Free Republic 4th Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $76,789
Woo hoo!! And now over 87%!! Less than $11.3k to go!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by daniel1212

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • The 15 ESSENTIAL Windows 10 tips and tricks you need to know

    11/27/2015 10:14:15 PM PST · 38 of 77
    daniel1212 to dayglored

    Here is a list of a few paths you can paste into the Run command (Windows key + r) some might find helpful
    control printers

    %UserProfile%\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Quick Launch
    Run services.msc

    Canonical names:

    But these pings are getting too many for me, so please remove me from ping list. Thanks. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus

  • Vatican II is policy, not doctrine: Catholicism and Americanism

    11/27/2015 4:52:22 PM PST · 4 of 4
    daniel1212 to metmom
    Some RCs say only what is infallibly defined is binding (wrong, and would eliminate most of what Rome teaches), while others add such teachings as encyclicals and the Catechism, but exclude such encyclicals as the latest (wrong).

    In reality, there is no complete official indisputable list of all official teachings that en toto are binding upon RCs, and just what are, or the parts thereof, and the meaning of such, can be subject to interpretation.

    Thus we see the anti-V2 sects versus the pro--V2 RC sects, but while RCs may dismiss papal teaching that is not judged to be infallible, their believed JP2 states as regards V2:

    You have no right any more to bring up the distinction between the doctrinal and the pastoral that you use to support your acceptance of certain texts of Vatican Council II and your rejection of others. It is true that the matters decided in any Council do not all call for an assent of the same quality; only what the Council affirms in its 'definitions' as a truth of faith or as bound up with faith requires the assent of faith. Nevertheless, the rest also form a part of the SOLEMN MAGISTERIUM of the Church, to be trustingly accepted and sincerely put into practice by every Catholic." ( Epistle Cum te to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, 11 Oct, 1976, published in Notitiae, No. 12, 1976.)

    All the post-Conciliar "popes" have stated that the Council was guided by the Holy Spirit. Paul VI, in closing the Council stated that "the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching." Still later he stated that the Council "avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility" but that it conferred on its teachings "the value of the supreme ordinary Magisterium" (Speech of Jan 12, 1966), and that "it has as much authority and far greater importance than the Council of Nicea". Elsewhere he has called it "the greatest of Councils", and "even greater than the Council of Trent."[10]. -

    To such some trad. RCs add:

    when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed ; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority ; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.

    The Bishops form the most sacred part of the Church, that which instructs and governs men by divine right; and so he who resists them and stubbornly refuses to obey their word places himself outside the Church [cf. Matt. 18:18]. But obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces. - (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at

    I say with Cardinal Bellarmine whether the Pope be infallible or not in any pronouncement, anyhow he is to be obeyed . No good can come from disobedience. His facts and his warnings may be all wrong; his deliberations may have been biased. He may have been misled. Imperiousness and craft, tyranny and cruelty, may be patent in the conduct of his advisers and instruments. But when he speaks formally and authoritatively he speaks as our Lord would have him speak, and all those imperfections and sins of individuals are overruled for that result which our Lord intends (just as the action of the wicked and of enemies to the Church are overruled) and therefore the Pope's word stands, and a blessing goes with obedience to it, and no blessing with disobedience . - Life of Cardinal Newman, Vol. 2; Chapter 26. The Deadlock in Higher Education (1867);

    Which applies to bishops as well.

    to scrutinize the actions of a bishop, to criticize them, does not belong to individual Catholics, but concerns only those who, in the sacred hierarchy, have a superior power; above all, it concerns the Supreme Pontiff, for it is to him that Christ confided the care of feeding not only all the lambs, but even the sheep [cf. John 21:17]. - Est Sane Molestum (1888) Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII;

    To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors , and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor....

    Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.

    On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. It is true that for this he has not only special lights, but still more the knowledge of the needs and conditions of the whole of Christendom, for which, it is fitting, his apostolic care must provide. - Epistola Tua (1885), Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII;

    Assent of mind and will (though one may internally disagree, public dissent is disallowed) is required even to encyclicals.

    20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent , since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. - PIUS XII, HUMANI GENERI, August 1950;

    2. The authority of papal encyclicals is understood as being "undoubtedly great. It is, in a sense, sovereign. It is the teaching of the supreme pastor and teacher of the Church. Hence the faithful have a strict obligation to receive this teaching with an infinite respect. A man must not be content simply not to contradict it openly and in a more or less scandalous fashion. An internal mental assent is demanded. It should be received as the teaching sovereignly authorized within the Church." - Encyclicals:

    Which assent of mind and will is required to more than just formal doctrinal definitions on faith and morals, but to social teachings which are based on them.

    The "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church" (2005) states,

    80. In the Church’s social doctrine the Magisterium is at work in all its various components and expressions. … Insofar as it is part of the Church’s moral teaching, the Church’s social doctrine has the same dignity and authority as her moral teaching. It is authentic Magisterium, which obligates the faithful to adhere to it. -

    They have the duty of observing the constitutions and decrees conveyed by the legitimate authority of the Church. Even if they concern disciplinary matters, these determinations call for docility in charity. - Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2037.

    And it is evidenced that the popes last encyclical ( is intended to teach what the Church's moral teaching demands as regards ecology and economy.

    Yet most all subscribe to the erroneous beliefs that Catholics hold to.

  • Vatican II is policy, not doctrine: Catholicism and Americanism

    11/27/2015 4:49:56 PM PST · 3 of 4
    daniel1212 to NRx; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; boatbums; ...
    Religious liberty is fine? Sure! The generosity of some American colonies and of America's founding fathers made the country a great home for Catholics.... We can have a state church like Franco Spain

    Meaning that you accept America graciousness but need not expect RCs to return the favor, as under a RC state church Prots would be censored.

    78. “[It is error to believe that] Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.” -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852. Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus (of Errors), Issued in 1864, Section X (

    "....Constitutions can be changed, and non-Catholic sects may decline to such a point that the political proscription [ban] of them may become feasible and expedient. What protection would they have against a Catholic state? What protection would they then have against a Catholic State? The latter could logically tolerate only such religious activities as were confined to the members of the dissenting group. It could not permit them to carry on general propaganda nor accord their organization certain privileges that had formerly been extended to all religious corporations, for example, exemption from taxation. [But] the danger of religious intolerance toward non-Catholics in the United States is so improbable and so far in the future that it should not occupy their time or attention." — The State and the Church (1922), pp.38,39, by Monsignor (and professor) John Augustine Ryan (1869–1945), imprimatur of Cardinal Hayes (

  • Slow Roasting Turkey

    11/25/2015 8:45:45 PM PST · 5 of 59
    daniel1212 to LoneRangerMassachusetts

    You are in MA. The liberal elite answer could be Global Warming.

  • The Return of Jesus Christ (Peace Be Upon Him) - Kamal El-Mekki

    11/25/2015 8:27:35 PM PST · 15 of 26
    daniel1212 to backwoods-engineer; Jim Robinson
    Allah (God)

    Uh, no. Allah is not the same as the God who spoke to Jacob (Israel), nor is Allah the same as the mighty God who is father of my Lord, Jesus Christ. Not. the. same.

    He is also posting on the wrong site:

    As the owner has said , and which i am sure is applicable to Islam:

    Free Republic is a pro-God site. The one and only true Judeo-Christian God as taught to us by KJV with no additional editing or books of fiction. I have zero faith in Joseph Smith or his so-called Mormon religion and do not want it taught on FR as gospel. Joe Smith was a false prophet and his book is false gospel (look it up in KJV). Those who cannot live with that are certainly free to post elsewhere.

    But i do hope you learn somethings while here, and find the risen Lord Jesus as your Lord and Savior. Glory to God.

  • The Return of Jesus Christ (Peace Be Upon Him) - Kamal El-Mekki

    11/25/2015 8:22:18 PM PST · 14 of 26
    daniel1212 to Paul46360; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; boatbums; ...
    What does it matter what a deluded false prophet said? Muhammad contradict the very Scriptures the Qur'an purports to an extension of, and a corrector of its falsely alleged extensive corruption.

    For to change the Lord's mission from being His death, and that event from actually taking place, and remove the multitudes of attestations to Him being the Son of God would alone require an almost complete rewriting of the NT and very substantial changed to the Old.

