Posts by daniel1212

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Bishop Schneider Says Traditional Catholics Are Not “Extremest”, But Rather The Hope For The Future

    09/01/2014 8:54:00 PM PDT · 59 of 61
    daniel1212 to BlackElk
    You serve to remind me of why I, as a Catholic, make a point of not trying to tell the Reformed what their religion is or ought to be. It is simply none of my business as Catholicism is none of yours.

    This is just one more division among RCs, as other RCs manifestly disagree, as they keep on trying to tell the Reformed what their religion is or ought to be. And for our part Catholicism is our business, as in Scripture we are exhorted,

    And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. (Ephesians 5:11)

  • Bishop Schneider Says Traditional Catholics Are Not “Extremest”, But Rather The Hope For The Future

    09/01/2014 8:50:35 PM PDT · 58 of 61
    daniel1212 to Salvation
    According to whose authority and judgment?

    I will also ask of you one question, and answer me. By whose authority and judgment did common folk follow an itinerant preacher in the desert who was rejected by the magisterium, and on why basis did another itinerant preacher who invoked him when asked of His authority establish his Truth claims? Was it the premise of assured personal infallibility, or Scriptural substantiation? . Answer me.

    Is your RC argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.

    And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God?

  • Bishop Schneider Says Traditional Catholics Are Not “Extremest”, But Rather The Hope For The Future

    09/01/2014 8:01:56 PM PDT · 41 of 61
    daniel1212 to BlackElk; metmom; boatbums; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; CynicalBear; mitch5501; ...
    In better times, the schismatics would have all, after due inquiry and a brief opportunity for repentance, been burned at the stake.

    Just like in the NT church. Somewhat refreshing to see the traditional wolf vs the modern sheep's ecumenical clothing. But both holding to the foundationally contrary RC basis for Truth than what the church began under, sadly resulting in damnation and more errors.

  • The Low-Information Evangelical, Part 2

    09/01/2014 7:44:21 PM PDT · 82 of 84
    daniel1212 to dsc; metmom; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; Elsie
    Getting into an exchange with you leaves me feeling unclean. Since I did not affirm or deny anything about the Donation of Constantine, I guess it will end either when you stop lying or I resume ignoring you. Guess which.

    So now i am lying because i took your response at face value as a denial ("disinformation") of my assertion that the Donation of Constantine was a forgery? Them then tell me how your response says otherwise:

    “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine"; I have been wondering how you came to be in possession of so much disinformation. I’ve been reading a book called “The Da Vinci Hoax,” and now I think you got a lot of your information from “The Da Vinci Code.”

    You cite a source i provided, and then refer to so much disinformation, and that you think i get lot of my information from “The Da Vinci Code.” How then is this not a denial of my assertion that the Donation of Constantine was a forgery??? And that i am lying about you by taking this at face value? Does anyone else want to judge this matter (besides violating forum rules)?

    Or do you want to blame this your old age again?

  • The Low-Information Evangelical, Part 2

    09/01/2014 6:13:25 PM PDT · 77 of 84
    daniel1212 to dsc; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine"; I have been wondering how you came to be in possession of so much disinformation. I’ve been reading a book called “The Da Vinci Hoax,” and now I think you got a lot of your information from “The Da Vinci Code.”

    Yikes! So first you make a fallacious claim yourself, and now you deny that the Donation of Constantine was fallacious?! Where does it end? It was composed probably in the 8th century, and used especially in the 13th century, and later exposed as a forgery by a humanist Italian Catholic priest and others in the early 1400s, though its authenticity was occasionally defended till about 1600

    Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits this:

    Donation of Constantine: By this name is understood, since the end of the Middle Ages, a forged document of Emperor Constantine the Great, by which large privileges and rich possessions were conferred on the pope and the Roman Church....This document is without doubt a forgery, fabricated somewhere between the years 750 and 850.

    Most of the recent writers on the subject assume the origin of the "Donatio" between 752 and 795. Among them, some decide for the pontificate of Stephen II (752-757) on the hypothesis that the author of the forgery wished to substantiate thereby the claims of this pope in his negotiations with Pepin

    The first pope who used it in an official act and relied upon, was Leo IX; in a letter of 1054 to Michael Cærularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, he cites the "Donatio" to show that the Holy See possessed both an earthly and a heavenly imperium, the royal priesthood. Thenceforth the "Donatio" acquires more importance and is more frequently used as evidence in the ecclesiastical and political conflicts between the papacy and the secular power. Anselm of Lucca and Cardinal Deusdedit inserted it in their collections of canons. Gratian, it is true, excluded it from his "Decretum", but it was soon added to it as "Palea". The ecclesiastical writers in defence of the papacy during the conflicts of the early part of the twelfth century quoted it as authoritative

    St. Peter Damian also relied on it in his writings against the antipope Cadalous of Parma (Disceptatio synodalis, in Libelli de lite, I, 88). Gregory VII himself never quoted this document in his long warfare for ecclesiastical liberty against the secular power. But Urban II made use of it in 1091 to support his claims on the island of Corsica. Later popes (Innocent III, Gregory IX, Innocent IV) took its authority for granted (Innocent III, Sermo de sancto Silvestro, in P.L., CCXVII, 481 sqq.; Raynaldus, Annales, ad an. 1236, n. 24; Potthast, Regesta, no. 11,848), and ecclesiastical writers often adduced its evidence in favour of the papacy. The medieval adversaries of the popes, on the other hand, never denied the validity of this appeal to the pretended donation of Constantine, but endeavoured to show that the legal deductions drawn from it were founded on false interpretations. The authenticity of the document, as already stated, was doubted by no one before the fifteenth century.

    It was known to the Greeks in the second half of the twelfth century, when it appears in the collection of Theodore Balsamon (1169 sqq.); later on another Greek canonist, Matthæus Blastares (about 1335), admitted it into his collection. It appears also in other Greek works. Moreover, it was highly esteemed in the Greek East. The Greeks claimed, it is well known, for the Bishop of New Rome (Constantinople) the same honorary rights as those enjoyed by the Bishop of Old Rome. By now, by virtue of this document, they claimed for the Byzantine clergy also the privileges and perogatives granted to the pope and the Roman ecclesiastics. In the West, long after its authenticity was disputed in the fifteenth century, its validity was still upheld by the majority of canonists and jurists who continued throughout the sixteenth century to quote it as authentic. - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05118a.htm

    The Donation of Constantine (Latin, Donatio Constantini) is a forged Roman imperial decree by which the emperor Constantine I supposedly transferred authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire to the Pope. Composed probably in the 8th century, it was used, especially in the 13th century, in support of claims of political authority by the papacy.[1] Lorenzo Valla, an Italian Catholic priest and Renaissance humanist, is credited with first exposing the forgery with solid philological arguments in 1439–1440,[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine

    Now do you want to deny the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals were extensive and influential ninth century forgeries as well? RCs can make outlandish assertions such as there has never been a bit of anti-protestant bigotry on FR, as that is personal judgment (if assuming omniscience), but denying what is even admitted by Catholic authorities is simply untenable.

