Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $55,949
63%  
Woo hoo!! And we're now over 63%!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by daniel1212

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Judging non-Catholics

    08/25/2016 7:51:50 PM PDT · 834 of 835
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    However, I do not find it persuasive to insist this parable is an allegorical tale that has not happened yet, nor am I persuaded the Apostle Paul did not write definitively and truthfully here about what it means to die. Apostle Paul did indeed write definitively and truthfully here about what it means to die, which refutes purgatory and the judgment seat of Christ being it, and while Lk. 12:32-48 uses allegory it clearly speaks of the future event when the the lord will come and reward every soul according to his works, with again, the only location mentioned for the unprepared being with the lost, and nothing mentioned of some servants having to atone for sins commencing at death because they did not do so while on earth, and after which they enter Heaven.

    Neither Lazarus nor the rich man saw the Lord's coming in Lk. 16:19ff, which would have released Lazarus to be with the Lord and rewarded according to his works, and not simply being with the Lord, and would also subsequently result in the rich man being sentenced in accordance with his guilt (Rv. 20:10-15) versus simply suffering a general punishment in Hell.

    Trying to make the Lord's coming into one's death simply is not what Scripture does (need i actually present all the verses: 1Cor. 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev.11:18; Mt. 25:31-46; 1Pt. 1:7; 5:4) and is a desperate attempt to raise a ship that has already sunk. That you must continue to resort to such examples what cultist devotion can do, and as said, it must come to end. Further attempts thus warrant being ignored.

  • Windows 10 cumulative update KB 3176934 breaks PowerShell

    08/25/2016 7:23:20 PM PDT · 30 of 30
    daniel1212 to catnipman
    folks have tried that approach, so you could google it and see how it’s going. Some were claiming MS was bypassing the etc/hosts file with hard-coded IPs, so the only means possible to thwart phoning home was to use router features to block the MS IPs.

    Well, there is this,Download Destroy Windows 10 Spying - MajorGeeks though i do not try it, and do not want to do all that this does myself:

  • Judging non-Catholics

    08/25/2016 11:29:46 AM PDT · 815 of 835
    daniel1212 to Resettozero
    I was referring to the “gate” for certain more-religious, more-pious, and more-educated FR cultists. A “gate” around the backside of Heaven, where their first pope is holding up the bottom strand of barbed wire so they can slither under with no One noticing.

    I thought that was basically the fabricated Mary of Catholicism.

  • Judging non-Catholics

    08/25/2016 11:22:15 AM PDT · 814 of 835
    daniel1212 to Mark17
    We get fresh coconuts, right off the tree, several days a week. Mmmm. Chop open the coconut, pour it into the pitcher, put it in the refrigerator, and drink it cold. Ah yes, this is the life. Come on over bro. 😀

    You think the Chinese will some day do just that, but not as brothers?

    Caucus Brief: Eye On China, U.S. And Philippines Ramp Up Military ...

  • Judging non-Catholics

    08/25/2016 5:09:02 AM PDT · 790 of 835
    daniel1212 to Arrian; Resettozero
    Pay attention, for a moment, if you’re capable. I write critiques of serious history, under a ‘nom de plume’; for ranking publications.

    Snobbery is no excuse, even if it is a reason, for lack of argument and refusal to answer questions which you need to face since you chose to enter the debate here, and to present the pope as the solution to division.

  • Windows 10 cumulative update KB 3176934 breaks PowerShell

    08/25/2016 4:57:36 AM PDT · 23 of 30
    daniel1212 to doorgunner69; catnipman
    Good luck, MS. Had updates turned off for over two years now. Even that software that supposedly removes 10 nag notices told me it would not work unless I installed a newer "update" version.

    I have not researched it, but i wonder if there is a list of all the IP addresses of MS that one could exclude, as with Blocking Unwanted Connections with a Hosts File - MVPS HOSTS file which I have used for years (with some edits). Thank God for such.

  • No, God Isnít Transgender

    08/25/2016 4:57:15 AM PDT · 31 of 32
    daniel1212 to Read Write Repeat
    Hashem created a beautiful world and it's our responsibility to preserve life. May those suffering from gender dysphoria seek this rabbi and learn for themselves how much Hashem loves and forgives them.

    God's love for us sinners does not translate into approval for either our disordered condition or the actions that flow out of it. But there is room at the cross for all who will come to the promised Is. 53 Messiah, sent by the Father, with repentant faith for salvation, and then follow Him. Glory to God.

  • Southern Baptists See 9th Year of Membership Decline

    08/24/2016 8:35:01 PM PDT · 48 of 61
    daniel1212 to kaehurowing; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; boatbums; ...
    Only 30 percent of Americans who were raised Catholic still practice the faith. Fully 10 percent of adults in America are former Catholics. The number of marriages celebrated in the U.S. church decreased by nearly 60 percent between 1972 and 2010. Only 60 percent of Catholics believe in a personal God. - http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2016/0529/9.aspx

    Evangelical Protestants Are The Biggest Winners When People Change Faiths - http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/evangelical-protestants-are-the-biggest-winners-when-people-change-faiths/

  • Windows 10 cumulative update KB 3176934 breaks PowerShell

  • Judging non-Catholics

    08/24/2016 7:45:36 PM PDT · 764 of 835
    daniel1212 to Elsie
    You guys keep saying this; and yet are SILENT on the FACT; that if this WERE true; then you've got some 'splaining to do Lucy; about the seven FAILED Catholic churches in Asia that the angel told John to write to.

    You mean 5, while it can be argued that they did not ultimately fail. However, the utter absence of any mention of the sppsd supreme head of the churches Rome has them looking to, with no commendation or condemnation relative to submitting to him, as well as the Eucharist not being recommended either as a remedy, is supremely conspicuous.

  • Judging non-Catholics

    08/24/2016 7:40:57 PM PDT · 763 of 835
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    The text indicates the stripes are punishment given when the LORD judges that servant. For the myriads of servants in the two millennia since their passing I would read that as the very night of their death. It does not matter what you suppose, for Scripture makes it clear when the judgment of believers takes place, which is at the judgment seat of Christ at/after the Lord's return, as was referenced, and which you yourself confirmed saying, "The text allows for a range of punishment for a servant of the LORD at the coming of the LORD."

