Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $23,328
27%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 27% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by daniel1212

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Are Evangelicals Bad for Marriage?

    07/26/2014 4:41:38 AM PDT · 48 of 48
    daniel1212 to metmom
    This is a hit piece against Evangelicals if ever I saw one.

    It is as representing conservatives vs, liberals.

  • Are Evangelicals Bad for Marriage?

    07/26/2014 4:39:51 AM PDT · 47 of 48
    daniel1212 to SeekAndFind
    So, which Christian denomination in America have proven good for marriage?

    See above, and also ask, which kind of Christian denomination in America have marriages that are proven the best for America and the world?

  • Are Evangelicals Bad for Marriage?

    07/26/2014 4:38:07 AM PDT · 46 of 48
    daniel1212 to SeekAndFind; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; ...
    The article never mentions any feud at all. If a feud starts, it will be because someone in this thread starts posting something touting his denomination and disparaging the other.

    Be realistic. Most only seem to read the headline and excerpt, and this is a war zone due to the incessant promotion of papists promoting their elitist org and attacking Protestant and evangelical faith, and who seek ammo against them, esp. in the light of the fact that the fruit of Rome is overall much more liberal .

    Thus if you post an article with the headline, "Are Evangelicals Bad for Marriage?," you can expect a reaction akin to posting, "Are Catholics Bad for Marriage?"

    But reading the article, we see that "evangelical" refers to those

    "who continue to try to link not only children and marriage but also sex and marriage. The red-family model [which] abhors abortion, embraces abstinence education, worries about pushing contraception for unmarried teens (at least), and discourages divorce. And as

    "divorce rates are higher in red states than in blue states. Conservative Protestant family values, they conclude, are bad for marriage: The blue-family model, Carbone and Cahn argue, is more successful at protecting marriage."

    And thus by linking conservative values to faith and then to divorce rates it is really is saying that liberals are better at marriage. Thus liberal District of Columbia and MA (1+2 in lowest divorce rate) are better for marriage than Nevada and Oklahoma (the highest)*. But such marriages which product liberal 1.7 children families are bad for the nation. .

    And of course, when people just cohabit in fornication, there is no marriage and thus no divorce.

    However, race and economic factors are highly determinative. Lowest income helps one realize their need for God, and is where religious faith is strongest.

    And broken down by race and ethnicity, the study found Asian women have the lowest first divorce rate at 10 divorces per 1,000 women in a first marriage. The first divorce rates of white and Hispanic women were similar at 16.3 and 18.1, respectively. African-American women have substantially higher rates of first divorce compared to all other racial and ethnic groups, at 30.4 divorces per 1,000 women in a first marriage...

    The association between education and divorce is also curvilinear. The least (no high school diploma or GED) and the highest (college degree) educated women share the lowest rate of first divorce, with 14.4 and 14.2 per 1,000, respectively. - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111103161830.htm?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

    Meanwhile, as the article points out,

    Charles E. Stokes, Amber Lapp, and David Lapp looked at divorce risk among religiously affiliated people who marry “early” (ages 18 to 26) and found that for both conservative Protestants and Catholics, church attendance (but not affiliation) dramatically reduces divorce.

    Moreover [not in article], those who identify themselves as being conservative on social and political matters lower divorce rates (28%) than those liberal on social and political matters (37%). — http://www.barna.org/family-kids-articles/42-new-marriage-and-divorce-statistics-released

    As regards Catholic versus Evangelical, this article attributes the higher divorce rate to "encouraging early family formation, less education," and which thus attacks conservative Catholics.

    Meanwhile Catholics use contraception at a rate close to evangelicals (who did miss the boat on this), and as regards divorce rates,

    the percentage of percentage of adults Protestants who have been married and divorced is 34% versus 28% for Catholics, while Evangelicals were at 26%. Atheists or agnostic were at 30% (only 65% were ever married, vs. 84% for born-again Christians) while those aligned with a non-Christian faith were at 38%. The largest disparity (17%) relative to divorce was between high and low income levels (22% to 39%). — http://www.barna.org/family-kids-articles/42-new-marriage-and-divorce-statistics-released

    In addition, considering the wide scope of possible reasons why a marriage may be annulled, as an est. 400,000 marriages have been annulled since 1970 (http://articles.philly.com/1986-05-08/news/26049605_1_annulments-divorced-catholics-marriage), then how many RCs today are possibly in invalid marriages, though canon law presumes all marriages are valid until proven invalid?

    *

    Divorce rate by state[edit]

    The following lists the number of divorces annually per 1,000 population in each state:

