Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $25,498
29%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 29% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by daniel1212

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Remote Desktop won't work on one computer

    07/28/2014 7:41:54 PM PDT · 12 of 12
    daniel1212 to chuckles
    Have you seen if Team Viewer works? I have found it easy to use and no catches.
  • 5 Reasons Black Men Havent Advanced Over The Last 40 Years.

    07/28/2014 7:37:59 PM PDT · 101 of 101
    daniel1212 to 2ndDivisionVet

    How about missing the grace of God and having a “root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled.” (Hebrews 12:15) Which i know myself too well.

    The victim mentality is rife through this lament, while Chinese and others worked thru their discrimination, which while not as severe, did not see the manner of “reparations” either.

    But which resulted in the victim-entitlement mentality and perpetual welfare, which liberals fostered, as the Reds did, to gain power.

    While the constant emphasis upon race (what if i called white ppl “brothers” in distinction from other races) actually fosters racism.

    Man looks on the outside, God looks at the heart. See yourself the way God does and surrender to the Lord Jesus and live it out.

  • Iraqi Kurds: A nation in waiting

    07/28/2014 7:18:29 PM PDT · 10 of 10
    daniel1212 to elhombrelibre

    If any should be supported, it would seem they are it. But many powers that be want to imagine it all away.

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    07/28/2014 6:02:15 PM PDT · 658 of 678
    daniel1212 to editor-surveyor; CynicalBear; boatbums; metmom; Springfield Reformer; BlueDragon
    WE are not presently equipped for existence in the Kingdom; corruptible flesh cannot enter therein;

    That is true but which is not at all contrary to our position on Jn. 3:3, as this does not say one who is born from above as a child of God, in which God sends the Spirit of His Son into the believer crying "Abba, Father," (Gal. 4:6) and is a "new creation," (2Cor. 5:17) means that such no longer has a body of flesh and blood, and is in the literal manifestation of the kingdom of God, though he is now spiritually in that kingdom. (Col. 1:13)

    Therefore they do not wage the war of faith after the flesh. (Jn. 18:36; 2Cor. 10:3,4; Eph. 6:13)

    But it teaches that one must be born of the word of truth of the gospel, (Ja. 1:18) in order to see that literal manifestation, and the indwelling Spirit is a pledge of that. ( Eph. 1:13; 1 Peter 1:3)

    To God be the glory.

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    07/28/2014 3:04:22 PM PDT · 639 of 678
    daniel1212 to editor-surveyor; CynicalBear; boatbums; metmom
    The birth into the incorruptible body is the spiritual birth.

    I usually ignore this far fetched idea, as being "born of the Spirit" is well established to be that birth by which one becomes a child of God, which Jn. 1:12 speaks of:

    "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:" (John 1:12)

    And by which receiving one is placed into the kingdom of God:

    "Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:" (Colossians 1:13)

    Thus,

    "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again [as spiritually, from above], he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3)

    "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." (John 3:6)

    And which birth of the Spirit is part of the conversion event:

    "Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures." (James 1:18)

    "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead," (1 Peter 1:3)

    "And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;" (Acts 15:7-8)

    These who die in faith will see the literal realization of the kingdom of God, with transformed bodies, as they have the Spirit which is the token of that future experience.

    "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise," (Ephesians 1:13)

    "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." (Romans 8:9)

    And thus Jn. 3:16 follows that, and as one is indwelt by the Spirit in conversion, so he is led by the Spirit.

    "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." (John 3:8)

    "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." (Romans 8:14)

    "Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia," "After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not." (Acts 16:6-7)

    One could believe this birth of the Spirit is the resurrection, but he cannot deny that one must be spiritually born of God in conversion, being made alive by the Spirit by faith, and that one must possess the Divine Spirit of Christ to belong to the Lord, and to see the literal kingdom of God, with transformed bodies.

    What birth you would call that i know not.

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    07/28/2014 2:56:34 PM PDT · 638 of 678
    daniel1212 to G Larry; Religion Moderator
    Ignoring you, is what you’re due.

    Rather, "Whoso loveth instruction loveth knowledge: but he that hateth reproof is brutish." (Proverbs 12:1)

    And if you are going to defend pasting 400+ words of material that is not your own without any attribution, then you are ignoring the RM as well.

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    07/28/2014 9:05:42 AM PDT · 604 of 678
    daniel1212 to G Larry
    I presented a Catholic Apologetic in response to attack. Sourcing is irrelevant. You seem to think I owe you something. I don’t. Goodbye.

    You do:

    "Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour." (Romans 13:7)

    When quoting a source, e.g. a website, article or book – be sure to include sufficient source information for the moderators to enforce copyright restrictions. - http://www.freerepublic.com/~religionmoderator/

    When quoting another website, article, book, etc. be sure to include adequate source information, e.g. url, link, title, author, date, publisher, etc. - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2966953/posts?page=3411#3411

    If he is citing an on-line source, then a url or hotlink is preferred both for the moderators checking copyright restrictions and for those wishing to learn more and verify the quote in context. — http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3134010/posts?page=157#157

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    07/28/2014 8:55:50 AM PDT · 601 of 678
    daniel1212 to JPX2011; G Larry; metmom
    Are we to now post references to commonly used words?

    If you want it to be more than your opinion, yes, besides the use of reason. Thus the abundant refs in the NT to the OT.

    Besides what you emphasized imputes motive. You made it an issue when you imputed a motive to deceive on the part of another poster.

    Is that not what plagiarism is? Deception?

    Not necessarily willful. From http://www.plagiarism.org/plagiarism-101/types-of-plagiarism:

    #2. CTRL-C Contains significant portions of text from a single source without alterations.

    And, as said, posting large portions of someone else's work without any attribution is "posting it as if it were your own" as i originally said . One reading what was posted would normally be deceived into thinking it was original, even if it was not intentional.

    Regardless of motive, such an act as lifting 400+ words of a work not even just bits an pieces, without giving credit is wrong.

    "Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour." (Romans 13:7)

    Or do you think it is right to just lift swaths of material from whoever and past it in our posts, without any attribution and even making it indistinguishable from our own words? Yes or no?

    And if this was an oversight, as often is the case (Prots do it also) then an apology is in order.

    Do you agree or not?

    Nonetheless, while G. Larry has only defended his unattributed use of the material of another, I do apologize for any attribution of willful motive to deceive. If only he would admit it was an unintended error on his part to not do so.

    My being an "RC" has nothing to do with it. Taken to its logical conclusion I suppose plagiarism is in the eye of the beholder, particularly based on one's confession of faith. Besides it's an assumption on your part.

    Plagiarism is not precisely legally defined, but as said, lifting significant portions of material from whoever and pasting it in our posts, without any attribution and even making it indistinguishable from our own words is not proper in any case.

    Those who follow my postings can attest that i often post material from others, and it is my practice to and carefully provide the source, and usually use a different color as well.

    Nor was i being picky, as I am not saying reiteration of something in general is plagiarism, and indeed we are all plagiarists to varying degrees, even if unconsciously. Nor is plagiarism is copying mere information, nor would i object to a bit from Wikipedia being copied, but this was 400+ words of material that was not his own, and which i noted in one sentence.