    And if the Catholic church did so then why did they do such a poor job, as it would not be hard in that case to also add just prayer to an angel or saint in Heaven, and or a reminded to submit to the holy Father in Rome, or one clear example of an infant being baptized, or a NT minister being distinctively called a priest, and changing bread and wine into flesh and blood as a sacrifice for sin and to be consumed in order to obtain eternal life.

    Instead of the alleged corruptions taking place, there is not one single manuscript among the thousands we have that supports the Qur'anic contradictions.

    And as seen here , the murderer Muhammad damnably radically contradicts the Scriptures, to his eternal horror. Please do not join him!!!

  • Reformation Reminders: Rome & Her Desecration of Christ

    11/24/2015 1:53:43 PM PST · 202 of 202
    daniel1212 to paladinan; Springfield Reformer
    Sorry, everyone... too overwhelmed to do justice to this thread! Feel free to consider this debate a win for your side “on points”... :) Right now, I need to start shoveling away at this paperwork/chore/chaos blizzard...

    That is fine. Glory to God, and i myself was and am looking for energy myself to do other things, while i trust the e x t e n s i v e exchange has been educating for both sides on this often misunderstood and or superficially considered (by both sides) issue.

  • When Scripture Becomes Scripture

    11/23/2015 9:09:58 PM PST · 28 of 28
    daniel1212 to NRx
    What the Church proclaimed as Holy Scripture were not individual books, let alone the units out of which they were made, but the whole collection.

    When did the Orthodox decree a fixed canon?

  • Satan Worshippers Attack Christian Pastor, Beat Him Over The Head And Light His Whole Body...

    11/23/2015 8:54:32 PM PST · 12 of 16
    daniel1212 to markomalley; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; boatbums; ...

    Could happen, but as Shoebat’s (not even his real name) credibility is dubious, beginning with his own claims for himself, his claims needs conformation from better sources.

  • Don’t Apologize for Apologetics

    11/23/2015 6:31:24 PM PST · 119 of 119
    daniel1212 to redleghunter
    I see I have reached the same automated response center.

    Quite fitting.

    Argument from authority, also ad verecundiam and appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a log

    Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence,[4][5][6] as authorities can come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts.[7][8] ical fallacy.[1] -

  • Don’t Apologize for Apologetics

    11/23/2015 6:27:51 PM PST · 118 of 119
    daniel1212 to metmom
    God’s Word does not need man’s stamp of approval to be Truth or to validate it.

    Yet that is what they claim.

  • Don’t Apologize for Apologetics

    11/23/2015 6:26:57 PM PST · 117 of 119
    daniel1212 to Steelfish; redleghunter; NYer; EagleOne; Iscool; metmom; boatbums; Springfield Reformer
    Apparently it hasn’t occurred to you that what you say contradicts not only the teachings of the Church for nearly 400 years before the Church authenticated the books in the Bible as the Word of God in AD 384, but contradicts every theologian from Augustine to Aquinas, and Newman to Benedict (called the “theological Einstein of or times”), to say nothing of prominent Lutheran and Episcopalian theologians who have converted to Catholicism.

    Seriously, why do you continually assert such things as if that establishes Truth? For one, it was not in AD 384 that authenticated the books in the Bible as being the Word of God, as for one, the Decretum Gelasianum (or Gelasian Decree) in which is a list of books of Scripture presented as having been made Canonical by a Council of Rome under Pope Damasus I, in understand by scholars as being derived from a five-chapter text written by an anonymous scholar between 519 and 553.

    In addition, though there was recognition by popes and consuls afterward, these were not universal binding decrees and doubts and debates about the nature of the Apocrypha continued for centuries and into Trent which provided the first infallible definition of the Catholic canon in 1546 - after Luther died.

    That is what real scholarship attests to. Luther simply did not have an infallible, indisputable canon to dissent from, despite RC propaganda. As for what my post states being contrary to the teachings of the Church of Rome and men RCs look to above that which is written, what does that prove? Their beliefs no more make he Bible to teach prayer to created beings than the opinions of the most learned in the times of Christ made Christ to be a false teacher.

    Faced with such things as an utter absence by the Holy Spirit of Truth including even one prayer among the approx. 200 in Scripture which He inspired, and only teaching that God is address in prayer to Heaven, and that Christ is the only heavenly intercessor btwn God and man, you continually rely on invoking the names of some learned propagandists for Rome's sake.

    And which hermeneutic is contrary to Scripture and the NT church which began with common people heeding itinerant unlearned (by formal schooling) men, who established their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, not the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome.

    You mantra of men is meaningless as establishing Truth, as they are not above Scripture and all their opinions will not substitute for the lack of Scriptural warrant for their unScriptural traditions.

    Meanwhile, if opposing Mary formally being called a co-redemptrix is contrary to your class of clones then you can add Ratzinger to those who oppose them, as shown. One educated professors versus other professors, yet he claims they are on his side. But Scripture is in this case, and which is what matters.

  • The IRS's Plan to Chill Charitable Giving

    11/22/2015 8:33:57 PM PST · 9 of 44
    daniel1212 to Tolerance Sucks Rocks

    As an aside, i think i am adapting to seeing apostrophes as in IRS’ and open and closed quotes as in “social welfare”!

  • Food hunger in America: More Hype than Reality. Why?

  • Food hunger in America: More Hype than Reality. Why?

    11/22/2015 8:15:47 PM PST · 53 of 56
    daniel1212 to 9YearLurker
    and they were absurd, with loaded questions fishing for anything that could be construed as my suffering “food insecurity” at any time during the month.

    Keep at it and you would eventually become hungry, and so...

    Really it is getting harder to tell the two parties apart all the time.

    One just does things slower. But the evangelical church needs to focus on being a distinctive holy nation, and alternative to a decaying society, rather than hoping to a return of Mayberry.

  • Food hunger in America: More Hype than Reality. Why?

    11/22/2015 8:11:52 PM PST · 51 of 56
    daniel1212 to GJones2
    Good analysis. I’m continually annoyed by those public service radio ads..... I suppose doing that is better than just taking more money from people through taxes, though.

    Yet they are related, as stated, 'Huber finds that the Feeding America spots are distributed via the Ad Council, which the US Department of Agriculture is a major Ad Council client of. And "By feeding the false perception of rampant child hunger, the Ad Council is aiding and abetting the eternal bureaucratic demand for more studies, more personnel, greater influence and bigger budgets."

  • Food hunger in America: More Hype than Reality. Why?

    11/22/2015 8:06:28 PM PST · 50 of 56
    daniel1212 to Tired of Taxes
    Eventually, everything did work out. But, now I have no trouble believing there must be some very poor people, with very little food to eat, in this country. There are some who fall btwn the tracks, and esp. in the country perhaps, while you choose not to use the food pantry route, or could not.

    But choice, having left all, i lived in a church doing ministry full time w/ no pay, and sometimes we had no food but salt and pepper, but God would provide something. A casserole would be dumped into a lot of potatoes we bought cheap, to make it streacth. Baked our own bread, one packet of yet to 10 loaves. Praise God He was with us and brought us thru. But i still try to be very careful about spending money.

  • Food hunger in America: More Hype than Reality. Why?

    11/22/2015 8:00:14 PM PST · 47 of 56
    daniel1212 to Slyfox

    A homeless person in a major NE city can make serious money daily, though there are souls in need in different ways.

  • Food hunger in America: More Hype than Reality. Why?

    11/22/2015 7:59:00 PM PST · 45 of 56
    daniel1212 to jsanders2001
    I can tell you “yes” to several ofbthose questions. We definitely had to cut back on our grocery bills for lack of money but we’ve always had enough to eat. If everything keep’s going up because of the shyster in office we may not though. Just a few years ago we were producing income in excess of $200K for many years. Taxes kicked our tail every year.

    Yes, yet as one facing hunger daily you must be insecure, and need to become dependent on the government.

  • Food hunger in America: More Hype than Reality. Why?

    11/22/2015 7:57:14 PM PST · 44 of 56
    daniel1212 to CodeToad
    There is ZERO hunger in the USA. Zero. There are no poor people in the USA. I’ve tried to give away things that I just couldn’t. 15 years ago those items could have been sold instead of given away, yet, no takers. There are no poor in America.

    That is why the term "food insecurity" is used, with the crafty questions to make it a real problem, to justify the bureaucracy which needs it. Let private concerns do so, but which do not use hype, and show personal caring. .

  • Food hunger in America: More Hype than Reality. Why?

