Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $4,731
5%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 5% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by daniel1212

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • The Vortex—Star-Spangled Heresy

    07/04/2015 5:11:21 PM PDT · 27 of 73
    daniel1212 to NKP_Vet; sasportas
    “Your current Marxist Pope is pushing every wrong headed thing imaginable”.

    Not on faith and morals.

    Wrong, as even social teaching is based on faith and morals, including the latest papal encyclical, and Catholic papal teaching, as invoked by your own comrades, conveys that you are bound to give assent of mind and will to such, and not to engage in public dissent, even though (unlike infallible teaching) you may internally disagree.

    Dispute it if you want, but the evidence will be against you.

    The alternative is to not follow the pastors as docile sheep, but seek to ascertain the validity of papal church teaching by examination of evidences for it, as evangelicals are to do, and are censured by RCs for so doing.

  • The Vortex—Star-Spangled Heresy

    07/04/2015 5:10:56 PM PDT · 26 of 73
    daniel1212 to NKP_Vet; JSDude1
    Your ancestors, unless they were Muslims or Buddists, were Catholic, so yes protestants got their faith from the Catholic Church. End of story.

    Nonsense, and inconsequential even if it was true. The NT church which provided the NT, which itself supplemented the OT, stands in fundamental contrast to the church of Rome, which is a progressive deformation of it .

    Yet in any case, even being the instrument and steward of Divine revelation does not require or mean that all that such says it is be followed. If you want to disagree, do so and see what this premise leads to.

  • The Vortex—Star-Spangled Heresy

    07/04/2015 5:10:50 PM PDT · 25 of 73
    daniel1212 to JSDude1
    Wrong, it’s not Protestant Christians who are responsible for the fall of America; it’s the secular left, numbscull. If you want to get technical about it, American Catholics (per survey results) are more liberal than American Protestants.

    And it is the rejection of the most fundamental distinctive of the Reformation, that of Scripture as supreme as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God, that is a fundamental aspect of secularism.

  • The Vortex—Star-Spangled Heresy

    07/04/2015 2:17:14 PM PDT · 13 of 73
    daniel1212 to Morgana; Alex Murphy; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; ...
    once Protestant-majority America — with all the diversity that description contains — realized it was living Catholic morality, without adhering to the underlying Catholic theology, it threw off the morality and turned secular.

    No matter how desperate RC attempts at damage control become, they really should not resort to contriving American history. :non: 

    Rather than the absurd, unsubstantiated assertion that Protestant America threw off morality and turned secular because they realized it was Catholic morality (which as absurdity is an understatement), the reality it was not Catholic morality - which includes requiring RC rulers to exterminate all Protestants, and to disallow public dissent of RC teaching (inlcdg. the popes encyclicals) - but it was Biblical morality and polity they preached.

    Let us hear the words of a Catholic historian:

    Alexis de Tocqueville (1805—1859. French political thinker and historian; best known for his two volume, “Democracy in America”) The sects that exist in the United States are innumerable. They all differ in respect to the worship which is due to the Creator; but they all agree in respect to the duties which are due from man to man. Each sect adores the Deity in its own peculiar manner, but all sects preach the same moral law in the name of God...Moreover, all the sects of the United States are comprised within the great unity of Christianity, and Christian morality is everywhere the same...

    In the United States the sovereign authority is religious, and consequently hypocrisy must be common; but there is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth...

    There is certainly no country in the world where the tie of marriage is more respected than in America or where conjugal happiness is more highly or worthily appreciated, In Europe almost all the disturbances of society arise from the irregularities of domestic life. To despise the natural bonds and legitimate pleasures of home is to contract a taste for excesses, a restlessness of heart, and fluctuating desires. Agitated by the tumultuous passions that frequently disturb his dwelling, the European is galled by the obedience which the legislative powers of the state exact. But when the American retires from the turmoil of public life to the bosom of his family, he finds in it the image of order and of peace...

    The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren traditionary faith which seems to vegetate in the soul rather than to live...

    Thus religious zeal is perpetually warmed in the United States by the fires of patriotism. These men do not act exclusively from a consideration of a future life; eternity is only one motive of their devotion to the cause. If you converse with these missionaries of Christian civilization, you will be surprised to hear them speak so often of the goods of this world, and to meet a politician where you expected to find a priest.

    They will tell you that "all the American republics are collectively involved with each other; if the republics of the West were to fall into anarchy, or to be mastered by a despot, the republican institutions which now flourish upon the shores of the Atlantic Ocean would be in great peril. It is therefore our interest that the new states should be religious, in order that they may permit us to remain free." (Democracy in America, Volume I Chapter XVII, 1835; http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/religion/ch1_17.htm)

    Of which Benjamin Franklin (1706—1790. One of the Founding Fathers; leading thinker; author; printer; statesman; postmaster; diplomat, and a non-Christian deist) wrote, ...serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated, but respected and practiced. Atheism is unknown there; Infidelity rare and secret; so that persons may live to a great age in that country without having their piety shocked by meeting with either an Atheist or an Infidel. And the Divine Being seems to have manifested His approbation of the mutual forbearance and kindness by which the different sects treat each other, and by the remarkable prosperity with which He has been please to favor the whole country. (Benjamin Franklin, "Information to those who would Remove to America" In Franklin, Benjamin. The Bagatelles from Passy. Ed. Lopez, Claude A. New York: Eakins Press. 1967; http://mith.umd.edu//eada/html/display.php?docs=franklin_bagatelle4.xml. Also, John Gould Curtis, American history told by contemporaries .... Volume 3, p. 26)

    And which obedience God blessed, but like Israel of old to whom God had written the great things of His law, they counted them as strange thing, (Hosea 8:12) and began following men like RCs follow popes, rather than Scripture being supreme.

    And rather than Catholics being the most moral, the reality is that it RCs who are the most liberal today as compared with with those who most strongly hold to the primary evangelical distinctive in Scripture literally being the wholly inspired and accurate word of God.

    See for yourself by the grace of God.

    And note that Biblically, it is what one does and effects that constitutes the evidence of what one really believes, which Rome shows in part by treating even proabortion/sodomy/Muslim souls and their supporters as members in life and in death.

  • “It is preferable that every service, even in the Church, come to an end,” says pope

    07/04/2015 3:47:12 AM PDT · 24 of 47
    daniel1212 to bimboeruption; BlackElk; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; ...
    Pentecostal pastors were present? In a pig’s eye.

    Why would that be inconsistent? Pope Francis meets US televangelists, and the first-ever ‘papal high-five’ follows

    Compromise on the part of the evangelicals.

  • The Gospel for Roman Catholics

    07/03/2015 11:00:38 AM PDT · 393 of 639
    daniel1212 to jobim
    I hope you understand my point. Holy Scriptures gives us God's account of God's movements among men. I take those, immerse in them, and commune with Our Lord and Savior based upon the truth imparted. It is absolutely direct. Do you deny that, because I am Catholic, I am unable to do this?

    NO, as instead I encourage it, if you look to the sinless bodily resurrected Lord Jesus to save you on His account as a damned and destitute sinner, and then follow Him.

    The problem is that for every RC who only talks about praying to the sinless Lord Jesus as their Savior there are a thousand more who talk about praying to the sinless bodily resurrected Mary of Catholicism to rescue/help them due to her merits.

  • The Gospel for Roman Catholics

    07/02/2015 8:33:35 PM PDT · 299 of 639
    daniel1212 to Rashputin
    So, not doing is doing, and doing isn't doing, and doing isn't fruit, and fruit isn't doing, and Christ didn't mean what Christ clearly stated. Thanks for clearing that up. Just like skipping what follows and is directly tied to John 3:16, substituting all sorts of smoke and mirrors doesn't alter what Christ clearly stated by so much as one iota.

    Since this is a poor excuse for lack of an argument you must be left to your soliloquy.

    The funny little pretense that not receiving rewards is the same as being purified as if by fire is a nice touch,

    Your attempt at sarcasm will not change the fact that the texts says absolutely nothing about believers being purified, nor can 1Cor. 3 otherwise be made to refer to purgatory (try if you want), while what the text does say is that they will be saved despite their workmanship s which they built the church with being burnt up, not because of it. And that this loss is that one thing that they are said to suffer, nor does it commence at death, but awaits the Lord's coming.

    though, one that I'm sure impresses people who prefer to pretend they're under no obligation to Christ to obey Christ in order to be obedient to Christ.

    Which false belief I just refuted at length, and thus your attempt at sarcasm once again simply testifies to your lack of an argument.

  • The Gospel for Roman Catholics

    07/02/2015 6:57:37 PM PDT · 282 of 639
    daniel1212 to Rashputin; MHGinTN
    Bringing forth good fruit is essential to Salvation as Christ Himself stated it in spite of Protestantism teaching that Christ was wrong and any requirement to bring forth good fruit is "works salvation"

    And just what convenience store do you get your definition of Protestantism and what it teaches in this regard? Since RCs infer we follow Luther in all he says, let us hear him and others (in context, unlike frequent RC quotes):

    In his Introduction to Romans, Luther stated that saving faith is,

    a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever...Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire! [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-faith.txt]

    This is what I have often said, if faith be true, it will break forth and bear fruit. If the tree is green and good, it will not cease to blossom forth in leaves and fruit. It does this by nature. I need not first command it and say: Look here, tree, bear apples. For if the tree is there and is good, the fruit will follow unbidden. If faith is present works must follow.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:340-341]

    “We must therefore most certainly maintain that where there is no faith there also can be no good works; and conversely, that there is no faith where there are no good works. Therefore faith and good works should be so closely joined together that the essence of the entire Christian life consists in both.” [Martin Luther, as cited by Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963], 246, footnote 99]

    All believers are like poor Lazarus; and every believer is a true Lazarus, for he is of the same faith, mind and will, as Lazarus. And whoever will not be a Lazarus, will surely have his portion with the rich glutton in the flames of hell. For we all must like Lazarus trust in God, surrender ourselves to him to work in us according to his own good pleasure, and be ready to serve all men. And although we all do not suffer from such sores and poverty, yet the same mind and will must be in us, that were in Lazarus, cheerfully to bear such things, wherever God wills it.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:25]

    “This is why St. Luke and St. James have so much to say about works, so that one says: Yes, I will now believe, and then he goes and fabricates for himself a fictitious delusion, which hovers only on the lips as the foam on the water. No, no; faith is a living and an essential thing, which makes a new creature of man, changes his spirit and wholly and completely converts him. It goes to the foundation and there accomplishes a renewal of the entire man; so, if I have previously seen a sinner, I now see in his changed conduct, manner and life, that he believes. So high and great a thing is faith.”[Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:341]

    “For it is impossible for him who believes in Christ, as a just Savior, not to love and to do good. If, however, he does not do good nor love, it is sure that faith is not present. Therefore man knows by the fruits what kind of a tree it is, and it is proved by love and deed whether Christ is in him and he believes in Christ. As St. Peter says in 2 Pet. 1, 10: "Wherefore, brethren, give the more diligence to make your calling and election sure; for if ye do these things, ye shall never stumble," that is, if you bravely practice good works you will be sure and cannot doubt that God has called and chosen you.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 1:40]

    For if your heart is in the state of faith that you know your God has revealed himself to you to be so good and merciful, without thy merit, and purely gratuitously, while you were still his enemy and a child of eternal wrath; if you believe this, you cannot refrain from showing yourself so to your neighbor; and do all out of love to God and for the welfare of your neighbor. Therefore, see to it that you make no distinction between friend and foe, the worthy and the unworthy; for you see that all who were here mentioned, have merited from us something different than that we should love and do them good. And the Lord also teaches this, when in Luke 6:35 he says: "But love your enemies, and do good unto them, and lend, never despairing; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be sons of the Most High: for he is kind toward the unthankful and evil." [Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:101]

    “Therefore we must close our eyes, not look at our works, whether they be great, small, honorable, contemptible, spiritual, temporal or what kind of an appearance and name they may have upon earth; but look to the command and to the obedience in the works. Do they govern you, then the work also is truly right and precious, and completely godly, although it springs forth as insignificant as a straw. However, if obedience and God’s commandments do not dominate you, then the work is not right, but damnable, surely the devil’s own doings, although it were even so great a work as to raise the dead...And St. Peter says, Ye are to be as faithful, good shepherds or administrators of the manifold grace of God; so that each one may serve the other, and be helpful to him by means of what he has received, 1 Peter 4:10. See, here Peter says the grace and gifts of God are not one but manifold, and each is to tend to his own, develop the same and through them be of service to others.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 1:244]

    In addition, upon hearing that he was being charged with rejection of the Old Testament moral law, Luther responded,

    And truly, I wonder exceedingly, how it came to be imputed to me, that I should reject the Law or ten Commandments, there being extant so many of my own expositions (and those of several sorts) upon the Commandments, which also are daily expounded, and used in our Churches, to say nothing of the Confession and Apology, and other books of ours. Martin Luther, ["A Treatise against Antinomians, written in an Epistolary way", http://www.truecovenanter.com/truelutheran/luther_against_the_antinomians.html]

    The Westminster Confession of Faith states:

    Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love. [Westminster Confession of Faith, CHAPTER XI. Of Justification. http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm]

    The classic Methodist commentator Adam Clarke held,

    The Gospel proclaims liberty from the ceremonial law: but binds you still faster under the moral law. To be freed from the ceremonial law is the Gospel liberty; to pretend freedom from the moral law is Antinomianism.[Adam Clarke Commentary, Gal. 5:13]

    Likewise on on Titus 1:16 ("They profess that they know God; but in works they deny, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate." KJV):

    Full of a pretended faith, while utterly destitute of those works by which a genuine faith is accredited and proved. [Adam Clarke Commentary, Titus 1]

    To which the Presbyterian commentator Mathew Henry concurs: "There are many who in word and tongue profess to know God, and yet in their lives and conversations deny and reject him; their practice is a contradiction to their profession." [Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible, Titus 1]

    Contemporary evangelical theologian R. C. Sproul writes,

    The relationship of faith and good works is one that may be distinguished but never separated...if good works do not follow from our profession of faith, it is a clear indication that we do not possess justifying faith. The Reformed formula is, “We are justified by faith alone but not by a faith that is alone.”[[“Essential Truths of the Christian Faith,” Google books]

    Also, rather than the easy believism Rome associates with sola fide, in Puritan Protestantism there was often a tendency to make the way to the cross too narrow, perhaps in reaction against the Antinomian controversy as described in an account (http://www.the-highway.com/Early_American_Bauckham.html) of Puritans during the early American period that notes,

    “They had, like most preachers of the Gospel, a certain difficulty in determining what we might call the ‘conversion level’, the level of difficulty above which the preacher may be said to be erecting barriers to the Gospel and below which he may be said to be encouraging men to enter too easily into a mere delusion of salvation. Contemporary critics, however, agree that the New England pastors set the level high. Nathaniel Ward, who was step-son to Richard Rogers and a distinguished Puritan preacher himself, is recorded as responding to Thomas Hooker’s sermons on preparation for receiving Christ in conversion with, ‘Mr. Hooker, you make as good Christians before men are in Christ as ever they are after’, and wishing, ‘Would I were but as good a Christian now as you make men while they are preparing for Christ.’”