    And note what RC apologist John Martignoni, author of Apologetics for The Masses, counsels,

    What I would suggest, if you wish to cut down on your response time, is to steal stuff from other folks. Steal things from my newsletters. Go to Catholic.com (Catholic Answers website) and use their search engine to look for articles on whatever topic you’re discussing. Don’t hesitate to lift verbiage from an article here and an article there. If you want to cite your source fine, but if you want to leave that out – I don’t see any problem, as long as you’re doing it in private correspondence.

    I’m not talking about borrowing verbiage from folks and then publishing your own book or something, but just using what other people have written in a private conversation where the intent is to save someone’s soul.... However, if you quote from someone without reference, and then give the person a link to the article or newsletter you quote from so that they can “read more” on that particular subject – well, that’s works fine by me. I don’t know of any Catholic apologist who would mind if you quote them without citation...- http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/detail/119

    Here what was sanctioned for private use was done publicly, yet without even a link. And the RM rules are, " When quoting a source, e.g. a website, article or book – be sure to include sufficient source information for the moderators to enforce copyright restrictions." http://www.freerepublic.com/~religionmoderator/

    As an aside, by what authority do you appeal that demands that your particular brand of polemic merits a response?

    Ultimately I appeal to Scripture as the assured word of God, and reason, and Scripture supports being reasonable. If you do not see this as worthy of response, then there is no compulsion on your part to answer. This is not the Inquisition. But as you have taken to defend an improper (at the least) practice, it is only reasonable for you to respond to reasonable responses.

    Definition of INSOLENT 1: rude or impolite : having or showing a lack of respect for other people Nothing rude or impolite about my response. I trust this meets your level of scholarship, however.

    : INSOLENT 1. insultingly contemptuous in speech or conduct - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insolent

    Defending the one who posted 400+ words from another source as if it was his own, but only asking me to apologize is insultingly speech. However, as said, i do apologize for inference of willful deception, which cannot be proved - though it was not denied - and is contrary to RF rules.

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    07/28/2014 2:26:22 AM PDT · 545 of 678
    daniel1212 to JPX2011; G Larry
    Is that so? I don't see an attempt to take credit for another's work, which is one of the required elements for plagiarism. So now we have an undocumented definition, while pasting the apparent source leaves out the whole description:

    pla·gia·rism: an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author (emp. mine) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plagiarism

    pla·gia·rize: : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source. - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarize

    And while as an RC you may not see an attempt to take credit for the work of another, the fact is that unless otherwise attributed, then it is assumed to be that of the poster.

    And i do not even see a matter of simply reiteration of some ideas as an issue, but this was blatant pasting of over 400 words from another source without any indication that it was even a copy paste job, except by discerning a contrast btwn the the normal style and ability seen from the poster.

    Nor am i the one that made this The Issue, but my comment about posting of a papal polemic without attribution to the source was merely one sentence out of an over 800 word response, which was ignored in any subsequent responses.

    Perhaps you owe Larry an apology

    Insolence. Rather, that this is what both of you owe.

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    07/28/2014 2:25:39 AM PDT · 544 of 678
    daniel1212 to G Larry
    Sue me.... Do you have a problem with the content that is relevant to this discussion?

    That is simply more avoidance. My comment about posting of a papal polemic without attribution to the source, which you failed to express fault for, was merely one sentence out of an over 800 word response by me, that is indeed relevant to this discussion.

    But which you ignored and instead majored on defending your plagiarism.

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    07/28/2014 1:35:03 AM PDT · 543 of 678
    daniel1212 to JPX2011
    Is this one of thos examples of utilizing the internet postings of other parties as evidential to confirming the assured veracity of one's own infallible conclusions?

    In a word, no .

    "Produce your cause, saith the Lord; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob." (Isaiah 41:21)

    "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord.." (Isaiah 1:18)

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    07/27/2014 7:05:24 PM PDT · 468 of 678
    daniel1212 to G Larry
    Listen detective, this isn’t a college thesis. I present many Catholic teachings in my posts. I make no pretense that they are my own, specifically to avoid error in my presentations.

    Plagiarist, you did not simply present Catholic teachings, or a reiteration or snippet, but pasted over 400 words directly from another source (http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHRIST/CEPOPE.TXT) without any attribution, or otherwise presented any indication that they were your own.

    This is not a matter of copyright violation and those of RF rules, as the CE is in public domain as far as i know, but it is clearly plagiarism.

    But which is actually advised by at least one RC apologist.

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    07/27/2014 6:41:23 PM PDT · 460 of 678
    daniel1212 to dsc
    1. It’s not an “RC” dismissal; it is mine. 2. It got the job done. Not noticing when one has been dismissed is just bad mann Rather, you could not refute my refutation of NT pastors being titled "priests," and instead you absurdly dismissed it as not part of proper theology and as irrelevant.

    And which attempt was then itself refuted, and once again in lieu of an argument. you resorted to blithely dismissing it as time-wasting, nonsensical irrelevancy.

    Thus you have rendered your own responses as , nonsensical irrelevancy, and unfit for meaningful exchange, and provided more evidence why one should not be a RC.

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    07/27/2014 4:54:09 PM PDT · 425 of 678
    daniel1212 to G Larry
    The prerogatives here promised are manifestly personal to Peter. His profession of faith was not made

    Your posting of a papal polemic which you failed to attribute to the source (Catholic Encyclopedia: Pope, The), posting it as if it were your own (which i immediately suspected was not from you) is an example of the fallacious propaganda of Rome as well as the deception RCs can engage in.

    The issue of the Aramaic is argumentative and one that continues (see here ), but interpretation must be done in the light of the whole of Scripture.

    The verse at issue, v.18, cannot be divorced from that which preceded it, in which the identity of Jesus Christ is the main subject. In the next verse (17) that is what Jesus refers to in telling blessed Peter that “flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,” and in v. 18 that truth is what the “this rock” refers to, with a distinction being made between the person of Peter and this rock. > This is the only interpretation that is confirmed, as it must be, in the rest of the New Testament. For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8)

    Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the ancients concur with, while even modern Catholic scholarship provides testimony against the idea of Peter and immediate successors reigning over the church as its supreme infallible head. See here on both, unless i need to post it.

    One example on the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16.16-19,

    Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiasiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical. - Yves M.-J. Congar, Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and a Theological Essay (London: Burns & Oats, 1966), pp. 399.

    And indeed, the church corporate that looked to Peter as its infallible supreme head, holding upon this earth the place of God Almighty, which power he can exercise unhindered. is one that is invisible: it simply is not there.

    While Peter was the initial street-level leader of the 11, and can be seen exercising a general pastoral role, yet he was not looked to by the churches as the the supreme infallible head.

