Posts by daniel1212

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Can an atheist lead a Protestant church? A battle over religion in Canada.

    09/30/2016 1:47:22 PM PDT · 97 of 109
    daniel1212 to Campion; Jim Noble
    Funny how you can turn a story about an atheist leading a Protestant congregation (no Catholics in sight)

    Then either Jim Noble is not a Catholic, or you evidently failed to consider the disparaging remark about Protestants is a typical Cath one.

    The problem you need to face is that this isn't the first time Protestantism has gone down this trajectory. The Unitarians were originally Massachusetts Puritan Calvinists. Look it up. What happened? Similarly, Calvinism in its original European homes (Scotland and the Netherlands) is moribund. What happened?

    The problem you need to face is that by your logic Catholicism is to be blamed, for Protestants were originally Catholic! Obviously, the issue is whether the change occurred because of faithfulness to basic distinctive defining aspects of the original or dissent from them. You cannot make Unitarianism or other liberals or moribund faith a product of faithfully following SS and its consequential and preaching of the gospel and accompanying doctrine of sola fide, defined as a faith that effects holiness and obedience, but you can blame conservative evangelicalism on it, and its and contention of basic Truths we both affirm.

    And as for faith being moribund, wanna look at Italy ?

  • Can an atheist lead a Protestant church? A battle over religion in Canada.

    09/30/2016 5:13:22 AM PDT · 37 of 109
    daniel1212 to Varda
    I once argued with a Euro about calling non-belivers “Christians”. He claimed I was using a “no true Scotsman” arguement.

    Which is the fallacy of the no true Scotsman argument, for "this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule." (WP) Rather than excluding someone from being a Christian based on an arbitrary standard, excluding non-believers or the impenitent willful immoral as being “Christians” is based on the standard of the original descriptive source of that title.

    I said, “OK, if Christians can be non-belivers, then vegetarians can be meat eaters.” That hits at a serious belief for them. I’ll bet it would for this woman too.

    Fitting. Or calling atheists believers in Deity.

  • Can an atheist lead a Protestant church? A battle over religion in Canada.

    09/30/2016 4:59:31 AM PDT · 32 of 109
    daniel1212 to CrazyIvan
    Considering the current pope this is not such an absurd question.

    Some RCs ask, "Is the Pope Catholic? while making atheists Protestant.

  • Can an atheist lead a Protestant church? A battle over religion in Canada.

    09/30/2016 4:55:18 AM PDT · 29 of 109
    daniel1212 to C19fan
    For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. (Acts 20:29-30)
  • Can an atheist lead a Protestant church? A battle over religion in Canada.

    09/30/2016 4:55:08 AM PDT · 28 of 109
    daniel1212 to circlecity
    And what in the world is the basis for calling it a “protestant congregation”.

    See above. For liberals, the media and Catholics it can mean most anything.

  • Can an atheist lead a Protestant church? A battle over religion in Canada.

    09/30/2016 4:53:55 AM PDT · 27 of 109
    daniel1212 to Jim Noble; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; boatbums; ...
    Protestant reasoning leads (or, can lead) to some unusual places.

    Nonsense: your "reasoning" leads (or, can lead) to some unusual places as it means that one can define "Protestant" so widely that you could fly a Unitarian Scientology Swedenborgian Mormon 747 thru it, and here would be more extreme than defining Santeria as Catholic.

    Scripture refers to "Christians" as believers as described in Acts (11:26), which, by the way, hardly describes RCs, but means that definitions need to correspond to at least the basic distinctive beliefs. Chief among original Protestants was that of a exalted view of Scripture as the wholly inspired word of God, and of salvific faith as that which effected fruits of obedience and holiness, which excludes both liberals and atheists.

    And those who most strongly esteem Scripture as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God are the most unified in core beliefs among religious groups.

    You may want to isolate SS from the basic Scriptural interpretive hermeneutic that accompanied it, but which is also historically invalid.

  • Here's All We Know (So Far) About America's Newest Stealth Bomber

    09/28/2016 12:38:43 AM PDT · 22 of 24
    daniel1212 to Mariner
    It's also subsonic.

    Where would this weapon be if it had seen large production?

    Sad that such are necessary, but it is a fallen world.

    Maximum speed: Mach 3.1 (2,056 mph, 3,309 km/h) Cruise speed: Mach 3.0 (2,000 mph, 3,200 km/h) Range: 3,725 nmi (4,288 mi, 6,900 km) on combat mission

  • White working-class evangelicals: Christian values are under attack

    09/27/2016 10:29:19 PM PDT · 24 of 25
    daniel1212 to redleghunter
    The stats you posted are evident over at the other Christian site we post at. Not so much here as liberals are filtered out quite quickly due to their own devices.

    You mean the other "Christian" site we post at.

  • US to deploy new nukes in Europe - Moscow expresses 'concern'

  • White working-class evangelicals: Christian values are under attack

    09/25/2016 8:34:16 PM PDT · 20 of 25
    daniel1212 to Theodore R.
    The fact that 21 percent of evangelicals voted for Obama makes me question either the statistic, the level of knowledge of the evangelical, or whether the person even understands “evangelism”.