    11/22/2015 7:54:02 PM PST · 42 of 56
    daniel1212 to stars & stripes forever
    Suddenly it struck us! We had given $87 of that “little over $100.” We were the rich family in the church! Hadn’t the missionary said so? Deep down, I knew that we were actually a rich family.

    Read it all. Thanks! Liberals sure would like to work to seduce such into thinking they were victims who deserved what others earn. Which this excludes charity, and the positive response to such, as it is considered a right to have what other's earn.

  • Food hunger in America: More Hype than Reality. Why?

    11/22/2015 7:46:27 PM PST · 40 of 56
    daniel1212 to surroundedbyblue
    Oh yeah I would add that I, too, am all for helping the poor but when I look around, it seems to me we have more spiritually poor people in this country than materially poor. Pray for our nation.

    Yes, this is the most Biblical illiterate and morally confused generation America has ever raised.

  • Food hunger in America: More Hype than Reality. Why?

    11/22/2015 7:45:25 PM PST · 39 of 56
    daniel1212 to surroundedbyblue
    A woman in front of me had a plate piled high of gourmet prepared foods. $13 I think her total came to and she whipped out her food stamp card to pay for it.

    But she did face hunger every day (thus she ate), and likely an empty plate (before filling it) and maybe did not have enough money to but the food she (thinks) she needed. Thus she faces food insecurity.

    Meanwhile there really are some starving people in the world. At least some agencies like Grahams Samaritan's purse i think, are giving them the heavenly as well as earthly food.

  • A Point of View: Has the Catholic Church really changed?

    11/22/2015 5:35:30 PM PST · 17 of 22
    daniel1212 to sparklite2; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; boatbums; ...
    Enter a religion defined by God's mercy and inclusion, with a strong voice on issues like market excess and climate change... that is a religion even I might be tempted to join. Though how many Catholics I would find sitting next to me in the pews is a big question.

    Actually that is much what the RCC is in America, along with liberal Prot churches, both of which, as with all, testify to what they truly believe by what they do and effect.

  • Food hunger in America: More Hype than Reality. Why?

    11/22/2015 4:37:42 PM PST · 1 of 56
    Note that I am not against poor people, which the Scripture command to remember, and that we are to give according to the grace of God we have realized, without we could not even breath.

    But which is that of helping those truly in need, out of compassion for the afflicted truly victimized, as well as mercy those who created their own mess, so that they may be motivated toward betterment and being a blessing themselves toward others, above all by turning to the Lord Jesus from sin, and becoming born again by faith in Him.

    But which is not that of fostering a welfare state by seducing souls into a victim-entitlement mentality, that they are victims of a system that rewards merit, as instead of that, and charity from them, the victims have a right to the same benefits others earn, which is thus to be progressively taken from them.

    This was essentially the psychology the devil worked to seduce Eve with, with the devil presenting himself as her advocate, to the end that by heeding her, the devil would gain power. Which is what he sought when he fell from grace, presuming by self will to ascend to God's throne.

    Being cast down he seeks power by proxy, whether it be a Stalin presenting huimself as a savior from the capitalists, while in reality he and his puppets alone obtain the benefits he seduces the people with to gain power, or modern day liberal elites, who ultimately presume to dictatorships.

    I got a bit carried away on that, yet the manufacturing of crises is instrumental for this and for liberals to obtain greater power, and or to justify themselves as morally superior due to the higher moral level which their alarm over such things as Climate Change and hunger exhibits, for which they obtain funds by deception and or at the expense of the public.

    This does not mean there i am opposed to helping the poor, including with food, as one who would be considered poor myself, and who has lived, by God's grace, for 22 years (without gov. welfare) in a very low-income, multi-ethnic high population density Eastern city with one of the in the US. And who, thanks be to God, is blessed to be able to dispense (and eat some) privately donated surplus food, with prayer and gospel tracts.

    About 28% of food in America is thrown away, and the Lord gathered up even the fragments that remained after feeding 5,000+ souls. (Jn. 6:1-13) And for that reason alone (no waste) food distribution should take place, as part of showing the grace of God. And there are some widows and poor people who are in need, yet American poverty is not that of the 3rd world, and in 1901 over 50%of household income was spent on food, as compared with les than 14% today. It is the cost of housing that has risen exponentially, partly due to increase in government.

    But I am against characteristic exaggeration and misleading deception by certain propagandists who have made a business out of dealing with this largely manufactured crisis. As with "Climate Change," there is a lot of money in hyped alarminism, both in the degree such is increasingly occurring, if at all, and the detrimental effects.

    Which are asserted with fervor by certain organizations seeking funding for feeding America and many supporters of such, even if done by a minority of charitable feeding organizations. See to research charities.

    There is also the issue of increasing gov. control, and besides thing like banning large soda sales, as well as donated food from going to city missions (NYC), a bill was recently introduced which would ban smoking in all gov. subsidized housing nationwide. ( While smoking is harmful and the intent may be good, once the government can do that then were would it end?

  • The Old Testament: Was Israel Commanded to Commit Genocide?

    11/22/2015 12:34:20 PM PST · 62 of 91
    daniel1212 to trebb; demshateGod; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; ...

    Second, the sweeping language of these warfare texts such as Joshua (as well as Numbers 31 and 1 Samuel 15) occurs in highly figurative, hyperbolic accounts--quite common in the ancient Near East. This kind of "utterly destroyed" bravado was common in ancient Near Eastern war texts.

    the dominant language of "driving out" and "thrusting out" the Canaanites indicates further that "extermination" passages are hyperbolic

    The Holy Spirit doesn't know the difference between hyperbole and bravado and an accurate account of what happened? The author of this piece doesn't accept that possibility. Instead they deconstruct the author's text, assuming he was just a product of his time and place. The first chapter of Judges 2 makes no sense if God didn't intend absolute annihilation.

    Indeed. Sad to see that CRI has succumbed to the liberal "scholarship" such as is also seen in Roman Catholicism, which, like as liberal Prots, for decades has told the readers of its NAB Bible helps that such historical accounts were largely "folk tales, while such things as the Tower of Babel, Jonah and the fish, Balaam and the donkey, etc, were "fables."

    Yet the NT treats such as literal events.

    The liberal unwarranted spurious slippery slope scholarship, which ignores reasonable explanations for the problems it cites, even from easily accessible classic commentaries, impugns all historical accounts, even to the birth, death and resurrection. Since contradictions have been alleged (and answered) in the gospel accounts, including the latter event, thus these also could be relegated to being hyperbolic.

    But CRI has been on a downward trajectory since Walter Martin died, and basically turned him into a non-person.

    See post above for lengthy examination of this, if imperfect.

  • The Old Testament: Was Israel Commanded to Commit Genocide?

    11/22/2015 12:30:52 PM PST · 61 of 91
    daniel1212 to SeekAndFind

    Hope you do not mind my going on to give my fallible judgment on this interpretation here. May the reader discern any errors.

    • After all, doesn't Deuteronomy 20:16-17 plainly state this? 'Only in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. But you shall utterly destroy them…as the Lord your God has commanded you.'"1 No matter how strongly the believer makes the case for the God-morality connection, this good argument can become overshadowed by the Canaanite question.

    Thus the interpretation that follows seems driven by the need to make God palatable, to justify God before the superior judgment of finite modern man, yet God is perfectly just in slaying every infant on the planet, since He is the author of life. Murder is wrong because it takes away life which God gave, and the opportunities God provides and are not to be unjustly by man for man.

    But God is not unjust in punishing culpable sinners, nor does He punish those who are not culpable of sin, though He slay them. To punish such presupposes God does something ultimately negative, but besides never ordering torture of such, God can take all to Himself, and spare them from further suffering, and in the case of the terminally wicked Canaanites, whose destructive perpetuated influential iniquity God had put up with for generations, God spared the innocent from becoming like their degenerate fathers and suffering their just fate.

    Indeed, God could do so for all, but God is just as well as merciful in giving souls the ability to choose, and (ultimately) opposite entities to choose btwn, (1Ki. 18:21) and allowing souls to affect others by their choices, for good or for bad, and to suffer the consequences of the evil they are culpable for (and according to the degree that they are: Ezek. 18:20), and redeeming the elect on God/Christ expense and credit, (Rm. 3:25; 1Jn. 4:10,14) yet rewarding them for the good that they did in faith, even though it is only by God's grace in enabling and motivating, that they could and did believe in the Lord Jesus, (Jn. 6:44; 12:32; 16:8-11; Acts 11:18; 16:14; Eph. 2:8,9) and choose to obey Him afterwards. (Phil. 2:13) To God be the glory.