    State Marriage rate Divorce rate[1]
    1999 2000 2006 2008 2010 2011 1999 2000 2006 2008 2010 2011
    District of Columbia 8.2 6.1 6.6 4.9 6.2 5.1 4.5 3.2 3.6 3.2 2.9 2.4
    Massachusetts 7.9 7.1 6.2 5.8 6.2 5.9 2.8 2.2 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.5
    Georgia 10.3 8.4 7.8 6.8 6.1 6.5 5.5 5.1 4.1 3.3 3.1 2.5
    Illinois 8.8 6.9 7.0 6.9 7.2 6.6 3.8 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.2 2.9
    North Dakota 7.5 7.1 6.6 7.2 6.5 6.8 3.6 3.4 4.4 3.4 2.9 3.0
    Pennsylvania 7.1 6.2 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1
    Minnesota 7.7 7.0 6.8 6.8 6.6 6.5 3.5 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.1
    Iowa 9.0 7.7 7.9 6.9 7.1 6.9 3.9 3.7 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.1
    Wisconsin 7.9 7.0 6.7 6.7 6.5 6.3 3.6 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2
    Rhode Island 8.1 7.3 7.5 7.6 8.1 7.7 3.7 3.6 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.2
    Connecticut 7.9 6.6 5.8 5.7 5.4 5.7 3.2 2.9 3.0 3.3 3.2 3.3
    South Dakota 11.1 9.9 9.1 9.4 8.9 8.8 3.7 3.9 3.7 3.5 3.3 3.3
    New Jersey 7.6 6.5 5.9 6.0 6.4 6.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.3 3.4
    Maryland 9.7 8.4 7.5 7.5 7.0 7.1 3.4 3.0 3.2 3.3 2.9 3.4
    New York 8.6 8.0 7.3 7.1 7.6 7.3 3.2 3.0 3.3 3.0 3.5 3.4
    South Carolina 15.9 11.9 10.2 10.6 9.9 9.3 4.5 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.4
    Delaware 8.4 7.3 6.7 6.5 6.5 6.4 4.4 5.0 4.5 3.9 3.9 3.5
    Kansas 9.2 8.5 7.1 8.3 7.5 7.3 5.0 4.1 3.4 3.6 3.4 3.6
    Nebraska 8.0 7.3 7.5 7.6 7.9 7.5 4.0 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.6
    Hawaii 16.4 15.7 18.9 20.6 19.6 20.7 4.6 4.6 3.8 3.9 4.0 3.7
    Michigan 8.2 7.3 6.8 6.7 6.6 6.5 4.3 4.1 3.8 3.9 3.9 3.8
    Texas 10.5 9.9 9.1 9.4 9.1 8.4 5.5 5.2 3.8 4.0 4.0 3.9
    Ohio 9.0 8.0 7.8 7.8 7.2 7.0 4.7 4.3 3.9 4.2 4.0 4.0
    Montana 8.6 7.6 7.4 7.3 7.1 7.2 5.1 4.8 2.8 4.2 4.2 4.0
    Missouri 9.6 8.3 8.1 7.8 7.5 7.3 5.1 5.0 4.4 4.5 4.2 4.0
    Utah 11.2 10.7 9.6 10.8 10.2 10.4 5.1 4.4 4.0 4.3 4.2 4.1
    Virginia 11.4 10.2 9.2 8.8 8.8 8.6 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.2
    Vermont 10.9 10.3 10.0 10.0 9.8 9.7 4.5 4.7 4.4 4.1 4.3 4.2
    New Hampshire 9.5 8.3 7.9 9.4 8.4 8.3 4.7 4.2 5.1 4.8 4.4 4.3
    New Mexico 8.8 8.8 8.0 8.0 7.6 7.9 4.9 6.6 4.6 5.1 4.9 4.4
    North Carolina 7.8 8.4 8.5 8.2 7.5 7.7 5.1 5.0 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.5
    Washington 9.5 7.7 7.2 6.9 7.0 6.5 5.9 5.4 5.0 4.6 4.5 4.6
    Oregon 8.9 8.1 7.6 7.6 7.5 7.1 5.5 4.7 4.6 4.8 4.8 4.6
    Alaska 10.2 9.0 8.6 8.9 8.1 8.3 5.5 5.0 5.0 3.9 4.3 4.6
    Maine 9.7 8.7 8. 8.8 8.6 8.4 4.3 4.4 5.1 5.0 4.7 4.6
    Arizona 10.0 8.8 8.2 7.5 7.5 6.6 6.9 6.2 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.7
    Mississippi 9.4 7.9 7.8 6.9 6.5 6.4 5.5 4.8 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
    Florida 10.9 9.9 8.7 8.9 9.2 9.4 6.3 5.5 5.1 5.1 5.2 5.1
    Tennessee 13.9 15.5 14.7 15.5 13.5 13.1 6.5 6.2 5.8 5.9 5.2 5.1
    West Virginia 7.2 6.1 7.5 8.7 7.9 8.1 5.3 5.2 4.9 5.1 5.2 5.2
    Kentucky 13.5 12.2 10.9 9.8 9.0 9.0 5.8 5.9 5.5 5.1 5.1 5.2
    Idaho 13.9 13.1 12.1 10.8 11.2 10.9 6.5 5.8 5.4 5.5 5.3 5.3
    Wyoming 10.7 10.6 9.9 10.0 10.1 9.5 6.6 6.6 5.7 5.8 5.8 5.4
    Alabama 10.6 9.8 10.8 10.1 9.4 9.8 6.1 6.0 5.7 5.5 5.4 5.4
    Arkansas 15.3 14.4 14.8 15.4 14.3 14.3 6.9 6.3 6.2 6.4 6.2 6.2
    Nevada 99.0 85.2 82.3 72.2 69.7 67.4 11.4 7.8 7.8 9.9 6.3 7.1
    Oklahoma 10.6 8.6 6.8 7.7 6.6
    California[2] 7.9 6.3 6.4 5.8 6.5 6.2 4.3
    Indiana 9.6 8.6 8.1 7.9 7.9 7.8
    Colorado 9.8 9.0 8.2 8.3 8.2 7.9 5.5 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.7
    Louisiana 9.6 9.3 9.1 9.1 8.4 8.2
    1 Includes annulments. Includes divorce petitions filed or legal separations for some counties or States.
    2 Marriage data includes nonlicensed marriages registered.
  • Responding to “Spiritual but Not Religious” Christians

    07/26/2014 3:39:42 AM PDT · 144 of 147
    daniel1212 to NKP_Vet
    “He founded a Church, gave it authority in the areas of faith and morals, and guards it from teaching error (Mt 18:17-18).

    He certainly did and that Church is the Catholic Church. Only the most rapid die-hard Catholic Church haters deny this historical fact.

    Once again you are resorting to argument by assertion, but as shown and said, the RCC cannot be that particular church, as,

    Error #9, as the church of Rome is fundamentally contrary to the NT church, [it] is not where real disciples of Christ belong.

    He founded a Church, gave it authority in the areas of faith and morals, and guards it from teaching error (Mt 18:17-18).

    Error #10. That is the fundamental error, for besides the fact shown before that despite the wishful thinking of RCs, Mt 18:17-18 nor any other texts do not teach an 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. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)

    Nor that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium, and thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God. For as said, this would invalidate the church itself, which began with common people recognizing what the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation would not, that a couple itinerant Preachers were of God.

    You continue to post all the pro papal propaganda, but which are exposed as fallacious, and thus you continue to provide reasons why one should not submit to Rome. Let me know of your next attempt! .

  • We Will Not Tolerate Your Religion!’ School Fires Scientist for Questioning Evolution

    07/25/2014 7:37:01 PM PDT · 10 of 11
    daniel1212 to George - the Other
    chick.com
  • Editor Fired for Criticizing ‘Queen James Bible’ on Personal Blog Files Federal Complaint

    07/25/2014 7:34:05 PM PDT · 19 of 21
    daniel1212 to Faith Presses On
    Oops! That was supposed to go to the other article you posted: We Will Not Tolerate Your Religion!’ School Fires Scientist for Questioning Evolution

    christiannews.net ... good source

  • Editor Fired for Criticizing ‘Queen James Bible’ on Personal Blog Files Federal Complaint

    07/25/2014 7:31:19 PM PDT · 18 of 21
    daniel1212 to Faith Presses On
  • Anti-gay laws can fuel spread of HIV, research finds

    07/25/2014 7:21:34 PM PDT · 20 of 22
    daniel1212 to Mastador1

    It means antigay laws which do not hinder treatment for the consequences of engaging in a practice that is responsible 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. .- www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/index.html

    While 1 out of 5 of sexually active homosexual and bisexual men are infected with HIV but 44% of them don’t know it. - (CDC, 2010)

    Thus antigay laws are the problem, not the practice. Or liberal logic.

    God created man and women uniquely compatible and complimentary, and they alone are joined by God in marriage, with opposite genders being specified by both Genesis and personally by Jesus Christ. (Gn. 2:18-24; Mt. 19:4)

    The Bible only condemns homosexual relations - by design and decree, in principle and by precept - and never sanctions them wherever they are manifestly dealt with, and the injunctions against them are part of the transcendent and immutable moral law. (Lv. 18:22; Rm. 1:26,27)

    However, some of the first Christians were likely former homosexuals, (1Cor. 6:9-11) and there is room at the cross for all who want the Lord Jesus over sin, and believe upon Him to save them who died for them, and rose again. And who thus are baptized and follow Him, to the glory of Go

  • Pasta Bugs: Why Are There Insects In American Food?