    They voted for Romney more heavily than any other surveyed group, even Mormons, but the term evangelical is usually applied to any who say they are born again.

  • Is Mary not a Virgin? The German Bishops’ New Bible Translation Leaves it... Unclear

    09/25/2016 8:31:35 PM PDT · 291 of 365
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    You lack authority, succession, and provenance.

    A mere soliloquy. Again.

    Rome is substantially the invisible church in the NT

  • Is Mary not a Virgin? The German Bishops’ New Bible Translation Leaves it... Unclear

    09/25/2016 8:29:02 PM PDT · 289 of 365
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    There is no name like that in the scriptures. Do you invoke that as a proper name in your daily (or nightly) prayers ?

    That was simply not what i did, but merely referred to the the Peter of Scripture. Making it into a proper name was your doing, thereby reproving yourself.

  • Is Mary not a Virgin? The German Bishops’ New Bible Translation Leaves it... Unclear

    09/25/2016 8:28:54 PM PDT · 288 of 365
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    If I consider the equivalent of Bible School professors in the Gospel accounts trying to relate to the Messiah and His Apostles, P the Apostle Peter I am astounded at how some of them completely missed what the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was doing in the life of the Apostle Peter, as well as his brother Apostles. No, it would not matter had they studied Hebrew and Greek even more; they would still stumble over it.

    Another mere assertion, as if the NT church in Scripture manifested a class of almost exclusively celibate men distinctively titled "priests" since their primary active function was that of offering up the "real" body and blood of Christ as a sacrifice for sins, and dispensing it to the people in order to obtain spiritual life. All of which is never seen in the life of the NT church, Acts onward, which is interpretive of the gospels.

    The question is already answered in the Scriptures, and in history, for those who have faith to receive it.

    Yes, it takes faith in Rome since it is absent within the Scriptures where it ought to be seen.

  • Is Mary not a Virgin? The German Bishops’ New Bible Translation Leaves it... Unclear

    09/25/2016 8:28:46 PM PDT · 287 of 365
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    Do you claim to be a Jew ?

    Spiritually indeed, for all believers are Semites, without militating against the physically Jewish as being esp. beloved for their father's sake, with a promised collective repentance for the remnant that will be left.

  • Is Mary not a Virgin? The German Bishops’ New Bible Translation Leaves it... Unclear

    09/25/2016 8:28:18 PM PDT · 286 of 365
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    Which re-formed religious movement (assumed to have started in the 16th Century) does your faith community come from ? Where is it in history ?

    It comes called the NT church, which began with an itinerant Preacher and preachers who were rejected by the historical magisterial stewards of Scripture, but who established their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, versus the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which Rome presumes. And its history is that of spiritual descendants of Abraham in the general body of Christ for 2000 years, even some Caths, and before that even a great cloud of witnesses of like basic faith,

    Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham... So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. (Galatians 3:7,9)

  • White working-class evangelicals: Christian values are under attack

    09/25/2016 6:56:17 PM PDT · 17 of 25
    daniel1212 to laplata
    I should have said “We’ll see if Evangelicals have a better turnout for Trump than they did for Romney in 2012”.

    But according to a national post-election survey commissioned by the Faith and Freedom Coalition, the evangelical turnout was up in 2012 for Mitt Romney compared to the 2008 numbers for John McCain. The evangelical vote increased in 2012 to a record 27% of the electorate and that white evangelicals voted roughly 78% for Mitt Romney to 21% for Barack Obama. This was the highest share of the vote in modern political history. http://www.lifenews.com/2012/11/07/poll-evangelical-turnout-increased-in-2012-over-2008/

    What you could say is that we’ll see if any other groups have a better turnout than Evangelicals and vote as heavily conservative.

  • Is Mary not a Virgin? The German Bishops’ New Bible Translation Leaves it... Unclear

    09/25/2016 6:55:27 PM PDT · 279 of 365
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    There is no one named "Peter of Scripture;

    Like there is no one named the God of the Bible. Forsake your sophistry.

    here is someone called Simon Peter, or Cephas, the Apostle to whom the Messiah said these mighty words

    The meaning of which is the issue, for which we look in the rest of Scripture, and thus once again your conclusion is actually begging the question on your part and is hardly a response to what refuted it.

    I believe Him.

    Well then, that settles the issue as well as believing in Bigfoot.

    Does your faith community have succession and provenance ?

    In evangelical faith, under the new covenant God can raise up children from stones, (Mt. 9:6) who like Peter effectually profess faith in the risen Son of God, and a true Jew is not one whose DNA goes back to Abraham, but one who has the faith of such. (Rm. 2:28) That is what is needed for succession and provenance of the church, as that is how it began and grew, "not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." (2 Corinthians 4:2)

    And under which basis for ecclesiastical validity, erroneous competing claims must be overcome by the weight of Scriptural substantiation, not the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults).