    In all things only God is omniscient, and both knows who is guilty and of what, and only He is omnipotent, and can and does make all things work out for the good of those who love God, and thus love Good. (Rm. 8:28) Therefore God cannot be charged with genocide nor with infanticide, unless the one making the charges is himself omniscient and superior in morality. (But as every morally cognizant soul worships either the True God or a created one, so angry atheists who impugn the character of God effectively presume to be as God, as the ultimate judges of what is good or evil.)

    As for the language describing the conquests at issue being hyperbolic boasting (and or exaggerated to justify genocide), as Glenn Miller at Christian Think Tank (a far better resource than CRI on this) notes,

    The OT record is literally filled with their evil, esp. of the elites and religious authorities! And, they never seem to have a problem describing how frequently they get defeated in battle, for the text is filled with those events too. And the biblical writers don't have the slightest problem describing situations in which they doubted God, accused God of various un-god-like actions (e.g. Habakkuk on how God could use the evil Assyrians; the Psalmist on how God could avoid rescuing the innocent; how God could let evil exploiters prosper so long), and even of leaving bad-looking-things completely unexplained (e.g. the numbering of David's census, the breach against Uzzah). On the basis of the surface features of the text, we have NO warrant for believing that the text 'sugar coated' the story, or functioned as propaganda or justification (in comparison to other ANE documents of the time, especially). -

    • the sweeping language of these warfare texts such as Joshua (as well as Numbers 31 and 1 Samuel 15) occurs in highly figurative, hyperbolic accounts--quite common in the ancient Near East. This kind of "utterly destroyed" bravado was common in ancient Near Eastern war texts. Biblical scholars and archaeologists (e.g., K. Lawson Younger, Kenneth Kitchen) ...

    ...are apparently rather liberal. Rather than hyperbole, the texts are literal, but limited. For instance,

    And the LORD hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities: and he called the name of the place Hormah. (Num 21:3)

    As Keil & Delitzsch stated in the 19th century, ''And they called the place Hormah,'' i.e., banning, ban-place. ''The place'' can only mean the spot where the Canaanites were defeated by the Israelites. If the town of Zephath, or the capital of Arad, had been specially intended, it would no doubt have been also mentioned, as in Jdg_1:17. As it was not the intention of Moses to press into Canaan from the south, across the steep and difficult mountains, for the purpose of effecting its conquest, the Israelites could very well content themselves for the present with the defeat inflicted upon the Canaanites, and defer the complete execution of their vow until the time when they had gained a firm footing in Canaan

    They cite Num. 31, but which also is not inclusive of all the Canaanites:

    And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the LORD of Midian. (Num 31:3)

    Nor did this include every one of that nomadic tribe. See further on.

    Likewise, they cite 1Sa. 15:

    And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword. (1Sa 15:8)

    Keil & Delitzsch here understand,

    ''All,'' i.e., all that fell into the hands of the Israelites. For it follows from the very nature of the case that many escaped, and consequently there is nothing striking in the fact that Amalekites are mentioned again at a later period (1Sa_27:8; 1Sa_30:1; 2Sa_8:12). The last remnant was destroyed by the Simeonites upon the mountains of Seir in the reign of Hezekiah (1Ch_4:43). Only, king Agag did Saul and the people

    Likewise other texts such as Dt. 3:6; Josh. 6:21 were not referring to universal destruction, but what was realized on a regional basis.

    there were swarms of Canaanites remaining. Even within Joshua we read, "There were no Anakim left in the land" (11:22); they were "utterly destroyed" in the hill country (11:21)...Joshua's military campaign in Canaan simply wasn't a territorial conquest, but a series of disabling raids.

    Rather, it was what these authors neglect that creates the discrepancy

    And at that time came Joshua, and cut off the Anakims from the mountains, from Hebron, from Debir, from Anab, and from all the mountains of Judah, and from all the mountains of Israel: Joshua destroyed them utterly with their cities. There was none of the Anakims left in the land of the children of Israel: only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod, there remained. (Jos 11:21-22)

    The authors only cite part of v. 22, but which adds that some remained in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod, neighboring cities of Philistia, which clarifies v. 21, while the word for "utterly" is not in the Hebrew, and "destroyed" (châram) is alone used and basically means to seclude, to "cut off" (even as translated "flat nose" in Lv. 21:18, or "devoted" or "accursed"). Compare with "utterly destroy" (châram 'êth [even]) cities in Num. 21:2;Josh. 6:21; 8:26; 10:29. Since châram is used with "all' it can mean completely, and is sometimes used to describe slaying with the sword, but whether it was used to always means they inclusively killed them all wherever they existed depends upon the context and corresponding texts which can clarify it as referring to those they found in a region, versus hunting down and exterminating every single one.

    • . Yet later in Joshua, Caleb asked permission to drive out the Anakites from the hill country (14:12-15; cf. 15:13-19)

    As Barnes notes, Thence, they had, as must be inferred from the text here, returned and reoccupied Hebron, probably when Joshua and the main force of the Israelites had marched northward to deal with Jabin and his confederates. Caleb finally drove out this formidable race and occupied Hebron and its dependent towns and district permanently. See Jos_15:13 following.

    • Why is this explanation so unreasonable that liberals must resort to making historical accounts into hyperbole, overall conquests into mere raids?

    • In Numbers 31 (after Midianite women had intentionally seduced the men of Israel), we're told, "[Israel] fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man" (NIV, emphasis added). If literally true, why do we see Midianite multitudes in Judges 6:5? They were "like swarms of locusts. It was impossible to count them or their camels" (6:5 NIV). Also, the language is exaggerated in that every Midianite man was killed without a single Israelite fatality (Num. 31:50).

    Num. 31:50 does not say that at all, while the conquests in Num. 31 is easily understood as referring to cities the Midianites had conquered with their 5 kings , and not that these numerous nomadic people all lived there.

    The expression ''towns in their dwellings'' leads to the conclusion that the towns were not the property of the Midianites themselves, who were a nomad people, but that they originally belonged in all probability to the Moabites, and had been taken possession of by the Amorites under Sihon. This is confirmed by Jos_13:21, according to which these five Midianitish vassals of Sihon dwelt in the land, i.e., in the kingdom of Sihon

    The Jewish Encyclopedia states,

    The narrative shows that each of the five Midianite tribes was governed by its own king, but that all acted together against a common enemy; that while a part of each tribe dwelt in cities and fortresses in the vicinity of Moab, another part led a nomadic life, living in tents and apparently remote from the seat of the war. For, after the Midianites had been "exterminated" by the army of Phinehas, they reappear some hundreds of years later, in the time of Gideon.

    The allied army of Midianites and Amalekites encamped in the valley of Jezreel (ib. vi. 33) after having crossed the Jordan. Gideon with his army encamped by the fountain of Harod, the Midianite army being to the north of him. With 300 men Gideon succeeded in surprising and routing them, and they fled homeward across the Jordan in confusion

    A point worth noting is that here only two Midianite kings, Zebah and Zalmuna, and two princes, Oreb and Zeeb, are mentioned (ib. vii. 25; viii. 3, 5, 10, 12, 18, 21). This would show that only two tribes bore the name "Midianites," while the remaining three probably were merged with other Arabic tribes, their kinsmen, and perhaps partly with the Israelites also. -

    And from WP:

    Some scholars have suggested that 'Midian' does not refer to a geographical area or a specific tribe, but to a confederation or 'league' of tribes brought together as a collective worship purposes. Paul Haupt first made this suggestion in 1909,[18] describing Midian as a 'cultic collective' (Kultgenossenschaft) or an 'amphictyony', meaning 'an association (Bund) of different tribes in the vicinity of a sanctuary'... George Mendenhall suggested that the Midianites were a non-Semitic confederate group,[19] and William Dumbrell maintained the same case: "We believe that Haupt's proposal is to be adopted, and that Midian, rather than depicting a land, is a general term for an amorphous league of the Late Bronze Age, of wide geographical range, who, after a series of reverses, the most prominent of which are recorded in Judges 6-7, largely disappeared from the historical scene...'[20] -

    Note that even Abraham and Lot separated into different lands, due to the need for more land, and thus it is easily conceivable that while the wicked Midianites (save for virgin women) in one region were cut off in Num. 31, their numerous dispersed nomadic relatives coalesced and came to battle against Israel later on. And even then as a group some even remained until they were subdued under Gideon, "so that they lifted up their heads no more" (Judges 8:28) which likely refer to them as a people, not every single individual.