    To which can be added, The Catholic historian Paul Johnson in his 1976 work “History of Christianity” finds,

    By the third century, lists of bishops, each of whom had consecrated his successor, and which went back to the original founding of the see by one or the other of the apostles, had been collected or manufactured by most of the great cities of the empire and were reproduced by Eusebius…– “A History of Christianity,” pgs 53 ff.)

    Eusebius presents the lists as evidence that orthodoxy had a continuous tradition from the earliest times in all the great Episcopal sees and that all the heretical movements were subsequent aberrations from the mainline of Christianity.

    Looking behind the lists, however, a different picture emerges. In Edessa, on the edge of the Syrian desert, the proofs of the early establishment of Christianity were forgeries, almost certainly manufactured under Bishop Kune, the first orthodox Bishop....

    When Eusebius’s chief source for his Episcopal lists, Julius Africanus, tried to compile one for Antioch, he found only six names to cover the same period of time as twelve in Rome and ten in Alexandria. More .

    As for The Da Vinci Hoax, i have exposed that as fallacious as well, by God's grace, and is not based on Rome's actual forgeries. And in fact, as these forgeries were useful to supply what Scripture does not testifies that Rome did not change the Bible to conform to herself. It would not have been hard to include one mention of addressing saints in prayers to Heaven, or titling NT pastors "priests" and of them dispensing the Eucharist as life-giving flesh and blood, interpretive of the gospels. Etc.

  • The Low-Information Evangelical, Part 2

    09/01/2014 12:33:10 PM PDT · 65 of 84
    daniel1212 to Springfield Reformer

    Don’t hold your breath. A major recourse for RCs is the argument from silence in attempting to appeal to Scripture to support traditions of men which do not rest upon the weight of Scriptural evidence for their claimed veracity.

  • Millennial Series: Part 10: The Historical Context of Premillennialism

    09/01/2014 12:29:59 PM PDT · 118 of 142
    daniel1212 to one Lord one faith one baptism

    i repeat, RCs should at least be able to concur that the Lord’s return awaits the recognition by all Israel, upon whom a hardening has come due to their “unbelief” toward Jesus.

  • The Low-Information Evangelical, Part 2

    09/01/2014 6:39:07 AM PDT · 56 of 84
    daniel1212 to rwilson99; Alex Murphy; metmom; boatbums; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; CynicalBear; ...
    That said... Our bible includes 7 books in the Old Testament that were the most cited by Christ in those Gospels... so watch that thing in your eye :)

    What? Following one error with another is simply another argument against being an RC. Show me (your list) that the apocryphal books were the most cited - not possible allusions or similarities and or the usual RC recourse to extrapolation - by Christ in those Gospels.

    , And where merely enlisting a statement from somewhere (versus "thus saith the Lord," "the Scriptures," "the word of God," "it is written," "the law saith," Moses or the prophets...) renders the work as wholly inspired of God.

    Or that Luther dissented from an infallible indisputable canon that was settled for centuries.

    Rome may presume to declare Truth by fiat, but you are on a forum not controlled by the inquisitors or Catholic Answers mods.

  • The Low-Information Evangelical, Part 2

    09/01/2014 6:18:28 AM PDT · 55 of 84
    daniel1212 to Elsie
    It also allows vague, unsourced claims to be made about unnamed people for unspecified reasons.

    Indeed.

  • The Low-Information Evangelical, Part 2

    09/01/2014 6:16:43 AM PDT · 54 of 84
    daniel1212 to dsc
    I, in my old age and infirmity, misspoke. I regret my error.

    That's good, but you have lot of company it seems.

    While it is unfortunate, it is still not in a class with the professional liars one encounters

    Be careful throwing rocks at known or anonymous liars, Rome herself made use of the works of such done in the interest of supplying what Scripture does not.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Isidorian_Decretals

    http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/forgeries.html

    In addition are the often misrepresentations of Luther uncritically parroted by RCs, who strangely seem to think we are like hem and follow men as popes or see him as faultless and determinative of doctrine.

  • If No One Is Pope, Everyone is Pope – A Homily for the 21st Sunday of the Year

    09/01/2014 4:56:10 AM PDT · 590 of 590
    daniel1212 to CTrent1564
    We are not talking about marriage, we are talking about Luke 1:28 an the other verses that deal with Mary. I provided the Saint Thomas Aquinias Patristic commentary “Catena Aurea” which has all the patristic commentaries on Luke Chapter 1. None, not one had an interpretation that fits Calvin, Knox, or Zwingli. Again, I gave you the theological commentaries on Luke Chapter 1 and it is not only Jerome’s views that are consistent with what I posted, Ambrose, Augustine, Basil and all the others as well.

    That is much another argument from silence, as besides the eisegetical Jerome i found nothing on Lk. 1:28 asserting "full of grace" is what the Greek meant, which it does not. Nor are ECFs always in agreement with each other and or Rome, but it remains that your premise is that Rome must be right and cannot be wrong as the historical steward of Scripture, if she does say so herself, by which reasoning you invalidate the church.

    Good day to you and please don’t post to me again. I have tried to remain as charitable as I can be towards you even though you have thrown the loaded term “cult” numerous times

    Using straw men such as accusing me of being like a pope is not charitable but ignorance or dishonesty, which the fact remains that both cults and Rome operate out of the same sola ecclesia premise, that their magisterium is the supreme authority, not Scripture, and all your conclusions are driven by that, contrary to objectively examining the evidence in order to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching. To do so would be to doubt the assured veracity of Rome which she claims for herself, and by which you have your assurance. That is cultic, unless Rome is God.

    So again, lets just be done here and please don’t post to me again. I will respond in kind.

    You have tried this more than once in the past , and it's your call, but don't assume you can respond and expect me to be silence, and you started this by responding to a post that was not to you.

  • Ebola Infected Doctor Mocked for Thanking God for Healing

    09/01/2014 4:32:28 AM PDT · 50 of 62
    daniel1212 to Springfield Reformer

    Good words.