    Succession and provenance are not my undoing; I am not in rebellion or protesting. I am in faith believing the words of the LORD Jesus Christ, that He built His church on the Apostle Peter, and there has been one holy catholic apostolic church ever since, to this day

    Yes, it is indeed your undoing, since you engaging in an polemical argument by interpretive assertion, the conclusion of which does not flow from the premise.

  • White working-class evangelicals: Christian values are under attack

    09/25/2016 4:26:07 PM PDT · 10 of 25
    daniel1212 to laplata
    We’ll see if the Evangelicals have a better turnout for Trump.

    A better turnout and greater conservative percentage than for what group?

  • White working-class evangelicals: Christian values are under attack

    09/25/2016 4:24:42 PM PDT · 9 of 25
    daniel1212 to randita
    Maybe they started to wake up when God was booed at the 2012 Rat party convention.

    No, if anything they (we) were ahead of any enlightenment.

    • Based upon exit polling, 74 percent of Evangelicals voted for McCain in 2008, with 25 percent for Obama. (Another measure which put the percentage of US evangelicals at 23 percent, with 73 percent voting for McCain, 26 percent for Obama.) http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=367

    • Catholics overall supported Obama over McCain by a nine-point margin (54% vs. 45%) ^

    • Exit polls in 2008 reported that weekly churchgoing Catholics voted for John McCain over Barack Obama, by just 50 percent to 49 percent. Weekly Protestant church attendees voted for McCain over Barack Obama 66 to 32 percent. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/churchgoing_catholics_chose_mccain_over_obama/

    • In the 2012 election (preliminary exit-poll analysis), white Evangelicals (23% of the electorate) voted 79%/20% Romney/Obama; Protestants overall (53% of the electorate) voted 57%/42%; black Protestants (9% of the electorate) and other Christian voted 5%/95%; Catholics overall (25% of the electorate) voted 48%/50%; white Catholics (18% of the electorate) voted 59%/40%; and Hispanic Catholics (5% of the electorate) voted 21%/75% Romney/Obama http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/How-the-Faithful-Voted-2012-Preliminary-Exit-Poll-Analysis.aspx

    • Weekly Church attendees (28% of the electorate) voted 57%/39% Romney/Obama; more than weekly (14% of the electorate) voted 63%/36% and “never” attendees (17% of the electorate) were at 34%/62% Romney/Obama. ^

    • According to Barna, in 2012 45% of the people who voted in November indicated that their faith affected how they voted. 72% of Evangelicals, 34% non-evangelical born again voters, and 19% of Catholics, 17% of non-Christian faith said their faith affected their presidential preference a lot. 9% of voters overall and 10% of evangelicals felt strongly that Mr. Romney's Mormon connection diminished their likelihood of supporting him. http://www.barna.org/culture-articles/595-the-role-of-faith-in-the-2012-election

    • Evangelicals supported Mr. Romney 81% to 17% over Mr. Obama (a smaller percentage for the Republican candidate than in previous years). Born again Christians who are not evangelicals supported Romney 56% to 43% over the incumbent. Catholics supported Mr. Obama by 57% to 42% — the largest margin since Bill Clinton topped Bob Dole by 21 points in 1996. Protestant overall voted 57% to 42% in favor of Mr. Romney. ^

    • Notional Christians (the largest segment of voters and who consider themselves to be Christian but are not evangelical or born again) voted 57% to 41% in favor of Mr. Obama. 68% of Skeptics and 69% of non-Christian faiths (14% of total voters) also voted for the Democratic candidate. ^

    • 1% of Evangelicals, 10% of non-evangelical born again voters, 14% of Notional Christians and 33% of Skeptics said they were politically liberal. ^

    • 48% of voters overall, 54% of Notional Christians, 53% of Catholics, and just 14% of Evangelicals agreed that the United States will be better off four years from now than it is today. 64% of voters overall said they would prefer that the presidential campaign be decided by the popular vote rather than Electoral votes. ^

  • White working-class evangelicals: Christian values are under attack

    09/25/2016 3:23:03 PM PDT · 3 of 25
    daniel1212 to daniel1212; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; boatbums; ...

    ping and pray

  • White working-class evangelicals: Christian values are under attack

    09/25/2016 3:14:38 PM PDT · 1 of 25
    daniel1212
    Excerpts. Aside from these, CNN seems to have looked for some comments that are not reflective of the majority but its own bias.
  • Is Mary not a Virgin? The German Bishops’ New Bible Translation Leaves it... Unclear

    09/25/2016 12:57:42 PM PDT · 261 of 365
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981
    At least you admitted that the Messiah gave someone, the Apostle Peter directly, the power to bind and loose on earth.

    Indeed, but which simply does not support the church looking to the Peter of Scripture as the first of a line of infallible popes reigning supreme in Rome, which egregious ecclesiastical extrapolation is one giant leap of eisegesis.

    Not only that, you admitted the whole (one holy catholic apostolic church) assembly of Apostles, including those eligible to be Apostles and those in communion with them. was given this authority. You also linked it to the Jewish origins of binding and loosing. You have admitted much here. Now, any gainsaying aside, it is simply a matter of succession and provenance.