    Having been shown that this disallows purgatory, you are now trying to make the sentencing of believers to be the same time as the Lord. Give it up! This longsuffering work of showing you your absence of any real support has seen its end.

  • Judging non-Catholics

    08/24/2016 7:40:10 PM PDT · 762 of 835
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    Which again, happens at the Lord's return, Look again at Luke and what God said to the rich man. The LORD's coming for him, as it were, was that very night.

    Pure desperation. The Scriptural Lord's return in Scripture is yet to come, (1Cor. 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev.11:18; Mt. 25:31-46; 1Pt. 1:7; 5:4) and is not at death.

    To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

    Indeed, and shall forever be, (1Thes. 4:17) and the Lord's return and subsequent judgment seat of Christ is when these souls come with Him, with the actual sentencing according to their degree of guilt following. (Jude 1:14-15; cf. Mal. 3:18; Mt 16:27; 19:28; Mt 24:30,31; 25:31; Lk. 22:20; 2Th 1:7,8; Re 1:7; 5:10; 19:6-20; 20:4)

  • Judging non-Catholics

    08/24/2016 7:15:49 PM PDT · 757 of 835
    daniel1212 to FourtySeven; ealgeone; ADSUM
    will you now persist in making the erroneous claim that the “Catholic Church teaches those who wear the brown Scapular are guaranteed to not burn in Hell?”

    I have not been following this, but to be accurate, which we should be, he should have said that some Catholics teach, without apparent censor, that those who wear the brown Scapular are guaranteed to not burn in Hell. And this issue pertains to the one raised here without resolution, as to the practical basis for for RC assurance of faithful doctrine. For which, at a minimum, the Nihil Obstat + Imprimatur used to be sought.

    Catholics read, "Whoever Dies Piously Wearing This Scapular, Shall Not Suffer Eternal Flames" as being part of the Scapular Promises, and see a confirmation of which (with its implicit conditions) being given the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur (Nihil Obstat: Joseph A. M. Quigley Censor Librorum Philadelphiae, die 1 Decembris, 1954. Imprimatur: + J. F. O'Hara, C.S.C. Archiepiscopus Philadelphienais Philadelphiae, 2 Decembris, 1954) , and consider this, at the least to not be contrary to official RC teaching.

    The Nihil Obstat + Imprimatur here was provided under the 1917 Code of Canon Law which was in force until the 1983 Code of Canon Law, and which provides the criteria by which censors are to grant the nihil obstat ("nothing obstructs") which leads to the Imprimatur ("Let it be printed").

    In every episcopal Curia, censors shall be appointed by office.

    Examiners in undertaking their office, leaving off all consideration of persons, shall have before their eyes only the dogmas of the Church and the common Catholic doctrine that is contained in the general decrees of the Councils or constitutions of the Apostolic See or the prescriptions and the thinking of approved doctors. (1917 Code of Canon Law, 1863, 1,2)

    The Nihil obstat and Imprimatur are a declaration that a book or pamphlet is considered to be free from doctrinal or moral error.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia Revised and Updated (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987), p. 288)

    “The Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat are official declarations that a work is free from doctrinal or moral error.” — http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/vocations/educators-and-youth-leaders/lesson-plans/upload/what-my-vocation-junior-high-unit-I.pdf

    While giving the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat to a document does not make it as requiring assent, neither can this approval be marginalized without damaging the claim that the church of Rome is the supreme faithful shepherd, for in that interest was the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat given, which flowed from the Office of the Inquisition.

    “To prevent the incursion of opinions that conflict with the church's teaching, the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, created in 1542, has the authority to ban books which it adjudges to be dangerous to the faith and morals of the faithful. The catalog of such books is called the ‘Index of Prohibited Books’ and Roman Catholics are prohibited from reading any book on the Index without permission.

    In addition, the members of the church may not read or even sell any book that is dangerous to faith and morals, even if it is not on the Index. Wherever faith and morals are involved, the church claims the right of censorship over books. No Roman Catholic may publish a book dealing with doctrinal or moral matters without having it censored. - (Jaraslov Pelikan, “The Riddle of Roman Catholicism, “(1959).

    As for the Dominican habit:

    CHAPTER TWO Presenting the Scapular to Saint Simon Mary, “Whosoever dies clothed in this Habit shall not suffer the fires of hell.” "The small habit, known commonly as the “Brown Scapular,” is likewise clearly defined. It differs from the large habit only in size." - Sign of Her Heart, John Mathias Haffert PREFACE BY M o s t R e v . F u l t o n J. S h e e n; Nihil Obstat William A. Margerum , S.T.D. Censor Librorum Imprimatur * George W. Ahr, S.T.D. Bishop of Trenton pp. 12,16. http://johnhaffert.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Sign%20of%20Her%20Heart.pdf

  • Judging non-Catholics

    08/24/2016 8:24:11 AM PDT · 694 of 835
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I

    Which again, happens at the Lord's return, (1Cor. 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev.11:18; Mt. 25:31-46; 1Pt. 1:7; 5:4) and thus is simply not purgatory.

  • Judging non-Catholics

    08/24/2016 8:04:45 AM PDT · 691 of 835
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    The text allows for a range of punishment for a servant of the LORD at the coming of the LORD, according to one's works and understanding of his Lord's will. Which eliminates this as referring to purgatory, for this commences at death, and 1Co. 3:8ff is not purgatory.

    Who introduced proof text into the discussion. Support I will allow.

    It means both are disallowed.

  • Judging non-Catholics

    08/24/2016 8:01:46 AM PDT · 689 of 835
    daniel1212 to Arrian
    You know, upon further review and reflection, you’re absolutely correct. By any chance are you available to take charge of the Church in case the Pope becomes incapacitated??? Just a thought.

    More avoidance, and no, for unlike popes, no one by God possesses ensured infallibility as per the presumption of Rome.

  • ABC News: Hillary Lied About Donor Access During 2009 Confirmation Hearing

    08/24/2016 6:51:56 AM PDT · 88 of 97
    daniel1212 to Lurkinanloomin
    Government email traffic and internal call logs made public by conservative groups this week offer more evidence that donors to the Clinton Foundation sought and at times received special favors and access to the State Department.