    Jas 2:17 If it hath not works, is dead - The faith that does not produce works of charity and mercy is without the living principle which animates all true faith, that is, love to God and love to man. — Adam Clarke, LL.D., F.S.A., (1715-1832), Commentary on the Bible

    Jas 2:14-18 Even so faith. Faith that has no power to bring one to obedience and to sway the life is as worthless as good wishes which end in words. — The People's New Testament (1891) by B. W. Johnson

    Jas 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. It is like a lifeless carcass, a body without a soul, Jam. 2:26 for as works, without faith, are dead works, so faith, without works, is a dead faith, and not like the lively hope and faith of regenerated persons: — Dr. John Gill (1690-1771), Exposition of the Entire Bible

    If the works which living faith produces have no existence, it is a proof that faith itself (literally, ‘in respect to itself’) has no existence; that is, that what one boasts of as faith, is dead.” “Faith” is said to be “dead in itself,” because when it has works it is alive, and it is discerned to be so, not in respect to its works, but in respect to itself. — Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown, Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

    Jas 2:17 So likewise that faith which hath not works is a mere dead, empty notion; of no more profit to him that hath it, than the bidding the naked be clothed is to him. — John Wesley

    Even so faith; that which they boasted of, and called faith. Is dead; void of that life, in which the very essence of faith consists, and which always discovers itself in vital actings and good fruits, where it is not hindered by some forcible impediment; in allusion to a corpse, which plainly appears to have no vital principle in it, all vital operations being ceased. It resembles a man’s body, and is called so, but in reality is not so, but a dead carcass. — Matthew Poole (1624 -1679)

    However, while works justify one having true faith which is counted for righteousness, and manifest that he is fit to be blessed by God under grace, works and one's own holiness are not what actually obtains justification, but in conversion God justifies the unGodly by faith.

    In Roman theology, one is formally justified by his own holiness being first "infused" via the act of baptism, and thus he usually ends up having to become good enough once again (and to atone for sins) via postmortem "purifying torments" commencing at death in order to enter Heaven and be with the Lord.

    Which is contrary to Scripture , which always places believers with the Lord once absent from this body wherever it clearly speaks of this, even entire churches. And with the only postmortem suffering is that of the loss of rewards (and the Lord's displeasure) at the judgment seat of Christ when He returns. (1Co. 3:8ff) Thanks be to God.

  • The Gospel for Roman Catholics

    07/02/2015 2:33:46 PM PDT · 243 of 639
    daniel1212 to CynicalBear
    Yes!

    I was thinking of statements attributed to Pius X here , and assent is called for to more than formal statements.

    More on this issue here on another thread, by God's grace.

  • The Gospel for Roman Catholics

    07/02/2015 4:05:14 AM PDT · 136 of 639
    daniel1212 to jobim
    Straw man argument that sets up an either/or Christ/Catholic Church. The premise is false.

    Rather, the only way the either/or Christ/Catholic Church premise is false is if RC teaching is indeed the supreme source which defines who He is and His will, which is the very thing that needs to be proven.

    However, you will not even affirm that what the Catholic Church says is the supreme law, and the premise of her ensured veracity is the basis for RC assurance of Truth, which would only affirm the OP charge that RCs follow the RCC first and foremost, which you asserted was a lie.

  • The Gospel for Roman Catholics

    07/01/2015 8:15:26 PM PDT · 106 of 639
    daniel1212 to jobim; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    RCs follow the RCC first and foremost

    That statement is a lie. It's a sin for a Christian to tell a lie.

    Indeed the latter is true, but the burden is upon you as the accuser to establish that it is. Saying they follow God is meaningless, as to do so presumes He has made His will known, and what RCs follow as that source is the issue. Either RCs follow Scripture of another source first, or they follow what their church says first.

    According to papal teaching, is the one duty for Catholics to follow the RC pastors as docile sheep?

    Should Church law be held as the supreme Law?

    Can one assuredly know what Scripture and tradition consist of and mean apart from faith that the instruments and stewards of Divine revelation is the trustworthy authoritative source on that?

    What is the basis for RC assurance that Catholic teaching is correct: that of the degree of evidential warrant or the premise of ensured magisterial veracity?

  • Deprecating Secure Sockets Layer Version 3.0 (RFC 7568)

    07/01/2015 8:43:54 AM PDT · 31 of 33
    daniel1212 to dayglored
    Windows ping coming up...

    Also see, We'd like your survey feedback - official or scam ?

    Just got this email myself, and as one said," I started answering the survey, but when it started to get into asking more personal questions that had nothing to do with Windows 10 I quit and didn't finish as it wouldn't let you skip questions."

    But so far MS has not required us to explicitly affirm we will not use its OS that "in a way that threatens...defames...degrades...or intimidates an individual or group of individuals for any reason; including on the basis of ...sexual orientation...or religion; or incites or encourages anyone else to do so."

    "...promotes...the purchase and sale of ammunition or firearms."

    Which "Prohibited Uses" applies to "all MSN and Windows Live and other services that allow users to post or share content with others, when those services display or link to this Code of Conduct (the 'services')." - http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-live/code-of-conduct

    Sounds like FR is excluded. But since an OS itself allows users to post or share content with others, what is to stop them from applying this to the use of its OS?

    This applies to OneDrive, but try to stop that from even running. Deprecating Secure Sockets Layer Version is one thing, but it is another to prohibit using MS software that in a way that deprecates a group of individuals for any reason, including on the basis of sexual orientation or religion; or incites or encourages anyone else to do so.

    I want to use a piece of software that enables me to view Linux in Windows (which MS should enable), but which the use of the software together with material that displays prejudice based on religion...or sexual orientation is strictly prohibited. - http://www.diskinternals.com/download/zd1435765016144/Linux_Reader.exe

    So much for free software as in free for anyone to use. Their loss.

  • Deprecating Secure Sockets Layer Version 3.0 (RFC 7568)

    07/01/2015 6:39:04 AM PDT · 23 of 33
    daniel1212 to dayglored

    You may want to see
    Upcoming changes to Windows 10 Insider Preview builds [UPDATED 6/22]: http://blogs.windows.com/bloggingwindows/2015/06/19/upcoming-changes-to-windows-10-insider-preview-builds/

    If an Insider could install the W/10 for free even without having W/8 or 8 then it seems that they could continue to run a valid install of the latter OS as well.

    Meanwhile, note that adjusting date and time on Build 10130 requires more hoops than before. Instead,, just run
    control.exe /name Microsoft.DateAndTime

    Other Canonical names: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ee330741%28v=vs.85%29.aspx

  • Why I am not Protestant (Non-Denominational, Baptist, Pentecostal, etc)

    07/01/2015 6:02:51 AM PDT · 330 of 330
    daniel1212 to Springfield Reformer
    In offering Himself for sin, we believe He accomplished the redemptive purpose for particular individuals.

    That the atonement of Christ was substitutionary, with Him taking responsibility for what we did wrong, and paying the price Divine justice requires for our sins to be forgiven, on His account. But why must it be limited only to those who appropriate it by redemptive faith?

    Surely it does not impugn the character or ability of God to provide grace to all, and allow the lost to reject it. The wedding feast was prepared for all, but not all responded to the call to come, (Mt. 22:1-14) and grace can be received in vain, (1Co. 15:2; 2Co. 6:1; Heb. 6:4-8) though as with God's word, it will accomplish His purposes. In which grace is given, and when rejected it justifies God as gracious and condemns man as wicked, and God judges man based upon the light and grace given.

    Yet it is hardly tenable to believe that every NT convert understood theological nature of the atonement, but they did believe that Christ died for our sins and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, (1 Corinthians 15:3-4) and that repentance and remission of sins in his name (Luke 24:47) is offered to all who believe with effectual faith. (Rm. 10:9,10; Heb. 6:9,10)

    It is obvious the RC position finds fault with penal substitution as an understanding of the atonement, probably most importantly because it negates the need for ongoing propitiation for sin in the mass.

    More specifically, which is due to the unScriptural literalistic rendering,of the Lord's Supper into "the same sacrifice with that of the cross...a sacrifice of propitiation, by which God is appeased and rendered propitious,.” (The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Published by Command of Pope Pius the Fifth (New York: Christian Press, 1905), p. 175) with Jesus continually sacrificing Himself thru the hands of men uniquely ordained as "priests" - unseen in the NT church - who have God obeying them to become flesh and blood - which no NT clergy seen doing - and is eaten in order to obtain spiritual life - which is nowhere the means of obtaining spiritual life.

  • Which corporate "Christian" groups had already embraced homosexuality?

    06/30/2015 9:38:58 AM PDT · 44 of 45
    daniel1212 to Mrs. Don-o
    What do you mean "treats Muslims as members" of the Church, when the Church does not do so? What are you talking about?

    Indeed what do you mean "treats Muslims as members" of the Church, when i never said the Church does so? What are you talking about? Why do so you see "proabortion/sodomite/Muslim" as meaning RCs being proabortion prosodomite but somehow the additional word Muslim does not mean RCs being proMuslim but Muslims themselves? Did you miss the /?

    As for the pro-aborts and pro-sodomy malefactors, they do not represent the Church: they exemplify the violation of Catholic faith and morals

    So you say, but as Scripture says, "I will shew thee my faith by my works" so Rome shows us what she really believes by treating even proabortion/sodomite/Muslim public figures as members in life and in death, manifesting to the people what she really means by what she officially says. You have to agree with this reality.

    It is a sin crying out to Heaven for vengeance, that they are not being disciplined,

    Which means that you are judging the Vaticans judgment as wrong , like as traddie RCs judge part of V2, and papal encyclicals as not warranting assent which excludes public dissent.

    or said the Church here on earth is sinless.

    Well, Pope Gregory VII asserted in his Dictatus Papae , “That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity," but which of course is subject to interpretation as to the scope of its teachings and magisterial level. As can be what level each teaching falls under and their meaning.

    Fix your eyes on Christ on the Cross.

    Now you are again speaking like an evangelical, but the RC message has always been that you look to Christ by looking to the church of Rome, as apart from which you neither assuredly know what Scripture consists of or means, and that what The Church teaches is effectively the supreme law.

    Which is set in contrast to ascertaining the veracity of teaching given by the pope and prelates by examination of the evidences for it.

    It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock, those who occupy a rank in the different degrees of the hierarchy and the multitude of the faithful. So distinct are these categories that with the pastoral body only rests the necessary right and authority for promoting the end of the society and directing all its members towards that end; the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. - VEHEMENTER NOS, Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906

    “All that we must 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.” ” —“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 ) ]

    Rather than endeavoring to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question,

    the Catholic...must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers."

    (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapters XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York )

  • Which corporate "Christian" groups had already embraced homosexuality?

    06/29/2015 7:30:44 PM PDT · 41 of 45
    daniel1212 to Jack Black
    Not officially, but Scripturally what you do and foster constitutes the evidence of what you really believe, (Mt. 7:20; Ja. 2:18) and by treating even proabortion/sodomite/Muslim public figures as members in life and in death, then Rome manifests to the people what she really means by what she officially says. And the laity much reflect that, or the prelates reflect them .

    Yeah, ok. But 70% of the Congress is some form of Protestant. Have any of them ever been called out, kicked out, or sanctioned for their pro-abortion views?

    No, as traditional evangelical believers (who do call libs out) do not get elected in the first place much less appointed to SCOTUS as they will not compromise. Liberals manifestly can feel at home as a Catholic far more than they can in evangelical churches.

    Your response is further specious as I was not defending a particular church or "Protestantism," the definition of which is typically so wide that you could drive a Jim Jones/Scientology 747 thru it, and we evangelicals recognize it is Biblical to leave liberal churches for conservative ones, which a RC cannot do without being part of a sect or in schism.

    But RCs do defend a a particular church,. even as the one true one, and the issue was your defence of here as not supporting gay marriage, despite what Scripture says constitutes the evidence of what you really believe, and how Rome manifests that.

    Jimmy Carter was a deacon or something in the Southern Baptists. Eventually, he quit. But they never kicked him out.

    Which they should have, but which has to do with the polity of the SBC, in which the churches are basically autonomous. But because of the conservative nature of it overall, Jimmy Carter types are far more likely to leave it then Catholic churches. Your pope would not feel too much at home in such as regards many social views it seems.

    Now's the time to get on the record. I'm looking through this and I'm not seeing any other leaders of the various Protestant Christian sects making clear public statements.

    Then you simply do not see evangelical leaders as Prots, or rely on the MSM, which marginalizes them as well.

    Here We Stand: An Evangelical Declaration on Marriage More than 100 leaders [including David Platt, J. I. Packer, Richard Mouw, Jim Daly, Ron Sider, David Dockery, Al Mohler, and Richard Land] respond to Supreme Court legalizing same-sex marriage. June 26, 2015

    Thread: Here We Stand: An Evangelical Declaration on Marriage ...

    A coalition of evangelical leaders assembled by the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission has released the following:

    As evangelical Christians, we dissent from the court’s ruling that redefines marriage. The state did not create the family, and should not try to recreate the family in its own image. We will not capitulate on marriage because biblical authority requires that we cannot. The outcome of the Supreme Court’s ruling to redefine marriage represents what seems like the result of a half-century of witnessing marriage’s decline through divorce, cohabitation, and a worldview of almost limitless sexual freedom. The Supreme Court’s actions pose incalculable risks to an already volatile social fabric by alienating those whose beliefs about marriage are motivated by deep biblical convictions and concern for the common good.

    The Bible clearly teaches the enduring truth that marriage consists of one man and one woman. From Genesis to Revelation, the authority of Scripture witnesses to the nature of biblical marriage as uniquely bound to the complementarity of man and woman. This truth is not negotiable....

    Evangelical churches must be faithful to the biblical witness on marriage regardless of the cultural shift....

    Other evang. reproofs include those from Al Mohler, John Piper, and Franklin Graham.

    From the latter,

    The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled today that same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states. With all due respect to the court, it did not define marriage, and therefore is not entitled to re-define it.

    Long before our government came into existence, marriage was created by the One who created man and woman—Almighty God—and His decisions are not subject to review or revision by any manmade court. God is clear about the definition of marriage in His Holy Word: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).

    I pray God will spare America from His judgment, though, by our actions as a nation, we give Him less and less reason to do so.

    But the pope and Vatican seems to see Climate Change, etc. is the issue that needs to be addressed.

  • Removing Jesus

    06/29/2015 6:45:26 PM PDT · 269 of 285
    daniel1212 to Springfield Reformer; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; ...
    A response with some profound reasoning, which is above the usual class of responses we see here, and is more than i can comment on now, but worth being shared.

    We are constantly reminded here that "Real Presence" means the body and blood are "really present" in the host, that "is" must be taken literally, not metaphorically, etc. But even if we grant that (which we do not), what have we granted? Real in what way? Literal how? We must drill deeper to specifics, or we will never know what those words mean.

    And the more it is examined, the more it become evident that Eucharistic theology is not taught in Scripture, but is a contrived explanation necessitated by the literalistic interpretation of words in the Lord's Supper and Jn. 6. But which are easily understood metaphorically, and is the only one that is consistent with all of Scripture, and requires none of the neoPlatonic eisegesis that Catholicism engages in to justify its literalistic interpretation.

    The property cannot be removed without losing the substance as well.

    Thus a special unique miracle must be claimed, like as with the Immaculate Conception, etc. In which a miracle is claimed that the Bible does not teach occurred to the person, but which is not the basis for the veracity of the claim anyway, which instead is the premise of the ensured veracity of Rome.