    "Not only that" conclusion is a problem on multiple levels, for the Jewish origins of binding and loosing shows that presuming ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome is unscriptural and presumptuous, as is the premise that one must formally be in communion with the apostles to have this spiritual power, and as is that Rome's so-called apostolic successors do not fail of the qualifications and credentials of manifest Biblical apostles, which they do, (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Co. 6:4-10) and as is that apostolic successors are not simply presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) - not distinctively titled (usually celibate) priests.

    Thus the matter of succession and provenance is your undoing, gainsaying aside.

  • Is Mary not a Virgin? The German Bishops’ New Bible Translation Leaves it... Unclear

    09/25/2016 5:05:28 AM PDT · 251 of 365
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; boatbums; ...
    The Messiah, who is The Rock in the scriptures, named him Kephas. It seems to me that was divine will not subject to our approval or interpretation. He gave Kephas the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the authority to bind and loose on earth. It is truth. I have posted many times the scripture that shows the one holy catholic apostolic church is built on the foundation of Kephas, the other apostles, and the prophets with Messiah Himself being the chief cornerstone. It is all true.

    But the Peter of Scripture was a believer in the Lord who established His claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did His apostles, and thus we need to examine what being given the keys to the kingdom meant, and who "upon this Rock" applies to, the in the light of the rest of the NT.

    the keys of the kingdom of heaven

    In which we see that it is by believing the gospel that one enters 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) and which keys Peter, as the street-level leader among the brethren (over whom he never manifestly exercised authority) first used on behalf of both Jews and Gentiles. (Acts 2;10) But which was not exclusive to Peter, as the whole scattered church "went preaching the word," while the apostles remained in Jerusalem. (Acts 8:4,14) And the Lord also sanctioned (after reproving the apostles for reasoning who would be greatest among themselves) such as manifestly did ministry in His name but who operated independent of the apostles. (Lk. 9:49)

    authority to bind and loose on earth.

    But which also was not exclusive to Peter, but is applied to the whole church, (Mt. 18:15-20) and understood such as exercised in 1Co. 5 in which Paul (who received his gospel and commission directly from the Lord, later affirmed by men, and power thru the certain devout disciple Ananias), "In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ," (1 Corinthians 5:4) delivers an incestuous man (whom the church failed to discipline) over to the devil for chastisement. (cf. 1Tim. 1:10) And says that if they forgive any thing, he forgives them also in the person of Christ. (2Co. 5:10)

    Nor is thsi power of binding and loosing new, but flows from the OT magisterium, dissent from whose binding or loosing judicial judgments was a capital offense. (Dt. 17:8-13) But

    And besides formal judicial magisterial judgments together with the church, spiritual power of binding and loosing is provided for all believers of holy fervent faith like that of Elijah, who bound the heavens from raining for 3.5 years and then loosed them to do so later. "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." (James 5:16). Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:19-20) )

    the one holy catholic apostolic church is built on the foundation of Kephas,

    Which is first a linquistical argument, which (since the Lord did not say "upon this Kephas I will build my church") presumes the Lord was speaking Aramaic, but which, unlike certain other cases, the Spirit chose not to record it as but choose Greek, and which makes a distinction btwn petros and petra, resulting in an endless and ongoing linquistical debate.

    However, the answer is to be found in what the rest of the NT reveals as concerns Peter being the stone/rock upon with the church is built or Christ, and after that of Peter particularly being the foundation of the church.

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

    Which leaves RCs relying on Ephesians 2:20: "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone." But Peter is not mentioned here, nor is submission to, or remembrance of Peter as the supreme head of the church enjoined or commended.in any of the instruction to the churches (Romans to Revelation), and is rarely even mentioned (contrary to Rome), not even in Romans among the over 30 persons mentioned. Nor it is exampled in the life of the NT church, as it is James who delivers the Scripturally substantiated doctrinal and disciplinary final judgment in Acts 15, confirmatory of what Peter exhorted and testified to, which Paul and Barnabas taught and also testified to.

    Thus the issue is not that Peter was the leader among the 11, but that the manner of leadership is not that of Rome, which even Catholic (among others) scholars testify against, even before Constantine.

    And critically, the NT church never manifestly saw apostolic successors being voted for after Matthias was chosen for Judas (even though James was martyred: Acts 12:1,2), which was in order to maintain the foundational number of apostles (cf. Rv. 21:14) and which was by the non-political Scriptural means of casting lots. (cf. Prov. 16:33)

  • Is Mary not a Virgin? The German Bishops’ New Bible Translation Leaves it... Unclear

    09/25/2016 3:27:49 AM PDT · 248 of 365
    daniel1212 to af_vet_1981; ealgeone
    Christianity is catholic. You would not have a Bible except for the one holy catholic apostolic church.

    Meaning therefore she is the infallible authority on it, to whom all are to submit, and upon which basis you have your assurance of Truth, versus ascertaining the veracity of Truth claims based upon the evidence?

  • A whiff of schism: when different Catholics hold radically different beliefs

    09/24/2016 9:15:30 PM PDT · 13 of 44
    daniel1212 to miss marmelstein
    Well, there is only one Catechism. Many Catholics are not educated to know this.