  • Ebola Infected Doctor Mocked for Thanking God for Healing

    09/01/2014 4:30:25 AM PDT · 49 of 62
    daniel1212 to barney10
    First time I have been ever called an atheist or superficial, I was merely responding to a post, that inferred that God may have used the good doctor’s illness for the purpose of revealing God’s glory.

    But which expressed a superficial understanding typical of atheists seen in their scorning.

    And, regarding my son in the proverbial jungle... I would want him to follow me, but I would solicit his advice and encourage his questions; just in case I might be on the wrong path.

    The Lord asked many questions of His disciples, encouraging logical conclusions, honesty and communication, but not due to the possibility that He might be on the wrong path, as that was as clear as the sun is bright.

    Also, I think it is intellectually dishonest to quote scripture, as a substitute, for original thought.

    My quote was not as a substitute for my own reasoned argumentation, but for support in a theological context. By the reasoning behind your censure, it would be intellectually dishonest to quote founding fathers for support as one greater than thyself, or the Constitution as authoritative in the context of what it means to be constitutional.

  • North Korea hosts pro-wrestling tournament - video

    08/31/2014 8:26:07 PM PDT · 17 of 19
    daniel1212 to Fungi

    First giant NBA players, and now wrestlers. I suspect this is a breeding program to create some sort of super race for the “great leader.” It seems they did this in the past with GI’s.

  • Ebola Infected Doctor Mocked for Thanking God for Healing

    08/31/2014 8:02:10 PM PDT · 41 of 62
    daniel1212 to deadrock
    I have news for you....he is mocked all the time. By the very fact Muslims breath is proof enough.

    No sure what you meant by that, but what that text means is obviously not that God is not mocked, but not mocked with no consequence. Assuming you are male and married, saying "my wife does not get insulted" to a man who is doing so carries a connotation that is conveyed in context.

  • Ebola Infected Doctor Mocked for Thanking God for Healing

    08/31/2014 7:55:38 PM PDT · 39 of 62
    daniel1212 to barney10; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer
    Well then God must be very dramatic... to give someone Ebola, just to reveal his glory...

    That is a typical atheistic superficial understanding of theology expressed in their scorn, but what Scripture teaches is that God does not seek glory or do things out of some need for it, but instead, God commands worship, esp. from His covenanted people as it is right and necessary to worship and live for what is alone perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.

    If you had a fearful or independent willful son in the jungle, you would not admonish him to follow and obey you due to ego, and may display your strength and skill to teach him what he should value and who he should trust, rather than some vain thing. Likewise you would hope your daughter would admire your good wife versus the loose women next door. What we trust, love and admire most will determine our actions.

    And what is best for man is to worship and thus live for God, for setting your ultimate affection and allegiance upon, or finding your ultimate security in anything created will fail you. Whatever that is, is our god, at least at that moment, and what we worship orders our life's and what we wil become.

    Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children; And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us... (Ephesians 5:1-2)

  • Millennial Series: Part 10: The Historical Context of Premillennialism

    08/31/2014 7:27:09 PM PDT · 95 of 142
    daniel1212 to one Lord one faith one baptism; redleghunter; CynicalBear; metmom
    so to admit there is “the Israel of God” that is not national Israel should bring the dispensational wrath upon you, but since you don’t hold to the historical orthodox Christian Faith, you probably are safe.

    I do not know how much i conform to eschatological labels, which can vary within such, but since you are wrong what the historical orthodox Christian Faith is according to Scripture, versus Rome , and resort to straw men or propaganda, and or spitwads, you already had made the marginalized list of RC posters.

    In any case, a good description the different views on this can be found by H. Wayne House in "THE FUTURE OF NATIONAL ISRAEL ", who states,

    Dispensational theologians agree that Romans 11:26 refers to fu- ture, national Israel. They contend that in Romans Paul consistently uses the term to describe national Israel in contrast to Gentiles, and that Paul always uses the term to mean national Israel. 71 ... Dispensationalists then discuss when this national salvation will occur and to whom among the nations “all Israel” refers. - BIBLIOTHECA SACRA 166 (October–December 2009):

    And RCs should at least be able to concur that the Lord's return awaits the recognition by all Israel, upon whom a hardening has come due to their "unbelief" toward Jesus.

  • The Low-Information Evangelical, Part 2

    08/31/2014 2:21:30 PM PDT · 36 of 84
    daniel1212 to metmom

    But you miss the redundant practiced play and the perfunctory professions it promotes.

  • Millennial Series: Part 10: The Historical Context of Premillennialism

    08/31/2014 1:08:15 PM PDT · 63 of 142
    daniel1212 to redleghunter
    See above post, and while there is "the Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16) meaning the elect, Rm. 11, as shown here makes it clear that there is also the "natural branches" Israel, thus it is written that "Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded," (Romans 11:7)

    For "blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in." (Romans 11:25) But then God will reverse the curse, "And so all Israel [the natural branches coning to faith and joining the Israel of God as elect] shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away unGodliness from Jacob: (Romans 11:26)

    But it seems some Caths do not believe this prophecy.

  • Millennial Series: Part 10: The Historical Context of Premillennialism

    08/31/2014 12:53:28 PM PDT · 59 of 142
    daniel1212 to CynicalBear
    You have obviously no understanding of what is meant by the term “literal interpretation” in light of interpreting scripture. The term is used for those who interpret the words literally unless it is obvious and other passages back up a non literal meaning. You are proving over and over again that you are ill equipted to debate the meaning of scripture.

    You mean unlike as seen for 50 years in sanctioned Catholic Bible commentary, which relegates stories like Jonah and the fish, Balaam and the donkey to be fables, the conquests of Joshua to be folk tales, and questions whether Jesus Christ was actually involved in some conversations which the gospel records, and thinks that most of which Jesus is recorded as saying was probably theological elaboration by the writers, and who likewise simply placed the Lord Jesus on a hill in giving the sermon on the Mount etc.

  • The Low-Information Evangelical, Part 2

    08/31/2014 12:27:00 PM PDT · 34 of 84
    daniel1212 to dsc
    The Internet is a wonderful resource. It also provides fallacious information for the malicious to use in spreading error.

    So why did you engage in it? Or do you defend your fallacious assertion?

  • Millennial Series: Part 10: The Historical Context of Premillennialism

    08/31/2014 11:13:07 AM PDT · 51 of 142
    daniel1212 to metmom
    You’re starting with at least one false premise about what dispensationalists believe so it’s no wonder that you are confused and misunderstanding what is being said. Your opinion about dispensationalists is not fact.

    I'll say! Quite the broad brush even WP could help with.