    07/25/2014 5:57:18 PM PDT · 111 of 111
    daniel1212 to tiki
    You are a spoiled American. There are bugs in everything, in your canned good, in your frozen goods, in your processed foods but they’re usually really ground up and you don’t see them. Consumers complain if there are bugs and then complain if their food is sprayed.

    This is true. Many Americans also often complain when its hot and when its cold, and express little appreciation when its neither, while just about outlawing ruggedness in males while wanting females in combat, and proclaim people are starving while refusing to eat some cooked pasta that has some bugs in it.

  • Responding to “Spiritual but Not Religious” Christians

    07/25/2014 7:50:56 AM PDT · 139 of 147
    daniel1212 to boatbums; af_vet_1981; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; CynicalBear; mitch5501; BlueDragon; ...
    It is the unlearned and unstable, Peter said, who wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction. Damnable heresies are disputed by the authority of God's word NOT the presumed authority of men.

    They are ultimately disputed by the authority of God's assured word, which the Scriptures are, but God has established the teaching as well as administrative office of the church:

    "Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching;" "Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness." (Romans 12:7-8)

    And as Westminster affirms,

    It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word. — http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm

    But the issue with RCs is the premise of Rome and its presuppositions, that man cannot assuredly determine Truth thru the use of his fallible human reasoning, and thus an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium (AIM) 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. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)

    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.

    As Cardinal Avery Dulles stated :

    People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received in from on high. Even the most qualified scholars who have access to the Bible and the ancient historical sources fall into serious disagreements about matters of belief.” - Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, “Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith,” p. 72; http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/08/magisterial-cat-and-mouse-game.html

    the sense of Holy Scripture can nowhere be found incorrupt outside of the Church, and cannot be expected to be found in writers who, being without the true faith, only gnaw the bark of the Sacred Scripture, and never attain its pith.” - Providentissimus Deus

    This extends even to what Divine revelation consists of, not only its meaning. And as Rome has defined "that the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity," and has infallibly declared that she is infallible, then it is reasoned,

    Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter. Hence it follows that all interpretation is foolish and false which either makes the sacred writers disagree one with another, or is opposed to the doctrine of the Church.(Providentissimus Deus; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html)

    Thus the AIM of Rome effectively becomes the supreme authority, not the words of Scripture, seeing as Scripture is only consists of what she says it is, and only assuredly means what she says it means. And which sola ecclesia model she shares with cults such as Mormonism.

    This infallible magisterial basis for assured determination of Truth is promoted as being correct as it professes superior unity to the alternative of a non-infallible magisterium and leaders, that of souls objectively examining the evidence in order to ascertain the veracity of what is taught, as well as to gain understanding in things in general, and has the problem of competing truth claims.

    "I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts." (Psalms 119:99-100)

    The problem is that the AIM basis for assured determination of Truth and unity is not Scriptural, as it means souls cannot be correct in anything if in conflict with the magisterium, contrary to how the church began.

    For rather than an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for assured determination of Truth, and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith;

    And being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that this entity is that assuredly infallible magisterium,

    The fact is that both writings and men of God were recognized and established as being so and Truth and faith preserved without an AIM.

    And in fact the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34)

    And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and 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.)

    For the fact is that it is abundantly evidenced that Scripture was the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

    And which 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 materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.) In addition, when the magisterium to which all are to concur with is in error, then it takes the problem of individual error to a corporate level, as seen in Rome, beginning with the very doctrine of perpetual papal infallibility, which is the basis for the AIM of Rome.

    Moreover, while the AIM model for assurance of Truth attempts to rectify the problem of individuals claiming to be True based upon a claim to superior personal veracity, as with cults and the RC straw man of SS, yet the alternative sola ecclesia model results in competing ecclesiastical claims error to be the one true infallible church, which both Rome and EOs as well as cults claim.

    But what of the divisions that result from competing interpretations? This requires Truth claims to be est. as the church was, which was not on the basis of an autocratic authority declaring that is was the one true church that Christ established, or even by Christ declaring that He was the Divine Son of God. But in both cases Truth claims were est. upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, overcoming error with Truth, manifesting that it is the church of the living God, not its institutionalized god, the pillar and ground of the Truth (which says no more than it is of the truth, grounded upon and supporting it). Rather than an entity autocratically declaring it is the world champion, invoking support from sources which can only assuredly mean what it says they mean, including the rule book, an entity must win the competition that it is the world champion in obeying the rules. And by which Rome is disqualified , fundamentally and otherwise.

    This does not mean that under the Scriptural you will not have false Christs or gospels, but that the Truth will be Scripturally manifest so that the elect will see it.

    "But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." (2 Corinthians 4:2)

    This also does not mean that a centralized magisterium is not the Biblical model and goal, not as possessing perpetual assured infallibility of office, but able to make judgments that are established upon infallible Scripture, as was the decision of Acts 15. ((Gn. 35:2; Ex. 34:15-16; Ezek. 30:30,31; Gn. 34:1,2,31; Dt. 22:28,29; 2Chron. 21:11; Gn. 9:4; Lv. 7:27; 17:13,14)

    The absence of this is due to the lack of such men as the apostles were, and which Rome is not even in the competition for being. It was only under men who could say they were,

    "Giving no offence in any thing, that the ministry be not blamed: But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses,. By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left," (2 Corinthians 6:3-4, 6-7)

    "Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds." (2 Corinthians 12:12)

    It is not historical descent which establishes authenticity, but both writings and men of God were established as being so due to their heavenly qualities. And from the time when Scripture was first written, then it was the standard by which all Truth claims were tested and established by.

    And only insofar as the church conforms to this it can claim to be a church, most primarily in preaching the gospel in which the redeemed come to God as souls damned for their works - not saved because of them - and destitute of any means or merit whereby they may escape their just and eternal punishment in Hell Fire and gain eternal life with God. And with contrite heart cast their whole-hearted repentant faith upon the mercy of God in Christ, trusting the risen Divine Lord Jesus to save them by His sinless shed blood. (Rm. 3:9 - 5:1) And whose faith is thus counted as righteousness, but it is a faith that will follow Him,, confessing the Lord Jesus in baptism and proclaiming Him as such in word and deed. And repenting when convicted of not doing so.

  • Christian evangelists seek out children at Portland playgrounds, pools

  • Responding to “Spiritual but Not Religious” Christians

    07/24/2014 12:31:46 PM PDT · 114 of 147
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    I read your response and am not persuaded

    As expected. For the weight of Scripture is not the basis for the veracity of RC teaching, but Scripture is a servant to be compelled to support traditions of men, and RCs have a great deal of liberty to adopt interpretations of Scripture to support Rome, resulting in such wresting as you engage in.

    I also note scripture in the follow up epistle by the same author dealing with those who wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction.