    What one does and effects is how true belief is determined Scripturally. Many Catholics are not educated to know this. Nor is the Catechism infallible, and not subject to interpretation to some degree, or all the same as previous Catechisms.

  • A whiff of schism: when different Catholics hold radically different beliefs

    09/24/2016 9:12:56 PM PDT · 12 of 44
    daniel1212 to ebb tide
    “Wherever applause breaks out in the liturgy because of some human achievement, it is a sure sign that the essence of the liturgy has totally disappeared,” wrote then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in The Spirit of the Liturgy.

    But cordially responding to an impenitent proud proabortion prosodmite pol without rebuke, and allow such to have ecclesiastical funerals which praise them, is not sanctioning unholy applause?

  • A whiff of schism: when different Catholics hold radically different beliefs

    09/24/2016 9:12:49 PM PDT · 11 of 44
    daniel1212 to Jim Noble; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; boatbums; ...
    I've had plenty of experience with Evangelical churches and Catholic churches, and it is certainly true that there is MUCH more diversity of belief among Catholics than there is among Protestants. The stream of dissent in American Catholic parishes is deep and wide, and it is often led by priests or, more commonly, religious sisters. I once worshipped for five years or so at a suburban Boston parish with about 1200 people at Mass on Sunday. If they had been Evangelicals, there would have been so much shaking of dust off of sandals that they would have formed 50 new and different churches by the time I left. It cracks me up every time a Catholic poster here declares that all Catholics, or even most Catholics, believe the same thing. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Indeed, Profess does not even necessarily equate to believe, while what they profess is variegated beliefs. Then trad. RCs condemn divisions among evangelicals while they themselves must engage in the same.

  • Former Southern Baptist to Become Next Head of Louisiana [Catholic] Diocese

    09/23/2016 10:38:38 AM PDT · 106 of 122
    daniel1212 to Salvation; MHGinTN; metmom
    Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it. (Isaiah 5:14)

    Sadly

  • Former Southern Baptist to Become Next Head of Louisiana [Catholic] Diocese

    09/22/2016 3:19:27 AM PDT · 62 of 122
    daniel1212 to Salvation
    Because it is his position that Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals, Jews, etc, are not the enemy, not because RCs are a special protected class that are free to provoke and goad and demand censure of Prots, and which would make the wise rules of the RF void. And a statement such as there is only one true Judeo-Christian God as taught to us by KJV with no additional editing or books of fiction certainly would be considered anti-Catholic by RC promoters.
  • Former Southern Baptist to Become Next Head of Louisiana [Catholic] Diocese

    09/22/2016 3:16:57 AM PDT · 61 of 122
    daniel1212 to ealgeone; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; boatbums; ...
    You know...we wonder if catholics post these articles to be informative or provocative? There are lots of articles that could be posted that depict the roman catholic church in a much worse light than it currently is viewed. Yet these are not posted to avoid the flame wars.

    Well, it does seem that certain RCs are compelled to promote their church due to it being their object of primary earthly devotion and security. That in itself is an argument against them, as is invoking apostate former S. Baptist (and likely social liberal*). Meanwhile, the church did not overall begin with Jewish or pagan leadership converting, but with the common people:

    Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. (John 7:45-49)

    David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly. (Mark 12:37)

    And it is these who leave Rome to find better pasture in evangelical churches, far more than those who cross the Tiber the opposite direction.

    Those who have left Catholicism outnumber those who have joined the Catholic Church by nearly a four-to-one margin. 10.1% have left the Catholic Church after having been raised Catholic, while only 2.6% of adults have become Catholic after having been raised in a different faith.

    80% of adults who were raised Protestant are still Protestant, but (analysis shows) 25% no longer self-identify with the Protestant denomination in which they were raised.

    Over 75% of those who left Catholicism attended Mass at least once a week as children, versus 86% having done so who remain Catholics today.^

    71% of converts from Catholicism to Protestant faith said that their spiritual needs were not being met in Catholicism, with 78% of Evangelical Protestants in particular concurring, versus 43% of those now unaffiliated.

    Only 23% (20% now evangelical) of all Protestants converts from Catholicism said they were unhappy about Catholicism's teachings on abortion/homosexuality (versus 46% of those now unaffiliated); 23% also expressed disagreement with teaching on divorce/remarriage; 16% (12% now evangelical) were dissatisfied with teachings on birth control, 70% said they found a religion the liked more in Protestantism.

    55% of evangelical converts from Catholicism cited dissatisfaction with Catholic teachings about the Bible was a reason for leaving Catholicism, with 46% saying the Catholic Church did not view the Bible literally enough. - Pew forum, Faith in Flux (April 27, 2009) http://pewforum.org/uploadedfiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/fullreport.pdf

    *David P. Talley recommends the trilogy of books by Taylor Branch, who uses Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the whole community of the civil rights movement as a lens…and a door…to an invitation…to live the promises given to us. - http://www.patheos.com/blogs/catholicbookblogger/2015/04/27/the-clergy-speaks-auxiliary-bishop-david-p-talley/

  • The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization | Duke Pesta and Stefan Molyneux

    09/21/2016 6:24:39 PM PDT · 569 of 573
    daniel1212 to MHGinTN
    Was Jesus human (Yes - 1 Timothy 2:5)? Was He a sacrifice (Yes - Romans 3:25)? Was He a human sacrifice (Had to be if He was human)? Is human sacrifice allowed by God’s law (No - Deuteronomy 12:30-31)? Apparently you have another “contradiction” to deal with. God does what He wants, how He wants, when He wants, and with or to whomever He wants.