    Peter was the first to use the keys to the kingdom of God, the gospel, defining that it is the faith behind baptism that souls are purified by, (Acts 15:7-9) and by which souls are translated into the kingdom of God. (Col. 1:13)

    Peter, who was married, (1Cor. 9:5) fades from view after Acts 15, which was not called by Peter and in which James gives the definitive judgment, confirmatory of Peter's counsel and testimony of Paul and Barnabas, while it is Paul who called all the Ephesian pastors to conference, as well as doing many other things that RCs would invoke as testifying to the papacy if said of Peter.

    Nowhere in any of the epistles are the churches reminded of Peter being the head of all the church, nor particular submission to him as such enjoined, not even as a solution to their needs nor as fidelity to him being a commendation.

    Moreover, not once in the Lord's own letters to the 7 representative churches in Rv. 2 and 3 is the pope even mentioned.

    And in Gal. 2:1ff Peter is mentioned as the second among 3 pillars of the church, “who seemed to be somewhat,” and who provided public affirmation of Paul, but who publicly reproved Peter for his duplicity, consistent with Paul's statement that “God accepteth no man's person.”

    In addition, the power of binding and loosing was also given to all the disciples, (Mt. 18:15-19)

    Nowhere did Peter refer to himself as anything more than “a servant,” “an apostle,” “an elder,” (1Pt. 1:1; 5:1; 2Pt. 1) and was married, (Mt. 8:14; 1Cor. 9:4) and evidently poor, (Acts 3:6) living as a guest a tanner's house (Acts 10:6: a smelly profession, thus it was by the sea) who would not let even an unsaved men bow down to him. (Acts 10:25,26)

    It is no wonder Rome made "good" use of forgeries to supply what she attempts to egregiously extrapolate from Scripture. But which absence at least evidences that Rome did change the Bible to support her.

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    07/27/2014 3:43:50 PM PDT · 401 of 678
    daniel1212 to dsc
    And still nothing more than time-wasting, nonsensical irrelevancy. Nothing you said was worth the electricity generated in the neural impulses required to type it.

    As usual, this empty RC attempt at dismissal only testifies to the absence of any refutation.

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    07/27/2014 12:10:21 PM PDT · 321 of 678
    daniel1212 to mdmathis6
    There certainly wasn’t a message addressed to the “church of Rome” in Revelation....(in support of your posting).

    Unless its the church of the Laodiceans!

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    07/27/2014 10:37:47 AM PDT · 306 of 678
    daniel1212 to G Larry
    My original post said nothing of “Priests”, so let’s stay focused:

    If you had looked then you should have seen that my reply was not to your post but to that of Romulus to yours, which denied that most protestant congregations do not have holy orders, when in fact it is Rome that does not have Scriptural holy orders

    “Because the entire concept of “Protestant” invites each individual to be their own “Pope”. One interpretation is as good as another, as long as I convince myself that I am being guided by the Holy Spirit.

    That is also a straw man, as under SS no one is a pope, or otherwise claiming assured veracity under the premise of being individually assuredly guided by the Holy Spirit, but which is a distinctive papal claim.

    The pope claims to be assuredly correct when speakng according to his infallibly defined formula, even independent of the bishops. Thus it is in Rome that we see the epitome of "sola individuum," while under SS the veracity of a Truth claim is dependent upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, and which is Scriptural.

    In contrast, the RC argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)

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

    But which renders Rome fundamentally contrary to the establishment of the NT church.

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

    And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

    But what of the divisions that result from competing interpretations? See post 139 here for more.

  • 10,000 Rally in Boston Against Obama’s Illegal Aliens (I was there yesterday)

    07/27/2014 9:58:19 AM PDT · 48 of 57
    daniel1212 to dforest
    I see zero mention of this in the Globe or Herald. Not surprising.

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    07/27/2014 6:17:59 AM PDT · 284 of 678
    daniel1212 to verga; WVKayaker
    Conclusion: The only reasonable definition of the word "Anthon" is "From above/ from the source or beginning", There is a perfectly good word for "again" but, neither Nicodemus, nor Jesus use that word, instead Nicodemus uses Deuteron. Nicodemus apparent confusion results from Jesus' use of the word "Born" not "From above" Anothon

    To which Robertson's WORD PICTURES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT concurs:

    John 3:3; Except a man be born anew (ean mē tis gennēthēi anōthen). Another condition of the third class, undetermined but with prospect of determination. First aorist passive subjunctive of gennaō. Anōthen. Originally “from above” (Mar_15:38), then “from heaven” (Joh_3:31), then “from the first” (Luk_1:3), and then “again” (palin anōthen, Gal_4:9). Which is the meaning here? The puzzle of Nicodemus shows (deuteron, Joh_3:4) that he took it as “again,” a second birth from the womb. The Vulgate translates it by renatus fuerit denuo.

    But the misapprehension of Nicodemus does not prove the meaning of Jesus. In the other passages in John (Joh_3:31; Joh_19:11, Joh_19:23) the meaning is “from above” (desuper) and usually so in the Synoptics. It is a second birth, to be sure, regeneration, but a birth from above by the Spirit.

    The KJV also translates anōthen as "above" in Jn. 3:31 (2), 19:11, James 1:17; 3:15,17, while the Challoner Douay-Rheims also has "born again" in Jn. 3:3,7)

    For while this birth from above, it is a second birth, spiritual vs. physical, and thus it is that of being born again, and which event occurs in the conversion of faith in the Word of the gospel,

    "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again anagennaō=to beget] unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead," (1 Peter 1:3)

    "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him." (1 John 5:1)

    How "above" versus "again" makes a theological difference to you vs. WVKayaker was not stated.

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    07/27/2014 5:38:39 AM PDT · 282 of 678
    daniel1212 to Elsie
    Now CATHOLICS are of more noble character than those DAMNED Protestants, for they received the CHURCH's message with great eagerness and prayed the rosary every day, because they are convinced that the CHURCH would NEVER teach stuff that is wrong.

    They have been convinced using their own fallible human reasoning that Rome is the one true infallible church, and thus the only means for assurance of Truth, and thus being convinced of something by the prayerful use of one's own fallible human reasoning (examining the evidences), and to ascertain the veracity of RC teachings, is to be condemned.

    Very convincing.

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    07/27/2014 5:07:57 AM PDT · 278 of 678
    daniel1212 to dsc
    You really think that is properly termed theology? That is a time-wasting, nonsensical irrelevancy....And all, you hope, without alerting anyone to the fact that it doesn’t matter in the least.

    You can only wish it was not part of "properly termed theology," but is "nonsensical irrelevancy" to your assertion that a priest has "superior knowledge of theology," but the fact is that the issue of "priests" is indeed part of theology, that of pastoral theology, which

    is a branch of practical theology; it is essentially a practical science. All branches of theology, whether theoretical or practical, purpose in one way or another to make priests "the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God" (1 Corinthians 4:1). - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14611a.htm

    And it is due to the theology of the priesthood of Catholicism that women priests are excluded, and the role of extraordinary ministers defined.