    And 2pt. 3:16 is a warning to you, who seeks to employ this text to support the premise that this forbids private interpretation, meaning that all beliefs must conform the infallible magisterium of Rome, and as long an RC holds to this than they cannot be persuaded otherwise no matter how strong the evidence is against RC teaching.

    “All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.” “He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 )]

    For neither 2Pt. 1:20 or 2Pt. 3:16 is censuring determination of Truth by individual interpretation or teaching reliance upon an infallible magisterium, but both are making Scripture the supreme authority by which both false prophets and teachers are exposed.

    For indeed, you will always have misuse of authority in this world, and your error is in taking warnings of that as meaning relying on Scripture for assurance of Truth, and reading and understanding Scripture without an infallible magisterium. But while the office of the teacher is critical as is administration, yet the Scriptures were and are the supreme authority, and the church began in dissent from the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation.

    And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and 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.)

    Thus it is not the word of the Roman magisterium that is set in contrast to false prophets and teachers, but Scripture, and thus Paul's writings are invoked for support, (2pt. 3:15) while it is the misuse of Scripture by the unlearned and unstable that is warned of, not that of reading and understanding without an infallible magisterium, or reliance upon it.

    I compare and contrast this with the case if what heresies could infect the churches of the holy catholic apostolic church that Jesus build on the apostles and prophets, himself being the chief cornerstone.

    But reliance upon an assuredly infallible magisterium is not Peter's answer, and instead you must read it into Scripture. Under the Roman model, how and why should the common people follow a couple of itinerant Preachers whom the magisterium rejected?

    Moreover, as said, this takes the problem of wrong interpretation to a higher and wider level, as it means one individual can declare Truth by fiat, even without the consensus of the bishops, and with the magisterium being supreme, most all the flock can be led into error, as is the case with papal infallibility.

    How could sheep follow a wolf in sheep's clothing unless said wolf was misinterpreting the scriptures to lead them astray.

    Indeed, but which does not mean an assuredly infallible magisterium is what it set forth as the solution, and instead it is substantially a case of the wolf being over the chicken house.

    And an infallible magisterium is needed so the flock will not be lead astray, then again, how did the people rightly judge John was a prophet indeed when the established magisterium rejected him?

    With the thousands of denominations, sects, and even virtual websites that cloak the background and ordination of the teachers, I can see how sheep are led astray by false teachers who misinterpret the scripture, Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

    Indeed, Rome has her schism and sects, and has engaged in much labor cloaking those who were exposed by the world, while you have joined the ranks of false teachers by making 2pt. 1:20 to be about interpreting Scripture, when it is about written prophecy, and which is judged by reading Scripture. Which also exposes those who misuse Scripture under the pretense of being infallible, as according to her interpretation/decree, only her judgment is correct in any conflict.

    The divisions among those who hold Scripture as supreme do not disallow it as being so, as those who most strongly hold to it have the strongest unity, versus the fruit of Rome.

    Meanwhile divisions are a judgment upon the church under the model in which Truth is established upon Scriptural; substantiation, as it requires establishing Truth upon that basis, not self declaration as under Rome and cults.

    "But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power." "For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power." (1 Corinthians 4:19-20)

    But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen

    Indeed, and it was not the Eucharist that nourished them with graced, but

    "If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained." (1 Timothy 4:6)

    "And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified." (Acts 20:32)

  • Responding to “Spiritual but Not Religious” Christians

    07/24/2014 10:24:47 AM PDT · 107 of 147
    daniel1212 to CynicalBear

    Once again, glory to God for what is good.

  • Christian evangelists seek out children at Portland playgrounds, pools

    07/24/2014 10:24:18 AM PDT · 160 of 180
    daniel1212 to SkyDancer
    "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." (Proverbs 26:5)
  • Responding to “Spiritual but Not Religious” Christians

    07/24/2014 10:23:14 AM PDT · 106 of 147
    daniel1212 to circlecity
    Try what?

    Do what Rome has done. Presumed to infallibly declare you are and will be perpetually infallible whenever you speak in accordance with your infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders your declaration that you are infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else you accordingly declare.

  • Responding to “Spiritual but Not Religious” Christians

    07/24/2014 7:35:13 AM PDT · 90 of 147
    daniel1212 to MamaB
    Thanks for setting the record straight. I think some on here are trying to lead people to their church instead of to Christ. Tis a shame they care more about a church than Jesus.

    It is their security, like as in cults, and thus the reaction is similar..

  • Responding to “Spiritual but Not Religious” Christians

    07/24/2014 7:33:30 AM PDT · 89 of 147
    daniel1212 to circlecity
    Yet I can easily say that is just your private interpretation thus why should I consider it?

    Because according to her interpretation (for she indeed fallibly engaged in such in deciding to submit to Rome), only Rome's interpretation can be correct in any conflict, as Rome has interpreted herself as being infallible.

    Want to try it?

  • Responding to “Spiritual but Not Religious” Christians

    07/24/2014 7:31:06 AM PDT · 88 of 147
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981; Elsie; circlecity
    The point is that private interpretation spawns false heresy which leads believers to fall away and be lost.

    That is not the point, and your private interpretation which is not even official exegesis, wrests texts to teach 2Pt. 1:20 is about interpretation of Scripture apart from an supreme infallible magisterium, when it is actually is setting forth Scripture as the standard , and makes you a false teacher!

    The context of 1Pt. 1:20 is clearly that of Divinely inspired prophecy , which is not a result of mans interpretive wisdom, but instead such were found "Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow." (1 Peter 1:11)

    In contrast to the product of man's wisdom and false prophets and teachers, Peter tells us, "We have also a more sure word of prophecy," "for the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 119,:21)

    This sets forth Scripture as the supreme authority, not the assuredly infallible magisterium of Rome, which like false teachers, takes the danger of individual private interpretation to the corporate level, claiming to be teaching Divinely revealed truths but which are not taught in Scripture. Such as perpetual papal infallibility (which is the epitome of individual interpretation) and that of the magisterium when speaking in accordance with her infallibly defined formula, with the veracity of which resting upon that premise.

    But the teaches of which yet can require varying degree of interpretation, even as to what level each teaching falls under, and thus what level of assent is required. Which basically ends up meaning implicit assent should be given to all. Which is cultic, not Christian.

  • Responding to “Spiritual but Not Religious” Christians

    07/24/2014 6:41:45 AM PDT · 82 of 147
    daniel1212 to Wuli
    The pretense here is people are using ONLY “their own” authority and are not listening to any authority outside their own....l the writer is really complaining about is the non-denominational are not listening to some “authority” he approves of.

    Though the article may attempt to use "spiritual but not religious" in order to escape the charge of elitism, it is obvious what his premise is..

    In fact, in the area of human guidance non-demominational Christians can be following a number of human “authorities”

    To which the RC will reply than an ultimate supreme infallible authority is necessary, but which is nowhere promised shown as necessary (despite RC extrapolative attempts), but instead God often provided and preserved Truth by raising up men from without the magisterium to correct it. And thus the church began and faith has been preserved.

