Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $29,779
33%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 33% is in!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by daniel1212

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Eucharist in the creed?

    07/30/2016 5:34:01 AM PDT · 313 of 319
    daniel1212 to Elsie
    Ya want to see what the GENTILES were taught by CATHOLICS??

    Small "c" catholics, for had the account been that of Rome, Peter would have been the one giving the final conclusive judgment as to what should be done, and Peter's testimony as to how the Gentiles were saved would have included baptism and the Lord's supper, and the record of the ecumenical council would have mentioned Mass being celebrated.

    Moreover, Acts would have mentioned priests officiating at the LS in dispensing the body and blood of Christ, rather than simply "breaking of bread," and in the only account of an apostle actually calling an ecumenical council, the pastors would have been charged with doing so, versus feeding the flock by preaching as Paul did, and teaches that the word of God is what builds them up and nourishes souls. (Acts 20:28-32; 1Tim. 4:6).

    The utter absence of RC distinctives, from Peter reigning supreme over the church as the first of a line of infallible popes, to her separate class of believers distinctively called "priests" (and normatively celibate) and thereby the central supreme sacrament of consuming the real flesh and blood of Christ, to praying to created beings in Heaven, etc., is proof that Catholicism did not change the Bible, as Islam claims.

    If she had, then the forgeries would not have made much use of by Rome.

  • Eucharist in the creed?

    07/30/2016 4:39:48 AM PDT · 312 of 319
    daniel1212 to terycarl; MHGinTN; aMorePerfectUnion; knarf
    You are SO ill informed, for over 1,600 years, ALL Christians taught and believed in transubstantiation,

    Wrong again, for as shown again and again, the Catholic Eucharist is manifestly absent in the life of the NT in Scripture, which writings are interpretative of the Gospels. See post 55 and here by the grace of God before you try to respond.

    Moreover, believing that bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ even though the elements, look, taste and would scientifically test to be ordinary bread and wine is hardly purely literal. Imagine if we held that the body and blood of Christ on the cross was real but imperceptible to the senses and scientific testing.

  • Eucharist in the creed?

    07/30/2016 4:39:36 AM PDT · 311 of 319
    daniel1212 to terycarl; knarf
    Oh please....you knew Jesus long before that but like many of little faith, you didn't RECOGNIZE Him....He was there, you weren't.

    Which means he did not "know" Him in the Biblical, salvific sense. Like most Caths.

  • Eucharist in the creed?

    07/28/2016 8:42:09 PM PDT · 238 of 319
    daniel1212 to JesusIsLord
    Forgive my ignorance. What does "LS" mean?

    Lord's supper. Sorry if i presumed to presume.

  • Eucharist in the creed?

    07/27/2016 7:23:27 PM PDT · 220 of 319
    daniel1212 to cloudmountain; Zuriel
    http://biblehub.com/john/6-53.htm [Then Jesus said unto them, 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)] Jesus said that we are to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. But, you apparently thought He was incorrect or wrong or something. How could He have put it more plainly?

    Thus, if taken plainly literally as Caths pretend they take it, then you must hold that no one who holds to the metaphorical position has spiritual life in them, since partaking of the Lord's supper is the means to obtaining essential spiritual life.

  • Eucharist in the creed?

    07/27/2016 7:18:22 PM PDT · 219 of 319
    daniel1212 to cloudmountain; Zuriel
    Holy Communion is that Sacred food for that journey-to-eternity of ours

    Which central sacrificial sacrament at the hands of priests is utterly absent in the life of the NT church, which writings are interpretative of the gospels. See post 55 and 73 and 117 here by the grace of God before you try to respond.

  • Eucharist in the creed?

    07/27/2016 7:12:56 PM PDT · 218 of 319
    daniel1212 to rwa265
    Note to self. When writing about what is possible with God, always quote Luke 1:37. Surely no one can disagree with what the angel Gabriel said to Mary.

    That is moving the goal posts. For that God can do miracles is not the issue that what must be proved by you, but that He is doing the miracle your make Him out to be doing. Based upon your "nothing is impossible with God = whatever Rome says God does" hermeneutic, you could teach that Mary split the Red Sea, feed 5,000 souls with bread crumbs, and is ruling a distant planet. But sound theology, and binding beliefs cannot be based upon what God could do, but upon what His wholly inspired revelation teaches. Upon which core Christians beliefs have clear and substantial testimony in Scripture, even with theological exposition for basic salvific doctrine.