    Moreover, the aspect of distinctively titling NT pastors "priests" is central to RC theology, as the main reason they are called priests is based upon the premise that the central act of the Church is the celebration of the Eucharist, and that ordination into the priesthood "confers on a man the power of consecrating and offering the body and blood of Christ, and of remitting and retaining sins," a priest being one who is "an authorized mediator who offers a true sacrifice in acknowledgment of God's supreme dominion over human beings and in expiation for their sins." - http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/priesthd/priesthd.htm)

    As R. J. Grigaitis (O.F.S.) states while also trying to defend the use of priest - states:

    "The Greek word for this office is ‘ιερευς (hiereus), which can be literally translated into Latin as sacerdos. First century Christians [such as the inspired writers] felt that their special type of hiereus (sacerdos) was so removed from the original that they gave it a new name, presbuteros (presbyter). Unfortunately, sacerdos didn't evolve into an English word, but the word priest took on its definition." http://grigaitis.net/weekly/2007/2007-04-27.html

    Catholic writer Greg Dues in “Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide” states,

    "Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions."

    "When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice [after Rome's theology], the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the third century bishops were considered priests. Presbyters or elders sometimes substituted for the bishop at the Eucharist. By the end of the third century people all over were using the title 'priest' (hierus in Greek and sacerdos in Latin) for whoever presided at the Eucharist."

    And this relates to the issue of Anglican priesthood as "Leo XIII in pronouncing Anglican order to be invalid did so on the basis of an argument that the sacerdotal function of priests in relation to the Eucharist was the central aspect of priesthood." - http://anglicaneucharistictheology.com/Anglican_Eucharistic_Theology/Case_Studies/Entries/2006/2/21_Saepius_Officio.html

    Yet you dismiss the issue of distinctively titling NT pastors "priests" as not being part of what is "properly termed theology," but is "nonsensical irrelevancy," and which avoids the fact that the Holy Spirit never calls the pastors of the NT church "priest" ( “hiereus”), and that the only priesthood in the NT church is that of the general priesthood (hierateuma) of all believers, as they all function as priests, offering both gifts and sacrifices response to being forgiven of sins, in thanksgiving and service to God and for others. (1Pt. 2:5,9; Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9)

    Nor do we see the primary function of NT pastors as being that of dispensing physical food to be eaten to gain spiritual and eternal life, or the Lord's supper otherwise being manifest in Acts or the rest of the NT, interpretive of the gospels, being the "the source and summit of the Christian life," upon which all else revolves in which "the work of our redemption is accomplished."

    And instead, in the only place that the Lord's supper is manifestly mentioned in the life of the church then this "feast of charity" is a communal meal in which the church is the focus as the body of Christ that needed to be recognized, by showing the Lord's death in their sharing of the communal meal. (1Cor. 11:17ff)

    And if you try to argue otherwise, you will see even more how much titling NT pastors as "priests" is part of what is "properly termed theology."

    A vain attempt indeed.

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    07/26/2014 9:26:30 PM PDT · 229 of 678
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981; aMorePerfectUnion; Salvation
    An erroneous and inaccurate post.

    Paul was different, as he attests here. The apostles did not select him.

    Which still leaves you with zero apostles appointed by Peter, while Acts 1 was by lots, by the community, not a papal appointee of even the candidates.

    The title "Pope" only applied to the bishop of Rome.

    But was not used of a single head till much later, and never in Scripture.

    There was a Jewish cardinal of France who stood up to blessed John Paul II as well; Paul did not deny any apostolic doctrine, he addressed appearance and behavior.

    Peter (whom you must mean) did indeed deny any apostolic doctrine, as what you do is what constitutes belief, (Ja. 2:18) and what Peter was believing at that time was inconsistent with what he confessed and had done.

    Rome wants to be judged by what she says, but by their fruits ye shall know them.

    Finally, the churches of Revelation are addressed separately. If there was "one" church, there would be only one church addressed. Sorry but there is nothing in scripture that supports your view.

    Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints,..

    This in no way refutes what was said. Even the epistle you quote from was an individual church, and while it was part of the "household of faith," it remains that the churches of Rev. are not addressed as one church.

    The text you should have quoted is from Peter himself, "to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia." (1Pt. 1:1)

    But which shows Peter exercising a general pastoral role, which is not to be denied. But in which he is simply called "an apostle," "an elder," "a servant," and for whom the "more suere word of prophecy" is Scripture. And nothing here or anywhere supports Peter being the first of a line of exalted infallible heads. What you need for that is at least references in the church epistles to look to and submit particularly to Peter, or churches, as in Rv. 2,3, being chastised for not submitting and this being set forth as a solution to their problems. And formulaic infallibility promised for for Peter and successors . But that is nowhere provided, or necessary.

    Time for bed. If there was "one" church, there would be only one church addressed. Sorry but there is nothing in scripture that supports your view.

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    07/26/2014 8:55:28 PM PDT · 225 of 678
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981; ealgeone; aMorePerfectUnion; HarleyD
    Peter had the authority to appoint another apostle. He had the authority to appoint successors.

    That is simply an assertion based upon extrapolation, with zero evidence. Peter did not even appoint the first one, but being the (street level) leader among brethren that he was, he called for only one successor to be elected by a non-political OT method Rome has never used, to maintain the original 12 (cf. Rv. 2:14), and did not appoint any others, including Paul, who was one before he met Peter, nor perhaps Barnabas. (Acts 14:14)

    And the early church did not look to a supreme infallible head in Rome. That church is simply invisible in Scripture.

    Besides the wresting of Scripture used to support this, and the fact that the perpetuation of this purported supreme infallible office is not shown or promised in Scripture, there is the additional testimony of which i provide a part here.

    • The Catholic historian Paul Johnson (author of over 40 books and a conservative popular historian), writes in his 1976 work “History of Christianity:”

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

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

    Orthodoxy was not established [In Egypt] until the time of Bishop Demetrius, 189-231, who set up a number of other sees and manufactured a genealogical tree for his own bishopric of Alexandria, which traces the foundation through ten mythical predecessors back to Mark, and so to Peter and Jesus...

    Even in Antioch, where both Peter and Paul had been active, there seems to have been confusion until the end of the second century. Antioch completely lost their list...When Eusebius’s chief source for his Episcopal lists, Julius Africanus, tried to compile one for Antioch, he found only six names to cover the same period of time as twelve in Rome and ten in Alexandria. 
     
    • Roger Collins, writing of the Symmachan forgeries”, describes these “pro-Roman” “enhancements” to history:

    So too would the spurious historical texts written anonymously or ascribed to earlier authors that are known collectively as the Symmachan forgeries. This was the first occasion on which the Roman church had revisited its own history, in particular the third and fourth centuries, in search of precedents That these were largely invented does not negate the significance of the process...

    Some of the periods in question, such as the pontificates of Sylvester and Liberius (352-366), were already being seen more through the prism of legend than that of history, and in the Middle Ages texts were often forged because their authors were convinced of the truth of what they contained. Their faked documents provided tangible evidence of what was already believed true...

    It is no coincidence that the first systematic works of papal history appear at the very time the Roman church’s past was being reinvented for polemical purposes. (Collins, “Keepers of the Keys of Heaven,” pgs 80-82).