    The most pointed example made public Monday involves a request by Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain, after first trying normal channels, to meet with the secretary of state. The emails suggest the meeting was confirmed only after intervention by the Clinton Foundation, to which his government had given $50,000 to $100,000.

    Also Monday, the group Citizens United released copies of State Department phone logs it obtained through the Freedom of Information Act and a subsequent lawsuit. The logs show calls received by another top Clinton aide, Cheryl Mills. They including scores of messages from Band at the Clinton Foundation. The logs also provided documentation of Mills’ involvement in responding to ABC News questions in 2011 about Rajiv Fernando, a Chicago commodities trader who had been given a position on a sensitive State Department security panel, despite having no known experience in that area. Before the appointment, Fernando gave $100,000 to $250,000 to the William J. Clinton Foundation http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/docs-show-clinton-foundation-donors-sought-access-state/story?id=41582158

  • Judging non-Catholics

    08/24/2016 6:14:27 AM PDT · 676 of 835
    daniel1212 to ADSUM
    They weren’t refuted. Just your rambling opinion.

    Another mere assertion, in contrast to abundant Scriptural substantiation by God's grace.

  • No, God Isnít Transgender

    08/24/2016 6:12:57 AM PDT · 29 of 32
    daniel1212 to Read Write Repeat
    If you wish to learn more about Judaism, I can recommend a few books.

    If you wish to learn more about Judaism, I can recommend a Book (OT).

    You're confused.

    A poor excuse for lack of argument.

  • Judging non-Catholics

    08/24/2016 6:09:17 AM PDT · 675 of 835
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    Neither is the word believers in the text. This is about servants, friends, and a flock.

    So servants, friends, and a flock are not believers? Surely you believe that, and that believers can become unfaithful servants who have their part with the lost, which is the only location given here for the unfaithful, as said, and with the degree of punishment being the only other thing that is mentioned. Thus you have no refutation.

    . It is up to me to believe His teaching and obey it...Proof texts are not the issue;...The teaching clearly admits different levels of reward and punishment among His servants and friends...Obedience is the issue; this is something each one of us must do;

    But which simply does not translate into even support, not a "proof text," for purgatory, which is what you invoked it for. Time to move on.

  • Judging non-Catholics

    08/24/2016 6:08:39 AM PDT · 674 of 835
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    Taking the text as it is, nothing added, nothing taken away, there is no use of the word saved here. There is mention of the kingdom and it is the Father's good pleasure to give the kingdom to the little flock to whom the Messiah was speaking.

    What? So this does not translate into the subjects being of the redeemed? And if the latter two at issue were not, then they could not be in purgatory. But that the unfaithful servants were punished, and the only location mentioned is with the lost, is what the text shows.

    And you need to show that this postmortem suffering was due to sins for which they has not been punished enough for while on earth, while others did so while still on earth (according to purgatorial doctrine), but instead there are no exceptions in the warnings, even inferred, and all the unfaithful, unprepared souls will be punished. In short, what you need to show in order for this to support purgatory and overcome alternative explanations is what cannot be shown. Again, give it up, as your attempts are an argument against purgatory being Scriptural.

    All I need to do is believe and obey everything the Messiah said to the best of my understanding. Love the LORD with all my heart, soul, and strength; love my neighbor as myself.

    No, we are talking about what you need to do in order to use this text to support purgatory. Moving the goal posts admit it is not.

  • Judging non-Catholics

    08/24/2016 5:48:46 AM PDT · 672 of 835
    daniel1212 to amihow
    There are only the ecumenical councils which teachings on faith and morals ratified by Pope and two Ex Cathedra statements which constitute infallible teachings. History only as reiable as hisorian. Johnson has an agenda. Lots of misunderstandings on FR.

    And just who claimed that the writings of Catholics was infallible teachings? We are dealing with scholarship, whether it be Newman or a Klaus Schatz. Blithely dismissing those (many more than Johnson) who provide history that is contrary to RC propaganda is what exposes an agenda.

    In addition, concerning "Lots of misunderstandings on FR," would you care to answer the questions pertinent to this issue of authoritative teaching such as another poster has avoided? What, in your opinion, requires assent? Do only Ex-Cathedra statements require assent, or does other papal public teaching, including all social encyclicals, and that of councils, all require assent, and what level and manner? And what do you consider authorative in defining what requires assent?

  • Judging non-Catholics

    08/24/2016 4:20:56 AM PDT · 641 of 835
    daniel1212 to ADSUM
    I disagree with your analysis. And you disagree with a principal Catholic doctrine that has passed down through the Catholic faith that was established by Jesus Christ. So I accept the words of Jesus and not your comments.

    Which is more or mere argument by question-begging assertion, which is the very things that was refuted, and remains so despite your cultic, self-comforting soliloquy.

  • Judging non-Catholics

    08/24/2016 4:15:36 AM PDT · 640 of 835
    daniel1212 to amihow
    2,000 years of Christian teaching holds that Jesus was referring to the Eucharist which he instituted at the Last Supper. You disprove it.

    Here you go, by the grace of God. But once again disdain for extensive refutation can be excused as disdain for verbosity. By a RC no less.

  • Judging non-Catholics

    08/24/2016 4:05:50 AM PDT · 638 of 835
    daniel1212 to metmom; Arrian
    And yet, here you are, posting on the Religion Forum using many lettered verbiage, what the rest of us call big words.

    Meanwhile, the pretentious charge of disguising ignorance w/verbiage is pure bombast, as the verbiage of mine which he implicitly attacks is what refutes ignorance, while his silence indicates his own ignorance of the problems of presenting the pope as the solution to division.

  • Judging non-Catholics

    08/24/2016 3:59:19 AM PDT · 635 of 835
    daniel1212 to Arrian
    On all other subjects on this site; be it current affairs, history, politics, philosophy, sports and so on; posters make their point(s) then move on, averaging less than 40 posts per topic. However when the subject is religion, the posts skyrocket in the high hundreds. And why is that??? Quite simply because this subject is a magnet for those who have absolutely no interest in learning, reflecting or sharing ideas. None at all.