    Thus the Holy Spirit would not fail to describe the Catholic priesthood in the life of the NT church offering the LS as a sacrifice for sin to be consumed in order to obtain spiritual life, as the central sacrament of the church. But not only is this utterly absent, but the only priesthood is that of all believers, who are all called to sacrifice, and spiritual life is obtained and nourished via preaching of the word, which is spirit and life, and which is the primary active function of NT pastors.

    Of course, such is only part of the absence of Catholicism in Scripture, the substantially "invisible church."

  • Eucharist in the creed?

    07/27/2016 7:12:47 PM PDT · 217 of 319
    daniel1212 to cloudmountain
    I don't think that I've ever criticized a Protestant denomination, ANY of the 30-40,000 of them that have come and/or gone. I sometimes wonder why Catholicism, the original Christian faith begun by Jesus Christ, is such a target to some people.

    Actually, the elitist cult of Mormonism was basically banned from promoting its heresies here, and if liberal Prots were elitists and or were promoting themselves in particular then you would see them targeted. And the reason why Catholicism has been and is targeted has been and is due to the incessant promotion of this elitist heretical sect but certain devotees, some of whom oppose FR allowing reproof of her. How American.

  • Eucharist in the creed?

    07/27/2016 7:04:34 PM PDT · 216 of 319
    daniel1212 to Campion
    Cannibals kill someone in order to eat him. The Eucharist is precisely the reverse of cannibalism, because the Jesus we eat is alive, more alive than we are.

    Not all cannibals:

    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.

    In conclusion, as with Roman Catholicism as a whole, the Cath Eucharist is not, as shown by God's grace, that which the Holy Spirit reveals in the Scriptural testimony of of the NT church, but it is part of the progressive deformation of the NT church, thus requiring the specious art of "development of doctrine." as testified to before.

  • Eucharist in the creed?

    07/27/2016 7:04:10 PM PDT · 215 of 319
    daniel1212 to terycarl; MHGinTN; aMorePerfectUnion; mrobisr; Elsie; JesusIsLord
    That universal church, the Catholic church, has taught, from the beginning, that transubstantiation was and is a fact. Christ started it and commanded His followers to DO THIS in His memory

    No, that is not a fact, but is what remains to be the problem, that of the LS meaning that the NT church was offering the LS as a sacrifice for sin to be consumed in order to obtain spiritual life, as the central sacrament of the church. Which is simply not what we see in the life of the NT church, as shown, which is interpretive of the gospels. And only the figurative understanding easily conflates with totality of Scripture. Nor was the Catholic position of transubstantiation even settled in the post-apostolic church, despite its accretion of errors. And if you want to insistent that a literal interpretation is required, then you must take the Lord's words purely literal, that the consecrated bread has becomes the actual body and blood of the Lord, and thus would look, taste and scientifically test as such, rather than somehow "really" being the Lord's body and blood, even though it would not scientifically test as such, which requires resorting to neoplatonic Neoplatonic thought and Aristotelian philosophic metaphysics to explain.

    In Sacred Games: A History of Christian Worship, Bernhard Lang argues that, When in late antiquity the religious elite of the Roman Empire rethought religion and ritual, the choice was not one between Mithraism and Christianity (as Ernest Renan suggested in the 19th century) but between pagan Neoplatonism and Neoplatonic Christianity.”

    In the third century CE, under the leadership of Plotinus, Plato’s philosophy enjoyed a renaissance that was to continue throughout late antiquity. This school of thought had much in common with Christianity: it believed in one God (the “One”), in the necessity of ritual, and in the saving contact with deities that were distinct from the ineffable One and stood closer to humanity. Like Judaism and Christianity, it also had its sacred books–the writings of Plato, and, in its later phase, also the Chaldean Oracles. In fact, major early Christian theologians–Origen, Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysus–can at the same time be considered major representatives of the Neoplatonic school of thought.” - (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/cosmostheinlost/2014/04/08/early-churchs-choice-between-neoplatonism)

    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)

    Edwin Hatch:

    ...it is among the Gnostics that there appears for the first time an attempt to realize the change of the elements to the material body and blood of Christ. The fact that they were so regarded is found in Justin Martyr. But at the same time, that the change was not vividly realized, is proved by the fact that, instead of being regarded as too awful for men to touch, the elements were taken by the communicants to their homes and carried about with them on their travels. (Hatch, Edwin, 1835-1889, "The influence of Greek ideas and usages upon the Christian church;" pp. 308-09 https://archive.org/stream/influenceofgreek00hatc/influenceofgreek00hatc_djvu.txt) ^