    Actually on this aspect there is no contradiction, for what Deuteronomy 12:30-312 (cf. Dt. 18:10; Le 18:21; 20:2; Jer 7:31; 32:35) forbids is man making children sacrifices in their ignorance or regardless of their will, which is not the same as a Son choosing to die, and not by self-inflicted mortal means, but by voluntarily allowing men to do what they will.

    The captain of a army may determine to rescue men from a POW camp, which will someone to infiltrate its headquarters to kill the commander as well as create a distraction and keep enemy forces focused on him as long as he can, and face certain death in so doing, so that others of his team can launch an attack on the rest and free the POWS.

    The one who chooses to be that man does not do so out of compulsion, or ignorance, but freely chooses to lay down his life, knowing what the enemy will do. This is not what the prohibition of child sacrifice is against

    The Catholic Church inculcates its adherents to the belief that the Catholic Priest brings JESUS from Heaven to the Catholic Altar, to continue the 'human sacrifice' JESUS finished at Calvary.

    And they affirm it is the same but deny that Jesus is still being offered continually as a sacrifice.

    And forasmuch as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross; the holy Synod teaches, that this sacrifice is truly propritiatory...For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different. - Trent The Twenty-Second Session, cp. 2; http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct22.html

    1265. What is the Sacrifice of the Mass?...Christ, the eternal High Priest, in an unbloody way offers himself a most acceptable Victim to the eternal Father, as he did upon the Cross.

    1269. How does the Mass re-present Calvary? The Mass re-presents Calvary by continuing Christ’s sacrifice of himself to his heavenly Father. In the Mass, no less than on Calvary, Jesus really offers his life to his heavenly Father.

    1277. Does the Mass detract from the one, unique Sacrifice of the Cross? The Catechism of the Council of Trent: The Mass in no way detracts from the one, unique Sacrifice of the Cross because the Mass is the same Sacrifice as that of the Cross, to continue on earth until the end of time...The Mass, therefore, no less than the Cross, is expiatory for sins; but now the expiation is experienced by those for whom, on the Cross, the title of God’s mercy had been gained. (John Hardon, The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism (Garden: Image, 1981).

    We, therefore, confess that the sacrifice of the Mass is one and the same sacrifice with that of the cross...That the holy sacrifice of the Mass, therefore, is not only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, or a commemoration of the sacrifice of the cross; but also a sacrifice of propitiation, by which God is appeased and rendered propitious.. (The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Published by Command of Pope Pius the Fifth (New York: Christian Press, 1905), pp. 173-175).

  • The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization | Duke Pesta and Stefan Molyneux

    09/21/2016 7:36:29 AM PDT · 561 of 573
    daniel1212 to ealgeone; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; boatbums; ...


    The Eucharist of Catholicism versus the Lord's supper of Scripture in the life and teaching of the NT church in Scripture

    Preface:

    Roman Catholicism teaches that at the Lord's supper the bread and wine became the "Real Presence," which (though apparently originally an Anglican term) meaning that they were “substantially changed into the true and proper and lifegiving flesh and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord,” being corporeally present whole and entire in His physical "reality.” (Mysterium Fidei, Encyclical of Pope Paul VI, 1965) Thus the statement, “Consequently, eating and drinking are to be understood of the actual partaking of Christ in person, hence literally.” (Catholic Encyclopedia>The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist) Even though "If you took the consecrated host to a laboratory it would be chemically shown to be bread, not human flesh." (Dwight Longenecker: "Explaining Transubstantiation") The explanation of which unique miracle draws from Aristotelian metaphysics and Neoplatonic.

    However, the offering of such is held to be a propitiatory sacrifice for sins at the hands of a special class of sacerdotal priests: “As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead and to obtain spiritual or temporal benefits from God.” (CCC 1414) “For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different.” (Council of Trent, The Twenty-Second Session)

    This ritual sacrifice is taught as being "the source and summit of the Christian life" (CCC 1324) “the medicine of immortality, the antidote for death, and the food that makes us live for ever in Jesus Christ," (CCC 1415) "a kind of consummation of the spiritual life, and in a sense the goal of all the sacraments," (Mysterium Fidei, Encyclical of Pope Paul VI, 1965) through which “the work of our redemption is carried out,” (CCC 1364) with the offering of which being the primary function of her clergy, and around which all else in Catholicism essentially revolves. The Eastern Orthodox likewise state that "the very center of our spiritual lives is the liturgical celebration of the Eucharist. (http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/twopaths.aspx)

    And as Jn. 6:53 is taken literally, then it is imagined that by this consumption of “lifegiving flesh and blood” believers thereby obtain life in themselves.