    You censorious mind-reading rant is not only wrong, but is another poor excuse for avoiding answering the questions which you need to face since you chose to enter the debate here, and chose to present the pope as the solution to division. I contend because faith is the most important subject, with Scriptural Truth being life, and thus Scripture itself spends far more words on it than politics, philosophy, sports, etc. And if you complain about verbosity, then you must abhor most encyclicals, including the latest one. But while you chose to enter the debate here your avoidance of pertinent questions confesses your position is indefensible.

    The Ten Commandments, the foundation of our Moral Order, which governs Mankind, aggregates 75 words in sum.

    So having presented the pope as the solution to division, and being asked what level of teachings require assent, you now simply present the The Ten Commandments? Quite the retreat, and which is not all that Scripture teaches in all its details of love for God and man, and is not a solution to the issue of interpretation.

  • Judging non-Catholics

    08/24/2016 3:42:48 AM PDT · 634 of 835
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    There is no occurrence of the words saved or lost in the text but there is this warning to friends. This is in accord with the rest of his teaching.

    Indeed, as there is no contention that this was addressed to believers, but who can fall away, (Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 3:12; 10:38) and only location condition of any unfaithful servant is with the lost, with the latter two dealing with the degree of punishment. It is up to you to prove that this refers to purgatory. Just accept that this text does not teach that.

  • Judging non-Catholics

    08/23/2016 7:21:42 PM PDT · 605 of 835
    daniel1212 to amihow
    Please read John 6:53 et. seq. Then read about Transubstantiation. It is a hard saying.

    So to be consistent, since this statement is as much an unequivocal absolute as other "verily verily" statements, then you must hold that all Prots who reject Transubstantiation have no spiritual life in them. Yes or no, and then tell me what sect of Catholicism you belong to.

  • Judging non-Catholics

    08/23/2016 7:18:56 PM PDT · 604 of 835
    daniel1212 to ADSUM; Resettozero
    I disagree. I understand and accept the words of Jesus. He was very clear on the meaning.

    What kind of response is that? You are merely reiterating your argument by assertion, which I countered, and repeating the same claim is simply begging the question.

    Just because you can’t accept the actual words and meaning

    More of the same, which i can charge you with, and as concerns David, but mine is based upon abundant substantiation that Christ was not speaking literally, and which Catholics do not truly take as such.

    You either believe that Christ spoke the Truth or you do not believe. It does require Faith in Jesus.

    Why are you simply repeating what I refuted by God's grace? It makes you look like a cultist who cannot read what refute him and must engage in soliloquy in order to maintain his delusion.

  • Judging non-Catholics

    08/23/2016 7:02:42 PM PDT · 601 of 835
    daniel1212 to Arrian; Elsie; metmom
    Hm................unfortunately your muddled syntax confuses rather than clarifies.

    Claiming a lack of comprehension is a poor excuse for lack of argument. What is so hard to understand in: "So you believe that only Ex Cathedra Statements from the Church from the church requires assent from RCs? If not, just what, in your opinion, requires assent? If you hold other teachings (such as encyclicals) as requiring assent can can you provide an infallible list of all teaching which requires assent, and what magisterial level each falls under so we may know what level of assent is required, and the confusion you present Rome as the solution to can be avoided?"

    Or is "It is [words transposed] not your one basic duty that of simply following your pastors? Or does that no[t] require assent?" enough to excuse actually answering the questions?

    Assent? One is a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Jew and so on, when one accepts and adheres to the teachings of their faith. Otherwise they are not, irrespective what they assert.

    What kind of response is that? I am simply asking you what requires RC assent, not a Hindu, a Buddhist, or a Jew. Why is that so difficult to answer?

    The Pontiff is infallible only on matters Faith and Morals, when speaking Ex-Cathedra; “from his Chair”.

    That is not what I asked. Lets try again: Do you believe that only Ex Cathedra Statements from the Church from the church require assent from RCs?

    Roman Catholicism is most certainly not some sort of democratic forum where everyone gets to ventilate his/her opinion and decide what they will accept/reject.

    That remains to be seen, but you are avoiding the question. Again, what, in your opinion, requires assent? You presented the pope - who requires submission - as the solution to divisions, and thus we need to know if only Ex-Cathedra statements require assent, or if other papal teaching, including social encyclicals and that of councils, all require submission, and what level. And what do you consider authorative in defining what requires assent?

    Again, if one accepts and adheres to its teachings one is a Roman Catholic; otherwise one is not.

    But rather then simply following their pastors, as papal teaching exhorts, which, however unScriptural would prevent divisions, we see RC ascertaining the validity of church teaching by examination of the evidential warrant for it, even aspects of V2, as well as engaging in varying degrees of interpretation. Including what magisterial level certain teachings belong to, and thus what level of assent is required. And which interpretation we see Rome implicitly sanctioning.

    Not that I have Catholic statements on that matter, but i want to know your answers, and thus how the pope will prevent different devise opinions.

  • Judging non-Catholics

    08/23/2016 3:14:59 PM PDT · 554 of 835
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    hat servant, in whom the Messiah finds no fault, is made ruler over all His household. It seems incongruent to think of all the flock as the chief steward or even all the sheep as shepherds. It may refer to the question among the Apostles as to which of them would be given to sit at Messiah's right hand as ruler over all His house, whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end. We shall all pass before the judgement seat of King Messiah. Let us strive to do what He told us to do

    Speculation will avail you nothing. Since you invoked this text as proof or in support of purgatory you need to show that those suffering stripes were saved, which is not said but all are classed as unfaithful unprepared sinners, and that these souls where in in purgatory awaiting entrance into Heaven, yet the only location that is mentioned is that of with the lost, and the only experience mentioned is that of suffering.

    And you need to show that this postmortem suffering was due to sins for which they has not been punished enough for while on earth, while others did so while still on earth (according to purgatorial doctrine), but instead there are no exceptions in the warnings, even inferred, and all the unfaithful, unprepared souls will be punished.

    In short, what you need to show in order for this to support purgatory and overcome alternative explanations is what cannot be shown. Again, give it up, as your attempts are an argument against purgatory being Scriptural.

  • Judging non-Catholics

    08/23/2016 1:45:09 PM PDT · 541 of 835
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    The Messiah warned those servants of the LORD being taught by calling them "Little flock" and listed the consequences if they did not do their reasonable service. Only one of three are expelled from His house when He returns from His wedding, to be with the unbelievers.

