e., is no longer a sentient corporeal body), B must necessarily be receiving that something somewhere.

[ought-six]

“Well, GOD created the universe in six days...”

Were those 24 hour days?

[ought-six]

You said: “But I do NOT agree with a lot of the OTHER stuff that Catholicism is handing out. IF the extrabiblical teachings are SO important; then they should have included them into the bible before it’s copyright ran out on them. It’s now in the public domain.”

Again, I ask you: Who held the original copyright (of the Bible), and where was it registered?

[ought-six]

I’m curious: Do you take the Bible literally?

[ought-six]

“Whippersnapper!”

LOL!!! Don’t box my ears!

[Elsie]

In any event, if you want to support your argument with a cite it would be more appropriate to do so with something that is contemporary.

I have no argument per se.

Rome has a PROBLEM in that it claims to be unchanging, but history shows that it has.

[Elsie]

A sends something that is received by B

You are ASSUMING that B receives something.

Rome has no proof of this EVER happening; yet it continues to teach it.