    ...when the minister says, "The Body of Christ" or "The Blood of Christ," the communicant's "Amen" is a profession in the presence of the saving Christ, body and blood, soul and divinity, who now gives life to the believer. ...The bread and wine of the Lord's Supper his Body and Blood as broken and poured out constitute the irreplaceable food for the journey of the "pilgrim church on earth." (USCCP: "Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion," paragraphs. 4,14)

    This “sacrament” is taught as being "the source and summit of the Christian life" (CCC 1324) “the medicine of immortality, the antidote for death, and the food that makes us live for ever in Jesus Christ," (CCC 1415) "a kind of consummation of the spiritual life, and in a sense the goal of all the sacraments," (Mysterium Fidei, Encyclical of Pope Paul VI, 1965) through which “the work of our redemption is carried out,” (CCC 1364) with the offering of which being the primary function of her clergy, and around which all else in Catholicism essentially revolves. The Eastern Orthodox likewise state that "the very center of our spiritual lives is the liturgical celebration of the Eucharist. (http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/twopaths.aspx)

    In the light of the profound nature of this alleged miracle sacrifice and its critical constant importance (especially if necessary to obtain spiritual life as per the Catholic interpretation of Jn. 6:53,54) and centrality, and the doctrine of transubstantiation in Catholicism, along with the function of clergy to administer it, then many manifest descriptions of the priestly sacrificial ritual, and doctrinal teaching on transubstantiation would be be expected in the life of the NT church in Scripture (Acts onward) which are interpretive of the gospels.

    Which is simply not the case, while only metaphorical explanation easily corresponds to the totality of Scripture, both with its use of metaphorical language as well as the means of obtaining spiritual life.

    This study will therefore compare these claims with what the Holy Spirit makes manifest in the life of the NT church, but we must begin with words of the institution of the Lord's supper found in Matthew and Luke.

    Scriptural record

    Scripture in contrast with Catholicism

    Summation

    And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. (Luke 22:19-20)

    Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (Matthew 26:28)

    The incarnated Lord refers to His body which was to be crucified and the blood that was to be poured out. And which was not like that of a Christ who was not manifestly incarnated, but who looked and sounded like and would taste and scientifically taste as real flesh and blood.

    Therefore if taken purely literally, the "words of consecration" "this is my body which is given for you," "my blood of the new testament which is shed for many," then the elements would also look like, and taste and scientifically taste as real flesh and blood.

    In addition is the incongruity of the disciples understanding and believing in transubstantiation in essence when they even found the death of Christ unfathomable, and were prone (Peter) to protest objectionable things.

    Moreover, even "this cup is the new testament in my blood"is figurative language, and as another use of metaphorical language by the Lord the "this is my body/blood" words are easily corespondent to other metaphorical uses of eating and drinking in Scripture (see below). And to what was prophesied of the Lord, that He was "bruised [dâkâ'=break/broken: Job 19:2, Ps.94:4-5 (2), Isa_19:9-10 (3)] for our iniquities" and "poured out his soul unto death" (Is. 53:5,12)

    For Catholics taking such words as "this is my body which is given for you: this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many" literally does not mean that what they consume is manifestly the incarnated body and blood of the Lord Jesus, which substantiated His claims to be the Messiah, but it is one that is held by Catholics to be the "The presence of Christ's true body and blood" but which "cannot be detected by sense, nor understanding, but by faith alone..." (Summa Theologica: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.TP_Q75_A1.html)

    In contrast, at the Lord supper the Lord referred to His flesh and blood as that which would be manifestly crucified, that of the incarnate Christ, not which looked and sounded like and would taste and scientifically taste as an inanimate loaf of bread.

    Those who afterward believed on the Lord without seeing Him are still placing faith in God who was manifest in the flesh, and seen in His resurrection as so, not an inanimate object. But such can represent Him, and it is the metaphorical concept that alone easily corresponds to the totality of Scripture. See here by God's grace.



    The Acts of the apostles

    And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. (Acts 2:42)

    And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart. (Acts 2:46)

    And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. (Acts 20:7)

    When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed. (Acts 20:11)

    Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. (Acts 20:26-27)

    Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)

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

    In the entire book of Acts with its 28 chapters the only possible description of the Lord's supper is simply that of breaking of bread, and yet this infer a a meal rather than a morsel of bread ans sip of wine. And there is no mention of it being ministered specifically by clergy, and whose primary active charge and function was that of preaching the Word, which word is what is said to build them up. (Acts 6:4; 20:28,32)

    Pastors are simply and interchangeably (Acts 20:17,28) called presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer), denoting both position and function.

    Thus if anything, the Lord's supper in Acts corresponds to a simple communal meal done in commemoration of the death of Christ, and no more.

    Although breaking of bread may refer to the Lord's supper, nothing in Acts describes or teaches the Lord's supper as a sacrifice for sins, or as offered by a distinctive class of sacerdotal priests (apart from that of all believers), whose primary active function was to do so as in Catholicism, or which was consumed in order to obtain spiritual obtain life, and thus was the central ritual ministered by a distinctive class of sacerdotal priests.