    • Exaggerated language is abundant. For instance, Saul's army was numbered at 210,000--far larger than any army of antiquity.

    Or so they say. The Assyrian army of the 8th century B.C. was comprised of at least 150-200 thousand men and was the largest standing military force that the Middle East had witnessed to this time....Even the Assyrian army, as great as its size was, was easily dwarfed by the Persian armies that appeared 300 years later. Darius' army in the Scythian campaign numbered 200,000, and the force deployed by Xerxes against the Greeks comprised 300,000 men and 60,000 horsemen. General Percy-Sykes' analysis of Xerxes' army suggests that the total force, including support troops, numbered a million men! Even at the end of the empire the Persians could deploy very large forces. In 331 B.C., just before Alexander destroyed the Persian empire at the Battle of Arbela. Darius III fielded a force of 300,000 men, 40,000 cavalry, 250 chariots, and 50 elephants. - (Authors:

    In 1 Samuel 27:8-9, the same sweeping language of Chapter 15 is used: all Amalekites were wiped out--again! We're told David invaded a territory full of Amalekites--the same territory covered by Saul. (Shur is near Egypt and Havilah is in Saudi Arabia--an area far too wide for Saul's army to cover.) So, 1 Samuel 15 and 27 cannot both be literally true.

    -A little research by the authors would have informed them that,

    The Amalekites were the remnant of this old hereditary foe of the Israelites, who had taken to flight on Saul's war of extermination, and had now assembled again (see at 1Sa_15:8-9). ''For they inhabit the land, where you go from of old to Shur, even to the land of Egypt.'' The עֲשֶׁר before מֵעֹולָם may be explained from the fact that בֹּואֲךְ is not adverbial here, but is construed according to its form as an infinitive: literally, ''where from of old thy coming is to Shur.''.. Moreover, the Alexandrian text is decidedly faulty here, and עֹולָם is confounded with עֵלָם, ἀπὸ Γελάμ. - Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

    That "Saul smote the Amalekites from Havilah until thou comest to Shur, that is over against Egypt" (1Sa 15:7) refers, as written, to the area in btwn the two in which battles took place, not that of inclusively smiting all the dispersed Amalekites within that area. We are dealing with tribe with a "nomadic lifestyle [which] led to widespread distribution, mostly along the fringe of southern Canaan's agricultural zone (Num. 13:29, Judg. 12:15, 1 Sam. 15:7; 30:1-2)." (

    Compare "from Havilah until thou comest to Shur" (1Sam. 15:7) with "And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins." (Mar 1:5) This can be considered a form of hyperbole, but means "Then went out unto him (exeporeueto pros auton). Imperfect indicative describing the steady stream of people who kept coming to the baptism (ebaptizonto, imperfect passive indicative, a wonderful sight)." - Robertson's WORD PICTURES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

    • In 1 Samuel 15, Saul was commanded to "utterly destroy" the Amalekites. Stereotypical sweeping language was used: "Put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey" (15:3). On a literal reading, Saul carried this out--except for King Agag, who would meet his doom through the prophet Samuel (vv.7-9, 33). Yet this didn't literally happen; the Amalekites were far from destroyed.

    Indeed, and a careful reading of the text does not make utterly destroying all the Amalekites to be exaggeration as if they existed as a nation concentrated together, and were all utterly destroyed, along with all livestock (excepting what Saul wrongly spared), but as referring to the main body of Amalekites set before them and which they found, as with those with Agag the king of the Amalekites. (1Sa 15:8)

    Miller finds,

    The biblical texts never even estimate the number of Amalekites, but they do point out that they don't actually "have lands" that they\ Israelites traveled ("trespassed") through. The Amalekites were not PART of Canaan (which would have had a million plus folks)--they were a nomadic tribe of marauding bands, living in the southern Negev (desert region). The archeological data we have of sites in the Negev around the time of this event indicates a very sporadic population--although mostly in the mid-central Negev-- although widely spread out. We have evidence of about 50 'fortresses' at this time, ranging in diameter from 25-70 meters. Isolated houses were scattered between the settlements, but we would be hard pressed to get a total population above 10,000 people. The large numbers of troops Saul mustered would have been due to (1) political needs to have all the tribes represented (a theme that pops up in other places in the OT); and (2) needs to cover the wide geographical area described, even though sparsely populated. The 'city of Amalek' was likely a cult center, not a population center per se. David had combat with them with only 600 men later. -

    However, multitudes could live in tent and structures which leave no archaeological evidence, and would allow for a greater number than is estimated if simply based on remaining archaeological evidence of housing.

    • What's more, in 1 Samuel 30, a large Amalekite army attacked Ziklag (v. 1), and David pursued this army and fought a long battle with them, with four hundred Amalekites fleeing (1 Sam. 30:7-17). That's not all: the Amalekites were even around during the reign of Hezekiah (1 Chron. 4:43).

    Actually, the small number of Amalekites is consistent with the utter destruction of main body of the of the Amalekites, leaving a dispersed relative remnant to later needing to be dealt with. 1 Chron. 4:43 itself states that these Amalekites were those which had escaped. Thus it is not hyperbole being used, but (unless otherwise qualified) destruction of those found in the area in view. But which left some which Scripture records, who later came together to fight again until finally subdued, or as in the case of some Canaanites, to be thorns in the sides of Israel in judgment for not cutting them off (akin to not continually crucifying our flesh). Thus rather than hyperbole, the accounts are accurate in what they are describing.

    • So here's the question: Why is it that virtually every time a narration of "genocide" occurs, it is followed by an account that presupposes it did not happen? Scripture took shape, and the Old Testament canon was formed. The final compiler or editor--who was certainly not mindless--saw no problem with side-by-side affirmations of "total destruction" and many surviving hostiles. He didn't assume both to be literally true.

    Wrong, as instead of redacting such as the more liberal commentators allege, or understanding these as mere hyperbole (and where do you stop with that in historical narratives?), they feared God enough not to edit His word, but were copyists who reverently penned it as passed on, and could understood these accounts such as explained above, and were not to be taken in isolation from themselves, but were complementary, ot contradictory.

    And note that the Bible does reveal the use of hyperbole, like John 12:19

    The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him. (John 12:19)

    This "world" refers to their frame of reference, the known local sphere they had current knowledge of, not all the world that could be known, but even then "all" was easily understood as hyperbole, using exaggeration for effect, as in "everyone will be there," referring to everyone they know, yet not necessarily every single person. Such use is in order to get a point across as to how great something is, but which is not the same thing as charging the OT writers with not making literal statements as concerning the scope of commands and their execution, but using exaggeration for effect.

    • Fourth, the dominant language of "driving out" and "thrusting out" the Canaanites indicates further that "extermination" passages are hyperbolic (cf. Exod. 23:28; Lev. 18:24; Num. 33:52: Deut. 6:19; 7:1; 9:4; 18:12; Josh. 10:28, 30, 32, 35, 37, 39; 11:11, 14). Israel was to "dispossess" the Canaanites of their land (Num. 21:32; Deut. 9:1; 11:23; 18:14; 19:1). Just as Adam and Eve were "driven out" of the garden (Gen. 3:24), or Cain into the wilderness (4:14), or David from Israel by Saul (1 Sam. 26:19), so the Israelites were to "dispos- sess" the Canaanites. "Driving out" or "dispossessing" is different from "wiping out" or "destroying." Clearly, utter annihilation was not intended; you can't both drive out and destroy.

    If so, that is not hyperbole, but defines what the words can mean which are alleged to be hyperbole.

    • Fifth, the biblical language of the Canaanite "destruction" is identical to that of Judah's destruction in the Babylonian exile--clearly not utter annihilation or even genocide.

    Likewise as above, but sometimes destruction can mean the people rise up no more, or no more remaining in a certain context.

    • Sixth, "Joshua obeyed all that Moses commanded" (Josh. 9:24; 11:12), and yet Joshua left many survivors. It only follows, then, that in Deuteronomy 20 Moses did not literally intend for no survivors to be left.

    Moses did not literally intend for no survivors to be left, for Deuteronomy 20:13 refer to smiting every male thereof with the edge of the sword of the Canaanite cities God delivers into their hand, and means only grown men, versus "little ones" who were to be spared. The Amalekites were in a different class. Moreover, destroying a people can be said to be done as regards doing so in an area of main concentration which they could see, while leaving those without or who escaped, resulting in further battles to achieve the ultimate goal.