  • The Low-Information Evangelical, Part 2

    08/31/2014 11:08:30 AM PDT · 31 of 84
    daniel1212 to dsc; Alex Murphy; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; ...
    As a matter of fact, if you go to Mass every day for three years, you will hear the entire Bible read aloud

    As a matter of fact, i think (as a former RC lector) this is another parroted dubious claim. There is no official statement, but based on one priest's count, going to daily mass would result in hearing 13.5 % of the OT (w/o Psalms) and and 71.5 % of the NT being read during the Sundays & Weekdays cycle. Alex calculates this to be only 12.7% of the entire Bible (excluding Psalms) being heard by a weekly-Mass-attending Catholic.

    In response to your common "Mass every day for three years, you will hear the entire Bible" assertion, a Catholic at Catholic Answers (http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=1063633&postcount=9) finds,

    The readings for Sunday Mass are repeated every three years. The reading for Weekday Mass are repeated every two years. The following table, based on my own calculations (and therefore likely not entirely error-free), will give you an idea of about what percentage of the Bible, Testament, or each individual book of the Bible, you might hear read at Mass over the course of any three-year period, based on the number of verses read. (Note: All optional Mass readings were included. Also, a verse was counted even if only part of verse is used.)

    Book(s) (verses) . . . . . . Sundays only . . Sundays & Weekdays



    Entire Bible (35478). . . . . . 14% (5035) . . . 30% (10722)
    Old Testament (27524) . . . 6% (1663) . . . . 18% (4830)



    Book(s) (verses) . . . . . . . . . Sundays only . . Sundays & Weekdays

    New Testament (7954) . . . . . . 42% (3372) . . . . 74% (5892)

    And it is hard to hear the entire bible when it seems even in the weekly Sundays & Weekdays cycle Obadiah doesn't get a single reading, and only 1% of 1 Chronicles and 3% of 2 Chronicles, 5% of Leviticus and Lamentations, and 6% of Numbers and Proverbs, and 7% of Joshua and 8% of Ezra and Job (just in the under 10% category) are read.

    Moreover, some readings are partial verses, while much of the amount of Scripture RCs are said to hear in mass is redundancy, with some even including "Amen" or like brief statements in their calculations.

    In addition, while never universally banning personal Bible reading by the laity, or never printing some in the vernacular, Rome certainly hindered it during much of her history, while in modern times teaching liberal revisionism via her sanctioned Bible helps for decades.

  • The Low-Information Evangelical, Part 2

    08/31/2014 7:22:09 AM PDT · 28 of 84
    daniel1212 to WXRGina
    The Bible tells us that the enemy will indeed perform “miracles” and signs and wonders. The deception is and will be very deep in these last days.

    While such so-called money-raising "faith teachers" and and false prophet must be exposed, the problem is with gong to the other extreme, that excluding miracles, as Christianity, and indeed Abrahamic faith is based upon miracles, testifying to God being the living God, not just one you read about.

    . What set the God of Abraham above other deities was the miracle of Issac, while souls did not follow Moses because he was a great orator, nor were the Hebrews called to faith and obedience in the one true God on the strength of apologetical arguments.

    Yet the first 3 miracles of Moses were duplicated by the magicians. (Exodus 7:10-11, 21-22; 8:6-7) Faced with this today, once camp will cite this as justification for excluding all miracles, while another will open the door so wide that modern-day magicians can be preachers.

    Thru Moses the Law was given, and it, and Scripture as written, became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God, as is abundantly evidenced .

    (And which also testifies (Lk. 24:27,44, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so - essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation, and thus they provide for a canon of Scripture.

    Yet nowhere in Scripture did God cease to do miracles, and these confirmed both men and writings of God as being so.

    And which was part of the Scriptural substantiation upon which the Lord Jesus and early church established their Truth claims, following itinerant preachers in dissent from those who claimed to know the Law. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 6:1-0; 12:12, etc.)

    Paul is still working miracles in Acts 27, though the occasions for these had been reduced due to his captivity, Christ stated that "the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me," and likewise "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father."(John 14:12).

    While not all are "workers of miracles," (1Cor. 12:29) which is a particular apostolic testimony (2Cor. 12:12) along with other things, the degree of which i do not see today, nor do i know of any verified forth-telling prophet, and see tongues as something easily fabricated or abused, if not dismissing them at all, yet i also see no real justification for cessationism, and the need for the Lord to confirm the Word with signs following, which is what Scripture testifies to and promises.

    The word of God is as new to many souls, and skepticism just as high or higher, than in the 1st century, and while God owes grace to no one, miracles can be as much a help to seekers as then - and a warning to the lost and refutation of them. And with the rise of atheistic evolution and other modern challenges to faith then if anything, miraculous evidences testifying to a risen Christ are surely fitting. We do not serve a theoretical Deity, but a risen Savior.

    Most cessationists do not doctrinally exclude all miracles (even if not expecting them it seems), but exclude the miraculous gifts of 1Cor. 12, seeing the canon of Scripture being closed as constituting the coming of that which is "perfect" in 1Cor. 13. But all the characteristics which accompany that which is perfect, which means knowing as also we are known, are not yet realized, not due to faulty transmission but reception, and only fully correspond to the face to face revelation of Christ in 1Jn. 3:2).

    The revelatory gifts are esp. singled out for exclusion as being contrary to the supremacy and sufficiency of Scripture, However, Scripture is and has always been the supreme standard for testing Truth claims as the wholly inspired and assured word of God, to which all must conform to, while the sufficiency of Scripture is only formal in part. So that while one can read a text as Acts 10:36-43 and understand how to be saved, yet even the ability to reason in understanding that text, as well as teachers to help understanding others, is something Scripture only materially provides for, by why of sanction.

    And which also materially provides for supplementary revelation, from the impressions of the Spirit as to God's specific will in applying what Scripture says - and which it may be safe to say every secessionist preacher believes in during the offering - to words of exhortation and edification, or a word of wisdom or knowledge in certain situations, even if by souls who deny such gifts. These do not add to the canon of Scripture, but like preaching, must be tested by Scripture, the assured word of God, the supreme standard which provides for such supplementary helps.

    Excluding miracles is "safer" than allowing them, as thus we can reject fabrications and the demonic. However it is also sterile, and is not Christianity, which itself depends upon the miracle of being born of the Spirit, and preaches of a risen Savior who gives witness to His resurrection in not only the new birth but in other miracles, including working thru believers.

    And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen. (Mark 16:20)

  • If No One Is Pope, Everyone is Pope – A Homily for the 21st Sunday of the Year

    08/30/2014 6:50:01 PM PDT · 587 of 590
    daniel1212 to Springfield Reformer; CTrent1564
    These are the words of God. This is holy ground. It demands respect. We cannot come to this ground and tell God what to say. Instead we must sit and respectfully listen to the words He has given us as He gave them to us.