    Moreover, RCs no more have an infallible interpretation for their supreme infallible authority than evangelicals do for theirs, and Catholicism exists in schism and sects, abounding in variant interpretations

    In addition, Caths whom Rome treats as members in life and in death overall are less unified than evangelicals , and as what an entity really believes is shown by what it does and effects, (Mt. 7:20; Ja. 2:18) so this constitutes much what Rome really believes.

  • Responding to “Spiritual but Not Religious” Christians

    07/24/2014 6:04:52 AM PDT · 80 of 147
    daniel1212 to NKP_Vet; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    This is just another of your propaganda pieces RC cultics post in their blind devotion to Rome, which end up being arguments against submitting to Rome. Which is the real polemic in this come home" papal promoting post referring "Catholic answers (deception), and thus I will respond to it as such.

    Jesus started a religion Most dictionaries define religion as “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.” It is abundantly obvious from Scripture that Christians are called to worship the one true God (cf. Matthew 4:9, Mark 5:6, Luke 4:8, John 4:23). I’m sure most “spiritual but not religious” Christians will agree with this.

    Error #1. Jesus did not start a "new" religion in this sense of belief and worshiping the one true God, or not dependent upon what preceded it, but continued a faith in which believers worshiping the one true God from the beginning belonged to, fulfilling the OT which prepared for His coming. There can only be one true faith, and to have Christ starting a really new one would place the OT saints outside it. Instead, the "one new man" church was only possible as Gentiles were grafted into the true Israel, with OT Jews first believing on Christ and this faith being true Judaism, though this brought more revelation.

    "And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee." (Romans 11:17-18) .

    Jesus started a Church In Matthew 16:18, Jesus says to the apostle Peter, “you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.” Catholics believe that in this verse Jesus is bestowing on Peter a position of authority from which the office of the pope is derived..

    Error #2

    Moreover, the faith of the NT church was not one,

    being presided over by a pope the whole church looked to as it supreme infallible head in Rome, and being taught that he was the "rock" of Mt. 16:18?

    Or even a successor for the martyred apostle James (Acts 12:1,2) being chosen like Matthias was and after that manner (Acts 1, in order to keep the original number of apostles)?

    And a separate sacerdotal class of believers titled "priests ," as they uniquely changed bread into human flesh and dispensing it to the masses to receive life in them and eternal life (RCs keep quoting Jn. 6:53,54 to us)?

    And a hierarchical order of priests, bishops, Cardinals, etc., with ostentatious religious dress and titles, including "Most Reverend?"

    And required (with rare exceptions) clerical celibacy, which presumes all such have that gift.

    And incognizant (usually) souls being formally justified by interior holiness via sprinkling of water in recognition of proxy faith, and (usually) ending up becoming good enough to enter Heaven in purgatory ?

    And a separate class of believers called “saints,

    And praying to the departed, or angels, and before images?

    And the apostles teaching Mary was born and kept sinless?

    And a church that conformed to this world in using papal sanctioned physical oppression torture, burning and death to deal with theological dissent

    Or who, having lost that power, treats even notorious manifestly impenitent public sinners as members in life and in death, in contrast to the NT means of disfellowship and spiritual discipline.

    And which members overall come in near last in things such as evangelism, commitment, and personal Bible reading, the latter which it hindered for a long time, and later sanctions teaching millions such things as that OT miraculous stories are fables or folktales, etc.

    And teaches that the deity Muslims worship (not as unknown) is the same as theirs.

    And which boasts of unity while being discouraged from objectively searching the Scriptures in order to ascertain the veracity of RC doctrine, while (on the other hand) lacking certainty about all the things they must hold as certain, and seeing varying degrees of interpretation by the magisterium, as well in the great liberty they have to interpret Scripture in order to support Rome.

    This must suffice for now.

    But even if the “spiritual” Christian has problems with this belief, there is no escaping the fact that Christ intended his Church to be both visible and authoritative. In Matthew 18, Jesus says to his disciples:..If Jesus did not intend his Church to be authoritative and visible, then what Church is he talking about in this verse? It’s clear in the text that this Church is communal.

    Error #3, as supporting Rome as the infallible authority, for first, this text is actually about settling persons disputes, and for which Paul teaches,

    "If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church." (1 Corinthians 6:4)

    Nor is the magisterial office new, but this was established in the OT which had Divinely established authority for the interpretation of Scripture, and which parallels that given to the NT, both in application in civil matters and in doctrinal. (Lv. 10:10,11; Dt. 16:18; 17:8-13; 33:10; Neh. 8:8; 2Ch 19:8-10; Mal. 2:7)

    And Westminster affirms,

    It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same... — http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm

    But what is entirely absent is a perpetually assuredly infallible magisterium, nor was one ever necessary. And which is The Issue, as the veracity of Rome's truth claims rests upon the premise of her assured infallibility, by which the RC has his assurance, despite the pretense of using Scripture as if the weight of its warrant was the basis.

    It is also evident from Scripture that Jesus intended this community to gather regularly for worship:

    Error #4, as pertains to Rome's gathering to worship a wafer as being the source and summit of their faith around which all else revolved, in which "the work of our redemption is accomplished," but which is simply not seen in Acts or the church epistles, instead it is only manifestly described once therein, and is interpretive of the gospel, and in which this "feast of charity" shows the Lord's death by the unselfish manner in which they partake of the communal meal, declaring their unity with the Lord who died for them and each other. As explained here . .

    Is the Bible all you need? On his way from Jerusalem to Gaza, Phillip the Evangelist encounters a eunuch reading the Book of Isaiah:

    Error #5, as pertains to refuting SS, as this does not claim Scripture formally provides everything, so that reason, the church, etc. are superfluous, but which is provides for.

    This is reinforced again in 2 Peter 1:20: First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,

    Error #6, as this "authentic interpretation" itself is erroneous, as it pertains to how Scripture was written, and not that a soul is not to do as the noble Bereans did, (Acts 17:11) or that an RC is not to objectively examine the evidence to determine the veracity of RC teaching, which is cultic.

    And yet again in 2 Peter 3:15-16: So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. .. A teacher is necessary; preferably an authoritative one.

    Error #7, as this does not teach an authoritative one means an possessing assured infallibility,even by those who were the instruments and stewards of Scripture. For indeed the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation.

    And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and 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.)

    If one must submit to the magisterium after the manner Rome requires, then the church itself is invalid, but which false fundamental premise invalidates Rome as being the one true church.

    What about scandals in the Church? As my colleague Tim Staples is fond of saying, “You don’t leave Peter because of Judas.” From a Catholic perspective this means you don’t leave the Church because someone didn’t live up to its teaching.

    Error #8, as excusing Rome in seeking to justify her claims despite scandals, as she have never even elected a pope after the non-political Biblical method used for replacing Judas, nor kept simply 12 apostles as they did, which was in order to keep the original number of apostles (Rv. 21:14). And instead she has elected men who morally were more like Judas than Peter, and required obedience to them even in torturing suspected heretics or even possible witnesses of them.