    Josh. 9:24 refers to the command of Dt. 20:13 but does not say they obeyed it fully, which even there in its context Scripture honestly tells us they did not. no hyperbole here. Josh. 11:12 refers to the general conquest of the land as a whole, "So Joshua took all that land" as "There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save the Hivites the inhabitants of Gibeon: all other they took in battle. For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favour, but that he might destroy them, as the LORD commanded Moses. (Jos 11:19-20)

    Besides the absence of the word for "utterly," this refers to the conquest of the land as a whole, of their cities, and not of every Canaanite wherever they were, as if Joshua has a "Schindler's List" of every Canaanite or dispersed band of them, which could yet, like a ISIS, take some local control.


    Their children that were left after them in the land, whom the children of Israel also were not able utterly to destroy, upon those did Solomon levy a tribute of bondservice unto this day. (1Ki 9:21)

    Moreover, in complete truth it was confessed that "not one thing hath failed of all the good things which the LORD your God spake concerning you; all are come to pass unto you, and not one thing hath failed thereof," (Jos 23:14) as the promises were contingent upon obedience, and which was incomplete, thus, "Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you." (Judges 2:3)


    Therefore it shall come to pass, that as all good things are come upon you, which the LORD your God promised you; so shall the LORD bring upon you all evil things, until he have destroyed you from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you. (Jos 23:15)

    Yet in the Lord;'s mercy, while Israel as a nation was destroyed from off the good land which the LORD their God gave them, yet in His mercy He left a contrite remnant which humbly looked for redemption, and such were those who found it in the risen Lord Jesus, being bought with a price, not their merits but the sinless shed blood. To God be the glory.

  • Reformation Reminders: Rome & Her Desecration of Christ

    11/21/2015 6:37:47 PM PST · 200 of 202
    daniel1212 to redleghunter
    I think they post such articles thinking every reply gets time off in purgatory.

    If a conditional plenary indulgence indulgence is granted to the faithful who teach or study Christian doctrine, then some may see posting such articles as obtaining one, as with caucus devos to Mary.

  • Question: Do moderate Muslims believe in the Quran, sharia law, jihad, infidels, dhimmi, etc?

    11/21/2015 9:01:41 AM PST · 74 of 105
    daniel1212 to econjack; Jim Robinson; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; ..
    It would appear that the mythical “moderate Muslim” is easily identified. They have no vocal chords.

    Indeed, as while true Christians deplore and distance themselves from serious and often bloody aberrations of Christian faith, we see little voice from "moderate Islam" against the sppsdly aberrant bloody Islam. For the reality is that due to the many exhortations to religious violence and bloody Jihad, "radical Islam" can well defend itself as being "true Islam," esp. in the light of Muhammad's application, against its moderate counterpart, if such would even contend with them on this.

    At best the lack of context in the Qur'an does not provide what is needed to relegate such to merely self-defense, such as protecting innocent life, while at worse it supports ISIS type conquests, which is more in line with post-Meccan Muhammad ("the more peaceful, tolerant verses in the Qur'an tend to be earlier, reflecting Muhammad's move from leader of a peaceful minority sect at Mecca to political supremacy and conquest at Medina."ThirdWay, Sep 2005, p.11) .

    After his migration to Medina, Muhammad's attitude towards Christians and Jews changed. Norman Stillman states:[8]

    During this fateful time, fraught with tension after the Hijra [migration to Medina], when Muhammad encountered contradiction, ridicule and rejection from the Jewish scholars in Medina, he came to adopt a radically more negative view of the people of the Book who had received earlier scriptures. -

    The Qur'an both contradicts the earlier revelation it claims to be an extension of, and also is in contrast with the Bible, as regards the latter's extensive historical narratives and detailed legislative promulgations, and theological teachings, which provide contexts for wars as well as a clear theology which clearly does not support either the church ruling over those without, or using the sword of men to silence its theological enemies, or to execute retaliation against its physical persecutors.

    Yet the state can indirectly support religion, and in fact in the US esp. it cannot help but do so as its moral laws and ideology reflected both the religious beliefs of its Founders overall, and of the people.

    But such cannot mandate belief, as per theocracies and especially based upon the premise that its leaders or supreme court cannot err, in cultic faiths and "political religion.

    But as "our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people,"( John Adams) and is subject to interpretation by courts, then as the people largely forsake the God of the Bible and the Spirit of Christ, then they elect mislead and deceptive souls. who in turn appoint judges who do not interpret Constitution according to what the Founder's meant, but after their own heart.

    Government by the people, for the devil. Let the righteous arise instead.

    They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not: of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off. (Hosea 8:4)

    I have written to him the great things of my law, but they were counted as a strange thing. (Hosea 8:12)

  • This is Free Republic. We're on a mission from God! [Judeo-Christian God Caucus]

    11/21/2015 5:36:09 AM PST · 66 of 67
    daniel1212 to Jim Robinson

    OOps. I do not know how i saw your reply as current. I guess i had another page of my pings open and saw it at the top and though it was new. But maybe jit was ust as well.

    Thanks again the good you have enabled. May all know the prince of peace in surrender to Him as Lord and Savior.

  • This is Free Republic. We're on a mission from God! [Judeo-Christian God Caucus]

    11/21/2015 5:29:21 AM PST · 65 of 67
    daniel1212 to Jim Robinson; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; boatbums; ..
    How about just doing the best you can without becoming disrespectful, hateful or in your face obnoxious? Is that too much to ask? And I’m asking that of everyone. Do unto others...

    Thank you, and for enabling much healthy exchange (despite more smoke than light at times), and for your overall excellent RMs. I will pass your words on.

    I actually esteem those who seek a higher level of debate on both sides, which i need to do better at. Though some consider any opposition at all to their faith to be disrespectful regardless of warrant, I think reasoned argumentation in seeking to go where the Truth will lead should be sought as the means and tenor of exchange (unlike liberals who counter substance with emotion). Which may mean we typically need to ignore certain posters, or be ignored ourselves.

    Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength, and my redeemer. (Psalms 19:14): KJV

  • Reformation Reminders: Rome & Her Desecration of Christ

    11/20/2015 9:11:38 PM PST · 198 of 202
    daniel1212 to Diamond
    Cardinal Bellarmine notwithstanding, The Roman Catholic Church Condemned Pope Honorius I as a Heretic and Excommunicated Him

    Only posthumously. Worthy subject.

    Honorius who was condemned by the 6th ( for a teaching he promulgated in an official letter sent to Monotheletism Sergius as the bishop of Rome, the council specifically saying that Honorius and the others taught the heresy), 7th, and 8th ecumenical Councils; and every Pope who took the of the papal office for the space of three hundred years,

    Honorius’ letters had been burned before the Council as “hurtful to the soul.” Pope Leo II likewise anathematized Honorius and said that he had “permitted her who was undefiled to be polluted by profane teaching.”

    RCs argue that Leo only condemned Pope Honorius for negligence in allowing a heresy to spread and grow, not for heresy, and the ecumenical conciliar condemnation for heresy was not valid because such must be confirmed by the reigning Pope, and only in the form that he confirms it.

    Yet White points out that

    "the universal church at that time did not believe in the idea that a council had to await the approval of the bishop of Rome. That concept had to wait to find its universal expression in the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals almost 200 years yet in the future from the time of the 6th Ecumenical Council and Pope Leo. That a belief, first introduced by fraudulent means in the middle of the 9th century would have to be read back into the context of the clear and obvious condemnation of Honorius in the 7th century, in a vain attempt to save him as well as rescue a dogma defined in the 19th century, is clear evidence of the impossible task facing the defender of papal infallibility."

    They also point out quite anachronistically that the letter to Sergius was not a formal statement, issued by the pope ex cathedra, using his charisma of infallibility, as if such a concept existed in the seventh century. -

    ..the historical fact is that Honorius was condemned as an heretic and monothelite, as established by at least 13 points of evidence that Schaff provides, including the following: “The Papal Oath as found in the Liber Diurnus taken by each new Pope from the fifth to the eleventh century, in the form probably prescribed by Gregory II, “smites with eternal anathema the originators of the new heresy Sergius etc together with Honorius because he assisted the base assertion of the heretics.” (footnote omitted)

  • Remember Windows 1.0? It's been 30 YEARS (and you're officially old - A Nostalgic Retrospective)

    11/20/2015 6:50:58 PM PST · 35 of 96
    daniel1212 to dayglored
    I was given a PC in about 1999 with MS 3.1 on it, with MS Office. For that work you could still use it today.