    True whether we do so or not. As i pointed out, the church began because the laity saw the Truth while the leadership did not/would not.

    White debates this issue here and gets into detail with the Greek. (The fact that the Roman Catholic Church has to attempt to build such a complex theology on the form of a participle in a greeting should say a great deal in and of itself.)

    And Swan stated ,

    I was though pleased recently to hear Roman Catholic Magisterium interpreter Jimmy Akin say of Luke 1:28 on the word kecharitomene: "This is a Greek term that you could use in that exact grammatical formation for someone else who wasn't immaculately conceived and the sentence would still make sense." He then gives the example of using the term of Mary's grandmother. He also stated, "This is something where I said previously, we need the additional source of information from tradition and we need the guidance of the magisterium to be able to put these pieces together." This is a frank admission that the text does not plainly support the Roman Catholic interpretation and needs to be supplemented by another ultimate authority. In other words, the IC must be read into Luke 1:28.

  • If No One Is Pope, Everyone is Pope – A Homily for the 21st Sunday of the Year

    08/30/2014 6:28:05 PM PDT · 586 of 590
    daniel1212 to Springfield Reformer
    Please do not take offense at this, but I have to point this out. That is a circular argument. You are concluding, in advance, that the text supports your position, therefore the "best" translation is the one that supports the conclusion you've already chosen though other means, patristics, tradition, what your priest told you, whatever. That's not how you do Biblical translation. If you want to know what it means to be your own pope, that is the very example of it, predetermining a conclusion then insisting the inspired text conform to that conclusion.

    Indeed, but stand by for the same response

  • If No One Is Pope, Everyone is Pope – A Homily for the 21st Sunday of the Year

    08/30/2014 6:25:50 PM PDT · 585 of 590
    daniel1212 to CTrent1564; metmom; boatbums; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; CynicalBear; mitch5501; ...
    Again, I don’t care what your views or on the matter. .

    Once again, that is your fundamental flaw. So once again, seeing as you affirm that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth;

    And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium, so that those who dissent from the latter are in some form of rebellion to God,

    How could both men and writings of God be established as being so without an assuredly infallible magisterium? And how could laity be right in following an itinerant preacher in the desert who ate insects, seeing as he reproved and disagreed with the magisterium who sat in the seat of Moses, as being the historical magisterium and stewards of Scripture?

    As well as another itinerant preacher who reproved them by Scripture, and invoked the baptism of the first itinerant preacher when challenged to name who gave Him His authority? (Mk. 11:27-33)

    Consistent with the "who are you to disagree with the historical magisterium" premise of RCs, then all should have followed those who sat in the seat of Moses. But if the church began with common people being right, and the magisterium being wrong, and Truth claims being established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) versus your premise of the assured veracity of Rome, then you and your church are operating out of a foundationally contrary premise than the NT began under.

    You elevate yourself to sole interpreter of scripture.

    Resorting again and again to this fallacious charge, akin to saying i am making myself a pope, speaks of desperation, or an inability to deal with refutation, which i have shown you before. Again, appealing to the weight of wholly inspired Scriptural substantiation as the basis for credibility is not the same as presuming personal infallibility, which is your basis via reliance upon Rome which presumes this.

    With respect to Luke 1:28, the commentary of the Patristics on this passage is supportive of the Catholic position

    There is nothing wrong with seeking help, but an RC cannot objectively examine a text in order to ascertain its veracity, but the the Lord did not expect 1st c. Hebrew souls to always follow the traditional interpretation of their magisterium.

    Meanwhile, there is actually nothing said by the two "fathers" listed in Lk. 1:28 besides Jerome, who, as with Gn. 2, examples how he can read into a verse what the text simply does not say. Even if what he makes this text say was true (that Mary uniquely was full of grace, which Scripture says the Lord was), yet it remains that this is not what the Greek words mean.

    )Saint Jerome, the greatest biblical scholar of the Church

    Which presumes much if meant of all time, and which does not translate into faithful rendering (the devil knows more). I have already shown how Jerome could read into Scripture what He wanted it to say in exegesis, and some cite evidence to his views on women doing likewise in his translation (though i certainly uphold the headship of men in the church and home).

    And as Leslie J. Hoppe, O.F.M. writes ,

    One problem was the character of Latin. In Jerome’s day, it was a fixed language that resisted new vocabulary. But Latin did not have words that corresponded to some of the religious language of the Bible. This required adopting Greek words into Latin or forcing Latin words to bear new meanings.

    The principle that Jerome used as he translated was not “word for word” but “sense for sense.” Today the type of translation that Jerome favored is called “dynamic equivalence..” (http://www.americancatholic.org/messenger/Sep1997/feature2.asp)

    This “dynamic equivalence..” which the poor NIV also uses, means you are more likely to read what the translators think a word or phrase should say rather than what it does say.

    in Luke 1:28 is the only place in the entire Bible where an angel addressed someone by a title rather than personal expression.

    Another invention. ,Hail, "highly favoured" is not a title, but a greeting which describes what she is, like as Daniel who is called by the angel, "greatly beloved," (Dan. 10:11) and unlike where the Lord does give people a new title/name, the Holy Spirit never uses this sppsdly new title again - or gives her other titles in stark contrast to the approx 900 of Catholicism - but continues to call her Mary.

    Saint Luke could have translated the passage as pleres Charitos, as he did in Acts 6:6 with respect to Saint Stephen yet he used a different expression in Luke 1:28 for Mary [kecharitomene] that is more revealing than the other rendering as it indicates God has already Graced Mary previous to this point, making her a vessel who has been and is now filled with Divine Life.

    The issue is not whether Mary was graced, even before the salutation, bu whether Lk. 1:28 states was uniquely full of grace. And this attempt to force Scripture to support Rome is actually another argument against her. The reason "plērēs is not used in Lk. 1:28 is because that actually does denote "full" 17 other places in the NT., and thus it is used of the one who was/is unmistakably full of grace and Truth. And which was unmistakably previous to this point.

    Nor does kecharitomene (one form of the verb "charitoo") being a perfect passive participle translate into meaning a "a perfection of grace," or distinctively a past action, in distinction to echaritosen (another form of the verb "charitoo") used in Eph. 1:6, as there also it refers to a present state based upon a past action, "To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted [echaritosen] in the beloved." (Ephesians 1:6)

    If Mary was perfectly full of grace as bearing Christ then it would say she was full of grace, as Christ was, (plērēs charis).