    And consistent with what i said, if one has their part with the lost then it obviously does not mean that all the examples used in this teaching that follows were saved. And nowhere is it said that the others were saved either, while what it show is that they belong to the class of unfaithful servants. And even admitting that at least one was lost case refutes the argument that the use of "flock" means the other two were saved, and let alone saved by becoming fit enough in purgatory.

  • Judging non-Catholics

    08/23/2016 6:10:38 AM PDT · 522 of 835
    daniel1212 to metmom
    How many ex cathedra statements have you found out to have ever been made?

    Note that ex cathedra statements only refer to papal ones, but which does not constitute all the teachings considered to be "infallible, incapable of erring. And which is necessary to ascertain in order to yield the required assent of faith. Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

    As to your ?,

    Different Roman Catholic apologists have asserted very divergent numbers of ex cathedra papal statements. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and the doctrine of the Bodily Assumption of Mary were taught infallibly by Popes Pius IX and Pope Pius XII in 1854 and 1950, respectively. Hahn has proposed a two-statement canon of ex cathedra papal statements. But apologist Tim Staples says there are at least four, and likely very many more...

    As evidence that the dilemma is not limited merely to a few teachings, the Roman Catholic is invited to consider the much longer list compiled by Roman Catholic priest Leslie Rumble in his book, That Catholic Church. In this book he provides his opinion that there have been 18 ex cathedra papal statements throughout Roman Catholic history. Not only does Rumble's list contain considerably more statements than Hahn's or Staples', it also contains two caveats indicating that the degree of certainty of the reliability of this (or any) list is in doubted. - http://www.examiningbeliefs.com/apol75.htm

    Bishop Vincent Gasser, spokesman for the deputation “de fide” (the committee of Conciliar Fathers charged with drafting the solemn definition), delivered a four-hour speech explaining and defending the draft which was submitted to the assembled Fathers for their vote. Gasser is quoted no less than four times in the official footnotes to “Lumen Gentium” 25, which treats of infallibility…

    In replying to some Fathers who urged that the procedures or form to be used by the pope in arriving at an infallible decision (i.e., his grave moral duty to pray for guidance, diligently consult the existing teaching of the Church, etc.) be included in the definition, Gasser replied: But, most eminent and reverend fathers, this proposal simply cannot be accepted because we are not dealing with something new here. "Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the apostolic See;" where is the law which prescribed the form to be observed in such judgments?

    In other words, Gasser was able to assert "in passing"--that is, as something which did not need arguing and would be taken for granted by his audience-- that there had already been "thousands and thousands" of infallible definitions issued by the Roman see! - http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/papalinfallibility.pdf (EO source)

  • Judging non-Catholics

    08/23/2016 5:53:33 AM PDT · 520 of 835
    daniel1212 to amihow; Arrian; boatbum; WrightWings; ealgeone; metmom
    All these different opinions fracture the body of Christ. We need a decider to whom we all listen.

    And right now this "decider" is Pope Francis??? Even plenty of Catholics would have a problem with that!

    Pope only infallible when speaking ex cathedra. Authentic teaching found when bishops (AND pope ratifying) speak usuall in council.

    So you believe that only Ex Cathedra Statements from the Church from the church requires assent from RCs? If not, just what, in your opinion, requires assent? If you hold other teachings (such as encyclicals) as requiring assent can can you provide an infallible list of all teaching which requires assent, and what magisterial level each falls under so we may know what level of assent is required, and the confusion you present Rome as the solution to can be avoided? It is not your one basic duty that of simply following your pastors? Or does that no require assent?

    I have asked such before without any response.

  • Judging non-Catholics

    08/23/2016 5:40:50 AM PDT · 518 of 835
    daniel1212 to amihow; metmom
    I am trying to defend a Church Which is why you must own all that she counts and treats as members, but points us to your pastors as those we are to follow?

    . Seems like all you are defending your own opinion. So did Luther, Henry8, , Calvin, Joseph Smith and Mohammed et al and et al.. You have lots of company. Suggest you really study Catholicism.

    So you are opposed to seeking to ascertain the validity of Truth claims by examination of the warrant for them since heretics exist, and instead call us to submit to Rome in order to know what Truth is? If not, what is the basis for your assurance of your beliefs?

  • Judging non-Catholics

    08/23/2016 5:29:33 AM PDT · 516 of 835
    daniel1212 to Legatus; MHGinTN; Resettozero
    Why do they desecrate Catholic holy places and ignore the church of billy bob

    You mean why do demonic proabortion, prohomosexual public figures and their supporters (even clerics) find a home in Rome (whom she treats as members in life and in death) and deplore conservative evangelical churches, which the media attacks more than Rome? It is the evangelical vote they really fear, not the Catholic one. Besides her many false teachings and contrasts with the NT church, Rome has morally become so liberal that many conservative RCs feel they must exist in what Rome considers sects and schisms.

  • Judging non-Catholics

    08/23/2016 5:10:36 AM PDT · 515 of 835
    daniel1212 to Resettozero

    Glory to God for what is good, though here are some grammatical errors.

  • Judging non-Catholics

    08/23/2016 5:00:28 AM PDT · 513 of 835
    daniel1212 to ADSUM; CraigEsq
    Christ could become really present without transubstantiation taking place, but we know that this is not what happened because of Christ’s own words at the Last Supper. He did not say, “This bread is my body,” but simply, “This is my body.” Those words indicated a complete change of the entire substance of bread into the entire substance of Christ. The word “this” indicated the whole of what Christ held in his hand.

    Rather, what Christ did not say was This has become/is turned into my body," and to be truly literal in the Biblical sense then it would have to be wholly consistent with the incarnated flesh of Christ that would be crucified. For "this" refers to "my body which is given for you..Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you." (Luke 22:20)

    And which flesh and blood looked like, and would taste and scientifically test as real corporeal flesh and blood, and felt pain, versus a Christ that looked like and would taste and scientifically test as real bread and wine, and feels no pain, but is said to be "real" flesh and blood by employing neoplatonic thought and Aristotelian philosophy.

    And if you want to be consistently literal, then you should hold that David referred to transubstantiation, for he plainly called water the blood of men, and thus (being consistent with the Law, unlike Catholicism) would not drink it but poured it out as a sacrifice to the Lord.