    Notice the problem this presents to transubstantiation. If all accidents must have a subject, i.e., a substance of which they are the expression, then removal of the substance of bread and wine would take the accidents away as well. There would be no bread and wine to express. Only body and blood. The perception of bread and wine depends on there really being bread and wine present. The explanation for which sounds too much like what Scalia referred to as to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie" in SCOTUS judging sodomite marriage as a right all States must affirm.

  • Which corporate "Christian" groups had already embraced homosexuality?

    06/29/2015 3:17:43 PM PDT · 39 of 45
    daniel1212 to Mrs. Don-o
    (1) Muslims are not Catholics. They are not baptised nor believers in the Trinity, and it's by baptism that a person enters the Catholic church.

    How is that even relevant as an answer to the fact that Rome treats even proabortion/sodomite/Muslim public figures (such Ted Kennedy Caths) as members in life and in death?

    . It's a scandalous matter of pastoral malpractice that unrepentant manifest sinners are not disciplined on the basis of Canon 915, which states that unrepentant manifest grave sinners are not to be admitted to

    At least you admit it, but RCs promote a church, and this is their church.

    Former top canonical judge Cardinal Raymond Burke --- whose ruling still stands--

    No, he is not the pope, and the pope effectively demoted U.S. Cardinal Raymond Burke by removing him as prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, the final court of appeal for any ecclesiastical judgement to a largely ceremonial role at a Rome-based Catholic charity. And which was after Burke was replaced by the liberal Cardinal Donald Wuerl on the Congregation for Bishops, the church body that selects new bishops. All of which hardly seems confirmatory of his judgment.

    Are the prelates who violate Canon 915 by admitting these pols to Communion, thereby objectively committing grave sin themselves?

    Not according to the leadership you are supposes to look to, and follow as a docile sheep, but instead you are more like a Protestant who rejects the validity of pastoral teaching and actions based upon your judgment of what historical documents say. But which also teach your one duty is to follow the pastors as a docile sheep.

  • Question For Lutheran FReepers

    06/29/2015 3:17:39 PM PDT · 36 of 38
    daniel1212 to Campion; Jim Noble; miss marmelstein
    What are you talking about? We sing Protestant hymns all the time. In fact, my parish sang the one you mention very recently.

    See what I was responding to, the seeming indignation at doing just that.

  • Which corporate "Christian" groups had already embraced homosexuality?

    06/28/2015 6:30:20 PM PDT · 30 of 45
    daniel1212 to Jack Black; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ..
    So your implication that because they were complicit in covering up past deeds they somehow support gay marriage is completely incorrect.

    Not officially, but Scripturally what you do and foster constitutes the evidence of what you really believe, (Mt. 7:20; Ja. 2:18) and by treating even proabortion/sodomite/Muslim public figures as members in life and in death, then Rome manifests to the people what she really means by what she officially says.

    And the laity much reflect that, or the prelates reflect them .

  • Pope Kisses the Waldensian Bible --- Pope Francis, Don Bosco and the Waldensians

    06/28/2015 5:13:11 PM PDT · 107 of 113
    daniel1212 to RnMomof7
  • ‘Gay Marriage’ Ruling: Evil with a Silver Lining

    06/28/2015 5:06:18 PM PDT · 29 of 34
    daniel1212 to Kaslin
    Good response: Watching lions at a kill

    to say the court can and should bypass the democratic process inasmuch as homosexual marriage is a "fundamental right" is a viciously circular argument when the court first presumes to define homosexual marriage as a "fundamental right," then appeals to its own definition to authorize its subsequent action. Unless the court has the authority to define homosexual marriage as a fundamental right in the first place, it can't turn around and cite its stimulative definition to authorize itself to find a fundamental right of homosexual marriage in the Constitution. The reasoning is farcical. It's like a man who claims to be the sheriff because he deputized himself.

  • Pope Kisses the Waldensian Bible --- Pope Francis, Don Bosco and the Waldensians

    06/28/2015 4:42:28 PM PDT · 105 of 113
    daniel1212 to terycarl; MHGinTN
    That is, indeed, rich...the Catholics try to defend what true Christianity is and the revolutionists scream and holler that their "new" ideas are correct.....yeah, ....PATHETIC.

    Actually, all you have is specious parroted polemical assertions which are exposed as such, to which RCs complain and demand censure as they cannot stand to see their desired image of Rome impugned.

    THIS IS MY BODY doesn't mean this is my body....it means this is still a hunk of meaningless bread.....Thanks, Jesus, for making it so clear.......PATHETIC.

    Which is another example of such, as in fact you do not go by the plain clear meaning of such, as this would mean that you are consuming the actual literal bloody body and blood of Christ, so that if tested, it would test as corporeal flesh and blood, which some RCs censure us for saying RCs teach (which others invoke purported miracles to support this being true).

    For in reality what the Lord meant according to Eucharistic theology was "drink this cup," does not really mean drink the cup, but what it represents, and that "my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed," (John 6:55) and "eat this bread" only means recently made gluten-free bread, even a molecule of it, which in essence is the Lord's body and blood (since both are contained in the bread or wine) though the molecular composition (qualities) by which this appears as bread does not change, so vegetarians need not abstain. But the appearance (accidents) of bread and wine replace the appearance of the body and blood of Christ (who is in Heaven) who is really corporeally present under the appearance of bread and wine via a supernatural mode of existence. That is, if a man properly and distinctively ordained as a priest consecrates it so that Christ obeys him, even though no clergyman was so ordained in the New Testament, nor are any ever shown doing so or described as having that as a unique function.

    And that "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you," (John 6:53) means - unlike My other 'verily verily' unequivocal statements - unless you are one of the properly baptized separated brethren, as they also have the Spirit, as did all those souls in the NT who received life in them when they believed the gospel."

    Which it is not what Christ taught, but imports Neoplatonic philosophy to explain what you call "clear" teaching.

    From a RC monk and defender:

    Neoplatonic thought or at least conceptual terms are clearly interwoven with Christian theology long before the 13th century...

    The doctrine of transubstantiation completely reverses the usual distinction between being and appearance, where being is held to be unchanging and appearance is constantly changing. Transubstantiation maintains instead that being or substance changes while appearance remains unchanged. Such reversals in the order of things are affronts to reason and require much, not little, to affirm philosophically. Moreover, transubstantiation seem to go far beyond the simple distinction between appearance and reality. It would be one thing if the body and blood of Christ simply appeared to be bread and wine. But I don’t think that is what is claimed with “transubstantiation.”

    Aristotle picked up just such common-sense concepts as “what-it-is-to-be-X” and tried to explain rather complex philosophical problems with them. Thus, to take a “common-sense” concept like substance–even if one could maintain that it were somehow purified of Aristotelian provenance—and have it do paradoxical conceptual gymnastics in order to explain transubstantiation seems not to be not so anti-Aristotelian in spirit after all...

    That the bread and wine are somehow really the body and blood of Christ is an ancient Christian belief—but using the concept of “substance” to talk about this necessarily involves Greek philosophy (Br. Dennis Beach, OSB, monk of St. John’s Abbey; doctorate in philosophy from Penn State; http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2010/05/30/transubstantiation-and-aristotle-warning-heavy-philosophy)

    Supposing one gains spiritual life by literally eating human flesh and blood is akin to pagan endocannibalism, and is not Scriptural and the Scriptural gospel.

    Alpers and Lindenbaum’s research conclusively demonstrated that kuru [neurological disorder] spread easily and rapidly in the Fore people due to their endocannibalistic funeral practices, in which relatives consumed the bodies of the deceased to return the “life force” of the deceased to the hamlet, a Fore societal subunit. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_%...9#Transmission

    he custom of eating bread sacramentally as the body of a god was practised by the Aztecs before the discovery and conquest of Mexico by the Spaniards."

    The May ceremony is thus described by the historian Acosta: “The Mexicans in the month of May made their principal feast to their god Vitzilipuztli, and two days before this feast, the virgins whereof I have spoken (the which were shut up and secluded in the same temple and were as it were religious women) did mingle a quantity of the seed of beets with roasted maize, and then they did mould it with honey, making an idol...all the virgins came out of their convent, bringing pieces of paste compounded of beets and roasted maize, which was of the same paste whereof their idol was made and compounded, and they were of the fashion of great bones. They delivered them to the young men, who carried them up and laid them at the idol’s feet, wherewith they filled the whole place that it could receive no more. They called these morsels of paste the flesh and bones of Vitzilipuztli.

    ...then putting themselves in order about those morsels and pieces of paste, they used certain ceremonies with singing and dancing. By means whereof they were blessed and consecrated for the flesh and bones of this idol. This ceremony and blessing (whereby they were taken for the flesh and bones of the idol) being ended, they honoured those pieces in the same sort as their god....then putting themselves in order about those morsels and pieces of paste, they used certain ceremonies with singing and dancing. By means whereof they were blessed and consecrated for the flesh and bones of this idol. This ceremony and blessing (whereby they were taken for the flesh and bones of the idol) being ended, they honoured those pieces in the same sort as their god...

    And this should be eaten at the point of day, and they should drink no water nor any other thing till after noon: they held it for an ill sign, yea, for sacrilege to do the contrary:...and then they gave them to the people in manner of a communion, beginning with the greater, and continuing unto the rest, both men, women, and little children, who received it with such tears, fear, and reverence as it was an admirable thing, saying that they did eat the flesh and bones of God, where-with they were grieved. Such as had any sick folks demanded thereof for them, and carried it with great reverence and veneration.”

    ...They believed that by consecrating bread their priests could turn it into the very body of their god, so that all who thereupon partook of the consecrated bread entered into a mystic communion with the deity by receiving a portion of his divine substance into themselves.

    The doctrine of transubstantiation, or the magical conversion of bread into flesh, was also familiar to the Aryans of ancient India long before the spread and even the rise of Christianity. The Brahmans taught that the rice-cakes offered in sacrifice were substitutes for human beings, and that they were actually converted into the real bodies of men by the manipulation of the priest.

    For in FACT only the metaphorical view is consistent with Scripture in its totality.


    The Lord's Supper: solemn symbolism or real flesh and blood?

    (Note: allow scripts for pop up Bible verses

    Table of Contents

    Preface

    1Cor. 10,11

    Metaphorical versus literal language

    Supper accounts and John 6: Conformity to Scripture, and consequences of the literalistic interpretation.

    The uniqueness of the Catholic interpretation

    The Lord's Supper is not a sacrifice for sins

    Absence of the sacerdotal Eucharistic priesthood

    Metaphorical view of Jn. 6 is not new.

    Endocannibalism

    Thank you Lord Jesus for your sure word of Truth by which we are to prove all things.

  • Question For Lutheran FReepers

    06/28/2015 2:52:15 PM PDT · 25 of 38
    daniel1212 to Jim Noble; miss marmelstein; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; ...
    Why are Catholic Churches even using Protestant hymns?

    Especially when they won't sing!

    When I was yet a (weekly attending) RC, the head priest (and vicar) used to exhort us, "sing like Protestants." Only the charismatics at that time came close to evangelicals.

    And if RCs follow V2 as they are supposed to, then they must acknowledged properly baptized Prots as separated brethren among whom the Spirit of God works, though we find very few brethren among Caths.

    Will they be as atheists and claim the thousands upon thousands of hymns (over 8,000 hymns and gospel songs by Fanny Crosby alone) by Prot and evangelical writers were works of delusion, or at least not allow many are in the top ranks that glorify God and edify men?

    Their loss.

    One of my favorites:

    O worship the King, all glorious above,
    O gratefully sing His power and His love;
    Our Shield and Defender, the Ancient of Days,
    Pavilioned in splendor, and girded with praise.

    O tell of His might, O sing of His grace,
    Whose robe is the light, whose canopy space,
    His chariots of wrath the deep thunderclouds form,
    And dark is His path on the wings of the storm.

    The earth with its store of wonders untold,
    Almighty, Thy power hath founded of old;
    Established it fast by a changeless decree,
    And round it hath cast, like a mantle, the sea.

    Thy bountiful care, what tongue can recite?
    It breathes in the air, it shines in the light;
    It streams from the hills, it descends to the plain,
    And sweetly distills in the dew and the rain.

    Frail children of dust, and feeble as frail,
    In Thee do we trust, nor find Thee to fail;
    Thy mercies how tender, how firm to the end,
    Our Maker, Defender, Redeemer, and Friend.

    O measureless might! Ineffable love!
    While angels delight to worship Thee above,
    The humbler creation, though feeble their lays,
    With true adoration shall all sing Thy praise.

    http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/o/w/owtking.htm

    Words:Ro­bert Grant, in Christ­ian Psalm­o­dy, by Ed­ward H. Bick­er­steth, 1833, alt. This ver­sion is a re­work­ing of lyr­ics by Wil­liam Kethe in the Ge­ne­van Psalt­er of 1561.

    Music: Ly­ons, at­trib­ut­ed to Jo­hann M. Hay­dn (1737-1806); ar­ranged by Wil­liam Gar­din­er, Sac­red Mel­o­dies (Lon­don: 1815)

    We can sing Catholic ones that glorify God also. Most modern music is another story.

  • Franklin Graham: Obama Leading America to Sinful Course; 'God Will Judge Him, Us if We Don't Repent'

    06/28/2015 2:00:07 PM PDT · 44 of 59
    daniel1212 to delchiante; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ..
    Maybe Franklin Graham could teach why adam’s sin led to the cursing of the ground and why eve’s sin has to do with reproduction. A little more x rated discussion of what deviant sexual sins really went down in the garden is needed. Unless believers can’t connect adam and eve’s righteous ‘punishments’ to their crime..

    What kind of imaginative eisegesis is this? Consistent with make eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to have to with sex, with Adam and Eve engaging in abominable sex with the devil, thus Eve giving birth to the serpent's seed i presume (or pounding sand?), then seeing as eating from all the other trees were sanctioned then perhaps you want to make them to represent sexual partners also?

    As for the punishment fitting the crime, since the punishment for the next crime was to place a mark on the head of the murderer, then it must be that he killed a black man?

    Yet God did not simply curse the ground, but all that was under the stewardship of man.

    As for tying in the sin of Onan, (Gn. 38:9) it not was the manner of him preventing procreation that he was punished for, but for refusing to raise up seed for his brother in direct disobedience to Judah.

    And i am not convinced that your reticence to state what you believe the sin of Adam and Eve is due to fear of offending FReepers. But it is akin to Caths surmising Eve originally gave birth out of her side, or that a sinless Mary did so without pain.

  • Scalia Dissent: I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy

    06/28/2015 12:42:06 PM PDT · 255 of 273
    daniel1212 to xzins; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    Scalia Dissent:

    Excerpts of sounder reasoning (emp. mine).

    When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so...

    Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its “reasoned judgment,” thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect.13 That is so because “[t]he generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its..dimensions . . . .

    But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that... every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003

    They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds— minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly— could not.

    They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their “reasoned judgment.” These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago,21 cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry . And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.

    The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so....

    Rights, we are told, can “rise . . . from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.”24 (Huh? How can a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives [whatever that means] define [whatever that means] an urgent liberty [never mind], give birth to a right?