    A final note here is that Eucharistic theology is not wrong simply because it is hard to explain, and borrows from philosophic concepts of pagans in attempting to do so, which can also be the case with explaining the doctrine of the Trinity. But unlike the Trinity, which is demanded due to the lack of any other logical alternative in the light of the manifest deity of Christ and the Father and Spirit, the language used in Lord's supper accounts and John 6 is easily shown to be metaphorical, being consistent with the metaphorical language of Scripture, and with the means of obtaining spiritual life, and the place of the Lord's supper in the life of the NT church. And which evidence simply does not support the Catholic doctrine and place and practice of the Lord's supper.

  • Eucharist in the creed?

    07/27/2016 11:14:14 AM PDT · 203 of 319
    daniel1212 to Salvation; JesusIsLord
    Nevertheless, it is a rule on all forums that a live source be given to that the moderators can check for accuracy.

    What is the damning different btwn providing a text web address to the source, as JesusIsLord did (WWW.thebible.net), which one should easily be able to copy, right click and go to (thus the mods could) and you providing a non-Internet address for material you present?

  • Eucharist in the creed?

    07/26/2016 10:24:06 AM PDT · 124 of 319
    daniel1212 to rwa265; aMorePerfectUnion; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; ...
    Believe what you want, but the fact is that during the first several centuries after Jesus was taken up into heaven, Christians overwhelmingly believed that the bread and wine were transformed into His the body and blood. And there is no record of anyone believing that what Christ did at the last supper was symbolic. It was not until the 9th century that the real presence was first questioned. My question is, if the Apostles did not teach the real presence, why did it take so long for the belief to be questioned? Actually there are those who contend with evidence that a symbolic was held by some, yet it is estimated that we have available only a relatively small amount of what so-called church "fathers" are estimated to have written. Nor is the Catholic Eucharist manifest as universally held, and neither is is wholly literally, for Catholics does not believe it actually becomes the bloody flesh of Christ, and would scientifically test as such (aside from claimed miracles). Regardless, it is clear that the post-apostlic church progressively adopted traditions of men such as praying to created beings in Heaven (zero examples) and many others, and thus this is simply another one.

    Yet souls of a broken heart and contrite spirit who cast all their faith upon the risen Lord Jesus to save them on His merits (and thus overall follow Him) can be said, though they hold to certain errors, though for most the Catholic corruption of the Lord supper is effectually damnable.

  • Eucharist in the creed?

    07/26/2016 10:23:10 AM PDT · 123 of 319
    daniel1212 to rwa265; aMorePerfectUnion; Elsie
    You choose to believe what you want, I believe that there is no limit to what God can do.

    Which is a terrible and invalid basis for doctrine, and a slippery slope that would sanction Mormonic magic underwear and dwelling on the planet Kolob. Etc.

    If He says that He can transform bread into His body, I believe Him.

    But which is simply begging the question, presuming the very thing that needs to be proved, but which is utterly absent in the life of the NT church, which is interpretive of the gospels. Only the symbolic position easily conflates with the totality of Scripture, while relying in a purely literal hermeneutic one can hold that David believed in transubstantiation, since he clearly said that water was the blood of men and poured it out unto the Lord, and thus the men who brought it would be priest.

    And David longed, and said, Oh that one would give me drink of the water of the well of Beth–lehem, which is by the gate! And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Beth–lehem, 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. These things did these three mighty men. (2 Samuel 23:15-17)

    More by God's grace.

  • Eucharist in the creed?

    07/26/2016 9:45:50 AM PDT · 121 of 319
    daniel1212 to aMorePerfectUnion
    Which means the question in the OP should be, "The true presence of Christ in the Eucharist is central to our Catholic faith, and many converts say it was essential to their conversion. If this is so, why is the true presence not mentioned at all as being so in the life of the NT church?" Rather than the central focus being upon a ritual offering of a wafer of bread and sip of wine as a salvific food and sacrifice for sin by a distinctive sacerdotal priesthood, we simply have breaking bread from house to house, with gladness and singleness of heart. (Acts 2:46) And in the only manifest description of the Lord's supper it is focus on the church as the body of Christ, which is what is exhorted into being the closest thing to Christ in the flesh. (Eph. 4:7-13)