    But also had W/95 and 98se, and learned many way to tweak it (es. with the constant low system resources). Went from that to XP, then jumped to W/8 and then to W/10. Word Pro software is the most transcendent it seems. Thank God for all.

  • Reformation Reminders: Rome & Her Desecration of Christ

    11/20/2015 4:34:40 PM PST · 196 of 202
    daniel1212 to Diamond
    a link to a 67 page tract by an obscure lunatic whose thesis was that John Calvin was the true father of communism. Go figure.

    Never knew of that, but while some RCs (while advocating for a censorious Catholic monarchy) distance themselves from the Divine right of kings and autocratic aristocratic rule - which type of thing many early Prots had to unlearn from Rome in making men as popes, yet does this kind of leadership sound compatible with the constitutional republic of America?

    Pope Gregory XVI: It is insanity to believe that liberty of conscience and liberty of worship are the inalienable rights of every citizen. . (Pope Gregory XVI, “Mirari Vos,” August 15,1832)

    Pope Pius IX, Error Condemned: Every man is free to embrace and to profess that religion which, led by the light of reason, he shall consider to true . -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851. (Ven. Pope Pius IX, “Syllabus of Modern Errors,”December 8, 1864;

    • Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus (of Errors): [It is error to believe that] Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.” (Section X, Errors Having Reference to Modern Liberalism, #78.

    Pope Pius IX, Error condemned: In this age of ours, it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion be the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other cults whatsoever. In certain regions of Catholic name, it has been praiseworthily sanctioned by law that men immigrating there be allowed to have public exercises of any form of worship of their own. (Pope Pius IX, “Syllabus of Modern Errors,”December 8, 1864)

    • Pope Leo X: That it is against the will of the Spirit to burn heretics at the stake is condemned as false. (Pope Leo X, “Exsurge Domino,” 1520)

    • Pope Innocent IV, Ad extirpanda: The head of state or ruler must force all the heretics whom he has in confess their errors and accuse other heretics whom they know, and specify their motives,..Those convicted of heresy by the aforesaid Diocesan Bishop,surrogate or inquisitors, shall be taken in shackles to the head of state or ruler or his special representative, instantly,or at least within five days, and the latter shall apply the regulations promulgated against such persons [burn them alive]...(;

    French RC bishop and theologian,Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet (French: (September 1627 – April 1704) was a strong advocate of political absolutism and the divine right of kings. (

    French RC Jean Bodin (1530-1596),who in 1576 published Six livres de la république (Six Books of the Commonwealth). Bodin insisted that sovereignty (i.e. the ultimate supreme power in any state) was absolute and indivisible. -

    Dictatus papae: That of the pope alone all princes shall kiss the feet.

    That a sentence passed by him may be retracted by no one; and that he himself, alone of all, may retract it. >That he himself may be judged by no one.

    That no one shall dare to condemn one who appeals to the apostolic chair. Dictatus papae [1075] (a compilation of 27 statements of powers arrogated to the Pope that was included in Pope Gregory VII's register under the year 1075):

    And Bellarmine held that even heretical popes cannot be deposed:

    ) the manifestly heretical Pope...can and must be deposed by the Church. To my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended

    Now, a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member united to us?

    ...that the Pope heretic can be truly and authoritatively deposed by the Church, is no less false than the first... it must be observed in the first place that, from the fact that the Pope deposes bishops, it is deduced that the Pope is above all the bishops, -

  • Reformation Reminders: Rome & Her Desecration of Christ

    11/20/2015 8:49:10 AM PST · 192 of 202
    daniel1212 to HereInTheHeartland; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; ...
    “Reformation Reminders: Rome & Her Desecration of Christ “ I thought FR banned these toxic types of threads?

    To my knowledge, and as one typically pinged to such, this article is the only one that outright denigrates the Catholic faith since the great censure of 7/19/2015 , and was posted by one who most likely did not know of that.

    Yet what was manifestly banned was not all posting of provocative articles by those who take their faith seriously (thus are strong conservatives), and which would basically make many of the very rules of the RF superfluous,but what was manifestly banned was the daily "sport" of outright attacks on Catholic faith, while later threads exhorted that the attacking of each other's faith by conservatives stop.

    But certain RCs it seems, as expected, presumed this was a none-way censure, and RCs alone continued to post provocative articles about Catholic distinctives, and as such call for reproof of their elitist one true church, which does not even consider Protestant churches worthy to properly be called such, then thus that has followed..

    And why would Prot. articles be banned, celebrating or explaining a faith that was the predominate historical faith of America, many of whose founders were understandably wary of Catholics, while provocative articles like "How the Rosary Led Me to Christ" (10/11/2015),and 3 days later, "Our Lady of Fatima – Her Prophecies and Warnings Remain as Essential as Ever!" and 2 days later, "Fox News’s Kirsten Powers announces: “I’m becoming Catholic!” (10/16/2015) and more are allowed?

    In addition, while rel. caucus threads typically see about 6 replies, and political ones maybe 50, it is provocative religion threads which often literally see hundreds (sometimes thousands) of replies, and indeed the most posts out of any subject.

    Which, besides giving FR a higher rating in traffic, and often appearing in Google searches on Cath/Prot issues of debate, testifies to the commitment to religious beliefs among many conservatives.

    One can hardly expect that such conservatives, whose beliefs flow from their faith, should be banned from expressing them and only speak on conservatives beliefs they agree on in the interest of saving American, when the historical faith of America was predominately Protestant, and thus protecting freedom of religious expression, even if favoring that faith.

    To deny both would not be consistent with American ideals, and to censure Prots while allowing only RCs to promote their distinctive faith is closer to favoring the Cath. monarchy essentially many anti-American RCs advocate. That would neither be Christian or American.

    Yet FR is not a public street, but a privately owned forum (which has basically banned Mormons), and thus i propose, and only as a guest here along with others who support conservative beliefs and traditional American values, that articles promoting distinctive faith beliefs or a particular church be limited to perhaps two per week, while allowing the sometimes heated debate under the balanced rules of the FR and under the and traditionally fair and religion moderators.

    Your response?

  • Reformation Reminders: Rome & Her Desecration of Christ

    11/19/2015 10:53:16 PM PST · 189 of 202
    daniel1212 to Diamond
    George Bancroft, History of the United States, Vol.4, p.81: Protestantism, in the sphere of politics, had hitherto been the representative of that increase of popular liberty which had grown out of free inquiry, while the Catholic church, under the early influence of Roman law and the temporal sovereignty of the Roman pontiff, had inclined to monarchical power. More and More..
  • Terrorist Alert: U.S. State Dept Warns Americans Abroad to Steer Clear of Vatican

    11/19/2015 10:22:37 PM PST · 54 of 61
    daniel1212 to a fool in paradise; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; ...
    White Hut disapproves of the Vatican’s opposition to abortion and homosexuality. Soviets wanted Russians and Poles to reject the Catholic Church as well.

    I expected someone would see this as anti-Catholic. But liberals do quite well with Cath. voters, and the RCC is quite affirmative of Muslims. Esp. the USCCB which is calling for the U.S. government to take in 100,000 Syrian refugees by the end of the year, along with 100,000 more from other countries.

  • Catholic Church Facilitates Foreign Invasion

    11/19/2015 10:11:13 PM PST · 63 of 71
    daniel1212 to Salvation
    Catholics suffered discrimination in the colonies just as they do now worldwide.

    Catholics made Christians suffer much worse under their "discrimination," like as Islam does now.

    Canons of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council (canon 3), 1215:

    Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath.

    But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler’s vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action.

    The same law is to be observed in regard to those who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent). Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land. (

  • Catholic Church Facilitates Foreign Invasion

    11/19/2015 8:09:11 PM PST · 53 of 71
    daniel1212 to Montana_Sam
    I am a Catholic, and so is everyone else who actually trusts what Jesus said in the Bible.

    That is quite a statement. If one said "I am a Southern Baptist , and so is everyone else who actually trusts what Jesus said in the Bible" I expect he would rightly be challenged. And thus you are, as the reality is that at best the church of Rome is basically invisible in Scripture, while sadly being the most manifest deformation of the NT church .

  • Catholic Church Facilitates Foreign Invasion

    11/19/2015 8:05:23 PM PST · 52 of 71
    daniel1212 to MarchonDC09122009
    Jesus and the apostles NEVER sanctioned the following:

    Bigger list here .