    Alternative translations like “favored one” or “highly favored” are possible but inadequate.

    No, only to souls who want to think of mortals "above that which is written," (1Cor. 4:60 and which this is part of. We must respect the Spirit's silence as well as statements, and Mary was a holy women chosen to be the instrument for the Christ who created her, yet she is mentioned in a rather marginal degree, while far more press is given to the apostle Paul describing his suffering for Christ and labor, and righteousness under severe testing, but who is very marginal to Caths compared with Mary.

    Saint Augustine, Saint Ambrose and Saint Augustine’s commentaries linked earlier, support the Catholic Position. The 16th century protestant rebels support your view.

    And the church began with rebels against those whom RCs would follow, consistent with their unBiblical basis for determining Truth. You can have them as Hell will also. May God grant you repentance.

  • If No One Is Pope, Everyone is Pope – A Homily for the 21st Sunday of the Year

    08/30/2014 6:20:54 PM PDT · 584 of 590
    daniel1212 to CTrent1564
    Except Saint Jerome, who new Greek better than you Mr Internet self professed ex Catholic theologian and he indeed translated the passage as “Ava Maria plena gratia”. So did Jerome not understand the nuances of the style of Greek that the NT was written in and it took Protestants, and in particular, American protestants 1,600 years to figure it out.

    This simply is another example of the problem. As the RC must support Rome, so he/she uncritically follows men when they do so, and resorts to ad hominems and the unScriptural premise that unlettered men cannot be correct refuting scholars.

    Yet i have already exposed Jerome as wresting Scripture to support his denigration of marriage (Gn. 2: "two is not a good number because it destroys unity, and prefigures the marriage compact. Hence it was that all the animals which Noah took into the ark by pairs were unclean. Odd numbers denote cleanness"), while it remains that in the Greek "full of grace" would be "plaras karitos" but i in Luke 1:28 it is "kexaritomena" which means "highly favored one," or graced, which the DRB inconsistently but rightly uses in Eph 1:6.

    And evidently the translators of the official Catholic NAB Bible also thought they knew Greek better than Jerome, as they also render Lk. 1:28 as "Hail, favored one!"

    ,In contrast, the only one (though Stephen in Acts 6:8, in some mss) said to be full of grace is the Lord Jesus, "full ("plērēs) of grace (charis) and truth," (Jn. 1:14) using "plērēs," which denotes "full" 17 other places in the NT

    Do not be like the scorning Pharisees, "Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?" (John 7:47-48)

  • If No One Is Pope, Everyone is Pope – A Homily for the 21st Sunday of the Year

    08/30/2014 6:20:24 PM PDT · 583 of 590
    daniel1212 to CTrent1564
    Again, see earlier post and you never delt with the question I posed which was not posed you to start with.

    Really? You made this ambiguous assertion before, and i showed you what you need to deal with, while if i am to deal with a question which was not even posted to me to start with, learn to link to it rather than making me guess.

    Go grind your axe somewhere else.

    It was you who began the exchange with me by responding to a post to someone else, and now that you have manifest that you effectively have invalidated the NT by your contrary basis for assurance of Truth, you wish i would go away. Sorry, but as long as you want to get involved in defending and promoting your elitist cultic org which misleads souls, then you must face the heat of the kitchen. If not, then it is you who must leave.

  • Do Good for Your Own Self’: Osteen Says Obedience, Worship ‘Not for God’

    08/30/2014 6:36:19 AM PDT · 70 of 91
    daniel1212 to aquila48
    I’m no fan of Osteen, bit I truly believe that if our highest ethic was to take care of yourself first, the world would be a much better place.

    Likely you mean as in being self reliant, or dealing with your own problems first, but in context, making your own happiness the highest ethic in taking care of yourself, is why both Osteen's church is full and libs are too much in office: "Think not what you can do for God and country, but what they can do for you."

  • US Shale: What Lies Beneath

    08/30/2014 5:41:20 AM PDT · 22 of 26
    daniel1212 to Lorianne

    I get “Sign up for quick access to 8 articles per month, including: US shale: What lies beneath” pop up, but no article.

  • Do Good for Your Own Self’: Osteen Says Obedience, Worship ‘Not for God’

    08/30/2014 5:29:54 AM PDT · 55 of 91
    daniel1212 to dfwgator
    “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. Care to explain why you are quoting Aleister Crowley

    Thelema (/θəˈliːmə/) is a religion based on a philosophical law of the same name, which has been adopted as a central tenet by some religious organizations. The law of Thelema is "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Love is the law, love under will." The law of Thelema was developed in the early 1900s by Aleister Crowley, an English writer and ceremonial magician

    "The Thelemic pantheon includes a number of deities, primarily a trinity adapted from ancient Egyptian religion...The philosophy also emphasizes the ritual practice of Magick." "Thelemic magick is a system of physical, mental, and spiritual exercises which practitioners believe are of benefit.[58] Crowley defined magick as "the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will".. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thelema

    In any case, even the Christian version, "Love God and do what you will," as well as the Golden Rule, presupposes a foundational moral code which teaches what God wills, and what one should want or not want done unto them. Which for an atheist does not exist in any transcendent supreme form.

  • Do Good for Your Own Self’: Osteen Says Obedience, Worship ‘Not for God’

    08/30/2014 5:19:50 AM PDT · 54 of 91
    daniel1212 to CaptainMorgantown
    By one interpretation, what she is saying here is that by going to church and worshiping, you are not just obeying arbitrary rules, you are doing what you are made for - that is what will ultimately give you joy and fulfillment in this life and the life to come.

    While Christian obedience brings happiness of soul, if done in order to be blessed then it i will work against obedience, and will not bring true lasting joy.

    Once one's own happiness becomes the motive, and not to please the One who gives us life, breath and all things, sacrificially "spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all," (Romans 8:32) then we will be selective in obedience, and will become more easily tempted to indulge in sins which offer us happiness, since that is out motive.

    Instead, while in condescension to man God does appeal to self interest in order to motivate him to salvation and growth, this is not conformity to Christ and His joy, but true obedience is that which is driven by desire to make the One who is perfect happy, and at its highest form is not even motivated by the danger of negative consequences of disobedience.

    Motive in obedience is to start and end with God, and like the the flocks of Jacob which conceived after the rods they looked at, so we will be conformed to Christ if He is our supreme object of affect and allegiance, and our desire is to please Him to His glory.

    Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. (John 4:34)

    And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him. (John 8:29)

    We love him, because he first loved us. (1 John 4:19)

    Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more. (1 Thessalonians 4:1)

    For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. (2 Corinthians 5:14-15)

    No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier. (2 Timothy 2:4)

    Now to do it better and more!