    Catholic theologian and  Jesuit priest Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops (New York: The Newman Press), examines possible mentions of “succession” from the first three centuries, and concludes from that study that “the episcopate [development of bishops] is a the fruit of a post New Testament development,” and cannot concur with those (interacting with Jones) who see little reason to doubt the notion that there was a single bishop in Rome through the middle of the second century:

    Hence I stand with the majority of scholars who agree that one does not find evidence in the New Testament to support the theory that the apostles or their coworkers left [just] one person as “bishop” in charge of each local church... 
     
    As the reader will recall, I have expressed agreement with the consensus of scholars that available evidence indicates that the church of Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century... 
     
    Hence I cannot agree with Jones's judgment that there seems little reason to doubt the presence of a bishop in Rome already in the first century. 
     
    “...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. 221,22,24

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

    “New Testament scholars agree..., The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative. 
     
    That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the authority of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably 'no.” 
     
    “....that does not mean that the figure and the commission of the Peter of the New Testament did not encompass the possibility, if it is projected into a Church enduring for centuries and concerned in some way to to secure its ties to its apostolic origins and to Jesus himself. 
     
    If we ask in addition whether the primitive church was aware, after Peter’s death, that his authority had passed to the next bishop of Rome, or in other words that the head of the community at Rome was now the successor of Peter, the Church’s rock and hence the subject of the promise in Matthew 16:18-19, the question, put in those terms, must certainly be given a negative answer.” (page 1-2) 
     
    [Schatz goes on to express that he does not doubt Peter was martyred in Rome, and that Christians in the 2nd century were convinced that Vatican Hill had something to do with Peter's grave.]

    "Nevertheless, concrete claims of a primacy over the whole church cannot be inferred from this conviction. If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no." (page 3, top) 
     
    [Lacking such support for the modern concept of the primacy of the church of Rome with its papal jurisdiction, Schatz concludes that, “Therefore we must set aside from the outset any question such as 'was there a primacy in our sense of the word at that time?” Schatz therefore goes on to seek support for that as a development.]

    “We probably cannot say for certain that there was a bishop of Rome [in 95 AD]. It is likely that the Roman church was governed by a group of presbyters from whom there very quickly emerged a presider or ‘first among equals’ whose name was remembered and who was subsequently described as ‘bishop’ after the mid-second century.” (Schatz 4).

    Schatiz additionally states,

    Cyprian regarded every bishop as the successor of Peter, holder of the keys to the kingdom of heaven and possessor of the power to bind and loose. For him, Peter embodied the original unity of the Church and the episcopal office, but in principle these were also present in every bishop. For Cyprian, responsibility for the whole Church and the solidarity of all bishops could also, if necessary, be turned against Rome."Papal Primacy [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996], p. 20)

    • Roman Catholic scholar William La Due (taught canon law at St. Francis Seminary and the Catholic University of America) on Cyprian:

    ....those who see in The Unity of the Catholic Church, in the light of his entire episcopal life, an articulation of the Roman primacy - as we have come to know it, or even as it has evolved especially from the latter fourth century on - are reading a meaning into Cyprian which is not there." — The Chair of Saint Peter: A History of the Papacy [Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1999], p. 39

    Roman Catholic [if liberal] Garry Wills, Professor of History Emeritus, Northwestern U., author of “Why i am a Catholic:”

    "The idea that Peter was given some special power that could be handed on to a successor runs into the problem that he had no successor. The idea that there is an "apostolic succession" to Peter's fictional episcopacy did not arise for several centuries, at which time Peter and others were retrospectively called bishops of Rome, to create an imagined succession. Even so, there has not been an unbroken chain of popes. Two and three claimants existed at times, and when there were three of them each excommunicating the other two, they all had to be dethroned and the Council of Carthage started the whole thing over again in 1417." — WHAT JESUS MEANT, p. 81

    • American Roman Catholic priest and Biblical scholar Raymond Brown (twice appointed to Pontifical Biblical Commission):

    “The claims of various sees to descend from particular members of the Twelve are highly dubious. It is interesting that the most serious of these is the claim of the bishops of Rome to descend from Peter, the one member of the Twelve who was almost a missionary apostle in the Pauline sense – a confirmation of our contention that whatever succession there was from apostleship to episcopate, it was primarily in reference to the Puauline tyupe of apostleship, not that of the Twelve.” (“Priest and Bishop, Biblical Reflections,” Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur, 1970, pg 72.) 
     
    Raymond Brown [being criticized here], in “Priest and Bishop: Biblical Reflections,” could not prove on historical grounds, he said, that Christ instituted the priesthood or episcopacy as such; that those who presided at the Eucharist were really priests; that a separate priesthood began with Christ; that the early Christians looked upon the Eucharist as a sacrifice; that presbyter-bishops are traceable in any way to the Apostles; that Peter in his lifetime would be looked upon as the Bishop of Rome; that bishops were successors of the Apostles, even though Vatican II made the same claim.. (from, "A Wayward Turn in Biblical Theory" by Msr. George A. Kelly can be read on the internet at http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/Jan-Feb00/Article5.html)

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    07/26/2014 8:30:26 PM PDT · 222 of 678
    daniel1212 to dsc; hinckley buzzard
    A doctor has superior knowledge of medicine. Why doesn’t a priest have superior knowledge of theology?

    If he did then he should know that in no place does the Holy Spirit cal NT pastors "priests," while the use of priest is defended by the use of an etymological fallacy, since "priest" etymologically is derived from presbyteros due to imposed functional equivalence. See here .

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    07/26/2014 8:28:19 PM PDT · 221 of 678
    daniel1212 to Romulus; G Larry; michaelwlf3; MamaB; wmfights
    G Larry has it pretty much right. On Planet Protestant, the clergy are the hired help, coming and going at the say of the congregation — which is not amused when the help gets up on its hind legs and behaves like it has authority. This is an ecclesiological problem common to all reformation sects. Pope Francis has spoken more than once about clericalization of the laity. Bottom line: on some level, you believe in the Sacrament of holy orders. Your congregation, like most protestants, does not. Think about that for a while. I’ll pray for y

    That is absurd, for in reality, is your church - if it even can be called that (yet even the church of the Laodiceans was) - that does not have Scriptural holy orders, as the NT nowhere teaches,

    1. Ordaining a class of clergy distinctively titled "priests." (See post 180 before you try to defend it)

    2. Ordaining pastors who uniquely offered sacrifices, in distinction from the "laity."

    2. Ordaining pastors whose primary function was dispensing physical food which gave spiritual and eternal life, interpretive of the last supper gospel accounts, versus preaching the Word of God.

    3. Ordaining clergy who are almost all required to make and keep a vow of celibacy, which is a gift, in contrast to being physical fathers.

    Meanwhile, rather than rejecting ordination, it is evangelical churches such as ordain men according to the Scriptural requirements of 1Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9 that are the ones which believe in Scriptural holy orders.

    And which government was part of historical Protestantism, as seen by the affirmation by Westminster:

    The Lord Jesus, as king and head of His Church, has therein appointed a government, in the hand of Church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate.