    There is never a word about desecrating the Eucharist, nor any theological teaching on its nature, nor exhortations to partake of it in order to obtain spiritual life, but there is clear condemnation for persecuting the church, (Acts 9:4; 1Co. 15:9) and solemn warning against defiling it, (1Co. 3:17) which Christ purchased (not fed) with His own sinless shed blood. (Acts 20:28)

    And instead of NT pastors being distinctively called "priests," and exhorted to perform the Eucharistic Catholic ritual, and thereby atone for sins and feed the flock, NT pastors are nowhere called "priests" in the life of the NT church, or seen or exhorted to perform the Eucharistic Catholic ritual, but they are charged with, and seen and exhorted to feed the flock by preaching the word, which is "milk," "meat" and what nourishes and build up souls, as shown.

  • Will Most Baptized Christians Go To Heaven?

    07/26/2016 6:22:06 AM PDT · 154 of 154
    daniel1212 to Anitius Severinus Boethius; Fungi
    A person of faith performs good works because the spirit of the Lord dwells within them. So if someone declares they are a person of faith, but there iare no works that can be seen in their life, then their faith is dead. But works follow faith. Any works that get ahead of faith are useless, hollow attempts to be good enough to earn eternal life. And eternal life is far too precious for any sinner to earn. It must be freely given and freely accepted.

    Amen.

  • As much as 90 percent of ground water in Mass. may be corrosive [fear mongering]

    07/25/2016 2:00:27 PM PDT · 59 of 59
    daniel1212 to Kickass Conservative
  • As much as 90 percent of ground water in Mass. may be corrosive [fear mongering]

    07/25/2016 10:20:10 AM PDT · 54 of 59
    daniel1212 to bjc

    Thanks for your input.

  • As much as 90 percent of ground water in Mass. may be corrosive [fear mongering]

    07/25/2016 10:19:49 AM PDT · 53 of 59
    daniel1212 to stars & stripes forever
    They own the rivers, now they want to own our wells.

    They own the rivers, now liberals want to own our souls.

  • As much as 90 percent of ground water in Mass. may be corrosive [fear mongering]

    07/25/2016 10:18:53 AM PDT · 52 of 59
    daniel1212 to Rockingham
    For what it’s worth, well water regulatory types tend to be matter of fact country types who try to help the public and prefer not to threaten or impose fines. They are unlikely to generate or support regulatory overreach.

    Are you in MA?

  • As much as 90 percent of ground water in Mass. may be corrosive [fear mongering]

    07/25/2016 10:18:17 AM PDT · 51 of 59
    daniel1212 to Rebelbase
    In other news, the Sun continues to rise in the East.

    Which liberals also wish they could control.

  • As much as 90 percent of ground water in Mass. may be corrosive [fear mongering]

    07/25/2016 10:14:05 AM PDT · 50 of 59
    daniel1212 to raybbr

    Water is life, physically speaking.

  • As much as 90 percent of ground water in Mass. may be corrosive [fear mongering]

    07/25/2016 10:12:51 AM PDT · 49 of 59
    daniel1212 to captain_dave
    I guess water, as a chemical, could be considered “corrosive” just like oxygen, as a chemical, could be considered “corrosive”.

    Indeed. See comments!

  • As much as 90 percent of ground water in Mass. may be corrosive [fear mongering]

    07/25/2016 10:11:52 AM PDT · 48 of 59
    daniel1212 to mkjessup

    Communist plot!

  • As much as 90 percent of ground water in Mass. may be corrosive [fear mongering]

    07/25/2016 10:11:08 AM PDT · 47 of 59
    daniel1212 to Cboldt
    Dihydrogen monoxide:
    • is also known as hydroxyl acid, and is the major component of acid rain.
    • contributes to the "greenhouse effect".
    • may cause severe burns.
    • contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
    • accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
    • may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
    • has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.

    Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:

    • as an industrial solvent and coolant.
    • in nuclear power plants.
    • in the production of styrofoam.
    • as a fire retardant.
    • in many forms of cruel animal research.
    • in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
    • as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax
  • As much as 90 percent of ground water in Mass. may be corrosive [fear mongering]

    07/25/2016 10:07:25 AM PDT · 46 of 59
    daniel1212 to randita
    Are the DBM and Rats going to hold Gov. Baker responsible for this as they did Gov. Snyder over the Flint, MI water problems?