    Get back to where you belong

    Error #9, as the church of Rome is fundamentally contrary to the NT church, is not where real disciples of Christ belong.

    He founded a Church, gave it authority in the areas of faith and morals, and guards it from teaching error (Mt 18:17-18).

    Error #10. That is the fundamental error, for besides the fact shown before that despite the wishful thinking of RCs, Mt 18:17-18 nor any other texts do not teach an 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. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)

    Nor that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium, and thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God. For as said, this would invalidate the church itself, which began with common people recognizing what the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation would not, that a couple itinerant Preachers were of God.

  • Responding to “Spiritual but Not Religious” Christians

    07/24/2014 5:46:01 AM PDT · 77 of 147
    daniel1212 to Resettozero
    If you were addressing that to me, then I’m puzzled how you could draw that inference from anything I’ve posted.

    That indeed is implicitly obvious, but even if you said the earth was round, some RCs would object if it came from a Protestant.

  • Responding to “Spiritual but Not Religious” Christians

    07/24/2014 4:35:23 AM PDT · 70 of 147
    daniel1212 to metmom

    The church is not supreme over Scripture, and was grafted into the vine of Israel, not the opposite. But as Rome imagines herself as speaking Truth by fiat, with the veracity of her doctrines being established upon the premise of her assured veracity, thus RCs must resort to Jesus inventing a religion because they rebel against the Lord establishing His Truth Claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as Christianity had its foundations in the OT, and is the fulfillment of it.

  • Christian evangelists seek out children at Portland playgrounds, pools

    07/24/2014 3:48:49 AM PDT · 131 of 180
    daniel1212 to Eva
    Sandusky claimed to be a Christian, too.

    Are you serious? It is because of such abuse of that name that more evangelism in the Spirit of Christ is needed. But according to your perverse reasoning, since counterfeit Christians exist, then all should be treated as a Sandusky. What a wonderful message you pass on to kids. You are the one who should not be doing so.

  • Christian evangelists seek out children at Portland playgrounds, pools

    07/24/2014 3:40:39 AM PDT · 130 of 180
    daniel1212 to imardmd1
    danielle

    Its daniel (male).

    it’s only sin-sick parents that don’t want the Christian Way presented in the public forum of schools, media, and places of public gathering to awaken their own children’s sensitivities to and criticism of their parents’ wickedness. No parent really loving his/her child would ever want to block the child’s knowledge of sin, of personal purity, and righteousness.

    Amen. But it seems some here imagine a bunch of people surrounding their 1.7 kids with high pressure tactics to coax a prayer out of them (which i oppose), or imagine anyone giving a gospel tract to a kid has some perverted goal, and which parents will pass such paranoia on.

  • Christian evangelists seek out children at Portland playgrounds, pools

    07/24/2014 3:29:44 AM PDT · 129 of 180
    daniel1212 to imardmd1
    Kaye Schmitt, a self-appointed and uninvited "protector" of both parents as well as their children, as well as the biased "journalist" writing this article, ought to be told forcefully and succinctly to mind their own business, and allow others to mind their own established and exclusive privilege in exercising their supervisory interaction with CEF regarding the presentation offered to their children, eh?

    AMEN!

  • Christian evangelists seek out children at Portland playgrounds, pools

    07/24/2014 3:28:47 AM PDT · 128 of 180
    daniel1212 to imardmd1
    I’ve given out a lot of the tract pictured, as well as of the version of it that has children with lovely choclatey complexion pictured. It is very effective, and I’ve never had a complaint from parents.

    Nor should they, but another FReeper even complained that fixing kids bikes for free in the inner city here was encouraging theft.

    I wish some caring soul had explained the simple gospel to when i was a kid. I did not even understand what a "sacrifice" was. I often just say in passing, "give your heart to Jesus who gave Himself for us." If things are conducive to say more, I basically tell them that we have all broken God's laws (naming a few), and cannot go to Heaven, as our sins would ruin it as God is holy, and so we need to be clean inside.

    Which can only be done if someone who did nothing wrong paid the price for our forgiveness, which is Jesus Christ explaining how He came does from Heaven and never sinned, serving God and others day and night, doing nothing wrong but everything right, but then took responsibility for all that we did wrong, and died for use and rose again.

    I then may ask them if they ever got blamed for something they did not do, and briefly explain how Jesus was, and that God looks at our lives and says the things we did will send us to Hell, but that He looks at what His Son did and says that is enough to send them to Heaven.

    But that they need to decide that they want Him over sin, and a new life following Jesus, ask Him to save them, and that God will save them because of Jesus, as no one can earn Heaven.

    I then urge them to do so, and to be on Jesus' side not the devil's, who comes to steal kill and destroy. But i rarely lead them in prayer to do so, as only a prayer out of a convicted needy heart will be efficacious, and if they are, then they can ask the Lord to save them. Praise God in Christ.

  • Christian evangelists seek out children at Portland playgrounds, pools

    07/23/2014 9:43:37 PM PDT · 121 of 180
    daniel1212 to Eva
    Passing out a testament is not the same as targeting a child for the purpose of saving them. It even sounds sick. My kids are grown, but my husband was always adamant about being suspicious of the motives of any adult who attempted to spend time with our kids. If those people keep it up, they will be accused of being another Sandusky.

    That is what is sick. Offering Christian gospel lit. at a public park to young (esp.) and old or "At a park on Monday, the group laid out a tarp for children and chairs for their parents. A pair of volunteers led about 12 kids through Bible verses and songs that praised a Christian god" [atheist for Christ], is equated with a guy in the showers.

    Next it will be Christian being charged with child abuse for raising their kids up in their faith.

  • Christian evangelists seek out children at Portland playgrounds, pools

    07/23/2014 9:17:53 PM PDT · 117 of 180
    daniel1212 to El Cid
    Children need to be taught what is right, and how to distinguish the truth - because we will all be exposed to lies and garbage throughout our lives.

    True, and as a matter of fact, children can be evangelists for Christ, versus the devil.

  • Christian evangelists seek out children at Portland playgrounds, pools

    07/23/2014 9:05:35 PM PDT · 116 of 180
    daniel1212 to Lurking Libertarian
  • Christian evangelists seek out children at Portland playgrounds, pools

    07/23/2014 9:02:17 PM PDT · 115 of 180
    daniel1212 to DoodleDawg
    My beef would be with a strange adult coming up to my kid without my permission. I'll ask you the same question I asked someone else. What if your kid came home from the park bearing literature from the Mormon Church or a Muslim Outreach or Christian Scientists, and explained how the nice man or lady had told them all about it. Wouldn't you be a bit annoyed

    Indeed yes, but as said, this is not a free speech issue, but that what is best. If kids came home with a cartoon about how Ronald Regan was best for the country, kids to grandpa, i would be happy, but not if it was Jimmy Carter.

    Outreach by CEF is right because Christ is good, and is as right here as it would be in a Communist country. If you oppose Christ, i can see why you would oppose Christian outreach to them, unless it is the mere aspect of the form as per the atheist's charge.