    Church censures are necessary,..For the better attaining of these ends, the officers of the Church are to proceed by admonition; suspension from the sacrament of the Lord's Supper for a season; and by excommunication from the Church; according to the nature of the crime, and demerit of the person.

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

    Your objection must be that these magisterial authorities are not held as assuredly infallible, as per Rome, and thus it is possible that the "laity" can be correct and that they are not.

    And which means that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)

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

    But which is not Scriptural but fallacious, as can be shown by God's grace if you care to argue it.

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    07/26/2014 8:25:55 PM PDT · 220 of 678
    daniel1212 to pgyanke; ealgeone
    Being subject to Christ means obeying Christ and those in whom He vested His authority. You can't have one without the other. If there is a Church (and He promised to build His Church [Matt 16:18]), then it must have authority in order to preach, teach and hold the faithful to the Way.

    Indeed, but it was not a church that 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.

    And that disallows evangelical churches from even being called churches and having the authority to preach.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    And a separate class of believers called “saints,

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

    And the apostles teaching Mary was born and kept sinless?

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

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

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

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

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

    This must suffice for now.

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    07/26/2014 8:16:28 PM PDT · 218 of 678
    daniel1212 to HangnJudge
    Pope Alexander VI in (1492-1503) The reports of this Pope include Murder, Orgies, Incest, and Adultery

    A lay minister indeed.

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    07/26/2014 8:12:38 PM PDT · 216 of 678
    daniel1212 to Romulus; G Larry; michaelwlf3; MamaB; wmfights
    G Larry has it pretty much right. On Planet Protestant, the clergy are the hired help, coming and going at the say of the congregation — which is not amused when the help gets up on its hind legs and behaves like it has authority. This is an ecclesiological problem common to all reformation sects. Pope Francis has spoken more than once about clericalization of the laity. Bottom line: on some level, you believe in the Sacrament of holy orders. Your congregation, like most protestants, does not. Think about that for a while. I’ll pray for y

    That is absurd, for in reality, is your church - if it even can be called that (yet even the church of the Laodiceans was) - that does not have Scriptural holy orders, as the NT nowhere teaches,

    1. Ordaining a class of clergy distinctively titled "priests." (See post 180 before you try to defend it)

    2. Ordaining pastors who uniquely offered sacrifices, in distinction from the "laity."

    2. Ordaining pastors whose primary function was dispensing physical food which gave spiritual and eternal life, interpretive of the last supper gospel accounts, versus preaching the Word of God.

    3. Ordaining clergy who are almost all required to make and keep a vow of celibacy, which is a gift, in contrast to being physical fathers.

    Meanwhile, rather than rejecting ordination, it is evangelical churches such as ordain men according to the Scriptural requirements of 1Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9 that are the ones which believe in Scriptural holy orders.

    And which government was part of historical Protestantism, as seen by the affirmation by Westminster:

    The Lord Jesus, as king and head of His Church, has therein appointed a government, in the hand of Church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate.

    Church censures are necessary,..For the better attaining of these ends, the officers of the Church are to proceed by admonition; suspension from the sacrament of the Lord's Supper for a season; and by excommunication from the Church; according to the nature of the crime, and demerit of the person.

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

    Your objection must be that these magisterial authorities are not held as assuredly infallible, as per Rome, and thus it is possible that the "laity" can be correct and that they are not.

    And which means that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)

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

    But which is not Scriptural but fallacious, as can be shown by God's grace if you care to argue it.

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    07/26/2014 5:20:39 PM PDT · 181 of 678
    daniel1212 to Salvation
    Don’t worry about these people on FR. They are mostly Catholic-haters. Anything, then, that looks remotely Catholic is something they will attack.

    Don’t worry about these people on FR. They are mostly Catholic-promoters. Anything, then, that looks remotely like it impugns Catholicism is something they will attack.

    That is the manifest reality.

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    07/26/2014 5:16:08 PM PDT · 180 of 678
    daniel1212 to michaelwlf3
    Among the things I often hear are that the laity are the real priests and that I am a Pharisee, that my vocation disqualifies me from offering an opinion on anything Christian because I am too narrow minded, and (my personal favorite) because I look too Catholic I must be a child molester.

    As one who has been able to frequent the RF, i do not remember seeing you and you often being called a Pharisee and narrow minded or the rest here. And you offer no evidence of "Protestant lay people" doing so elsewhere , while translating this into them hating clergy almost sounds like a psychological complex.

    About the only kind of place i would expect to see what you describe in Huffington Post or the like, and in which the type of "Protestant" requires a definition so wide that Unitarians are included.

    Meanwhile, the fact is that the laity are indeed the real priests along with the pastors, as in no place does the Holy Spirit cal NT pastors "priests." For the word which the Holy Spirit distinctively uses for priests*, is “hiereus” or “archiereus.” (Heb. 4:15; 10:11) and which is never used for NT pastors, nor does the words presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) which He does use for NT pastors mean "priest." Presbuteros or episkopos do not denote a unique sacrificial function, and hiereus (as archiereus=chief priests) is used in distinction to elders in such places as Lk. 22:66; Acts 22:5 .

    This use of priest is defended by the use of an etymological fallacy, since "priest" etymologically is derived from presbyteros due to imposed functional equivalence.

    The only way NT pastors are called "priests" is by way of inclusion in the general priesthood (hierateuma) of all believers as they all function as priests, offering both gifts and sacrifices response to being forgiven of sins, in thanksgiving and service to God and for others. (1Pt. 2:5,9; Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9)

    Also, i must ask when were you born again? What do you think of George Whitfield, and J. C. RYLE's "are you born again ?

    Does the above describe you and your congregation?

    And do you think they would remain in a church the accepts homosexuals?

    In addition, your complaint reminds me somewhat of another post recently in which someone complained about finding some bugs in her rice or something.

    Pastoral ministry is by no means easy if done with strong and sincere commitment, but i think you lack perspective, and perhaps more.

    While not an ordained pastor, while i look forward to serving the Lord in being an instrument of the grace of the living Lord who gave me new life, yet I have often complained about some the Lord has called me to minister to who try my patience, and who seem to often call when i am about to eat, or late at night, but whom i answer and try to at least listen and respond. .

    But I think one of the most dreadful words one can hear is, "Ye cannot serve the Lord," (Judges. 24:19) and to be put on the shelf, which can be in degrees. If you were in that position and then by God's grace you were restored, would you complain about a lack of appreciation or the burdens of ministry?

    Or the attitude of Paul to the most carnal and time consuming church he had, which ran after some self proclaimed super apostles, and had to be reproved and reminded of who instrumentally birthed and nursed them:

    "For what is it wherein ye were inferior to other churches, except it be that I myself was not burdensome to you? forgive me this wrong. Behold, the third time I am ready to come to you; and I will not be burdensome to you: for I seek not yours, but you: for the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children. And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved." (2 Corinthians 12:13-15)

    If the rich man in Hell could come back and serve the Lord, what would his attitude be?

    As i said, sometimes perspective is needed. For men as well, but also for all pastors and "laity."