    Global Warming

  • As much as 90 percent of ground water in Mass. may be corrosive [fear mongering]

    07/25/2016 10:06:09 AM PDT · 45 of 59
    daniel1212 to headstamp 2
    I often tell people that during dry spells, the only makeup water flowing into the reservoirs around here is treated sewage blasted with chlorine.

    We get ours from the Quabbin Reservoir, which is not treated with chlorine, but ozone, and is quite good.

    Thank God. There is not water in Hell.

  • As much as 90 percent of ground water in Mass. may be corrosive [fear mongering]

    07/25/2016 10:03:52 AM PDT · 44 of 59
    daniel1212 to JPJones
    Most expensive water in the world.

    I am not sure about that, but the owner of a 2 family apt. building told me that his water bill was about 300 a month.

  • As much as 90 percent of ground water in Mass. may be corrosive [fear mongering]

    07/25/2016 10:00:27 AM PDT · 43 of 59
    daniel1212 to ThePatriotsFlag
    Water is either corrosive or scale-forming. (Ryzner Stability Index). This is sort of like saying water us wet so “watch out.” People who don’t know anything should have to pass a test to be a “journalist.”

    Water, the Universal Solvent, USGS Water Science School water.usgs.gov/edu/solvent.html United States Geological Survey May 2, 2016 - Water, the Universal Solvent. Water is capable of dissolving a variety of different substances, which is why it is such a good solvent. In fact, water is called the "universal solvent" because it dissolves more substances than any other liquid.

  • As much as 90 percent of ground water in Mass. may be corrosive [fear mongering]

    07/25/2016 9:58:48 AM PDT · 42 of 59
    daniel1212 to refreshed
    The picture is of a ground water pond? It is by definition surface water. Do they mean, filled by ground water? This is just another tightening of the noose with regard to getting everyone dependent on government.

    Liberals: Your freedom to breath air and use water on your property (which is not really your) need to be under observation and regulation for your own good.

  • As much as 90 percent of ground water in Mass. may be corrosive [fear mongering]

    07/25/2016 9:54:47 AM PDT · 41 of 59
    daniel1212 to NorthMountain
    Naturally ... can't have people living independently of the government, now. That's just unacceptable.

    Indeed, for that makes it harder to compel you to salute the flag of Sodom.

  • As much as 90 percent of ground water in Mass. may be corrosive [fear mongering]

    07/25/2016 9:53:04 AM PDT · 40 of 59
    daniel1212 to TXnMA
    There probably is fact behind the "corrosive" claim. Since there is zero limestone in most of MA, there is nothing to neutralize acidity. And, there is constant exchange through the glacial soil/gravel between surface and subsurface water. Stony Brook, which ran through our back yard in MA (and which forms Stony Brook Nature Preserve a couple of miles downstream) was strongly acidic. I built a "live box" of heavy, galvanized hardware cloth for keeping fish alive in the stream overnight -- when I came in too late (or too "beat") from fishing to feel like cleaning them that night. After a couple of months in the stream, the thing completely fell apart... That's what I call, "corrosive"! And even the town-supplied water would destroy a hot water-dispensing faucet in just about a year... But, like "global warming", the effect is natural -- not human-caused. There simply is no natural mechanism available to balance the pH..

    You were doing fine until the last line, and now you are in hot water. Please report to your nearest reeducation center...

  • As much as 90 percent of ground water in Mass. may be corrosive [fear mongering]

    07/25/2016 5:26:46 AM PDT · 1 of 59
    daniel1212
    Sounds like more fear mongering in order to foster more dependence upon the government and for it to obtain more control over citizens,

    Note this article is by by the liberal organ, the Boston Globe,

    The article reports that residents with private wells are advised to switch to the public supply, if possible.

  • The defining Question about Sola Scriptura and Tradition

    07/25/2016 4:46:02 AM PDT · 67 of 84
    daniel1212 to boatbums
    All of which is to say that we have been given the full counsel of God through His holy word. Those who would impose strange and novel doctrines and dogmas upon God’s own under threat of excommunication for not accepting them unquestionably are calling God’s word into question and causing others to doubt its sufficiency. We are reminded to not go beyond what is written. That is a safe and secure place to be - under the shadow of His wings.

    And which does not exclude or impugn scriptural oral preaching of the "word," which all the church went about doing, (Acts 8:4) but it means Scripture alone is the infallible and supreme standard, and sufficient in its formal and material sense combined. Requiring assent of faith to the uninspired word of men as equal with Scripture is cultic, not Christian.