  • Christian evangelists seek out children at Portland playgrounds, pools

    07/23/2014 8:54:10 PM PDT · 112 of 180
    daniel1212 to SkyDancer
    Do you want someone coming up to you and in your face yelling “You’re going to Hell without Jesus” which is basically what those people are doing.

    That you think they are yelling in peoples face is consistent with your lack of knowledge manifest by your other questions.

  • Christian evangelists seek out children at Portland playgrounds, pools

    07/23/2014 8:50:03 PM PDT · 109 of 180
    daniel1212 to Eva
    I think that the idea of targeting children at pools and playgrounds to be deplorable. It is the same type of thing that we criticized when the PETA freaks targeted the 4H kids at county fairs.

    Do you monitor all the advertisements targeting you children? Or the liberals in your school?

    This is not a free speech issue, it is what is best and right. If you are not a Christian i can understand why you would see this Christian outreach as deplorable, but we see it as a most gracious offer to them and all. While opposing liberals and such doing so.

  • Christian evangelists seek out children at Portland playgrounds, pools

    07/23/2014 8:42:48 PM PDT · 107 of 180
    daniel1212 to DoodleDawg
    Or do you have issues with a parent deciding what is best for their child?

    Basically of course not, even in Communist countries, but if they do want what is best for them then they will neither abort them or oppose basic public Christian outreach to them and all, but favor is and oppose that of cults and liberals. but if they do oppose basic public Christian outreach then such outreach is needed even more. And which means suffering the consequences.

    You should be glad we outreach to liberals and their kids at least.

  • Christian evangelists seek out children at Portland playgrounds, pools

    07/23/2014 8:34:01 PM PDT · 103 of 180
    daniel1212 to DoodleDawg
    Why should I take the word of Child Evangelism Fellowship? Just leave the kids alone, regardless of what your agenda is.

    Exactly what the devil and liberals want as regards Christian evangelism, while "leave the kids alone" is not what the liberals are doing, and one hour of typical TV has more ideological contend even in advertisements then they are going to get by some CEF workers. Are you even pro-God.

  • Christian evangelists seek out children at Portland playgrounds, pools

    07/23/2014 8:29:40 PM PDT · 101 of 180
    daniel1212 to Maudeen; Alamo-Girl

    a gracious beautiful testimony.

  • Christian evangelists seek out children at Portland playgrounds, pools

    07/23/2014 8:27:07 PM PDT · 100 of 180
    daniel1212 to El Cid
    Actually, unless they are acting in a very creepy manner (kind of like the one I described) I applaud their efforts. If they are just passing out tracts - go for it. In today's society, children are going to be exposed 24/7 to unfiltered sewage from their schools, and from their televisions. Exposing them to a glimmer of the Truth is a kindness.

    The Christian common sense gene again. You cannot help it; you were born again that way.

  • Christian evangelists seek out children at Portland playgrounds, pools

    07/23/2014 8:25:51 PM PDT · 98 of 180
    daniel1212 to strider44
    If someone tried this on my kids they would get one warning then catch a severe beating.

    Really?" What is "Tried this?" So who would you beat up? Someone who offered a gospel tract to your kids as they passed by or in a park? Or "At a park on Monday, the group laid out a tarp for children and chairs for their parents. A pair of volunteers led about 12 kids through Bible verses and songs that praised a Christian god. "

    "A Christian god." Is it too hard to Jesus? Obviously this was written by an atheist, and the same article gets its warning from a group run by atheists, which assert, "They pretend to be a mainstream Christian Bible study when in fact they're a very old school fundamentalist sect," said Kaye Schmitt, an organizer with Protect Portland Children, which takes issue with the group's message and the way it's delivering it.

    Whose side are you on?

  • Christian evangelists seek out children at Portland playgrounds, pools

    07/23/2014 8:13:10 PM PDT · 95 of 180
    daniel1212 to Pearls Before Swine
    The parents should have a strong say in what their kids are exposed to when they are young, IMHO.

    Of course, but look around at the freedom kids have to be exposed to all sorts of anti-Christ and immoral junk, while giving them some gospel literature in public and perhaps engaging a group in some brief dialog if wanted is seen as predatory.

    Parents should be glad someone is doing so, while if it was Mormons of the local brown shirts then they should be confronted and told to stop.

  • Christian evangelists seek out children at Portland playgrounds, pools

    07/23/2014 8:06:40 PM PDT · 93 of 180
    daniel1212 to DoodleDawg
    I don’t care what their message is, you don’t engage children in anything without the parent’s permission. Or at least knowledge.

    That should be the norm, but when in Communist country that indoctrinates kids into atheism, and the parent overall follow its ideology, then outreaching in public, and engaging souls young and old with the gospel message, is necessary.

  • Christian evangelists seek out children at Portland playgrounds, pools

    07/23/2014 8:00:13 PM PDT · 91 of 180
    daniel1212 to Oliviaforever
    If their very own parrents deny Christ and the Supreme Court has banned the Bible from the classroom, then it becomes the responsibility of Child Evangelism Fellowship’s Good News Club to Save these children from the oppressive Godlessness of their family and public schools.

    But too many parents in essence want their children to go to Hell. They will send their kids to public schools and end up with indoctrinated offspring favoring sodomy, but if someone offers a kids gospel tract to them then they treat you as if you were Hitler.

  • Christian evangelists seek out children at Portland playgrounds, pools

    07/23/2014 7:55:38 PM PDT · 89 of 180
    daniel1212 to wbarmy
    Just because a reporter and an atheist group says this groups tactics are predatory, doesn’t mean they are. It means the reporter wants a knee jerk reaction from people reading the article and they got just what they wanted.

    You have that right. Pray about the increasing kind of news like this, and overcome evil with good. The goal is to make government and its arms that only agency that can trusted.

  • Christian evangelists seek out children at Portland playgrounds, pools

    07/23/2014 7:52:17 PM PDT · 88 of 180
    daniel1212 to Pearls Before Swine; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; ...
    I’m sorry, I don’t approve. It sounds a bit predatory to me to target young children for programming of belief at a public venue like a swimming pool.

    That is just what the devil wants and you are dead wrong. Of course it sounds predatory, as the real predators are those like mercurynews.com which favor the MSM indoctrination on such things as "gay rights," ("Mercury News editorial: Supreme Court should declare gay marriage legal;" "Opinion: Supreme Court justices didn't go far enough on Prop. 8," "Elton John says Jesus would support gay marriage," "Why is job discrimination the last piece of the gay-rights puzzle?"...)

    That just do not want completion, and if they had their way then every "Bible clubs" and even raising children up in Christian faith would be outlawed, while today's kids are the most Biblically ignorant and morally confused generation America has ever raised, and very few parents raise up their kids in Scriptural evangelical Christian faith.