    And while we are glad many RCs are conservative, yet many of them support the traditional RC doctrine that is contrary to American Founders, and some even commend the Inquisitions and advocate for a Roman monarchy . In addition, their own "one true church" rejects Prot churches as being worthy of properly being called churches.

    Then they complain and demand censure when their defense or promotion of their elitist church is challenged,which is consistent with their support of Inquisitions. Those who defend them shall suffer judgments insofar as they are party to their errors, which are neither Scriptural or historically American.

  • Catholic Church Facilitates Foreign Invasion

    11/19/2015 8:02:41 PM PST · 51 of 71
    daniel1212 to Original Lurker
    There’s a reason the founding fathers had a profound disdain for the Vatican.


    Related .

  • Catholic Church Facilitates Foreign Invasion

    11/19/2015 8:00:19 PM PST · 50 of 71
    daniel1212 to Rusty0604; hal ogen; Original Lurker; huldah1776; MarchonDC09122009; miss marmelstein; caddie; ...
    Catholic charities are helping the Muslim invasion also, I suspect for the money.

    As are others: (see Scandal: U.S. Christian Groups are Prioritizing Muslim Refugees over Christian Ones.


    US Bishops Call for Influx of 200,000 Refugees WASHINGTON, October 13, 2015 ( - The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is appealing to the U.S. government to take in 100,000 Syrian refugees by the end of the year, along with an additional 100,000 from other countries. The population of Syrian refugees is overwhelmingly Muslim.

    And in addition to the modern RC historical attitude toward Israel (reluctant acceptance), the USCCB sees Muslims as brothers in faith, worshiping the same god.

    There is the large collection of statements by the USCCB -


    We feel sure that as representatives of Islam, you join in our prayers to the Almighty, that he may grant all African believers the desire for pardon and reconciliation so often commended in the Gospels and in the Qur’an...

    “Our pilgrimage to these holy places is not for purposes of prestige or power. It is a humble and ardent prayer for peace, through the intercession of the glorious protectors of Africa, who gave up their lives for love and for their belief. In recall the Catholic and Anglican Martyrs, We gladly recall also those confessors of the Muslim faith who were the first to suffer death, in the year 1848, for refusing to transgress the precepts of their religion.” - Paul VI, address to the Islamic communities of Uganda, August 1, 1969 [emp. mine.]

    “I deliberately address you as brothers: that is certainly what we are, because we are members of the same human family, whose efforts, whether people realize it or not, tend toward God and the truth that comes from him. But we are especially brothers in God, who created us and whom we are trying to reach, in our own ways, through faith, prayer and worship, through the keeping of his law and through submission to his designs...

    “As Christians and Muslims, we encounter one another in faith in the one God, our Creator and guide, our just and merciful judge. - John Paul II, address to representatives of the Muslims of Belgium, May 19, 1985

    We believe in the same God, the one God, the living God, the God who created the world and brings his creatures to their perfection...Both of us believe in one God, the only God, - John Paul II , address to the young Muslims of Morocco, August 19, 1985


    Evangelical leaders in the Middle East and North Africa are most likely to say religious conflict is a moderately big (37%) or very big (35%) problem. 55% of those in the Asia-Pacific region and 49% in sub-Saharan Africa also see inter- religious conflict as a moderately or very big problem. 90% who live in Muslim-majority countries say the influence of Islam is a major threat, compared with 41% of elsewhere. < -

  • Catholic Church Facilitates Foreign Invasion

    11/19/2015 7:25:03 PM PST · 49 of 71
    daniel1212 to hal ogen
    They have sold their souls and patriotism for $$$$. Ever hear of Judas?

    But there was only one Judas, not the majority.

  • Catholic Church Facilitates Foreign Invasion

    11/19/2015 6:00:34 PM PST · 40 of 71
    daniel1212 to miss marmelstein; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; ...
    One does not leave the Church over political reasons. One stays and fights and accepts the Holy Eucharist.

    Typical, the articles was not about leaving the church of Rome, and the fact is that liberals abundantly evidence they seem to feel quite at home in Rome.

    But rather than being upset at the fostering of Muslim immigration, which many other churches do also (see Scandal: U.S. Christian Groups are Prioritizing Muslim Refugees over Christian Ones. Here’s Why), the knee jerk reaction is to defend the church of Rome despite this, invoking one her

    primary erroneous beliefs .

  • Microsoft gets Edge on blocking ad injectors (browser now blocks devious ads, toolbars, crapware)

    11/19/2015 3:15:53 PM PST · 25 of 25
    daniel1212 to Boogieman
    I wasn’t referring to add-ons, I was referring to core features of Firefox that were present in previous versions, but have now been removed. Specifically, the ability to turn javascript on or off, that used to be a simple button click in the options, but they removed that feature. Now you will either have to install an extension to do that or edit your config files.

    I see. Also removing the menu bar by default, in making it like Chrome. But Firefox still is what i think is best overall for power users. Firefox.TabMixPlusetc

  • Microsoft gets Edge on blocking ad injectors (browser now blocks devious ads, toolbars, crapware)

    11/19/2015 2:45:22 PM PST · 24 of 25
    daniel1212 to r_barton
    Who said you only have to use one browser? I have all 4 installed and use what ever one I feel like at the time. Internet Explorer, Edge, Chrome and Firefox are all good. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. None is that much better than the other.

    Yes, thank God for being able to do that. I have Firefox with multiple profiles (for 64 bit, change your shortcut address to "C:\Program Files (x86)\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe" -no-remote -p [with the quotes. For 32 bit leave out the (x86), plus Pale Moon and Chrome, IE and Edge.

  • Microsoft gets Edge on blocking ad injectors (browser now blocks devious ads, toolbars, crapware)

    11/19/2015 12:42:36 PM PST · 21 of 25
    daniel1212 to Boogieman
    Seems like the real story is that Microsoft is following the trend of Firefox and removing features from its browser, removing options that users used to have, because some users are too stupid to figure out how to use them properly.

    If you want to punish everyone because the minority can’t help themselves from clicking every link they see, fine, but don’t tell me that it’s an upgrade.

    But most of the Firefox extensions work, and if not (like Menu Editor) try Disable Add-on Compatibility Checks :: Add-ons for Firefox

  • Microsoft gets Edge on blocking ad injectors (browser now blocks devious ads, toolbars, crapware)

    11/19/2015 12:36:58 PM PST · 20 of 25
    daniel1212 to Signalman
    I tried Edge. Which is why I use Chrome.

    Indeed, while I tried Edge, which is why I use Firefox as my main browser. To each his own on this, but as one who usually has about 100 tabs open, I want multiple tab rows, the ability to reduce tab width, and to toggle (ctrl+tab) btwn most recent tab (TabMixPlus), different colored tabs (Colorful Tabs) and save sessions (Session Manager), use custom scripts to do things like format to html as for FR (BBcodXtra), and do things GooglebarLight enables, and many other things enabled by FF extensions, but not for Chrome.

    Too spoiled perhaps.

  • Reformation Reminders: Rome & Her Desecration of Christ

    11/19/2015 11:29:22 AM PST · 188 of 202
    daniel1212 to MHGinTN

    Presuming the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility is akin to magic.

    The catholic Bible has alterations to passages so that the altered passages support heresies like thedeification of the Mother of Jesus, as one example.

    You mean such as "full of grace" in the Vulgate, while some RC translations have "highly faviored" or even "favored one' as the NAB.

    But it is what Rome did not change that is the problem for them, as it would not have been hard to add one prayer to angels or saints in glory, or one so that souls may be released from purgatory, and or one command to the churches submit to the holy father in Rome, or a mention of NT pastors titled "priests" officiating at the Lord supper, offering it up as a sacrifice for sins, or of souls consuming such in order to obtain spiritual life, etc.

    That all such are absent testifies against the Islamic assertion that the Bible was changed to say such things as they deny .

  • Scandal: U.S. Christian Groups are Prioritizing Muslim Refugees over Christian Ones. Here’s Why

    11/19/2015 8:18:30 AM PST · 24 of 24
    daniel1212 to Arm_Bears
    These organizations . . . acquire an average of some 70% of their revenue from taxpayer-funded federal grants and contracts.

    What the Hell happened to separation of church and state?

    That only applies when Biblical Christians are obtaining gov. support such as by receiving city trash removal services.