  • The defining Question about Sola Scriptura and Tradition

    07/24/2016 6:24:02 PM PDT · 65 of 84
    daniel1212 to HiTech RedNeck
    The Old Testament forbade invocations to the dead which is why evangelicals shun addressing sainted persons.

    Not only (and some argue the condemnation Necromancy is only as regards occult practice), but despite the Holy Spirit inspiring the recording of approx. 200 prayers in Scripture, and with multitudes of angels for believers to pray to before the Lord's resurrection, and additional multitudes of ascended OT saints after, there is not one single prayer by any believer to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord. And which is what instruction on prayer to Heaven addresses, (Mt. 6:9) and to whom the Spirit cries ("Abba, Father," not Mama, Mother). And with the risen Lord Jesus being the only Heavenly intercessor, (1Tim. 2:5) and by whom they have direct access into the holy of holies in Heaven, and who is immediately accessible and supremely able to sympathize and enable believers to walk in victory. (Heb. 2:17,18; 4:15,16; 7:25; 10:19) To God be the glory.

  • The defining Question about Sola Scriptura and Tradition

    07/24/2016 11:32:15 AM PDT · 51 of 84
    daniel1212 to HiTech RedNeck
    It’s one thing to say, here are some more details furnishing a more helpful context to what you’ve already been doing. It’s another thing to say just forget what you’ve already been doing, we have a superior model that makes it superfluous. And Mary-involvement tests this. She has passed from a sign and expression of God’s love, to a mover and shaker that encloses it all and demands we treat Her as Middlewoman. Um, sale not made on this one.

    And Middlewoman is an understatement, for she is proclaimed by various Caths as

    an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,

    whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,

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

    and was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and "was elevated to a certain affinity with the Heavenly Father,"

    and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • The defining Question about Sola Scriptura and Tradition

    07/24/2016 7:17:24 AM PDT · 41 of 84
    daniel1212 to HiTech RedNeck
    For whatever is worth, a similar picture is seen in what we know as Rabbinical Judaism, where the extra-scriptural Torah tradition is sometimes taken to the point of rendering the scriptural underpinning unrecognizable.Been there, done that,

    Indeed.

  • The defining Question about Sola Scriptura and Tradition

    07/24/2016 6:47:44 AM PDT · 33 of 84
    daniel1212 to HiTech RedNeck; ebb tide
    Apparently the Roman one is among them.

    Rome officially disavows that she provides new public revelation, but which means that she can "infallibly" assert that a 1st century event for which there is no testimony in Scripture or in the earliest centuries did occur and which demands assent of faith. Which is justified under the premise that Rome can "remember" what history "forgot." Thus nothing "new" means that post-apostolic beliefs were really old, under the new and novel premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults).

  • The defining Question about Sola Scriptura and Tradition

    07/24/2016 6:39:32 AM PDT · 30 of 84
    daniel1212 to .45 Long Colt
    Posting a link to a debate between a Reformed Baptist apologist and a Catholic priest is “Catholic bashing” in your mind?

    The slightest material that impugns Rome is "anti-Catholic bigotry," and should be banned on this pro-God, pro-American forum ("A public facility to meet for open discussion:" -WordWeb).

  • The defining Question about Sola Scriptura and Tradition

    07/24/2016 6:36:09 AM PDT · 29 of 84
    daniel1212 to ealgeone; Salvation
    catholicism doesn’t seem to be able to stand up to the light of truth. sure sign of a cult.

    And demands that reproof of such be censored, all the while purporting to be pro-God and pro-America!

  • The defining Question about Sola Scriptura and Tradition

    07/24/2016 6:34:12 AM PDT · 28 of 84
    daniel1212 to Salvation; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; boatbums; ...
    Non-Catholic site, folks. Move on.

    In other words, move on before they see the fallacies of their church exposed. Is it true that you would like to see all material that impugns the claims of Rome censored here, as well in media overall?

  • Will Most Baptized Christians Go To Heaven?

    07/24/2016 6:18:46 AM PDT · 117 of 154
    daniel1212 to Elsie
    Is your name written there?

    Not as a result of being sprinkled as an infant, but by being manifestly born again by effectual faith in the risen Lord Jesus to save me on His account, by His sinless shed blood. To God be the glory.

  • Will Most Baptized Christians Go To Heaven?

    07/24/2016 5:06:30 AM PDT · 112 of 154
    daniel1212 to Gay State Conservative; ealgeone; metmom; pinochet
    This is false teaching.

    According to...?