    And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the Lord. And he said, Be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. (2 Samuel 23:16-17)

    To which could be added:

    God clearly states that the Canaanites were “bread: “Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us” (Num. 14:9)

    Other examples of the use of figurative language for eating and drinking include,

    The Promised Land was “a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof.” (Num. 13:32)

    David said that his enemies came to “eat up my flesh.” (Ps. 27:2)

    And complained that workers of iniquity ”eat up my people as they eat bread , and call not upon the Lord.” (Psalms 14:4)

    And the Lord also said, “I will consume man and beast; I will consume the fowls of the heaven, and the fishes of the sea, and the stumblingblocks with the wicked; and I will cut off man from off the land, saith the Lord.” (Zephaniah 1:3)

    While even arrows can drink: “I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh ; and that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the beginning of revenges upon the enemy.' (Deuteronomy 32:42)

    But David says the word of God (the Law) was “sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. (Psalms 19:10)

    Another psalmist also declared the word as “sweet:” “How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!” (Psalms 119:103)

    Jeremiah likewise proclaimed, “Your words were found. and I ate them. and your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart” (Jer. 15:16)

    Ezekiel was told to eat the words, “open thy mouth, and eat that I give thee...” “eat that thou findest; eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” (Ezek. 2:8; 3:1)

    John is also commanded, “Take the scroll ... Take it and eat it.” (Rev. 10:8-9 )

    And Scripture refers to Christ being spiritual food and drink which even OT believers consumed:

    And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." (1 Corinthians 10:3-4)

    And Christ's word in Jn. 6, "I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst," (John 6:35) are correspondent to,

    "Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness. Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David." (Isaiah 55:2-3)

    Moreover, like as bread is broken, Is. 53:10 states that "it pleased the Lord to bruise him," and the word for "bruise" (da^ka^') means to crumble, to break..., (Strong's). And like as wine is poured out, so Is. 53:12 also states of Christ, "he hath poured out his soul unto death," both of which are correspondent to the words of the Last Supper regarding bread and wine.

    And which use of figurative language for Christ and spiritual things abounds in John, using the physical to refer to the spiritual:

    In John 1:29, Jesus is called the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world”but he does not have hoofs and literal physical wool.

    In John 2:19 Jesus is the temple of God: Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” but He is not made of literal stone.

    In John 3:14,15, Jesus is the likened to the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21) who must “be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal” (vs. 14, 15) — but He is not made of literal bronze.

    In John 4:14, Jesus provides living water, that whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life,” but which was not literally consumed by mouth.

    In John 7:37 Jesus is the One who promises “He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water”but believers were not water fountains, but He spoke of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive.” (John 7:38)

    In Jn. 9:5 Jesus is the Light of the world”but who is not blocked by an umbrella.

    In John 10, Jesus is the door of the sheep,” and “the good shepherd [who] giveth his life for the sheep”, that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” vs. 7, 10, 11)but who again, is not literally an animal with cloven hoofs.

    In John 15, Jesus is the true vine — but who does not physically grow from the ground nor whose fruit is literally physically consumed.

    If Christ had wished the bread to be a kind of sacramental receptacle of his body, he would surely have used other words, for example, “This bread is my body”

    As in "This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you." (Luke 22:20)

    or “This contains my body.”

    Which reasoning supports rejecting the example of David and water being blood, and many others as being figurative.

    See here by the grace of God for more refutation of sophistry for Rome.

  • Judging non-Catholics

    08/23/2016 4:18:43 AM PDT · 511 of 835
    daniel1212 to amihow; boatbums
    Please!!!! Read Cardinal Newman on development of doctrine. It develops not changes. Look at the difference. You just want to argue.

    And which sophist " Development of Doctrine" was the daughter of necessity in light of the increasing manifest contrast btwn historical reality and the wishful thinking that RC faith was the "faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all believed always by everyone, everywhere," as per the 5th-century exhortation by Vincent of Lérins in his Commonitory. Thus Newman was forced to admit,

    It does not seem possible, then, to avoid the conclusion that, whatever be the proper key for harmonizing the records and documents of the early and later Church, and true as the dictum of Vincentius [what the Church taught was believed always by everyone], must be considered in the abstract, and possible as its application might be in his own age, when he might almost ask the primitive centuries for their testimony, it is hardly available now, or effective of any satisfactory result. The solution it offers is as difficult as the original problem. — John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., reprinted 1927), p. 27.

    For in contrast to even RC papal propaganda, even Caths researchers, among others provide testimony against such, including Newman in explaining how the Peter of Scripture, the non-assertive, street-level initial leader among the 11, for whom no successors are promised, and to whom the NT church did not look to as the first of a line of exalted infallible heads reigning supreme in Rome, much less by RC voting, was become the Roman pope:

    While Apostles were on earth, there was the display neither of Bishop nor Pope; their power had no prominence, as being exercised by Apostles. In course of time, first the power of the Bishop displayed itself, and then the power of the Pope. . . . St. Peter’s prerogative would remain a mere letter, till the complication of ecclesiastical matters became the cause of ascertaining it. . . . When the Church, then, was thrown upon her own resources, first local disturbances gave exercise to Bishops, and next ecumenical disturbances gave exercise to Popes; and whether communion with the Pope was necessary for Catholicity would not and could not be debated till a suspension of that communion had actually occurred… (John Henry Newman, Essay on the Development of Doctrine, Notre Dame edition, pp. 165-67).

    Avery Dulles considers the development of the Papacy to be an historical accident:

    “The strong centralization in modern Catholicism is due to historical accident. It has been shaped in part by the homogeneous culture of medieval Europe and by the dominance of Rome, with its rich heritage of classical culture and legal organization” (Models of the Church by Avery Dulles, p. 200)

    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.”

    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)

    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,” “...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. 221,222,224

    Paul Johnson, educated at the Jesuit independent school Stonyhurst College, and at Magdalen College, Oxford, author of over 40 books and a conservative historian, finds,

    The Church was now a great and numerous force in the empire, attracting men of wealth and high education, inevitably, then, there occurred a change of emphasis from purely practical development in response to need, to the deliberate thinking out of policy. This expressed itself in two ways: the attempt to turn Christianity into a philosophical and political system, and the development of controlling devices to prevent this intellectualization of the faith from destroying it....