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    07/26/2014 4:09:32 PM PDT · 154 of 678
    daniel1212 to Reo
    Interesting for sure. As a Catholic who used to be a Lutheran, the question of authority has historically been perhaps the most divisive, leading to continual fragmentation of Protestant denominations.

    As well as more unity in core Scriptural beliefs among those who hold most strongly to what RCs protest (that of Scripture as literally being the word of God being the supreme authority, versus sola ecclesia). those whom Rome counts and treats as members in life and in death, and by which Rome shows what she really believes. (Mt. 7:20; Ja, 2:18)

    Meanwhile, under the alternative model for authority, in which the church says is the supreme authority (as only what it says Scripture consists of and means is assuredly correct), then you have competing churches, each interpreting the evidence as supporting them, and taking the problem of variant personal interpretations to a corporate level.

    The question is, which is correct. RCs tend to argue that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God).

    And or to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.

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

    Does this fairly represent what you hold to or in what way does it differ?

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    07/26/2014 3:54:47 PM PDT · 148 of 678
    daniel1212 to Rome2000
    Most of the people that post on religious forums are nutcases. First thing they do is attack the Pope and Catholics Its stupid. The schism happened, its over, live and let live

    With a handle as Rome2000, i can expect that is what you see, but as one who has been actually active on the RF for long time, i can attest that the attacks on the Pope and Catholics is overall due to incessant advertising and promotion of that elitist church, which used FR as Catholic news and apologetics service.

    Even though it has results in the presumptions of Rome being exposed for what they are.

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    07/26/2014 3:48:10 PM PDT · 147 of 678
    daniel1212 to Bryanw92
    So, it isn’t that Protestants hate their clergy. Its just that the clergy has delegated so much of his office to the laity that we often wonder why he is there.

    There is truth in what you say, yet the church also tends to reflect the personality of its pastor, and thus few actually go to where the masses are and outreach to them - which esp. in the independent cynical and noncommittal society we are in is needed - but instead expect them to come to church.

    Its no happening folks. If you realized life in Christ, by being truly born again, then the directive is, "Go, stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life." (Acts 5:20)

    And the temple today is mainly the sports stadium, etc.

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    07/26/2014 2:13:57 PM PDT · 137 of 678
    daniel1212 to pgyanke; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...
    I have a couple of friends who went to Dallas Theological Seminar (DTS). Their views on most things (except the Eucharist and a hand-full of others) are very Catholic. However, they recoil in horror at being told that. They have all-but admitted that their basic theological position is that the Catholic Church has it wrong... let’s go find another answer.

    That may be your conclusion, versus what the weight of Scriptural substantiation supports, thus explaining their contention for basic truths we both profess, versus such a thing as praying to departed saints in Heaven.

    Yet RCs often essentially argue that if we agree with them on some things then we are inconsistent in disagreeing on others.

    They also tend to argue that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God).

    And or to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.

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

    Does this fairly represent what you hold to or in what way does it differ?

  • When Modesty Is Hot: How Much Skin Before It's Sin? (CBN News)

    07/26/2014 2:04:01 PM PDT · 32 of 32
    daniel1212 to Faith Presses On

    The maxim that a women should dress so that the first thing an average man looks at is your face, is still sound.

    Also, the kind of bait you see (largely) determines the kind of fish you catch.

    And when a man sees sexually beautiful female flesh, then don’t look twice. I try not to.

  • Are Evangelicals Bad for Marriage?

    07/26/2014 8:29:19 AM PDT · 57 of 58
    daniel1212 to SeekAndFind; MamaB; metmom
    Actually I don’t see it relating to denominations at all. I see it as more relating to the couple’s SERIOUSNESS about their faith. Those who attend church regularly have a significantly lower divorce rate than those who don’t REGARDLESS of denomination.

    That aspect is true, and today we might vote for Pharisees due to moral values, and if divorce rate was the criteria for the right religion, then the the faith of Asian culture would seem to win.

    "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:" (Romans 2:14)

    "And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?" (Romans 2:27)

    While having many conservative values alone is not what defines true faith, yet having overall contrary values constitutes wrong faith. One can be a conservative without being a Christian, but one cannot be a Christian and not be a conservative in Scriptural conformity in faith and morals.

    And while SS is attacked by RCs are promoting immorality, yet the group that is the most commitment to Scripture as literally being the Word of God are the most conservative btwn the two.

    Evangelical Protestants are the most politically conservative Christian tradition. Within each tradition, those with literal views of the Bible are more politically conservative than is their tradition overall. Catholics that are Biblical literalists (11.8%) hold more conservative political views than the Catholic population in general does. The Biblical literalist Catholic is as politically conservative as the Biblical literalist who is Evangelical (47.8%) or Mainline Protestant. (11.2%) American Piety in the 21st Century, Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/33304.pdf

  • Atheists End Teacher-Led Prayer in Indiana School District

    07/26/2014 5:29:28 AM PDT · 15 of 29
    daniel1212 to Faith Presses On; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; ...

    Ignore them and start each day quoting historical prayers by the Founders and those by notable early chaplains.

    If this is deemed as state sanctioned religion or one over another, then they must provide such by Muslims or atheists.

    This would require a moment of silence.

  • Are Evangelicals Bad for Marriage?

    07/26/2014 5:02:01 AM PDT · 53 of 58
    daniel1212 to stars & stripes forever
    Thank you for your useful information.

    And thank God we have and can post it. So far.

  • Are Evangelicals Bad for Marriage?

    07/26/2014 5:00:16 AM PDT · 52 of 58
    daniel1212 to Salvation; ealgeone
    This is akin to asking are catholics bad for conservatism in the US? Considering 56% voted for Obama in 2008; 50% in 2012; the northeast is majority catholic and they send liberal dimocrats to the sinate and house.

    These numbers are false. 8 out of 10 white Protestants voted for Romney...95% of black Protestants voted for Obama...

    Not counting blacks would eliminate 6% of evangelicals (15% of blacks), and 5% of Catholics.

    More

    "let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath:" (James 1:19)

  • Are Evangelicals Bad for Marriage?

    07/26/2014 4:52:22 AM PDT · 51 of 58
    daniel1212 to avenir
    The feud is doctrinal, wherefore it has persisted. Internet forums tend to be nasty and brutal. FR is heavy on the Catholic side (from what I can tell). I like hearing the issues aired out. One can learn to filter out the huffing and puffing.

    Indeed it is heavy on the Catholic side, due to certain RCs misusing FR as a Catholic news and apologetics site.

  • Are Evangelicals Bad for Marriage?

    07/26/2014 4:50:51 AM PDT · 49 of 58
    daniel1212 to SECURE AMERICA
    Welfare has virtually destroyed the black inner city family.