    That one is justified due to the merit of his works, or that the faith which is counted for righteousness is vindicated as being so by works of faith (things which accompany salvation" - Heb. 6:9) with continued impenitent sin testifying to the contrary?

    One one hand you have such statements as teach that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God truly merits the attainment of eternal life itself (Trent, Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 320 and another that it is "

    Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." (Titus 3:5)

    Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. (Romans 4:4-5)

    For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

    A soul is made accepted in the Beloved on His account, while one who forsakes Christ does not lose Heaven due to a lack of personal merit, as per Catholicism, in which souls need to attain to perfection of character in purgatory in order to enter Heaven, but because they forsook the very faith which appropriated justification, and thus forfeit what faith appropiated. (Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 3:12; 10:25-39) But God rewards obedient faith in the light of its works, which justify faith as salvific.

    Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward. (Hebrews 10:35)

    Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: (Matthew 25:34-35)

  • Will Most Baptized Christians Go To Heaven?

    07/24/2016 4:40:56 AM PDT · 111 of 154
    daniel1212 to Salvation
    In answer to your question three saints have seen many souls falling into hell, St. Therese of Lisseux, St. Faustina, and another saint who testified to someone living that only two people went to heaven the day he died and three went to Purgatory. The rest went to hell.

    What a religion!

  • Will Most Baptized Christians Go To Heaven?

    07/24/2016 4:35:02 AM PDT · 110 of 154
    daniel1212 to pinochet; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; boatbums; ...
    If human meritocracy is not needed to get to heaven, shouldn't the majority of baptized Christians go to heaven?

    No, because the act of baptism does not make one a Christian. Scripture teaches that whole-hearted repentant faith is prerequisite for baptism:

    Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38)

    And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. (Acts 8:36-37)

    Is there any church that explicitly teaches that the majority of its members will go to heaven?

    Yes, the church of Rome for one, under the fantasy that the act of baptism ex opere operato (by the act itself) makes one good enough to be with God, even by proxy faith for the majority, who are not morally cognizant and are not personally culpable of sin, and that this state is regained (and sins atoned for) thru fiery torments commencing at death. Which is never preached in the life of the NT church in Scripture.

    The only postmortem suffering for believers is at the judgment seat of Christ, that of the loss of rewards and the Lord's disapproval. (1Co. 3:8ff) Which one is saved despite of and which does not occur until the Lord's return! (1Cor. 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev.11:18; Mt. 25:31-46; 1Pt. 1:7; 5:4)

    For in addition to being made accepted in the Beloved on His account, versus justified by their own holiness as per Rome, God recompenses faith (Heb. 10:35) for what it did, which also means the loss of rewards for building the church with tares.

    Souls are to seek to be as Christ, but as with "be ye perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect, such calls are not conditions for being with the Lord, but are an exhortations in response to already being children of God by faith, who spiritually have direct access into the holy of holies by the sinless shed blood of Christ. (Heb. 10:19)

    Salvific faith must be the kind that effects holiness, and thus the holy are promised salvation as well as those who believe, but the effect is not the cause of justification and entering into glory, but that of being forgiven and accepted in the Beloved on His account. For He who is holy was numbered with the transgressors, the Lord laying on him the iniquity of us all (Is. 53:6,12) bearing our sins in His own body on the cross, (1Pt. 2:24) God making Him who knew no sin to become sin for us. (2Co. 5:17)

    By which the believer is already accepted in Christ and positionally seated with Him in Heaven, (Eph. 1:6;2:6) and will be with Him at death or His return, (2Co. 5:8; Phil. 1:21-13; Acts 7:59; Lk. 23:39; 1Ths. 4:17) which is what the entire church was told in the first century.

    The apostle Paul expressed that to depart from this life would be to be present with the Lord, though he confessed to the same people that he was not perfect, (Phil. 1:21-24; 3:12) but that he longed to practically be what he positionally was - which" high calling of God in Christ Jesus" is to be the hunger of a true believer - for which he consistently only pointed to the the resurrection as effecting any postmortem constitutional change. And it is then and only then that believers are said they will be like Christ.

    For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. (Philippians 3:20-21)

    For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven...Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit. Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (2 Corinthians 5:2,5-6)

    Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. (1 John 3:2-3)

    Nothing unclean with enter the Heavenly City just as no unclean soul can have communion with God now, but it is by true faith in the Lord Jesus to save the damned and destitute sinner by His sinless shed blood that a believer is both spiritually with God now and will be after this life.