    And we are told that, “[i]n any particular case,” either the Equal Protection or Due Process Clause “may be thought to capture the essence of [a] right in a more accurate and comprehensive way,” than the other, “even as the two Clauses may converge in the identification and definition of the right.”25 (What say? What possible “essence” does substantive due process “capture” in an “accurate and comprehensive way”? It stands for nothing whatever, except those freedoms and entitlements that this Court really likes.. .)

    The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie. ..The world does not expect logic and precision in poetry or inspirational popphilosophy; it demands them in the law. The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.

    * * * Hubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall. The Judiciary is the “least dangerous” of the federal branches because it has “neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm” and the States, “even for the efficacy of its judgments.”26 With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them—with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the “reasoned judgment” of a bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence. - Antonin Scalia; http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

  • SpaceX’s CRS-7 Mission Ends In Catastrophic Failure, Loss Of Vehicle

    06/28/2015 10:42:32 AM PDT · 134 of 168
    daniel1212 to smokingfrog; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; ...
    The launch was not nominal.

    But in sodomite ideology nominal can mean normative, and the destructions of Space X illustrates in fast motion the progressive destruction of America when blind souls require governments sanction sodomy and punish those which will not.

    The SOTUS decision was the second stage.

    Perhaps Space X tried to employ politically correct rocket technology, by feeding fuel into the exhaust port. Which is about as logical and safe as homosexual relations which it corresponds to.

    Yet we all have sinned to varying degrees, and there is room at the cross for all who will turn to Christ and believe and receive the risen Lord Jesus to save them by His sinless shed blood.

    Sodom-USA

  • Will Anthony Kennedy be Denied Communion at Mass Tomorrow?

    06/28/2015 5:37:28 AM PDT · 46 of 55
    daniel1212 to Shadow44; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    No. Cardinal Wuerl is a squish.

    Likewise granting ECCLESIASTICAL FUNERALS to "notorious apostates, heretics" or "other manifest sinners." The relevant (fallible) canon 1184 states that, "If any doubt occurs, the local ordinary is to be consulted, and his judgment must be followed." And if not overruled then his interpretation stands, not FR RCs.

    And under which local judgment you have the case of Father Marcel Guarnizo, the priest who, after he denied Communion to a openly lesbian “Buddhist Catholic” woman, has been suspiciously placed on administrative leave [removed from active ministry] by the Washington archdiocese (ostensibly not as a consequence of treatment of the lesbian), while Cardinal Donald Wuerl of the Washington archdiocese where this incident took place stated that he will not withhold the Eucharist from pro-abortion politicians. (http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=897)

    "...there’s a question about whether this canon’’ – the relevant church law – “was ever intended to be used’’ to bring politicians to heel. He thinks not. “I stand with the great majority of American bishops and bishops around the world in saying this canon [Canon 915] was never intended to be used this way.’’ — from the thread [Archbishop] Wuerl: Why I Won’t Deny Pelosi Communion

    All of which are not silenced by Rome. We find no infallible teaching on this (among other things) that is not open to manifest uncensored interpretation.

  • Why I am not Protestant (Non-Denominational, Baptist, Pentecostal, etc)

    06/28/2015 5:08:05 AM PDT · 96 of 330
    daniel1212 to ConservativeMind
    That is a nice summary of selected major Catholic cult wrongs.

    When a church claims that it alone is uniquely the one true church, and that one cannot even validly know what Scripture consists or means apart from faith in them, then we do have a cult.

    And thus so many of its members defend it with blind cultic devotion, and do not have the fellowship in Christ which born again evangelicals realize, due to a shared transformative regeneration and relationship with Christ.

  • Why I am not Protestant (Non-Denominational, Baptist, Pentecostal, etc)

    06/27/2015 9:29:20 PM PDT · 84 of 330
    daniel1212 to Morgana
    Why I am not a Catholic. Pt. 2

    I will shew thee my faith by my works. (James 2:18)

    Catholicism and Evangelicalism: doctrinal, moral and political views

    Table of contents (click TOC to return)

    Theological views and Practices

    Moral views and Behaviors

    Political-Moral Views and Affiliation

    Demographics, Growth, Conversions, Etc.

    On the term “Evangelical.”

    Commentary on unity

    Note on the integrity of this study

  • Why I am not Protestant (Non-Denominational, Baptist, Pentecostal, etc)

    06/27/2015 9:19:11 PM PDT · 80 of 330
    daniel1212 to Morgana

    Why I am not Protestant (Non-Denominational, Baptist, Pentecostal, etc)

    Why I am not a Catholic

    (Alexandrian:

    Coptic Rite

    Ethiopic Rite

    Antiochian:

    Maronite Rite

    (West) Syrian Rite

    Malankara Rite

    Armenian Rite:

    Armenian Rite

    Chaldean or East Syrian:

    Chaldean Rite

    Syro-Malabar Rite

    Byzantine Rite (Constantinopolitan):

    Byzantine

    Latin (Western) liturgical rites:

    Roman Rite

    Pre-Tridentine Mass (the various pre-1570 forms)

    Tridentine Mass

    Mass of Paul VI (

    Anglican Use

    Ambrosian Rite

    Rite of Braga

    Mozarabic Rite

    Catholic Order Rites (generally defunct):

    Benedictine Rite

    Carmelite Rite

    Carthusian Rite

    Cistercian Rite

    Dominican Rite

    Franciscan Rite

    Friars Minor Capuchin Rite

    Premonstratensian Rite

    Servite Rite

    Catholic autonomous particular Churches:

    Latin Church with Latin liturgical traditions

    Eastern Catholic Churches

    Alexandrian liturgical tradition:

    Coptic Catholic Church

    Ethiopian Catholic Church

    Eritrean Catholic Church

    Antiochian liturgical tradition:

    Maronite Church

    Syrian Catholic Church

    Syro-Malankara Catholic Church

    Armenian liturgical tradition:

    Armenian Catholic Church

    Chaldean or East Syrian liturgical tradition:

    Chaldean Catholic Church

    Syro-Malabar Catholic Church

    Byzantine liturgical tradition:

    Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church

    Belarusian Greek Catholic Church

    Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church

    Byzantine Church of Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro

    Greek Byzantine Catholic Church

    Hungarian Greek Catholic Church

    Italo-Albanian Catholic Church

    Macedonian Greek Catholic Church

    Melkite Greek Catholic Church

    Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic

    Russian Greek Catholic Church

    Ruthenian Catholic Church

    Slovak Greek Catholic Church

    Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church)

    Partial list of contrasts between the New Testament church and Roman Catholicism.

    Leadership

    NT church

    Commentary (a short summary, as by God's grace, defenders of Rome have been refuted time and time again into silence or there recourse to spitwads, as can be shown).


    No apostles elected by voting.

    No successors after Judas, with the only continuously perpetuated pastoral office by way of ordination being that of presbuteros/episkopos.

    Peter as as non-assertive street-level leader among the 11, with no succession or preparation for one.

    No corporate view of Peter as their first of supreme infallible popes in Rome.

    Nowhere in the NT, interpretive of Mt. 16:18, is Peter called or described as the Rock upon which the church was built.

    No leadership claiming/possessing ensured perpetual infallibility.

    No leadership with unique sacrificial function, offering food as sacrifice.

    No leadership distinctively titled “hiereus” (priests): only presbuteros/ episkopos (same office: Titus 1:5-7).

    No leadership with unique sacrificial function, offering food as sacrifice.

    The primary function of pastors was that of prayer and preaching the word of God.

    No required celibacy for leadership. Most were married.

    There were no apostolic successors after Judas, which was (in order to maintain foundational number of apostles (cf. Rv. 21:14) and which was by the non-political Scriptural means of casting lots. (cf. Prov. 16:33)

    Peter was the initial, non-assertive street-level leader among the 11, once even listed after James (who provided the conclusive judgment in Acts 15) in Gal. 2 as one of 3 present who appeared to be pillars. To whom Rome's ensured perpetual formulaic infallibility is nowhere promised, and in contrast holy (he was) Peter was the only apostle directly publicly rebuked.

    No succession for Peter or preparation for one is seen in the NT, an incongruous conspicuous omission for a cardinal doctrine, while ordination of leaders is described and taught. For the only continuously perpetuated pastoral office (unless deacons are included) by way of formal ordination was that of presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer), both of which refer to those in the same office. (Titus 1:5-7)

    Nowhere is the church described as looking to Peter as the first of a line of supreme infallible heads in Rome, nor told to even in any of the church epistles or in the Lord's commendations and criticisms of the 7 churches of Asia.

    Nowhere interpretive of Mt. 16:18 is Peter called or described as the Rock upon which the church was built. Instead, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8)

    Nowhere is leadership/magisterial office promised ensured perpetual infallibility. RCs extrapolate support for this out of promises of God's presence and preservation, but which Israel has as well. They also hold that an infallible magisterium is essential to know what is of God (writing and men) and their meaning, but which was never required before, and is contrary to how the church began.

    Nowhere is leadership distinctively titled “hiereus” (priests), which distinctive title is only used for Jewish and pagan priests. Catholics try to defend the use of priests by relying on an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy ">etymological fallacy </a>, since "priest," from old English "preost," etymologically is derived from "presbyteros," but which is not what the latter means. Instead the use of the title priests was a latter development due to imposed functional equivalence, supposing NT presbyteros engaged in a unique sacrificial ministry as a primary function, which they did not.

    Nowhere is leadership even shown distributing food as part of their specific ordained function, (Acts 6:3,4) and is nowhere is the Lords' Supper shown to be led by priests conducting it, let alone offering it as a sacrifice for sins to be consumed to obtain eternal life. The command to “do this in memory of Me” is nowhere shown to be specifically and uniquely given to leadership, let alone a class titled “priests.”

    The primary function of pastors was that of prayer and preaching the word of God, (Acts 6:3,4) which is said to "nourish" the souls of believers, and believing it is how the lost obtain life in themselves. (1 Timothy 4:6; Psalms 19:7;Acts 15:7-9)

    Nowhere is celibacy a requirement for leadership, as in contrast marriage was the norm for pastors, include most of the apostles. Paul and Barnabas under a vow to stay single. (1Cor. 9:4; 1Tim. 3:1-7)

    The Lord's Supper

    The Lord's Supper is ordained as an ordinance by which that believers remember the Lord's death and show fellowship with Christ by a commemorative shared meal.

    Nowhere is spiritual life obtaining by literally eating anything physical. Instead, spiritual life is obtained by hearing and believing the gospel of grace.

    Nowhere, interpretive of of the gospels, is the Lord's Supper itself described as offering for sin, or to be consumed in order to obtain essential spiritual life. Instead is only described in one epistle and in which it is analogous to pagans having fellowship with their gods, not by consuming their flesh, but by the communal meal done in dedication to the object of worship.

    By which believers remember the Lord's death and fellowship with Christ by a commemorative communal meal, sharing food in recognition of each other being part of the body of Christ which He purchased with His own sinless shed blood.

    Only the metaphorical See here. By God's grace.

    Nowhere is spiritual life obtaining by literally eating anything physical, as per transubstantiation. Spiritual life is obtained by hearing and believing the gospel of grace, which is said to "nourish" the souls of believers and build them up (1 Timothy 4:6; Acts 20:32)

    Baptism

    Baptism is ordained by which souls confess the Lord Jesus, identifying with Him in His death by full immersion.

    It is the faith behind baptism that purifies the heart, not the act itself effecting it.

    Nowhere are any infants manifestly described as being baptized.

    Souls confess and identify with the Lord Jesus in baptism by full immersion, as that alone corresponds to burial (as a liquid grave) and is what the Greek word means. (Acts 8:38; Rm. 6:1ff)

    It is the faith behind baptism that purifies the heart, as Peter preached and described, (Acts 10:43; 15:7-9) not the act itself effecting it. As baptism requires and evidences faith, so it is promised that those who will repent and baptized will be saved, just as whosoever shall call upon the Lord, who believe in their heart and confess with their mouth faith in the gospel are promised salvation. (Rm. 10:9-13)

    Nowhere are any infants manifestly described as being baptized, the stipulated requirements for which are repentance and wholehearted faith. (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37) .

    Gospel and soteriology

    Preached the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus, the Son of God, and forgiveness of sins and regeneration by the Spirit of God by faith, which is counted for righteousness, but which is a faith that is (normally) confessed first in baptism.

    Believers are promised forgiveness of sins and regeneration by the Spirit of God by faith in the Lord Jesus who died for us and whom God raised up. As a result, their faith (a living faith, such as is confessed in baptism and following the Lord) is counted for righteousness, and the believer is washed, sanctified and justified on account of thew sinless and perfect Christ, not their own righteousness. (Rm. 3:10- 5:1; 1Cor. 6:11; Eph. 2:8,9; Titus 3:5)

    The merit of works is excluded as the basis for justification, with “works of the law” usually being used as that is the epitome of salvation by merit. "If there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." (Galatians 3:21) When Abraham believed God to do what he could not do then it was counted unto him for righteousness, though he had done works before that. Likewise we must believe God to do what we cannot not do, that is, to justify ourselves by becoming good enough to be with God, which God does by imputation of righteousness by faith in the Jesus Christ the righteous.

    In contrast, Catholicism teaches that the one is formally justified by his own holiness, first effected by the act of baptism, leaving the subject holy enough to be with God. Thus Rome holds that most believers must spend an indeterminate postmortem time suffering “purifying torments” in mythical “Purgatory” until the subject becomes good enough, free of character defects, to be with God (and atone for sins).

    Works/holiness do have a justificatory effect, that of justifying one as being a believer, and fit to be rewarded under grace, with God rewarded faith in recognition of its works, (Mt. 25:31-40; Heb. 6:9,10; 10:35; Rv. 3:4) even though in conversion, man is both enabled and motivated (Jn. 6:44; 16:8-11; 12:32; Acts 11:18; 16:14; Eph. 2:8,9) to do what he otherwise could not and would not do, and then enables and motivates the believer to live for God. (Phil. 2:13; 1Co. 11:32)

    However, believers can choose to sin, and are warned against having an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God, falling from grace, drawing back into perdition, making Christ of no effect/profit, falling from grace. (Heb. 3:12; 10:38; Gal. 5:1-4) Thus God works to chasten wayward souls to repentance, lest they “be condemned with the rest of the world.” (1Co. 11:32

    Afterlife

    All true believers go to be with the Lord at death or at His return, the latter being the next transformative effect believers look to. After which is the only suffering believers will realize, that being the loss of rewards.

    What Scripture teaches wherever it manifestly speaks about the next life, is that since believers are forgiven on account of Christ, on His merit, then all true believers presently are “accepted in the Beloved,” and made to sit together with Christ in the heavenly, (Eph. 1:6;2:6) and go to be with the Lord at death or at His return. it is always with the Lord. (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) Note in the latter case all believers were assured that if the Lord returned, which they expected in their lifetime, so would they “ever be with the Lord.” (1Thes. 4:17) though they were still undergoing growth in grace, as was Paul. (Phil. 3;2)

    And which is the next transformative event believers look to, that of being conformed to Christ. (2Cor. 5:2,3; 1Cor. 15; 1Jn. 3:2)

    At/after which coming ( versus purgatory, which has souls suffering upon death) believers at the judgment seat of Christ (1Cor. 3:8ff; 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev.11:18; Mt. 25:31-46; 1Pt. 1:7; 5:4) will gain or lose rewards based on the quality of the material they used to build the church with, which loss is only (and momentary) suffering (along with the grievous displeasure of the Lord) believers will realize after leaving this world.