    God has no grandchildren, and at any gven time the church is one generation away from extinction. Evangelical outreach to kids at apartment pools, public parks and dozens of other gathering spots is part of just what this country and world needs, and is that is being "predatory" then you can leave them to the devil, who "as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:" (1 Peter 5:8)

    Anyone who opposes the public evangelization of the young by those who are presenting the simple basic gospel message, not trying to rope them into a particular elitist church (or have other plans), are siding with the devil.

    If that seems too strong, then wait till you see what happens when with those who do not find Christ.

    Instead, get a tract like "How to get to Heaven," and "target" kids yourself with them, handing them out with grace wherever you go, along with adult ones: http://www.fellowshiptractleague.org/english.html .

  • Dan Borislow, magicJack Inventor, Dies at 52

    07/23/2014 5:04:21 AM PDT · 18 of 19
    daniel1212 to teacherwoes
    I guess we should start banning soccer now because if we can save the life of just one person...etc., etc./s

    That is the liberal mindset, or regulate it so that you need a doctors permission (due to the gov. being responsible for your health under ACA) or be part of a league, they know who is playing, and using the field.

  • Dan Borislow, magicJack Inventor, Dies at 52

    07/23/2014 4:59:24 AM PDT · 17 of 19
    daniel1212 to ConservativeStatement

    Question to his accountant:

    How much money did he leave?

    Accountant: He left it all.

    “But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:” (Matthew 6:20)

  • Did Paul invent or hijack Christianity?

    07/23/2014 4:33:13 AM PDT · 1,307 of 1,307
    daniel1212 to boatbums
    In this sense, "Judaizers" refers to Jewish Christians who sought to induce Gentiles to observe Jewish religious customs: to "judaize." ... Sounds like a perfectly Scriptural term to use to me!

    Indeed, even if it offends some.

    "And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased." (Galatians 5:11)

  • Daily Reflections with Oswald Chambers [July 22, 2014]

    07/23/2014 4:20:21 AM PDT · 5 of 6
    daniel1212 to Alamo-Girl
    Am I willing to have no friends, no father, no brother, and no self-interest— simply to be ready for death? That is the condition required for sanctification.

    A hard saying, but marching to Zion with then Lord requires forsaking all in heart, not counting our life dear to ourselves, but ultimately seeing Jesus only, and ourselves with Him. Now to do it better.

  • Did Paul invent or hijack Christianity?

    07/22/2014 7:13:09 PM PDT · 1,305 of 1,307
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981; boatbums; Springfield Reformer
    .Yes, while I find the repeated use of that word offensive, it was your post 894 that triggered my reproving question. I did not write about it until you introduced intimate relations between what I understood as a Jew and his wife into the discussion..

    That was not when you made the protest about the word "Judaizer," but it is when you censored me as expressing what you saw as antisemitic, antiChristian, and unclean words, rashly supposing i was addressing typical Jews, not Messianic believers who mock the full newness of the New Covenant.

    I did not realize you were not speaking of a Jews. Honestly, I found the focus on that intimacy a bit creepy in that context but going back I see you introduced it before in a longer post...You can resume telling the Gentiles not to live as Jews. I'm fine with that.

    It is not at all "creepy," but thanks for your permission to do what Scripture shows, and for finally, if not straight forwardly, admitting that your response was rash, out of context, and unwarranted.

    Better hunting next time.

    The end.

  • Apollo 11 Astronauts Walked on the Moon 45 years ago Today! (Or Did They?)

    07/22/2014 5:32:50 PM PDT · 155 of 155
    daniel1212 to Telepathic Intruder

    I am not surprised, as if you could really keep the gov. from sanctioning one general religion over another and be consistent with the Founders and the Constitution.

    Meanwhile, one other aspect of God’s grace i mentioned was,

    Apollo 12 launched on schedule from Kennedy Space Center, during a rainstorm. It was the first rocket launch attended by an incumbent US president, Richard Nixon. 36.5 seconds after lift-off, the vehicle triggered a lightning discharge through itself and down to the earth through the Saturn’s ionized plume. Protective circuits on the fuel cells in the Service Module (SM) falsely detected overloads and took all three fuel cells offline, along with much of the Command/Service Module (CSM) instrumentation. A second strike at 52 seconds after launch knocked out the “8-ball” attitude indicator. The telemetry stream at Mission Control was garbled. However, the vehicle continued to fly correctly; the strikes had not affected the Saturn V Instrument Unit.

    The loss of all three fuel cells put the CSM entirely on batteries. They were unable to maintain normal 28 V DC bus voltages into the heavy 75-ampere launch loads. One of the AC inverters dropped offline. These power supply problems lit nearly every warning light on the control panel and caused much of the instrumentation to malfunction.

    Legendary EECOM John Aaron (the original NASA “steely-eyed missile man”)[3] remembered the telemetry failure pattern from an earlier test when a power supply malfunctioned in the CSM Signal Conditioning Equipment (SCE). The SCE converts raw signals from instrumentation to standard voltages for the spacecraft instrument displays and telemetry encoders.[4]

    Aaron made a call, “Try SCE to aux.” This switched the SCE to a backup power supply. The switch was fairly obscure, and neither Flight Director Gerald Griffin, CAPCOM Gerald Carr, nor Commander Conrad immediately recognized it. Lunar Module Pilot Alan Bean, flying in the right seat as the CSM systems engineer, remembered the SCE switch from a training incident a year earlier when the same failure had been simulated. Aaron’s quick thinking and Bean’s memory saved what could have been an aborted mission. Bean put the fuel cells back on line, and with telemetry restored, the launch continued successfully. Once in earth parking orbit, the crew carefully checked out their spacecraft before re-igniting the S-IVB third stage for trans-lunar injection. The lightning strikes had caused no serious permanent damage.

    Initially, it was feared that the lightning strike could have caused the Command Module’s (CM) parachute mechanism to prematurely fire, disabling the explosive bolts that open the parachute compartment to deploy them.[citation needed] If they were indeed disabled, the Command Module would have crashed uncontrollably into the Pacific Ocean and killed the crew instantly. Since there was no way to figure out whether or not this was the case, ground controllers decided not to tell the astronauts about the possibility. The parachutes deployed and functioned normally at the end of the mission. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_12

    Praise God. “..and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it [the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven].” (Revelation 21:24)

  • Apollo 11 Astronauts Walked on the Moon 45 years ago Today! (Or Did They?)

    07/22/2014 11:29:34 AM PDT · 149 of 155
    daniel1212 to moose07
    There is a museum in the world, (only ONE apparently), that has actual giant mummies on display, and this museum, (the Gold museum in Lima, Peru),

    If so, it appears the Smithsonian Institute says,

  • Did Paul invent or hijack Christianity?

    07/22/2014 11:25:02 AM PDT · 1,303 of 1,307
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    I detest all the antisemitism that stained, or still stains, the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

    That is good, but the issue is that reproving "Christians" who impose literal observance of ceremonial laws, which the apostles did, and which is what i did, only to be charged with expressing antisemitic, antiChristian, and unclean words, by a rash RC who will not admit her/his error but impugns that faith by trying to defend it.