    The idea that even a new convert has attained to perfection of character, or that the contrite criminal did in a few hours on the cross, is also absurd. growth toward perfection is a long process requiring manifold temptations, and not simply suffering. (1 Peter 1:6-7; 1Jn.2:14; 5:4,5; Rv. 2.7,11,17,26; 3:5,12,21) Thus the Divine Lord Himself in the mystery of His incarnation had to experience being tempted in every basic way we are. And being made perfect [in experience and overcoming] , he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey Him; (Hebrews 5:9)

    It remains that the idea that one must "actually be perfect as the Father is perfect" "having the perfection of our heavenly Father" in order to be with God is indeed absurd, as it effectively turns salvation by grace thru faith into salvation under the Law - which required perfect conformity to be saved (Gal. 3:10) - except that one is given more grace to become as good as Christ, which is blasphemous.

  • Protestant Theologian: ‘Radical Bible Groups’ A Bigger Threat To Teens Than Islamism

    07/24/2016 4:07:04 AM PDT · 71 of 80
    daniel1212 to Jan_Sobieski; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; boatbums; ..
    Any violence by Christians 1000 years ago was only a response to the Islamic invasion of the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe. Defense is essential to protect family and friends, and violent some times.

    Well, inquisitions also targeted Protestants. Who returned the favor.

  • The Catholic Mass, as described by Justin Martyr in the year 155

    07/23/2016 7:03:17 PM PDT · 46 of 47
    daniel1212 to goodwithagun
    Check out this hot mess that’s not Catholic: http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3452237/posts Also, you apparently did’t get the pop cult reference so I’ll post it again: Bye Felicia!

    Which is simply more fallacious vain argumentation, which again attempts to negate conservative Scripture-centric faith by invoking that which is not, but which you equate since both are called "Protestant," the meaning of which one-size-fits-all term that is so broad that you could fly a Unitarian Scientology Swedenborgian Mormon 747 thru it!

    Your argument would only be valid if I was promoting a particular faith/church as the superior one but it was largely liberal. Which is exactly what RCs do, and once again you ignore the variegated nature of Catholic faith, in which you must count even proabortion, prosodomite proMuslim politicians as brethren, since your church treats such as members in life and in death, and papal teaching states that the one basic duty of RCs is to simply follow the pastors.

  • Pro-LGBT push underscores GOP convention (Barf Alert)

    07/23/2016 6:01:58 PM PDT · 28 of 35
    daniel1212 to Fhios
    Nobody really cares what two consenting adults do in their bedroom.

    Even the financial cost refutes that, seeing as HIV/AIDs has killed over 600,000 Americans, and 79% of new HIV cases are among MSM (CDC), for which much tax money go to treat.

  • Pro-LGBT push underscores GOP convention (Barf Alert)

    07/23/2016 5:59:07 PM PDT · 27 of 35
    daniel1212 to donna; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; boatbums; ...
    We’ve been killing babies since 1973 and now homosexual marriage is legal. People who believe in traditional values have no reason to be loyal to the Republican Party anymore. The elites didn’t keep their part of the deal and now they are paying for it. Our best goal, is to keep our borders and to stop the Islamic invasion for as long as we can - and to pray for revival.

    Indeed. Only a revival of conservative evangelical faith can turn the tide. While if there ever was a time for a 3rd party to have a change, it would have been with Trump. The maxim that the Republicans do what the Democrats do, only slower, remains true.

  • The solution to racial war (The Cross and the Switchblade movie)

    07/23/2016 5:18:45 PM PDT · 19 of 19
    daniel1212 to Elsie
    How DARE you preach to folks who ain’t in the choir!

    In-deed.

  • The Catholic Mass, as described by Justin Martyr in the year 155

    07/23/2016 5:17:56 PM PDT · 44 of 47
    daniel1212 to goodwithagun; Elsie; aMorePerfectUnion
    You’re right. I’ll go ahead and join a homosexual “marriage” endorsing, pro-infanticide Protestant church instead. Bye Felicia!

    That is simply a logical fallacy, a false dichotomy, an either-or argument which ignore another alternative. The fact is that those who most strongly uphold Scripture as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God are the most conservative believers, while such is a minority among Caths, and in reality those who are "homosexual “marriage” endorsing, pro-infanticide" souls can feel at home being Catholic (ask Teddy K), while such scorn conservative evangelical churches. Which elitist Rome does not even consider worthy of the propr name "church." To her own damnation.