  • Do Good for Your Own Self’: Osteen Says Obedience, Worship ‘Not for God’

    08/30/2014 4:49:12 AM PDT · 50 of 91
    daniel1212 to JohnKinAK; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer
    Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. (1 Corinthians 10:31)

    While God does seek our welfare, we are not to do good for that reason, which is self worship, but to honor the author of good, God. God is not seeking worship because His ego needs it, as atheist charge, for He needs nothing (Acts 17:25) and is constantly, giving, even to giving that which could not be replaced, sparing not His own Son.. (Rm. 8:32) who gave Himself for me. (Gal. 2:200

    Instead, God commands worship, esp. from His covenanted people as it is right and necessary to worship and live for what is alone perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. Whatever that is, is our god, at least at that moment, and what we worship orders our life's actions.

    And it is what is best for man to worship and thus live for God, for setting your ultimate affection and allegiance upon, or finding your ultimate security in anything created will fail you.

  • Google Threat to FreeRepublic

    08/30/2014 4:28:07 AM PDT · 147 of 179
    daniel1212 to Jim Robinson
    I found the offending img link on that thread and pulled the reply in question.

    Good job. So in less than 30 minutes and at 1:45am the issue is dealt with by the owner. Do you ever sleep?!

  • California lawmakers pass first US plastic bag ban

    08/30/2014 4:20:06 AM PDT · 23 of 54
    daniel1212 to Olog-hai
  • If No One Is Pope, Everyone is Pope – A Homily for the 21st Sunday of the Year

    08/30/2014 4:13:38 AM PDT · 565 of 590
    daniel1212 to Springfield Reformer; Elsie; roamer_1; CTrent1564
    True. An honorific would be some stately addition to a name done routinely as a matter of expectation. There is some literature that reflects this using abba, but I am at work and haven’t had a decent opportunity to check primary sources.

    For all pastors to be formally called "father" by all then they would have to be spiritual fathers of them, which is not true any more than that all Mormon "elders" re my elder, and requiring they be called what they are not is not right in either case, nor that they are distinctively "priests." But cults are their own authority.

  • If No One Is Pope, Everyone is Pope – A Homily for the 21st Sunday of the Year

    08/30/2014 4:13:12 AM PDT · 564 of 590
    daniel1212 to CTrent1564; Elsie; roamer_1; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; ...
    Do you not agree that Mary was given Grace by God before the coming of CHrist, or do you reject the Gospel passage as recorded by Saint Luke. Highly or Most Favored is an english translation that is dynamic equivalent to the most literal meaning which is endowed with Grace and because she was endowed by God’s Grace, she was truly free,

    And believers are also said to be charitoō, graced, "highly favored - RC "full of grace" (Eph. 1:6) as being in Christ, and called to service for Him.

    Mary is called "full of grace" by Catholics, yet the Scriptures do not say she was "full of grace," as "charitoo" in Lk. 1:28, is never used for "full" elsewhere, but Lk. 1:28 simply says “Hail [chairō=rejoice, greeting, etc.] grace [chairō, denoting to be graced, favored, enriched with grace as in Eph.1:6. .

    Much more technical here:

    Here’s the text IN GREEK:

    καὶ εἰσελθὼν πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη, ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ.

    κεχαριτωμένη, is the pf. pass. ptcp. of χαριτόω (charitoō). It is the single Greek word kexaritomena and means highly favored, make accepted, make graceful, etc. REPEATED: It is a passive participle derived from charitoō. It does not mean "full of grace" or ‘completely filled with grace’ which is "plaras karitos" (plaras = full and karitos = Grace) in the Greek....

    In contrast, the only one (though in some mss Stephen, in Acts 6:8) said to be full of grace is the Lord Jesus, "full ("plērēs) of grace (charis) and truth," using "plērēs," which denotes "full" 17 other places in the NT.

    However, seeking to compel Scripture to support her tradition of men, Lk, 1:28 was wrongly rendered "full of grace" in the DRB, rather than "highly favored" or similar, as in Rome's current official New American Bible, “Hail, favored one!" (http://usccb.org/bible/luke/1) Yet the DRB translates Eph. 1:6 as "in which he hath graced us."

    Moreover, while Mary is highly blessed among women, and is to be honored according to what is written, this does not translate in the type of supererogation of praise seen in Catholicism, in which humble Mary is made into an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,

    whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,

    who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"

    and "was elevated to a certain equality with the Heavenly Father,"

    even so that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"

    for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"

    and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"

    for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"

    "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"

    so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."

    Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"

    and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"

    including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"

    whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"

    and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"

    and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation." Sources .

    Yet as i have said before, one would have a hard time in Bible times explaining kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, and as having Divine powers and glory, and making offerings and beseeching such for Heavenly help, directly accessed by mental prayer.

    Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?

    More .

  • If No One Is Pope, Everyone is Pope – A Homily for the 21st Sunday of the Year

    08/30/2014 3:49:37 AM PDT · 563 of 590
    daniel1212 to CTrent1564
    See my earlier post. Nothing has changed since the last one I posted to you.

    Indeed. Regardless of the evidence, only what Rome says is correct for you, and thus Scripture must be compelled to support it, or disallowed from being contrary it, while the weight of its testimony is not the basis for veracity of RC teaching, despite RC attempts to enlist it in her service.

    You continue to operate out a basis for determination of Truth that would require 1st souls to submit to the judgments of the magisterium who were the historical stewards of Divine revelation.

  • Shaking faith: How ISIS is causing Muslims to abandon Islam

    08/30/2014 3:47:57 AM PDT · 14 of 58
    daniel1212 to GonzoII
    ISIS, who act like a cult with gang-like behaviour, have nothing to do with Islam; they do not represent Muslims across the world.

    Wrong: MUHAMMAD VERSUS JESUS CHRIST

    Meanwhile, 79% of new HIV cases are among male sodomites (CDC), and over half a million Americans and 25 million WW have died because of AIDS, yet this is promoted and defended as if it were a matter of civil rights.