    Scripture also only reveals growth in grace and overcoming and prolonged suffering as being realized in this world, with its temptations and trials, (1 Peter 1:6-7; 1Jn.2:14; 5:4,5; Rv. 2.7,11,17,26; 3:5,12,21) where alternatives to submitting to God can be made (suffering itself does not make one mature) and thus it was here that the Lord Himself was made “perfect,” (Heb. 2:10) as in being “in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” (Heb. 4:15)

    Scripture

    Scripture is manifest as being the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

    Scriptural substantiation in word and in power was the basis for the veracity of Truth claims.

    Never supported or made laws that restricted personal reading of Scripture by laity

    It is abundantly evidenced that the word of God/the Lord was normally written, even if sometimes subsequent to being spoken, and that as written, the written word of God became 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; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23, 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.)

    Scriptural substantiation in word and in power was the basis for Truth claims, not the premise of ensured papal/magisterial infallibility, which is nowhere seen or promised nor necessary to preserve faith.

    Never supported or made laws that restricted personal reading of Scripture by laity as per Rome, if available, sometimes even outlawing it when it was.

    Oral tradition

    Oral “tradition” was that of orally preaching Scriptural Truths, as a Sola Scriptura preacher is to do, while it also included new revelation as well as wholly inspired preaching of the word of God.

    Nowhere was the veracity of oral tradition based upon the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.

    Oral “tradition” was that of orally preaching Scriptural Truths by the whole church,(Acts 8:4) as a Sola Scriptura preacher is to do, while it also included new revelation and Divinely revealed Truths as the wholly inspired preaching word of God (which is uniquely powerful: Heb. 4:12). neither of which Rome claims to do (she claims her oral tradition is inspired, but not the written promulgation of it).

    Nowhere was the veracity of oral tradition based upon the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome, but Scripture was the standard by which all was tested by. (Acts 17:11)

    Prayer

    Prayer directly to God by the blood of Christ, who is the only heavenly intercessor between God and man.

    Never prayed to any created beings in Heaven.

    Nowhere in all of Scripture, with its over 200 recorded prayers, did any believer pray to anyone else in Heaven by God, who alone is shown to be able to hear and personally respond multitudinous prayers to Heaven. The Lord's own instructions on prayer was to “Our Father who art in Heaven,” to whom the Spirit in believers cries out to, never “Our Mother.”

    Communication between created beings always required both to be in the same realm, even if via a vision.

    Christ is taught as being the only and wholly sufficient and accessible heavenly intercessor between God and man. (1Tim. 2:5; Heb. 2:18 4:14-16)

    Mary

    Mary simply presented as a holy devout vessel of God, used to provide the body God had prepared for His Divine Son, whom she owed her existence to.

    No prayers were made to her, while she prayed directly to the Lord, nor are many other things taught of her that are said of the Mary of Catholicism.

    Mary presented as a holy vessel of God used to provide the body God had prepared, (Heb. 10:5) owing her very breath to the Son of God who was incarnated through her, (Jn. 1:1-3) and whom she was a mother to. Which Christ said all obedient believers were.

    Scripture never records her as a women who never sinned, and or as a perpetual virgin despite being married (contrary to the normal description of marriage, as in leaving and sexually cleaving), nor as one who would be bodily assumed to Heaven and exalted (officially or with implicit sanction) as the Queen of Heaven, as an almost almighty demigoddess.

    Scripture does not teach the Mary of Catholicism, 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;" whose power now "is all but unlimited," "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven," so much that she "seems to have the same power as God," that “even God himself, is subject to the Blessed Virgin” since her prayers and requests are as commands, and that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse," and that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus," and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess."

    Worship

    Worship was to God alone, with such things as making supplication to other being in heaven being idolatry.

    Worship was to be to God alone in spirit and in Truth, (Jn. 4:24) with ascribing uniquely Divine attributes to created beings, including the ability to hear and personally respond to prayer in Heaven, and bowing down as before them (or their representative images) and making supplication to them, constituting idolatry, (Jer. 44; Acts 7:43) even if it was an instrument used by God. (Num. 21:9; 2Ki. 18:4)

    Miscl.

    • “Saints” denoted all believers.

    God was distinctive from that of the known God of pagans.

    Did not rule over those without, nor use the sword of men for church purposes.

    The NT never called a separate class of believers “saints,” which term denoted all believers.

    Never taught that the deity Muslims worship (who is not as an "unknown god") is the same as theirs.

    Never used the sword of men to deal with its theological dissenters, as instead disfellowship and the spiritual power was their recourse, and relegated dealing with those without the church to being outside their realm. (1Cor. 5:4,5,11-13; 1Tim. 1:20)

  • Why I am not Protestant (Non-Denominational, Baptist, Pentecostal, etc)

    06/27/2015 9:18:42 PM PDT · 79 of 330
    daniel1212 to Morgana
    Ephesians 5:6-7 "The Scribes and Pharisees have sat on the chair of Moses. ALL things, therefore, that they command you, observe and do. But do not act according to their works; for they talk but do nothing.” Matthew 23:2-3. This is a command to be obedient regardless of individual feelings, and it comes from Jesus Christ.

    Congratulations, besides the plethora of other poor pro-papal polemics in this prolix pasted propaganda, you have just effectively nuked the NT church.

    For to be consistent with your interpretation of this text as requiring obedience regardless of individual feelings, then all 1st century souls should have submitted to the judgment of those who sat in the seat of Moses, as you require of souls to Rome. Which invalidates the NT church!

    Yet the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

    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.)

  • In Vain Do They Worship Me

    06/27/2015 6:48:02 PM PDT · 280 of 281
    daniel1212 to MHGinTN
    Ask them where is the blood and flesh at Pentecost or in the house of Cornelius and they scurry after anything else to excuse not thinking past the magic they have been indoctrinated with.

    The claim that one must literally eat the body and blood of Christ, that even a particle of the consecrated wafer is held to wholly contain Christ, (CCC #1377) and is "able to sanctify thousands of thousands and is sufficient to afford life to those who eat of it,” (St. Ephrem, Hymni et sermons, IV, 4) is a result of attempting to apply Jn. 6:53 to the Lord's Supper under a literal hermenuetic.

    In both cases Caths boast of going by the plain literal meaning of the text, but which would mean that eating what the Lord said is "my body which is broken for you" (1Cor. 11:24) "my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world," (Jn. 6:51) actualy was that bloody body, not something that somehow had its essence changed so that it looked, tasted, behaved like bread/wine but really was flesh and blood under the appearence of bread and wine, with bread alone also being flesh and blood. And so that the Lord could digest like bread and wine while yet sitting before them.

    Likewise, if Caths are to be consistent with Jn. 6:53 being literal, and with the absolute unequivocal imperitive nature of other "verily, verily" statement, then they must hold that none of those who deny the Cath "real presence" are born again, and can have eternal life.

    But they cannot, unless they are one of the sects that constitutes Catholicism.

  • CALLING ALL BELIEVERS....UNITE IN PRAYER TONIGHT 11:00 PM EST

    06/26/2015 7:38:42 PM PDT · 60 of 121
    daniel1212 to ealgeone

    America will be made as an example for other nations of what happens when a nation sanctions abomination, and penalizes those who oppose.

    But judgement must first begin at the house of God, and it/we are to blame to varying degrees for not preaching the Lord’s kingdom more as we should. Thus pray for mercy grace and space to repent and seek and serve the Lord.

    And for the lost, that God will seek that Lord as God will manifest His displeasure.

    “Set the trumpet to thy mouth. He shall come as an eagle against the house of the Lord, because they have transgressed my covenant, and trespassed against my law.” (Hosea 8:1)

    “”Israel hath cast off the thing that is good: the enemy shall pursue him.” They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not: of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off.” (Hosea 8:3,4)

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

    “For Israel hath forgotten his Maker, and buildeth temples; and Judah hath multiplied fenced cities: but I will send a fire upon his cities, and it shall devour the palaces thereof.” (Hosea 8:14)

  • In Vain Do They Worship Me

    06/26/2015 2:41:27 PM PDT · 277 of 281
    daniel1212 to MHGinTN; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    That passage from Mark is used to fabricate mumbo jumbo.

    It is indeed "mumbo jumbo," which can be defined as needed as Catholicism does with the words eat My flesh and drink My blood." For these words, which RCs claim to take literally, do not convey "if you eat even a speck of consecrated bread you are consuming as its essence My soul and divinity, flesh and blood, but which by appearance really is not."

    This is set in contrast to cannibalism in which actual flesh and blood is consumed, yet it can include the belief (in endocannibalism) that spiritual qualities of the deceased are thereby conveyed, though these are not seen in what they eat.

    And if we allow for a extraBiblical; neoPlatonic theology of transubstantiation that of necessity (lest they be seen as typical cannibals) explains how one can consume the real body and blood of Christ without actually consuming His bloody body, and with what they appear to be eating being in substance something entirely different, so can we allow pagans to develop a theology that defines cannibalism as being what Catholicism claims, though in endocannibalism it can be in essence very similar.

    Supposing one gains spiritual life by literally eating human flesh and blood is akin to pagan endocannibalism, and is not Scriptural and the Scriptural gospel.

    Alpers and Lindenbaum’s research conclusively demonstrated that kuru [neurological disorder] spread easily and rapidly in the Fore people due to their endocannibalistic funeral practices, in which relatives consumed the bodies of the deceased to return the “life force” of the deceased to the hamlet, a Fore societal subunit. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_%...9#Transmission

    he custom of eating bread sacramentally as the body of a god was practised by the Aztecs before the discovery and conquest of Mexico by the Spaniards."

    The May ceremony is thus described by the historian Acosta: “The Mexicans in the month of May made their principal feast to their god Vitzilipuztli, and two days before this feast, the virgins whereof I have spoken (the which were shut up and secluded in the same temple and were as it were religious women) did mingle a quantity of the seed of beets with roasted maize, and then they did mould it with honey, making an idol...all the virgins came out of their convent, bringing pieces of paste compounded of beets and roasted maize, which was of the same paste whereof their idol was made and compounded, and they were of the fashion of great bones. They delivered them to the young men, who carried them up and laid them at the idol’s feet, wherewith they filled the whole place that it could receive no more. They called these morsels of paste the flesh and bones of Vitzilipuztli.

    ...then putting themselves in order about those morsels and pieces of paste, they used certain ceremonies with singing and dancing. By means whereof they were blessed and consecrated for the flesh and bones of this idol. This ceremony and blessing (whereby they were taken for the flesh and bones of the idol) being ended, they honoured those pieces in the same sort as their god....then putting themselves in order about those morsels and pieces of paste, they used certain ceremonies with singing and dancing. By means whereof they were blessed and consecrated for the flesh and bones of this idol. This ceremony and blessing (whereby they were taken for the flesh and bones of the idol) being ended, they honoured those pieces in the same sort as their god...

    And this should be eaten at the point of day, and they should drink no water nor any other thing till after noon: they held it for an ill sign, yea, for sacrilege to do the contrary:...and then they gave them to the people in manner of a communion, beginning with the greater, and continuing unto the rest, both men, women, and little children, who received it with such tears, fear, and reverence as it was an admirable thing, saying that they did eat the flesh and bones of God, where-with they were grieved. Such as had any sick folks demanded thereof for them, and carried it with great reverence and veneration.”

    ...They believed that by consecrating bread their priests could turn it into the very body of their god, so that all who thereupon partook of the consecrated bread entered into a mystic communion with the deity by receiving a portion of his divine substance into themselves.

    The doctrine of transubstantiation, or the magical conversion of bread into flesh, was also familiar to the Aryans of ancient India long before the spread and even the rise of Christianity. The Brahmans taught that the rice-cakes offered in sacrifice were substitutes for human beings, and that they were actually converted into the real bodies of men by the manipulation of the priest.

    ...At the festival of the winter solstice in December the Aztecs killed their god Huitzilopochtli in effigy first and ate him afterwards. - http://www.bartleby.com/196/121.html

    There are some differences, but these have far more in common with the Cath idea of the Eucharist than anything seen in Scripture interpretive of the words of the last supper. ^

    More

  • BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules 5-4 Gay Marriage Is a Constitutional Right, Bans Struck Down

    06/26/2015 11:15:51 AM PDT · 105 of 107
    daniel1212 to Kaslin; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    In Massachusetts the age of consent is sixteen. With parental consent and/or the consent of a judge, males can marry at fourteen years of age and females can marry at the age of twelve.

    And sodomizing marriage started here, as the devil seeks to take over what once worshiped God.

    Moreover, marriage could be further defined as being btwn animals, which other states would thus have to recognize.

    As written after MA legalized sodomic marriage:

     

    Freedom not Sodom!


    There's freedom in America, the land of the red white and blue;

    but there still must be laws, things you just can't do.


    You can't marry your sister, your brother, or the family pet;

    a sheep, or a goat - at least not yet!


    That how is it with homosexuality, what the Bible calls sodomy;

    men lying with men as with women, is perversity!


    That they're not designed that way, tis easy to perceive,

    but yielding to sinful desires, man is soon deceived.


    A moral wrong is not a civil right; like the sin itself, that's confusion;

    calling evil good and exchanging light for darkness, is sure delusion!


    History tells us where this will lead, from societies now in dust,

    When a nation casts off the laws of God, and follows it's own lusts.


    Promoting a sin which sends one to Hell from an early grave,

    dishonors God and robs man of the Life He gave.


    There's but one answer: the Risen Jesus gave Himself for our sins;

    Repent and believe, then truly follow Him!

    _______________________________________________________________


    Gal. 6:18 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

    Rom. 13:14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

    1Cor. 6:9-11 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

    I would be a vessel clean

    I would be a vessel clean,

    purified for Christ my King

    I would give up all as dross,

    striving only for the cross.


    Purge away all vain desire,

    put instead a flame of fire,

    Fill and make me pure within,

    cleansed from every stain of sin.


    Nought have i to offer Thee,

    earful, vile and helpless me,

    Thou art pure and all Divine,

    for Thee alone my soul doth pine


    Let my love burn steady still,

    Lord, let it be a living flame,

    Let me die to this old world,

    let me glorify your Name.


    Wheresoever i would go,

    seeking first Thy will to know,

    May i be a witness true,

    pleasing Thee in all i do.


    Telling of Thy wondrous love,

    pointing souls to Christ above,

    Toiling onward by Thy grace,

    till i see Thee face to face.

    Norma Pratt.

  • BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules 5-4 Gay Marriage Is a Constitutional Right, Bans Struck Down

    06/26/2015 11:04:07 AM PDT · 102 of 107
    daniel1212 to Kaslin

    It is now even more official: The United States of Sodom. By sanctioning what God deems a moral abomination and punishing dissent against it, America has become a nation under condemnation and headed for damnation.

    Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! (Isaiah 5:20-21)

    Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed; (Isaiah 10:1)

    ...a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness. (Psalms 84:10)

    Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thng? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. (Psalms 2:1-3)

    He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. (Psalms 2:4-6)

    Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him. (Psalms 2:9-12)


    Moreover I will make thee waste, and a reproach among the nations that are round about thee, in the sight of all that pass by. (Ezekiel 5:14)

    In 15 countries plus Puerto Rico, majorities say homosexuality is immoral, ranging from 57% in Mexico to 91% in Guatemala. Only in Argentina, Chile and Uruguay do fewer than half of adults consider homosexual behavior morally wrong.

    in several countries, the percentages of Protestants who say homosexual behavior is morally wrong exceed the comparable percentages of Catholics by at least 20 points.

    Protestants tend to object to alcohol consumption more strongly than do Catholics. In most countries, clear majorities of Protestants say that drinking alcohol is morally wrong. Among Catholics, opinion is more divided.

    In Venezuela, Protestants are far more likely to object to alcohol consumption (81%) than are Catholics (44%).

    Although the Catholic Church teaches that marriage is an “indissoluble union” between a man and a woman, Protestants across Latin America are more solidly opposed to divorce than Catholics are.

    The gap between the views of Protestants and Catholics is especially wide in Venezuela, where half of Protestants (52%) say divorce is morally wrong, compared with 22% of Catholics.

    Protestants also are far more likely than Catholics to say that divorce is immoral in Peru (67% vs. 39%) and Ecuador (64% vs. 37%).

    Latin Americans are divided on the morality of sex outside marriage. In eight of the countries surveyed, majorities of adults say that sex between people who are not married to one another is morally wrong. But in other countries, roughly half or fewer object to sex outside marriage. Moral objections to sex outside marriage are highest in Guatemala (80%) and El Salvador (73%) and lowest in Uruguay (19%), Chile (23%) and Argentina (23%).

    Generally, Protestants are more likely to oppose sex outside marriage than are Catholics. In 15 countries plus Puerto Rico, majorities of Protestants say that sex between people who are not married to each other is morally wrong. Among Catholics, half or fewer share this view in most countries surveyed.

    As on other topics related to morality, differences between Protestants and Catholics are especially pronounced in Venezuela, where 77% of Protestants and 36% of Catholics say that sex outside marriage is morally wrong. Gaps of 30 percentage points or more between Protestants and Catholics also are seen in Colombia, Chile, Brazil and Panama. — 2014 Pew Research survey. My focus is mainly on the Protestant and Catholic views. Complete Report PDF]

    See also the Deleterious Effects of Sodomy here

  • Supreme Court rules for gay marriage

    06/26/2015 10:41:57 AM PDT · 132 of 203
    daniel1212 to concerned about politics
    "From bondage to spiritual faith;
    From spiritual faith to great courage;
    From courage to liberty;
    From liberty to abundance;
    From abundance to complacency;
    From complacency to apathy;
    From apathy to dependence;
    From dependence back into bondage.”

    Worth meditating.

  • Supreme Court rules for gay marriage

    06/26/2015 10:40:27 AM PDT · 131 of 203
    daniel1212 to Sioux-san
    Now is the time for all states run by Conservative governors and Legislatures to invoke their Constitutional rights to ignore these Tyrants.

    Indeed.

    Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the Lord's side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him. (Exodus 32:26)

    Who is on the Lord’s side?
      Who will serve the King?
    Who will be His helpers,
      Other lives to bring?
    Who will leave the world’s side?
      Who will face the foe?
    Who is on the Lord’s side?
      Who for Him will go? - Frances Ridley Havergal (1836-1879)

    Dare to be a Daniel,
    Dare to stand alone!
    Dare to have a purpose firm!
    Dare to make it known.- Philip P. Bliss

    In addition to below, The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality provides more information on the physical effects of perverting the created order of God, and yielding to the sinful desires of fallen man rather to to the risen Lord Jesus. God has given us good laws and good things and which are to our benefit when we obey Him, while breaking His good and thus misusing His good things is ultimately done to our own hurt, and that of others.

    • Statistics for the end of 2009 indicate that around 33.3 million people are living with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, [chiefly caused by the sins of sodomy and heterosexual promiscuity]. Each year around 2.6 million more people become infected with HIV and 1.8 million die of AIDS. UNAIDS (2010) 'UNAIDS report on the global AIDS epidemic

    • Worldwide, nearly 25 million people have died from AIDS since the beginning of the AIDS epidemic approximately 30 years ago. UNAIDS, World Health Organization, 2009 AIDS epidemic Update

    • During the same period, approximately 30 years ago, an estimated 1,077,972 people have been diagnosed with AIDS in America, and an estimated 597,499 [over a half a million] people with AIDS in the U.S. have died. avert.org/usa-statistics.htm

    • The CDC estimates that by the end of 2007 there were 470,902 people living with an AIDS diagnoses in the United States, approximately 20,000 more than 2006. ^

    • Almost two-thirds of adults and adolescents living with AIDS in 2007 were infected with HIV through male-to-male sexual relations (the sin of sodomy). Slightly over 75% of adults and adolescents living with an AIDS diagnosis are male. ^

    • The CDC estimates that at the end of 2007, there were 599,819 people living with a diagnosis of HIV infection in the 37 states and five U.S. dependent areas. However, the total number of people living with an HIV infection in the U.S. is thought to be around 1.1 million. One in every five people living with HIV has not even had their infection diagnosed, let alone reported. ^

    • The number of deaths of persons with an AIDS diagnosis has stabilized in recent years at around 17,000-18,000 per year. (Deaths of persons with an AIDS diagnosis may be due to any cause). ^

    • 19 percent of gay and bisexual men in 21 major U.S. cities are infected with HIV, and 44 percent of them do not know it, according to a CDC Press Release, reporting results from the 2008 National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System. 59 percent of black men, 46 percent of Hispanic men and 26 percent of white men were unaware of their infection. Among 18 to 29-year-old men, 63 percent did not know they were infected with HIV, compared with 37 percent of men aged 30 and older. http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/ngmHAAD2010PressRelease.html

    • August 2011: Transgender communities in the United States (US) are among the groups at highest risk for HIV infection. Findings from a meta-analysis of 29 published studies showed that 27.7% of transgender women tested positive for HIV infection (4 studies), but when testing was not part of the study, only 11.8% of transgender women self-reported having HIV (18 studies). In one study, 73% of the transgender women who tested HIV-positive were unaware of their status. Newly identified HIV infection was 2.6% among transgender persons compared with 0.9% for males and 0.3% for females. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 8-11-2011 http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/transgender/pdf/transgender.pdf

    • Approximately 90% of MtF and FtM people newly diagnosed with HIV infection were black or Hispanic. 50% of transgender women had documentation in their medical records of substance use, commercial sex work, homelessness, incarceration, and/or sexual abuse as compared with 31% of other people who were not transgender. ^

    • 2011: Men who have sexual relations with other men, including gay and bisexual men, have an HIV infection rate 60 times higher than that of the general population. They have an infection rate 800 times higher than first-time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than the rate of repeat blood donors. National Journal, based upon FDA reports. http://www.nationaljournal.com/healthcare/u-s-to-take-another-look-at-gay-blood-donation-ban-20110726

    • While only constituting an estimated 4 percent of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, Men Who Have Sex With Men (MSM) account for 53 percent of all new HIV infections in the U.S., (more than 44 times that of other men) as well as 48 percent of people living with HIV. (Cntd. below)

    • MSM is the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections are increasing. While new HIV infections have declined among both heterosexuals and injection drug users, infections among MSM have been steadily increasing since the early 1990s. Nearly 18,000 people with AIDS still die each year in the U.S. CDC: HIV and AIDS in America: A Snapshot, http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/HIVandAIDSinAmericaSnapshotFINAL70710508COMP.pdf

    • March 10, 2010: The rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who had homosexual relations (MSM) is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women. The rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women, the analysis says. CDC press release, http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/msmpressrelease.html

    • The sin of male-to-male sodomy contact accounted for 53% (28,700) of estimated new HIV infections in 2006. CDC’s historical trend analysis indicates that HIV incidence has been increasing steadily among gay and bisexual men since the early 1990s. These more accurate figures are the result of new technology developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) can be used to distinguish recent from long-standing HIV infections. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/factsheets/incidence.htm http://www.cdc.gov/NCHHSTP/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf

    • Although only a small percentage of American men report having sex with other men, at the end of 2006, men who had homosexual relations accounted for 64 percent of all men in the United States living with HIV. CDC. 2008. HIV prevalence estimates—United States, 2006. MMWR 57(39):10731076. HI Hall et al. 2008. Estimation of HIV incidence in the United States. JAMA 300(5):520529.

    • In 2008, 63 percent of syphilis cases were among men who have sex with men. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Reuters, “Sex infections still growing in U.S., says CDC”, Nov 16 2009

    • Approx. 60% of men infected with HIV contracted it thru the practices of sodomy (men lying with men as with women), 25% through illegal drug injections, 15% through heterosexual contact. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): HIV Prevention Strategic Plan Through 2005. January 2001. http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/aidsstat.htm

    • 54% of HIV infections among males, aged 13-29, were caused by homosexual contact in 2006. 34% of HIV infections were caused by heterosexual contact in the same demographic. 77% of HIV positive homosexual men between the ages of 15 and 29 do not know that they are infected. http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/sexualbehaviors/pdf/hiv_factsheet_ymsm.pdf http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jun/09061813.html

    • Men who had homosexual relations (MSM) accounted for approximately 42% of all new AIDS diagnoses in 2003 in the U.S. and 57% of new AIDS diagnoses among men that same year. Twenty-Five Years of HIV/AIDS --- United States, 19812006 www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5521a1.htm http://www.knowhivaids.org/facts_stats.html See also http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=507&cat=11&sub=118&yr=1&typ=2&sort=820

    • In 2004, 4.9 million people were diagnosed as being HIV positive, the most ever reported in a year. That brings the number of worldwide HIV-infected individuals alive today to approximately 39 million. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/rxforsurvival/series/diseases/hiv_aids.html

    • HIV-positive men who have sex with men are up to 90 times more likely than the general population to develop anal cancer." Study by University of California - Los Angeles (UCLA) CARE clinic who had anal cytology screenings (similar to a pap smear) between February 2002 and December 2004. The UCLA authors of the study are: Ross D. Cranston, Steven.D. Hart , Jeffrey A. Gornbein, Sharon L. Hirschowitz, Galen Cortina, and Ardis.A. Moe. This rate is understood by some as being due to E.Coli from stools entering into lesions and suppressing the immune system, which some contend sperm does as well. http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/mar/07032205.html

    • Homosexuals account for 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States "Changes in Sexual Behavior and Incidence of Gonorrhea." Lancet, April 25, 1987.

    • Because semen contains virtually every germ carried in the blood stream, ingesting it is fairly equivalent to ingesting raw human blood. Corey, L. and Holmes, K. "Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men." New England J. Med., 1980, pp. 435-38.

    • Sperm readily penetrates the anal wall (which is only one cell thick) and gains direct access to the blood stream. This causes massive immunological damage to the body's T- and B-cell defensive systems. Manlight, G. et. al. "Chronic Immune Stimulation By Sperm Alloantigens." J. American Med. Assn., 1984, 251(2), pp. 237-438.

    • A 1982 study showed 78% of homosexuals were affected by STDs. Rueda, E. "The Homosexual Network." Old Greenwich, Conn., The Devin Adair Company, 1982, p. 53.

    • Homosexual men accounted for 42 percent of new HIV cases in 2000 and 60 percent of all cases among all men. The Centers for Disease Control. Michael Foust. www.lifeway.com

    • Between 2003 to 2008 men who fornicated with men in France had an infection rate that was 200 times higher than in the heterosexual population. The Lancet Infectious Diseases, Sept. 9, 2010

    • Among all new cases heterosexuals accounted for 33 percent, and injection drug users 25 percent. The Centers for Disease Control

    • The number of people infected with AIDS in the US is doubling approximately every 5 years. http://www.redribbon.com/what-is-hiv-aids.htm

    • Globally 15,000 people acquire AIDs every day, 40,000 each year in the US. www.thebody.com/amfar/pdfs/microbicides.pdf..

    • As of the end of 2001, an estimated 40 million people worldwide - 37.1 million adults (50% being women) and 3.0 million children younger than 15 years - were living with HIV/AIDS. More than 70 percent of these people (28.5 million) live in Sub-Saharan Africa; another 14 percent (5.6 million) live in South and Southeast Asia. UNAIDS. Report on the Global HIV/AIDS Epidemic, 2002: "The Barcelona Report" http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/artic/hiv_aids_statistics_niaid_fact_sheet_niaid.htm

    • Over 25 million people around the world have died of AIDS-related diseases. http://www.avert.org/aroundworld.htm

    • Since the disease was first recognized in the early 1980s, more than 487,000 gay and bisexual men in the United States have been diagnosed with AIDS, and more than 274,000 have died. CDC. 2009. HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, 2007 19:15. http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/topics/HIVAIDS/

    • It is estimated that about 500,000 (half a million) Americans have died because of AIDS, and nearly 1 million people in the United States are presently living with HIV/AIDS. Twenty-Five Years of HIV/AIDS --- United States, 1981--2006 www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5521a1.htm. http://www.knowhivaids.org/facts_stats.html; Kaiser Family Foundation (2004?)

    • Death rate extrapolations for USA for HIV/AIDS: 15,244 per year, 1,270 per month, 293 per week, 41 per day . http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/h/hiv_aids/deaths.htm

    • The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimate that 850,000 to 950,000 U.S. residents are living with HIV infection, one-quarter of whom are unaware of their infection Fleming, P.L. et al. HIV Prevalence in the United States; http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/artic/hiv_aids_statistics_niaid_fact_sheet_niaid.htm; http://www.msm.edu/EXPORT/HIV_fact.htm

    • AIDS is now the number 1 cause of death among adults 24-44 years old in Baltimore, San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York. http://www.redribbon.net/what-is-hiv-aids.htm http://www.msm.edu/EXPORT/HIV_fact.htm

    • Among Middle and Low-income countries AIDS was the number 5 and number 3 cause of death, respectively, in 2007: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310.pdf

    • AIDS/HIV was the 4th leading cause of death for Black men and 3rd for Black women, ages 25–44, in 2006, ranking higher than for their respective counterparts in any other racial/ethnic group. The number of Black Americans living with AIDS increased by 24% between 2003 and 2007, compared to an 18% increase among whites.

    • Blacks account for more new HIV infections, people estimated to be living with HIV disease, and HIV-related deaths than any other racial/ethnic group in the U.S. Although Black Americans represent only 12% of the U.S. Population, they account for 45% of new HIV infections (Figure 1) and 46% of people living with HIV disease in 2006. Blacks also account for almost half of new AIDS diagnoses (49%) in 2007. Kaiser Family Foundation, Fact Sheet: September 2009 http://www.kff.org/hivaids/upload/6089-07.pdf

    • In 2001, HIV/AIDS was among the top three causes of death for African American men aged 25-54 years and among the top 4 causes of death for African American women aged 20-54 years. CDC, National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHSTP)

    • AIDS is a leading cause of death among African-American men ages 25-44, and African American women ages 25-34 years (2003). CDC, NCHS, National Vital Statistics Report, November 7, 2003 http://www.cdc.gov/omh/Highlights/2005/HDec105.htm

    • Average life years lost from HIV/AIDS: 35.7 years; 37.9 for HIV in North Carolina. Years of Potential Life Lost in North Carolina, NCMJ March/April 2002, Volume 63, Number 2; http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/h/hiv_aids/deaths.htm

    • A Canadian revealed that homosexuals can expect a reduction in life expectancy of 8 to 20 years. R.S. Hogg, S.A. Streathdee, K.J. Craib, M.V. O'Shaughnessy, J.S. Montaner, and M.T. Schechter, "Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men," International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 26, 657-661, 1997. http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01B1 http://www.narth.com/docs/correctionletter3.html

    • The life expectancy for a gay male in the United States is estimated to be lower than the normal life expectancy for a man living in Vietnam, Swaziland, Tanzania, and Somalia. http://www.arthurhu.com/index/gay.htm#lifeexpect

    • it is not unusual for a member of the gay community to have "buried 10, 20, and as many as 50 friends with AIDS." (Ray Billar and Susan Rice, "Experiencing Multiple Loss of Persons with AIDS: Grief and Bereavement Issues," Health and Social Work, 15:4 (November 1990): 285.