    Cyprian [c. 200 – September 14, 258] came from a wealthy family with a tradition of public service to the empire; within two years of his conversion he was made a bishop. He had to face the practical problems of persecution, survival and defence against attack. His solution was to gather together the developing threads of ecclesiastical order and authority and weave them into a tight system of absolute control...the confession of faith, even the Bible itself lost their meaning if used outside the Church...

    With Bishop Cyprian, the analogy with secular government came to seem very close. But of course it lacked one element: the ‘emperor figure’ or supreme priest... [Peter, according to Cyprian, was] the beneficiary of the famous ‘rock and keys’ text in Matthew. There is no evidence that Rome exploited this text to assert its primacy before about 250 - and then...Paul was eliminated from any connection with the Rome episcopate and the office was firmly attached to Peter alone... ...There was in consequence a loss of spirituality or, as Paul would have put it, of freedom... -(A History of Christianity, by Paul Johnson, pp. 51 -61,63. transcribed using OCR software)

    Eamon Duffy (Former president of Magdalene College and member of Pontifical Historical Commission, and current Professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Cambridge) and provides more on the Roman church becoming more like the empire in which it was found as a result of state adoption of (an already deformed) Christianity:

    The conversion of Constantine had propelled the Bishops of Rome into the heart of the Roman establishment...They [bishops of Rome] set about [creating a Christian Rome] by building churches, converting the modest tituli (community church centres) into something grander, and creating new and more public foundations, though to begin with nothing that rivaled the great basilicas at the Lateran and St. Peter’s...

    These churches were a mark of the upbeat confidence of post-Constantinian Christianity in Rome. The popes were potentates, and began to behave like it. Damasus perfectly embodied this growing grandeur. An urbane career cleric like his predecessor Liberius, at home in the wealthy salons of the city, he was also a ruthless power-broker, and he did not he did not hesitate to mobilize both the city police and [a hired mob of gravediggers with pickaxes] to back up his rule…

    Self-consciously, the popes began to model their actions and their style as Christian leaders on the procedures of the Roman state. — Eamon Duffy “Saints and Sinners”, p. 37,38

    For the so-called successor to Peter, as Damasus 1 (366-384) began his reign by employing a gang of thugs in securing his chair, which carried out a three-day massacre of his rivals supporters. Yet true to form, Rome made him a "saint.
    Damasus is much responsible for the further unscriptural development of the Roman primacy, frequently referring to Rome as ''the apostolic see'' and enjoying a His magnificent lifestyle and the favor of court and aristocracy, and leading to Theodosius 1 (379-95) declaring (February 27, 380) Christianity the state religion.

    Moreover,

    The Bishop of Rome assumed [circa sixth century] the position of Ponlifex Maximus, priest and temporal ruler in one, and the workings of this so-called spiritual kingdom, with bishops as senators, and priests as leaders of the army, followed on much the same lines as the empire. The analogy was more complete when monasteries were founded and provinces were won and governed by the Church. - Welbore St. Clair Baddeley, Lina Duff Gordon, “Rome and its story” p. 176

    Eastern Orthodox scholarship (while maintaining her shared accretion of errors of "tradition" as the "one true church") also adds voice to this,

    Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development. Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman)... "

    All the stages are useful, all are resources; and the theologian may appeal to the Fathers, for example, but they may also be contradicted by something else, something higher or newer. On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of "papal infallibility" and "the immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation. - http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html
    Other unscriptural developments included religious syncretism, as Newman confessed:

    "In the course of the fourth century two movements or developments spread over the face of Christendom, with a rapidity characteristic of the Church; the one ascetic, the other ritual or ceremonial. We are told in various ways by Eusebius [Note 16], that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us."

    "The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church." (John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Chapter 8. Application of the Third Note of a True Development—Assimilative Power)

    Falsified history of the Roman church was also instrumental in the development of her unScriptural papacy and power. RC historian Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger:

    In the middle of the ninth century—about 845—there arose the huge fabrication of the Isidorian decretals...About a hundred pretended decrees of the earliest Popes, together with certain spurious writings of other Church dignitaries and acts of Synods, were then fabricated in the west of Gaul, and eagerly seized upon Pope Nicholas I at Rome, to be used as genuine documents in support of the new claims put forward by himself and his successors.

    That the pseudo–Isidorian principles eventually revolutionized the whole constitution of the Church, and introduced a new system in place of the old—on that point there can be no controversy among candid historians. - — Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger, The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870) Then you have the unScriptural Development of the distinctive Catholic priesthood More by the grace of God.

    And thus you have the recourse of no less than Manning:

    It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine....I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves....The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — "Most Rev." Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228; ttp://www.archive.org/stream/a592004400mannuoft/a592004400mannuoft_djvu.txt.

  • Judging non-Catholics

    08/23/2016 4:06:56 AM PDT · 510 of 835
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    Yes, there is. He used it to address his disciples for the parable which led the Apostle Peter to ask the critical question whose answer we are discussing. I find it an apt and endearing address.

    That refers to those who are being taught, and which flock only the faithful servant clearly belongs to, and obviously does not mean that all the examples used in this teaching that follows were saved. Give it up.

  • Judging non-Catholics

    08/23/2016 4:03:02 AM PDT · 509 of 835
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    There is nothing in the text about believers, but rather about servants, who either obey the LORD, or do not obey the LORD, in various degrees.

    A believer is one who characteristically obeys the Lord (and repents when convicted of not doing do), and which the true servant did, while those in the second category did not. It remains that it is you who must show the opposite, that these unfaithful servants were believers, sent to purgatory to be punished for sins in order to enter Heaven. As said, just give it up.

  • No, God Isnít Transgender

    08/23/2016 3:56:48 AM PDT · 27 of 32
    daniel1212 to Read Write Repeat
    Though you or this author may not understand, that's exactly what this rabbi is doing with the transgenders. It's called mitzvah.

    You mean help them justify being transgender by making God into the same?! How is justifying sins helping anyone? Do you want to argue that it is not? Please answer clearly.

    And yes, even Orthodox Judaism teachings include understanding HaShem as feminine and masculine in abstract concepts.