    Related:

    Black women are more likely to have a cohabitation end, and less likely to marry by age 30, likely to have a shorter marriage if they do marry for both first and second marriage, less likely to formally divorce if they marry then separate, less likely to cohabitate after a divorce, less likely to remarry, and less likely to have a successful second marriage. - http://www.psychpage.com/family/mod_couples_thx/cdc.html

    Also,

    Median Household Income by State[45]

    Rank State 2009 2008 2007 2004–2006 Cost of Living Index[46] 2009 Data adjusted for COL base period
    5 Hawaii $64,098 $67,214 $63,746 $60,681 165.56 $38,716
    District of Columbia $59,290 $57,936 $54,317 $47,221 (2005)[47] 139.92 $42,374
    4 Alaska $66,953 $68,460 $64,333 $57,639 132.64 $50,477
    9 California $58,931 $61,021 $59,948 $53,770 132.56 $44,456
    3 Connecticut $67,034 $68,595 $65,967 $59,972 130.22 $51,477
    2 New Jersey $68,342 $70,378 $67,035 $64,169 128.47 $53,197
    15 New York $54,659 $56,033 $53,514 $48,201 128.29 $42,606
    1 Maryland $69,272 $70,545 $68,080 $62,372 124.81 $55,502
    16 Rhode Island $54,119 $55,701 $53,568 $52,003 123.25 $43,910
    20 Vermont $51,618 $52,104 $49,907 $51,622 120.38 $42,879
    6 Massachusetts $64,081 $65,401 $62,365 $56,236 117.8 $54,398
    7 New Hampshire $60,567 $63,731 $62,369 $60,489 116.68 $51,909
    31 Maine $45,734 $46,581 $45,888 $45,040 116.42 $39,284
    24 Oregon $48,457 $50,169 $48,730 $45,485 110.47 $43,864
    11 Washington $56,548 $58,078 $55,591 $53,439 103.98 $54,384
    23 Arizona $48,745 $50,958 $49,889 $46,729 103.73 $46,992
    10 Delaware $56,860 $57,989 $54,610 $52,214 102.4 $55,527
    12 Minnesota $55,616 $57,288 $55,082 $57,363 102.23 $54,403
    13 Colorado $55,430 $56,993 $55,212 $54,039 102.23 $54,221
    18 Nevada $53,341 $56,361 $55,062 $50,819 101.39 $52,610
    22 Pennsylvania $49,520 $50,713 $48,576 $47,791 100.67 $49,190
    43 Montana $42,322 $43,654 $43,531 $38,629 100 $42,322
    41 New Mexico $43,028 $43,508 $41,452 $40,827 98.88 $43,515
    39 South Carolina $44,625 $43,329 $40,822 98.71 $42,997
    19 Wyoming $52,664 $53,207 $51,731 $47,227 98.66 $53,379
    36 South Dakota $45,043 $46,032 $43,424 $44,624 98.53 $45,715
    38 Florida $44,736 $47,778 $47,804 $44,448 98.39 $45,468
    8 Virginia $59,330 $61,233 $59,562 $55,108 97.66 $60,752
    21 Wisconsin $49,993 $52,094 $50,578 $48,874 96.45 $51,833
    40 North Carolina $43,674 $46,549 $44,670 $42,061 96.21 $45,394
    42 Louisiana $42,492 $43,733 $40,926 $37,943 96.15 $44,193
    17 Illinois $53,966 $56,235 $54,124 $49,280 96.08 $56,168
    27 North Dakota $47,827 $45,685 $43,753 $43,753 95.91 $49,867
    34 Michigan $45,255 $48,591 $47,950 $47,064 95.25 $47,512
    14 Utah $55,117 $56,633 $55,109 $55,179 95.15 $57,926
    49 West Virginia $37,435 $37,989 $37,060 $37,227 94.4 $39,656
    32 Indiana $45,424 $47,966 $47,448 $44,806 94.19 $48,226
    26 Iowa $48,044 $48,980 $47,292 $47,489 93.98 $51,122
    33 Ohio $45,395 $47,988 $46,597 $45,837 93.85 $48,370
    37 Idaho $44,926 $47,576 $46,253 $46,395 93.04 $48,287
    46 Alabama $40,489 $42,666 $40,554 $38,473 92.74 $43,659
    50 Mississippi $36,646 $37,790 $36,338 $35,261 92.26 $39,720
    29 Georgia $47,590 $50,861 $49,136 $46,841 92.21 $51,610
    35 Missouri $45,229 $46,867 $45,114 $44,651 91.66 $49,344
    28 Kansas $47,817 $50,177 $47,451 $44,264 91.31 $52,368
    30 Nebraska $47,357 $49,693 $47,085 $48,126 91.09 $51,989
    25 Texas $48,259 $50,043 $47,548 $43,425 91.04 $53,009
    48 Arkansas $40,489 $41,393 $42,229 $41,679 90.61 $41,743
    45 Oklahoma $41,664 $42,822 $41,567 $40,001 90.09 $46,247
    44 Tennessee $41,725 $43,614 $42,367 $40,676 89.49 $46,625
    47 Kentucky $40,072 $41,538 $40,267 $38,466 89.21 $44,919
    United States $50,221 $52,029 $50,740 $46,242 (2005)[47] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Income_by_state
  • Are Evangelicals Bad for Marriage?

    07/26/2014 4:41:38 AM PDT · 48 of 58
    daniel1212 to metmom
    This is a hit piece against Evangelicals if ever I saw one.

    It is as representing conservatives vs, liberals.

  • Are Evangelicals Bad for Marriage?

    07/26/2014 4:39:51 AM PDT · 47 of 58
    daniel1212 to SeekAndFind
    So, which Christian denomination in America have proven good for marriage?

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

  • Are Evangelicals Bad for Marriage?

    07/26/2014 4:38:07 AM PDT · 46 of 58
    daniel1212 to SeekAndFind; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; ...
    The article never mentions any feud at all. If a feud starts, it will be because someone in this thread starts posting something touting his denomination and disparaging the other.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Meanwhile, as the article points out,

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

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

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

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

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

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

    *

    Divorce rate by state[edit]

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

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

    07/26/2014 3:39:42 AM PDT · 144 of 169
    daniel1212 to NKP_Vet
    “He founded a Church, gave it authority in the areas of faith and morals, and guards it from teaching error (Mt 18:17-18).

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

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

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

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

    Error #10. That is the fundamental error, for besides the fact shown before that despite the wishful thinking of RCs, Mt 18:17-18 nor any other texts do not teach an an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)

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

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

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

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

    07/25/2014 7:34:05 PM PDT · 19 of 22
    daniel1212 to Faith Presses On
    Oops! That was supposed to go to the other article you posted: We Will Not Tolerate Your Religion!’ School Fires Scientist for Questioning Evolution

    christiannews.net ... good source

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

    07/25/2014 7:31:19 PM PDT · 18 of 22
    daniel1212 to Faith Presses On
  • Anti-gay laws can fuel spread of HIV, research finds

    07/25/2014 7:21:34 PM PDT · 20 of 23
    daniel1212 to Mastador1

    It means antigay laws which do not hinder treatment for the consequences of engaging in a practice that is responsible for
    79% of 38,825 estimated HIV diagnoses among all males aged 13 years and older, and 78% of infections among all newly infected men. .- www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/index.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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