    • Worldwide, approximately 1 in every 100 adults aged 15 to 49 is HIV-infected. In Sub-Saharan Africa, about 9 percent of all adults in this age group are HIV-infected. In 12 African countries, the prevalence of HIV infection among adults aged 15 to 49 exceeds 10 percent. UNAIDS. Report on the Global HIV/AIDS Epidemic, 2002: "The Barcelona Report." http://www.aegis.com/factshts/niaid/2000/niaid2000_fact_sheet_aidsstat.html

    • In 2001, approximately 6,000 young people aged 15 to 24 became infected with HIV every day - that is, about five every minute. UNAIDS. Report on the Global HIV/AIDS Epidemic, 2002: "The Barcelona Report." http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/artic/hiv_aids_statistics_niaid_fact_sheet_niaid.htm

    • Federal budget funding for AIDS treatment and care in America in 2009 totaled 24.8 billion. Medicare spending on HIV totaled $4.5 billion in 2008, with four in ten people who were living with HIV and who were receiving care being covered by Medicaid. Kaiser Family Foundation (2009, February) ''Medicaid and HIV/AIDS Fact sheet''. The numbers of people living with HIV grows by around 56,000 every year. Hall, H.I. et al (2008, 6th August) 'Estimation of HIV incidence in the United States' JAMA 300(5)</ref><ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18677024

    • In 1998 the annual cost of treating advanced AIDS in a hospital was estimated to be $100,000 per year. Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council; http://www.phc4.org/reports/issue_briefs/docs/pharmcom.pdf

    • The lifetime cost of treating an AIDS patient in the United States was $102,000 in 1992. The New York Times | July 23, 1992; Dr. Fred J. Hellinger, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, an arm of the Public Health Service.

    • The monthly medical cost now [Nov 2006] for people with HIV from diagnosis until death is averages to be $2,100. The lifetime ( 24.2 years avg.) HIV care cost per person in optimal HIV care is now $618,900 per person. The discounted (accounting for the time-specific value of costs and benefits) lifetime cost of comprehensive treatment per HIV-infected person was $385,000. The total discounted cost, including lost productivity, of the estimated 40,000 new HIV infections expected to occur in the United States every year, was estimated to be approximately $53 billion. . 06 Nov 2006 NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center Schackman , Freedberg, MGH;, Gebo Moore Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Harvard School of Public Health, Harvard Medical School, and BU School of Public Health). http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/45/Supplement_4/S248.full http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/55870.php http://porkbusters.org/2007/02/prevent_baby_aids_or_learn_how.php

    • The average [2010] cost of HIV treatment is $14,000 to $20,000 a year, according Michael Kolbe, MD, (Professor of medicine and Director of Comprehensive AIDS Program and Adult HIV Services). In the US more than 1.2 million people [CDC] are living with HIV, with approx. 37 percent being 50 years old or older. According Yale Medical School experts, this number is expected to grow to 50 percent by 2017. http://globalaging.blogspot.com/2012/01/cost-of-hiv.html

    • The CDC reported an estimated the lifetime cost of treatment for one person with HIV as being $379,668 [in 2010 dollars: likely around 400,000 in 2014] http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/ongoing/costeffectiveness/

    • From 2006 to 2009, HIV infections among young black/African American gay and bisexual men increased 48%.http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/library_factsheet_hiv_among_gaybisexualmen.pdf

    • In 2011, gay and bisexual men accounted for 52% of estimated AIDS diagnoses among all adults and adolescents in the United States. Of the estimated 16,694 AIDS diagnoses among gay and bisexual men, 39% were in blacks/African Americans; 34% were in whites; and 23% were in Hispanics/Latinhttp://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/

    • Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) a represent approximately 2% of the United States population. In 2011, in the United States, gay and bisexual men accounted for 79% of 38,825 estimated HIV diagnoses among all males aged 13 years and older and 62% of 49,273 estimated diagnoses among all persons receiving an HIV diagnosis that year. ^

    • At the end of 2010, of the estimated 872,990 persons living with an HIV diagnosis, 440,408 (50%) were gay and bisexual men. Forty-seven percent of gay and bisexual men living with an HIV diagnosis were white, 31% were black/African American, and 19% were Hispanic/Latino. ^

    • By the end of 2010, an estimated 302,148 gay and bisexual men with an AIDS diagnosis had died in the United States since the beginning of the epidemic, representing 48% of all deaths of persons with AIDS. ^

    • In 2010, gay and bisexual men accounted for 63% of estimated new HIV infections in the United States and 78% of infections among all newly infected men. From 2008 to 2010, new HIV infections increased 22% among young (aged 13-24) gay and bisexual men and 12% among gay and bisexual men overall.^

    • Among all gay and bisexual men, Hispanic/Latino gay and bisexual men accounted for 6,700 (22%) estimated new HIV infections in 2010. Among all gay and bisexual men, black/African American gay and bisexual men accounted for 10,600 (36%) estimated new HIV infections in 2010. ^

    • 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.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-suicide-attempts-alarming-transgender-20140127,0,3324954.story#ixzz2vRHkyu7v\

    • As a result of present day [2007] HAART chemotherapy for HIV infection, a person diagnosed as HIV-infected in the United States can expect to live an average of 24 years but this comes at a cost. Over that period, drug costs can be as high as $600,000 with an annual cost of care of more than $25,000. http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/lecture/hiv-cost2007.htm

    • About 1.2 million people are living with HIV in the US but about 20% (240,000) do not know they are infected. Each year, about 50,000 people get infected with HIV in the US. CDC, Dec. 2011 http://www.cdc.gov/VitalSigns/HIVtesting/index.html

    • 75% of patients with HIV in the United States, do not have their disease under control, while it is estimated that over 2 million people are in danger of spreading the disease.

    • 43 percent of white male homosexuals estimate they have had sex with 500 or more different partners, and 28 percent report more than 1,000 partners. Authors Bell and Weinberg http://www.leaderu.com/issues/fabric/chap11.html 86 percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual" (W. D. Erickson, M.D., et al., in Archives of Sexual Behavior 17:1, 1988).

    • 32% of homosexuals in the Chicago area have suffered abuse by their partner. Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Chicago; Department of Psychology, Howard Brown Health Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA. http://www.springerlink.com/content/r6q02560022h4276/?=eec72

    • 42% of gay men; 43% of lesbians; 49% of bisexual men and women planned or actually and deliberately engaged in self-harm, and showed high levels of psychiatric morbidity. Homosexual men and bisexual men were more likely than heterosexual men to be diagnosed with at least one of five mental health disorders and 20% of gay-bisexual men had two or more disorders. 24% of the lesbian-bisexual women had two or more mental disorders in the previous year. The British Journal Of Psychiatry. 2004; 185: 479-485. Journal Of Consulting And Clinical Psychology, (Vol. 71, No. 1, 53-61). http://www.narth.com/docs/britjournal.html

    • The prevalence of bacterial vaginosis (BV) among lesbians has been reported to be 18 to 36% (Berger et al., 1995; Edwards and Thin, 1990; Marrazzo et al., 1996a, b), higher than the 16% prevalence seen in 10,397 pregnant women evaluated in the Vaginal Infections in Pregnancy study (Hillier et al., 1995). A study of 101 lesbians, none of whom had had sexual relations with men during the preceding year, found BV prevalence to be 29%. A study conducted in a London genitourinary medicine clinic compared 241 lesbians and 241 matched heterosexual controls and found higher rates of BV in lesbians. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK45095/

    • BV is more common in lesbian and bisexual women than in other women, and the condition frequently persists after treatment. http://www.annals.org/content/149/1/I-30.full.pdf

    • Lesbians appear to be at greater risk for alcohol abuse than are heterosexual women (Cassidy and Hughes, 1997; Eliason, 1996; Haas, 1994; O'Hanlan, 1995; Rosser, 1993)

    • Lesbian teens are nearly five times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexual girls, according to a 2003 survey presented at a national conference of public health experts in Vancouver Monday. B.C.-based McCreary Centre Society survey found 38 per cent of lesbian girls and 30.4 per cent of bisexual girls said they had attempted suicide in the previous year, compared with 8.2 per cent of heterosexual girls. McCreary Centre Society http://www2.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=b433f217-3947-49c3-b045-9c03ce3de848&k=1 -http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html#8

  • Supreme Court rules for gay marriage

    06/26/2015 10:33:27 AM PDT · 127 of 203
    daniel1212 to liberalism is suicide
    Flags need to be at half-mast to mourn its passing.

    A Day of Infamy!

  • Supreme Court rules for gay marriage

    06/26/2015 10:32:24 AM PDT · 126 of 203
    daniel1212 to rockinqsranch; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; ...

    It is now even more official: The United States of Sodom. By sanctioning what God deems a moral abomination and punishing dissent against it, America has become a nation under condemnation and headed for damnation.

    Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! (Isaiah 5:20-21)

    Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed; (Isaiah 10:1)

    ...a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness. (Psalms 84:10)

    Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thng? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. (Psalms 2:1-3)

    He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. (Psalms 2:4-6)

    Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him. (Psalms 2:9-12)


  • Pope Kisses the Waldensian Bible --- Pope Francis, Don Bosco and the Waldensians

    06/26/2015 6:58:26 AM PDT · 73 of 113
    daniel1212 to St_Thomas_Aquinas; Elsie
    You can ask him what that’s supposed to mean, but it seems like a strange position for someone who swears by Luther’s dogma of “the Bible alone” as the sole or ultimate rule of faith.

    Yes, it would be indeed inconsistent to forbid you to quote the Bible even if out of context as a matter of free speech as per the context here, versus out of context quotes being disallowed as having validity. As in sound exegesis disallows you from using out of context quotes to prove your point. But as you fail to reference what Elsie said about out of context quotes the we cannot see if you are quoting him out of context.

    Not much of an argument, but such are many of those from RCs, including some of yours in the past i am still awaiting responses to.

    Did Luther tell us which verses we should quote?

    His preaching provides examples, but unlike Rome, Luther never provided a binding decree on what books constitute Scripture, nor dissent from a binding canon, nor fail to include the apocryphal books in his Bible itself (in separate section), despite Cath canards to the contrary.

  • Removing Jesus

    06/26/2015 5:14:27 AM PDT · 88 of 285
    daniel1212 to RnMomof7
    The point we are making is that Jesus was incarnated to save sinners, yet Rome has built up a religion that is intent on saving Jesus from the sinners He came to save!

    Thus Mary came into the world to save Jesus from sins and as many Catholics profess, to her Christ owed His sinless blood to. Which is consistent with the elevation of the Mary of Catholicism, while in Scripture the Lord owes man nothing, and Mary owed her very existence to Christ.

    Note that many Catholic Marian attributions much parallel even that of Christ:

    For in the the Catholic quest to almost deify Mary, it is taught by Catholics*,

    • as Christ was sinless, so Mary was;

    • as the Lord remained a virgin, so Mary;

    • as Christ was called the Son of God, indicating ontological oneness, so Mary is called the Mother of God (which easily infers the same, and is not the language of Scripture);

    • as the emphasis is upon Christ as the Creator through whom God (the Father) made all things, including Mary, so it is emphasized that uniquely “to her, Jesus owes His Precious Blood,” shed for the salvation of mankind, (the logic behind which can lead back to Eve);

    • as Catholics (adding error to error) believe Christ gave His actual flesh and blood to be eaten, so it is emphasized that Mary gave Him this, being fashioned out of Mary's pure blood and even being “kneaded with the admixture of her virginal milk,” so that she can say, "Come and eat my bread, drink the wine I have prepared" (Prov. 9:5);

    • as Scripture declares that Christ suffered for our sins, so Mary is said to have done so also;

    • as Christ saves us from the condemnation and death resulting from the fault of Adam, so it is taught that man was condemned through the fault of Eve, the root of death, but that we are saved through the merits of Mary; who was the source of life for everyone.

    • as the Lord was bodily ascended into Heaven, so Mary also was;

    • as Christ is given all power in heaven and in earth, so Mary is “surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven.”

    • as Christ is the King of the saints and over all kings, (Rv. 15:3; 17:14; 19:16) so Mary is made Queen of Heaven and the greatest saint, and that “Next to God, she deserves the highest praise;”

    • as the Father made Christ Lord over all things, so Mary is enthroned (all other believers have to wait for their crowns) and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things;

    • as Christ is the express image of God, and highly exalted above all under the Father, having the primary position among all creation, so Mary is declared to be the greatest saint of all, and the first of all creatures, and as having a certain affinity with the Father, with a pre-eminent resemblance which she bears to the Father;

    • as Christ ever liveth to make intercession for the saints, so is Mary said to do so;

    • as all things come from the Father through the Son, so Mary is made to be the dispenser of all grace;

    • as Christ is given all power on Heaven and on earth, Mary is said to have (showing some restraint) “almost unlimited power;”

    • as no man comes to the Father but through the Son, so it is taught that no one can come to the Son except through Mary in Heaven;

    • and as the Lord called souls to come to Him to be given life and salvation, so (in misappropriation of the words of Scripture) it is said of Mary, “He that shall find me shall find life, and shall have salvation from the Lord;” “that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.”

    • And as Christ is given many titles of honor, so Mary also is, except that she is honored by Catholics with more titles than they give to the Lord Himself!

    Mary was a holy, virtuous instrument of God, but of whom Scripture says relatively little, while holy fear ought to restrain ascribing positions, honor, glory and powers to a mortal that God has not revealed as given to them, and or are only revealed as being possessed by God Himself. But like as the Israelites made an instrument of God an object of worship, (Num. 21:8,9; 2Kg. 18:4) Catholics have magnified Mary far beyond what is written and warranted and even allowed, based on what is in Scripture.

  • Removing Jesus

    06/26/2015 5:00:08 AM PDT · 87 of 285
    daniel1212 to metmom
    And again, the typical Catholic’s reaction at the thought of Mary having sex with her lawful husband reveals what people really think about sex within marriage.

    If a women entered into marriage never intending or allowing for marital relations then i believe it would be grounds for annulment.

  • Pope Kisses the Waldensian Bible --- Pope Francis, Don Bosco and the Waldensians

    06/26/2015 4:40:53 AM PDT · 69 of 113
    daniel1212 to Springfield Reformer
    Furthermore, if one does not accept the principle of religious freedom, why be on a conservative political website like FreeRepublic at all?

    I have no doubt if the traditional RCs here had their way, FR would be another "Catholic Answers," with their immature wanne inquisitors disallowing whatever disrespects the object of their devotion.