    That spirit has no gender is not the same thing as making humans transgender. It was God who created them male and female, and only joined them in marriage, and acting according to the disorders cause by the Fall of man cannot be justified.

  • Judging non-Catholics

    08/23/2016 3:51:52 AM PDT · 508 of 835
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    The Messiah tells of four cases of servant behavior and four outcomes. The unbelievers are only mentioned for one of them.... One will he cut asunder and assigned a portion with the unbelievers.

    But which begins the list of servants in contrast with the true blessed servant.

    One will be beaten with many stripes (nothing is said about being assigned a portion with unbelievers). One will be beaten with few stripes (nothing is said about being assigned a portion with unbelievers).

    But both of which also and only deals with the punishment of the unfaithful, and the only thing they receive is punishment, and nothing is said about being assigned a portion with believers, especially finally, and which is what you must show, for it is you who invoked this text as proof of purgatory! But which is not nowhere stated here nor inferred, but can only be read into the text.

    I myself need not press a case as regards a proof of location for the latter two, though the degree of punishment is consistent with the class of unfaithful, who are not prepared/obeying the Lord and thus are lost, but it is you who must show that this refers to being in purgatory. And considering how often the Lord clearly speaks of those who are clearly believers being in Heaven, and likewise of the lost clearly being clearly in Hell, then you need more than ambitious texts about punishment for your tradition.

  • No, God Isnít Transgender

    08/22/2016 7:04:00 PM PDT · 25 of 32
    daniel1212 to Read Write Repeat
    If you see someone obviously wounded, bleeding and crying for help, do you help or ignore them?

    Obviously you help them. Including helping then to see what the cause of their suffering is, and warning others of the consequences of disobeying God. Just what is your objection and your argument?

  • Judging non-Catholics

    08/22/2016 6:12:22 PM PDT · 478 of 835
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    I notice the tender "Little flock." I also see three levels of judgment, with the first seeming fatal and assigned to the unbelievers. The next is beaten with many stripes for playing instead of watching and working. The last is beaten with few stripes because his lack of works was due to ignorance. Neither of the latter two classes of servant behavior result in assignment to portion of the unbelievers. The Messiah sums it up with saying more is expected from those servants to whom much is given.

    There is no tender "Little flock" in the text at issue, and again, the one who knew his lord's will, but "prepared not himself, neither did according to his will" does not describe a believer, nor does a culpable sinner who is ignorant of God's word. The subjects in these cases are those who are set in contrast to the blessed faithful and wise steward, and who instead have their portion with the lost, and will sufferer punishment according to their degree of guilt. Having placed the unfaithful steward in Hell (location), what follows deals with the degree of punishment for unfaithful stewards (sentencing), based on the principle accountability.

    You simply have no basis for asserting that "neither of the latter two classes of servant behavior result in assignment to portion of the unbelievers," and that instead they are believers who will have their portion with the redeemed, which is simply not in the text, and you can only wish it was. What is in the text as regards location is unfaithful stewards being with the lost, and of differing degrees of punishment for such. The varying degrees of punishment easily flows from the basic judgment of the first, detailing the basis for the degree of punishment.

    Moreover, it is simply incongruous that the Lord would specify where unfaithful stewards end up, but not likewise specify that in contrast, the latter two stewards in Lk. 12:45-48 will suffer some place other than Hell for some time and then be with the Lord. Instead, the Lord speaks of Heaven and Hell-fire, with different degrees of punishment for those who collect the wages of their sins.

  • SECRET SERVICE AGENT Says Hillary Has Parkinsonís DiseaseÖ

  • Judging non-Catholics

    08/22/2016 4:24:15 AM PDT · 436 of 835
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    Yet he goes on to mention :

    It is the same class of servant, all of which are not ready, with differing degrees of iniquity/unworthiness, and thus differing degree of punishment. As said, the only place mentioned in this parable is with the lost. You are using the difference in the degree of punishment in order to read a temporary place of punishment that would make them fit for Heaven, but which is simply not in the text. Give it up.

    For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

    And which reformable or purifying experience (which 1Co 3 is not) for believers always takes place in this life with its trials and temptations - as can be shown (even the Lord was "perfected"/completely victoriously tested in all points here) - with the only alternative being that of being lost:

    But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. (1 Corinthians 11:32)

    As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

    Indeed, and only those who overcome/persevere in faith in this life will realize eternal life:

    He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death. (Revelation 2:11)

    He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. (Revelation 3:5)

    What you are doing is trying to use the principle of punishment to read purgatory into a text in which nothing is said of a place of reformation or purifying, but only that of being condemned with the world. Again, give it up as it simply is not there and never will be no matter how much you may want to read it into the text.

  • Judging non-Catholics

    08/22/2016 4:20:05 AM PDT · 435 of 835
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    Have you ever considered that Moses, the servant of the LORD, of whom much was expected and required, was not allowed to enter the promised land ?... I have caused thee to see it with thine eyes, but thou shalt not go over thither...Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest.

    Have you ever considered that by equating Moses with the Israelites who died in the wilderness then you are equating Moses with the lost of whom it is said "They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways. So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest." (Hebrews 3:10-11). Who (contextually) are an example of the lost, who had "an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God." (Hebrews 3:12) "For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end." (Hebrews 3:14) And the end is always till death, or being caught up/resurrected, not purgatory.

    Either make Moses one of the lost, which you did with your verses, or place all these in purgatory, which somehow the author of Hebrews "forgot" to teach. The failure of Moses to enter the promised land does place him in the same class as those who did not enter into God's rest due to unbelief, nor does it place him in purgatory. And his sin was not one of ignorance which he neglected to atone for, as per the punitive premise of purgatory.

  • No, God Isnít Transgender

    08/22/2016 3:27:24 AM PDT · 23 of 32
    daniel1212 to Read Write Repeat
    The author of the piece you posted doesn’t have a good grasp of Judaism.

    In what way? And are you saying the prohomosexual author does?

  • Judging non-Catholics

    08/21/2016 7:19:54 PM PDT · 407 of 835
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    And they are His servants, who say in their heart, "My Lord delays his coming." They begin to assail His other servants, and to eat and drink to excess (gluttony, drunkeness, etc.).

    And The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. (Luke 12:46) - which is Not Purgatory. Thanks for the confirmation.