    In 2011, in the United States, MSM accounted for 79% of 38,825 estimated HIV diagnoses among all males aged 13 years and older, and 78% of infections among all newly infected men. .- http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/index.html

    A whopping 41% of people who are transgender or gender-nonconforming have attempted suicide sometime in their lives, nearly nine times the national average, according to a sweeping survey released three years ago. http://www.thetaskforce.org/reports_and_research/ntds http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-suicide-attempts-alarming-transgender-20140127,0,3324954.story#ixzz2vRHkyu7v

    A whopping 41% of people who are transgender or gender-nonconforming have attempted suicide sometime in their lives, nearly nine times the national average, according to a sweeping survey released three years ago. http://www.thetaskforce.org/reports_and_research/ntds http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-suicide-attempts-alarming-transgender-20140127,0,3324954.story#ixzz2vRHkyu7v

    Nearly 50% of sexually active homosexual men infected with the virus causing AIDS are unaware that they are carriers of the deadly disease [2010]. CDC http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cdc-20-of-gay-men-have-hiv-and-half-are-unaware-of-status

    The rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women. CDC; http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cdc-gay-men-over-44-times-more-likely-hiv-than-hetero-men

    Add to that the discounted lifetime cost of comprehensive treatment per HIV-infected person being $385,000 (undiscounted cost, $618,900). - http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/45/Supplement_4/S248.full

  • BORDER PATROL AGENT FIRES AT ARMED MILITIA MEMBER

    08/30/2014 3:39:16 AM PDT · 57 of 89
    daniel1212 to Jim Robinson
  • BORDER PATROL AGENT FIRES AT ARMED MILITIA MEMBER

    08/30/2014 3:33:33 AM PDT · 56 of 89
    daniel1212 to cloudmountain; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; ...
    Satan and his minions are alive and well, provoking the standard Catholic bashing. This time the aim is directed at the Holy Eucharist. But, that's been happening for 2000 years now so I don't think it will stop here. I don't bash other faiths but that doesn't stop the Catholic haters, does it?

    How do you get Catholic bashing out of any of the comments on this thread? Almost all of the illegals are Catholic, so is preventing them anti-Catholic?

    What thread did this belong to, or is this just another example of thin-skinned Roman reactionaries with a victim mentality, complaining about persecution while using FR as a Catholic news and apologetics service, promoting an elitist church, and then whining about "bashing" when he unScriptural presumptions are challenged?

  • Couple Fined For Refusing To Host Gay Wedding Shuts Down Venue

    08/29/2014 6:51:54 PM PDT · 88 of 113
    daniel1212 to Springfield Reformer

    That is wisdom. Wise as serpents, harmless as doves

  • WARNING ~~~~RIP OFF AT THE PUMPS

    08/29/2014 6:05:53 PM PDT · 71 of 86
    daniel1212 to lacrew

    Worse, an old neighbor is mine trusted a station attendant to do the fill on up his diesel truck for him without watching - with gas. As the tank was about empty it ruined the engine. Last i heard they were in court trying to prove it.

  • Nato warships receive mixed welcome in Turku harbour

    08/29/2014 5:00:50 PM PDT · 9 of 11
    daniel1212 to Tailgunner Joe
    but especially younger citizens say they are troubled by the grey battleships. Sign language student Salla Haapaporras said the ships make her feel threatened.

    As a sign language she should realize what this signifies, which is that this represents, that man is sinful by nature, and thus must face force when it will not conform to what is right.

    But the liberal shuns thus reality, trying to put it out of mind, as in their fantasy kids never need to be spanked, wars never need to be fought, as man is basically good, and only do bad things because a George Bush said they were evil.

  • Couple Fined For Refusing To Host Gay Wedding Shuts Down Venue

    08/29/2014 3:57:33 PM PDT · 17 of 113
    daniel1212 to Rusty0604
    That is a victory for them. This is a war by economic sanctions on Christians and whoever else may have the faith and courage to refuse to salute the flag of Sodom, and bow down to its principalities.

    It may be better to refuse to shut down, and prayerful enlist supporters as the fines mount and go to court. And jail is necessary.

  • If No One Is Pope, Everyone is Pope – A Homily for the 21st Sunday of the Year

    08/29/2014 6:18:48 AM PDT · 536 of 590
    daniel1212 to Elsie
    And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. (Acts 11:26)

    And the pastors were titled "priests" and "fathers" first in Rome.

  • If No One Is Pope, Everyone is Pope – A Homily for the 21st Sunday of the Year

    08/27/2014 10:10:06 PM PDT · 416 of 590
    daniel1212 to CTrent1564; Greetings_Puny_Humans; Springfield Reformer; redleghunter; Elsie; metmom; boatbums; ...
    I agree with the Catholic Notion... End of story

    As your responses have made clear by now, you believe whatever Rome officially says, under the premise of her assured infallibility as the historical magisterium and steward of Scripture. End of fantasy.

    Had you been in the first century, the faithful RC would follow the Scribes and Pharisees who sat in the seat of Moses as the historical magisterium and steward of Scripture, asking why you should follow an itinerant preacher in the desert who are insects who disagreed with the magisterium who thus rejected him.

    As well as another itinerant preacher who reproved them by Scripture, and invoked the baptism of the first itinerant preacher when challenged to name who gave Him His authority. (Mk. 11:27-33)

    And who established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

    And the common people rightly discerned Truth and followed these preachers while the historical magisterium was wrong.

    Laity: Never man spake like this man. Then answered the Catholic, "Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed." (cf John 7:46-49)

  • If No One Is Pope, Everyone is Pope – A Homily for the 21st Sunday of the Year

    08/27/2014 9:54:07 PM PDT · 415 of 590
    daniel1212 to Greetings_Puny_Humans
    If the scripture teaches transubstantiation, then we must believe that Christ ate His own flesh and blood, and will continue to do so, even in heaven.

    Well, using the often-used RC hermeneutic, since the Scripture does not say He did not and would not, then it can be, if Rome says so.

  • If No One Is Pope, Everyone is Pope – A Homily for the 21st Sunday of the Year

    08/27/2014 8:38:53 AM PDT · 372 of 590
    daniel1212 to Greetings_Puny_Humans; CTrent1564; Elsie
    I confused Anglican with Lutheran (because of the "an").

    Too close in some ways anyway.

    Both, as in, transubstantiation? This is an easy mistake to make because the Catholics constantly misquote him, or refuse to quote the entire things.

    I have not looked into it much, but in any case while the RC may invoke Scripture and or history and tradition, as if that was the basis for their assurance of Truth, this cannot be, else they be as evangelicals in being discerning Truth on the weight of evidence, Scripture being supreme.

    Instead, their basis for assurance of Truth rests upon the premise of the assured infallibility of Rome, who has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

    Thus as have been abundantly evidenced, only what Rome, as the steward of Divine revelation, says Scripture, history and tradition assuredly mean is determinative of Truth for the RC. As if that is how the church began.

    And until they allow that the magisterium can be wrong even in principal matters, yet Truth preserved by God raising up men from without it, and be persuaded by the weight of Scriptural substantiation, then they both invalidate the church itself and operate under a cultic system.