  • Removing Jesus

    06/25/2015 6:02:57 PM PDT · 50 of 285
    daniel1212 to Mrs. Don-o; metmom; RnMomof7; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww; ...
    It's staggering how I ....have never met one single, solitary Catholic who thought sex between a husband and wife is dirty and sinful.

    Perhaps not, but while modern RCs have become more enlightened on the subject, RCs often assert one must go to the "fathers," and there we see no less than Jerome, Augustine and Tertullian imputing uncleanness to marriage or its relations.

    this too we must observe, at least if we would faithfully follow the Hebrew, that while Scripture on the first, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth days relates that, having finished the works of each, “God saw that it was good,” on the second day it omitted this altogether, leaving us to understand that 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. St. Jerome, Against Jovinianus Book 1 http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.vi.I.html

    So much for 2 x 2 evangelism! And behold how the scholar resorts to this false dilemma, as on First Corinthians 7 he reasons:

    It is good, he says, for a man not to touch a woman. If it is good not to touch a woman, it is bad to touch one: for there is no opposite to goodness but badness. But if it be bad and the evil is pardoned, the reason for the concession is to prevent worse evil. (Against Jovinianus (Book I, v. 7)

    He furthermore stated,

    It is not disparaging wedlock to prefer virginity. No one can make a comparison between two things if one is good and the other evil....Let them marry and be given in marriage who eat their bread in the sweat of their brow, whose land brings forth thorns and thistles, and whose crops are choked with brambles. My seed produces fruit a hundredfold.(''Letter'' 22; http://epistolae.ccnmtl.columbia.edu/letter/447.html).

    In addition, Augustine held marital relations must involve sinful lust:

    ...the very embrace which is lawful and honourable cannot be effected without the ardour of lust, so as to be able to accomplish that which appertains to the use of reason and not of lust....This is the carnal concupiscence, which, while it is no longer accounted sin in the regenerate, yet in no case happens to nature except from sin. — On Marriage and Concupiscence (Book I, cp. 27); http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15071.htm

    Then we have Tertullian, who argued that second marriage, having been freed from the first by death, "will have to be termed no other than a species of fornication,'' partly based on the reasoning that such involves desiring to marry a women out of sexual ardor. ''An Exhortation to Chastity,'' Chapter IX.—Second Marriage a Species of Adultery, Marriage Itself Impugned, as Akin to Adultery, ANF, v. 4, p. 84.]

  • Pope Kisses the Waldensian Bible --- Pope Francis, Don Bosco and the Waldensians

    06/25/2015 5:20:21 PM PDT · 40 of 113
    daniel1212 to piusv; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    Yes, Protestants in their many forms are against us. So, in this case, the Bible verse poste

    d above doesn’t apply because Protestants are against us, not with us.

    It does indeed apply, as like the apostles, traditional (vs. V2) Catholicism wrongly holds that one cannot validly do ministry in the name of the Lord without their sanction, while Christ said such are for Him. Thus the latter are for Christ, while the sectarian Rome is against Him.

    Anyone who does ministry in the name of the Lord as the one whom the apostles reproved, is indeed against elitist Rome, as they are against Christ in this.

    It is not complicated at all, but it is expected that RCs will not admit it.

  • Today in History

  • 6 Things Jimmy Akin Won’t Tell You about the Pope’s New Encyclical

    06/25/2015 5:56:26 AM PDT · 222 of 244
    daniel1212 to stonehouse01; Springfield Reformer
    I am not attributing this - this is the correct meaning and self evident by the plain meaning of the scripture passage.

    According to you, but where is this an infallible or otherwise binding interpretation? And since what Rome says of Scripture, Tradition and history must be your basis for Truth as a faithful RC (indeed, Cath. teaching is that we cannot even validly know what Scripture consists of apart from faith in her as its instrument), then why should what you think be of any consequence?

    If you hope to convert us by condescending to appeal to Scripture as being the supreme authority, your end is bring us to abandon the weight of Scripture as being the basis for the veracity of Truth claims, and instead rest upon the premise of the ensured veracity of Rome.

    And if you disagree with that as being your end, then you are in disagreement with far more weightier RCs then yourself, and are another example of the diverse liberal and conservative amalgam called Catholicism (but which you cannot separate from without being sectarian or schismatic).

    This needs to be said as while we can debate you on Scripture, experience shows that RCs are bound to defend Rome not matter what expense to credulity, and thus no matter how much their attempts to defend Roman tradition are refuted and they are silenced, they end up posting the same parroted polemics again as if nothing was said.

    In biblical tradition, the servant of the household who holds the keys carries DYNASTIC authority with the power of succession. Peter identifies Christ as the King (messiah). Christ as King uses His authority to NOW give the keys to Peter as steward symbolizing authority to bind and loose. The 1906 Jewish encyclopedia notes that the expression “to bind the key upon his shoulder denotes POSSESSION of office. (Isaiah 22:22) Offices have successors. The key as a symbol of authority is also met with in the Talmud.

    But which simply does not translate into this being a fulfillment of Is. 22, while if anything in that regard is fulfilled it seen in Christ, as shown and ignored. Nowhere does the Holy Spirit invoke Is. 22 this as pertaining to Peter, nor does the use of language denote that, nor does the Spirit reveal Peter as exercising a uniquely authoritative binding and loosing rule over all the churches or having a perpetuated office, which Is. 22 does not teach.

    Instead, as said and ignored, not only was this prophecy of Eliakim's ascendancy apparently fulfilled in the OT [as 2Ki. 19:1 2Ki. 18:18, 2Ki. 18:37 and Is. 3622, 37:2 all refer to Eliakim being over the house, (bayith, same in Is. 22:15,22) which Shebna the treasurer was, (Is. 22:15) and evidently had much prestige and power, though the details of his actual fall are not mentioned [and who may not be the same as "Shebna the scribe" (sâkan) mentioned later] - but the text actually foretells:

    "In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall the nail that is fastened in the sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall; and the burden that was upon it shall be cut off: for the LORD hath spoken it." (Isa 22:25)

    Whether this refers to Shebna or Eliakim is irrelevant, for in any case it means that being a nail that is fastened in the sure place does not necessarily denote permanency, as it did not here.

    Yet if we are looking for a future fulfillment with permanency, both the language concept of a key and being a father to the house of David corresponds more fully to Christ, and who alone is promised a continued reign (though when He has put all His enemies under His feet, He will deliver the kingdom to His Father: 1Cor. 15:24-28).

    For it is Christ who alone is said to be clothed "with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle," (Rv. 1:13; cf. Is. 22:21) and who came to be an everlasting father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. (Is. 22:21; cf. Heb. 7:14; 8:8; 9:6) And who specifically is said to be given "the key of the house of David," "so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open," (Is. 22:22) as He now “hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth.” (Rev. 3:7) and is a nail in a sure place who sits in a glorious throne in His father's house, (Is. 22:23; cf. Rv. 3:7) And upon Him shall hang “all the glory of his father’s house, the offspring and the issue, ” (Is. 22:24) for He is the head of the body, the church, (Colossians 1:18) "from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth,“ (Eph. 4:16) and in Jesus Christ dwells "all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” (Col. 2:9)

    Thus neither Eliakim nor Peter are shown having this manner of fulfillment, nor does it necessarily denote successors (Christ has none Himself, but took over from the Father). Thus if this " a nail in a sure place" corresponds to anyone future then it is Christ, and nothing is said of Eliakim having a vice regent. Thus this prophecy is actually contrary to Peter being that Eliakim.

    Rabbinical tradition contains the authority of determining who has the power of binding and loosing.

    Which was not new, and certainly did not require ensured infallibility. Peter was given binding/loosing power, which aspect itself corresponds to Is. 22, and Peter was the street-level leader among the 11 (which type of leadership all should pray for), but that the church looked to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes reigning in Rome over all as their supreme head is not seen in Scripture, or early history Read on.

    The 1906 Jewish encyclopedia notes that the expression “to bind the key upon his shoulder denotes POSSESSION of office. (Isaiah 22:22) Offices have successors.

    But which is not what Is. 22 promises to this office, as shown above.

    The binding and loosing IS TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY unique to Peter because THE POWER WAS GIVEN TO HIM BY JESUS THE KING, HIMSELF. That is why it is unique.

    Still wrong, regardless of how much you may shout it. For while Peter was the initial object of this reception, yet as said and ignored, the "key (to the kingdom) is the gospel, by which one is translated into the kingdom of Christ, (Col. 1:13)" and which word all the church preached. (Acts 8:4)

    And the power and function of binding and loosing pertained to all the apostles, judicially to the elders, while spiritually to all believers. (Mt. 18:15-20; Ja, 5:14-19)

    Scripture teaches that one can be bound by sickness and thus Christ, who came to loose captives, (Lk. 4:18) set such free, (Lk. 13:11-16) as did others.

    Being set free from sins by faith in the gospel of the crucified and risen Lord Jesus is a form of loosing, with unbelief leaving souls bound. And Paul who received the gospel by special Divine revelation, and not from man, preached justification by faith before Acts 15.

    And in which we do not see Peter binding anyone to his judgment, but instead he merely exhorted the church not to yoke the Gentiles into having to keep all the Law (though the moral law was reinforced as manifesting obedient saving faith).

    Instead, the final conclusive sentence awaited the judgment of James, which provided it as being Scripturally substantiated, after Paul and Barnabas added their testimony confirmatory of Peter's exhortation and testimony, and which the elders collectively bound the churches to accept.

    In church discipline, Paul together with the church bound an incestuous man in 1Co. 5 to chastisement by the devil.

    The elders (primarily) of the church as well as other holy intercessors can also obtain the loosing of deliverance of sins for which one may be chastened for. (Ja, 5:14-18)

    In addition, Elijah bound and loosed the heavens, which James invokes as an example of what holy believers may do. For while the judicial aspect of binding and loosing pertained to the magisterium, as in the OT. (Dt. 17:8-13) spiritually it is provided for all holy believers. (Mt. 18:15-20; Ja, 5:14-19)

    This is not due to RC’s reading into the text - it is due to a logical reading of the text. The early Church recognized the primacy of the Office of Peter. The letter (extant) of Pope Clement the 1st, writing an Epistle to the Corinthians, he as Bishop of Rome with particular authority gives them clear doctrinal instructions. This was done in the 1st century, showing the succession of this thought from the beginning. He also references the Alexandrian canon of the OT, books that Luther threw out.

    Rather, it is evident that you have uncritically ingested papal propaganda, which even RC scholarship provides testimony against .

    First Epistle of Clement is actually anonymous, and is only traditionally attributed to Clement of Rome, And it exhorts to "Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle" (xlvii. 1) who can hardly be said to teach , much less promote, Peter as the supreme infallible head to whom all the churches were to look to.

    Not once does Paul tell any church to submit to Peter as supreme head, even to those which had problems (nor do the letters to the 7 churches in Rv. 2+3). And Paul mentions Peter second after James in Gal. 2 among those who "seemed to be pillars," and who collective affirm Paul's ministry which many were discrediting. Yet Paul proceeds to mention how he publicly rebuked Peter for his duplicity. (Gal. 2)

    The only support we have in the NT for Peter's position is that he was the street-level leader among the 11, and pastor of the first church, but there is no teaching o any apostolic successors (like for James: Acts 12:1,2) after Judas who was to maintain the original 12: Rv. 21:14) or for any apostolic successors elected by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff)

    And as the esteemed (by many RCs also who often invoke him) Anglican scholar J.N.D Kelley finds that the letter indicates a plurality of elders at the church at Rome, which is a scholarly consensus of regarding the early church, versus a monarchical episcopate. More .

    And another others , Catholic theologian and a Jesuit priest Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops (New York: The Newman Press), examines possible mentions of “succession” from the first three centuries, and concludes from that study that,

    the episcopate [development of bishops] is a the fruit of a post New Testament development,” and cannot concur with those (interacting with Jones) who see little reason to doubt the notion that there was a single bishop in Rome through the middle of the second century:

    Hence I stand with the majority of scholars who agree that one does not find evidence in the New Testament to support the theory that the apostles or their coworkers left [just] one person as “bishop” in charge of each local church...

    ...the evidence both from the New Testament and from such writings as I Clement, the Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians and The Shepherd of Hennas favors the view that initially the presbyters in each church, as a college, possessed all the powers needed for effective ministry. This would mean that the apostles handed on what was transmissible of their mandate as an undifferentiated whole, in which the powers that would eventually be seen as episcopal were not yet distinguished from the rest. Hence, the development of the episcopate would have meant the differentiation of ministerial powers that had previously existed in an undifferentiated state and the consequent reservation to the bishop of certain of the powers previously held collegially by the presbyters. — Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops , pp. 221, 222,2 24

    Klaus Schatz [Jesuit Father theologian, professor of church history at the St. George’s Philosophical and Theological School in Frankfurt] in his work, “Papal Primacy ,” pp. 1-4, finds:

    New Testament scholars agree..., The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative.

    That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the authority of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably 'no.”

    ....that does not mean that the figure and the commission of the Peter of the New Testament did not encompass the possibility, if it is projected into a Church enduring for centuries and concerned in some way to to secure its ties to its apostolic origins and to Jesus himself.

    If we ask in addition whether the primitive church was aware, after Peter’s death, that his authority had passed to the next bishop of Rome, or in other words that the head of the community at Rome was now the successor of Peter, the Church’s rock and hence the subject of the promise in Matthew 16:18-19, the question, put in those terms, must certainly be given a negative answer.” (page 1-2)

    [Schatz goes on to express that he does not doubt Peter was martyred in Rome, and that Christians in the 2nd century were convinced that Vatican Hill had something to do with Peter's grave.]

    "Nevertheless, concrete claims of a primacy over the whole church cannot be inferred from this conviction. If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no." (page 3, top)

    He also references the Alexandrian canon of the OT, books that Luther threw out.

    Which means, if he referenced them as Scripture, that he was one of those who held to these as being so, while other notable figures (ss Jerome) did not, and scholarly doubts and disagreements about books continued down thru centuries and right into Trent, which provided the first infallible, indisputable canon for RCs after the death of Luther .

    That Luther was some maverick in judging the apocrypha as not being Scripture proper, and that he was in dissent from an infallible canon, and did not include in his Bible, is Cath propaganda.

    This Pope shold have stuck to doctrine. He has jumped the shark by believing in fake climate change; but the encyclical is NOT an ex Cathedra pronouncement on faith and morals that is required belief.

    And just what makes you think that encyclicals, or this encyclical, do not require religious assent of mind and will, and preclude public dissent? What kind of RC are you? (There are different types, all of which Rome counts and treats as members in life an and in death.)

  • Pope Kisses the Waldensian Bible --- Pope Francis, Don Bosco and the Waldensians

    06/25/2015 5:41:55 AM PDT · 19 of 113
    daniel1212 to piusv; Jim Noble; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; ...
    Unfortunately, Protestants are against us. That was what the Reformation was about, no?

    No, as besides the defintion of "Protestant" being so broad as to be essential meaningless, Rome, like the sectarian pre-Pentecostal apostles, was against any doing ministry in the name of the Lord that was not sanctioned by them.

    For RCs presume that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God).

    And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God.

    Which logic leads to an interesting and damnable conclusion.