    Yet Acts abounds with feeding souls by preaching the word of God, and of baptism, along with healing and deliverance, with souls obtaining spiritual life by believing the gospel, and living by the word of God, as the Lord Jesus in John 6:57 said believers were to, as He lived by the Father, with the doing of it being His "meat." (Jn. 4:34)



    The book of Romans

    I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise. So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (Romans 1:14-16)

    Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen. Written to the Romans from Corinthus, and sent by Phebe servant of the church at Cenchrea. (Romans 16:25-27)

    Despite the overshadowing centrality and critical importance of the Catholic Eucharist and the doctrine of transubstantiation, any mention of the Lord's supper is utterly missing in this primary doctrinal book of 16 chapters. In which the gospel is explained as being the power of God unto salvation (Rm. 1:16) with 11 chapters on justification and election, and the meaning of baptism, and on overcoming faith, followed by exhortation on practical application, and greetings to brethren by the apostle Paul, who longs to see and help establish them in the faith.

    Nothing in Romans describes or teaches the Lord's supper as a sacrifice for sins which was consumed in order to obtain spiritual obtain life, and thus was the central ritual ministered by a distinctive class of sacerdotal priests, (apart from that of all believers), whose primary active function was to do so, as in Catholicism.



    First Corinthians

    Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. (1 Corinthians 5:7-8)

    But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. (1 Corinthians 5:11)

    The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? (For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. 1 Corinthians 10:16),17

    Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. (1 Corinthians 10:18-21)

    For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. (1 Corinthians 11:21-22)

    For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. (1 Corinthians 11:23-26)

    Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. (1 Corinthians 11:27-32)

    Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come. (1 Corinthians 11:33-34)

    1 Corinthians is the only letter to churches (aside from the mention of the "feast of charity" in Jude 1:12) that manifestly describes the Lord's supper.

    In 1 Corinthians 5:7-8 an allusion to the Lord's supper is seen by some, but the word for "is" in "Christ our passover is sacrificed for us" is not in the Greek, and most translations, including the Catholic NAB, have the correct "was," while even Pope Benedict argued that "the Last Supper was not a Passover meal." (http://catholiclane.com/dating-the-last-supper-excerpt-from-jesus-of-nazareth-part-2-by-joseph-ratzinger)

    In 1 Corinthians 10 it is described as being the communion/fellowship of the blood and the body of Christ through their communal sharing in that meal done in remembrance of Christ's death, not by eating His flesh. For in context the apostle teaches that this fellowship is analogous to the fellowship pagans have with their gods in their commemorative feasts, participation by believers in which the apostle is condemning.

    Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. (1 Corinthians 10:20,21)

    Which partaking was not by consuming the transubstantiated flesh of devils, but by taking part in a feast done in dedication to demons. For they which eat of the sacrifices are partakers of the altar, showing union with the object of this feast and each other, and not because the food has been transubstantiated into that of the entity it is offered to.

    In 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 the Corinthians are told they actually are not coming together to eat the Lord's supper, since some are selfishly eating independently while others were hungry, which was to "shame them that have not."

    Therefore we see that the reason they were not truly coming together to "do this in memory of me"/eat the Lord's supper was because they were ignoring other members of the body of Christ for whom He died, (Acts 20:28) which was the very thing they were supposed to be effectually remembering/showing.

    Paul thus reiterates the Lord's words referring to bread and wine as His body — the interpretation of which we are looking for in the life of the NT church— and His command to show/proclaim His death until He comes, and that partaking of the Lord's supper unworthily, not recognizing the Lord's body, was punishable even by death.

    And which death some had experienced as a result of selfishly eating independently, ignoring other believers "for whom Christ died" (1Co. 8:11, which is a major emphasis for the former prosecutor Paul) thereby hypocritically failing to recognize the body of the Lord, whose unselfish death for them they were supposed to be effectually remembering/showing (see "remembering" in 1 Co. 15:2) by this communally sharing of bread inclusively as one body of blood-bought members. "For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread." (1 Corinthians 10:17)

    That the focus was that of the church as the body of Christ which was not being discerned, versus the nature of the elements, is not only contextually manifest here but by its continuance in the next chapter.

    While 1 Corinthians does not necessarily exclude the Catholic concept of the Lord's supper, it nowhere describes the Lord's supper as that of priests offering up a ritual sacrifice for sins, which is to be consumed in order to obtain spiritual life, and does not interpret the words of consecration according to Catholic transubstantiation theology.

    Instead, the fellowship of the blood and the body of Christ contextually refers to the communal sharing of food by the body purchased by the sacrifice of Christ in effectual remembrance of that sacrificial death and love behind it.

    To act contrary to this by ignoring/mistreating these members was contrary to what the Lord's supper was supposed to proclaim, and was a failure to recognize the body of Christ as consisting of those for whom Christ died.



    The books of Second Corinthians Galatians , Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, First Thessalonians, Second Thessalonians, First Timothy, First Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, First Peter, Second Peter, First John, Second John, Third John, Jude, Revelation

    For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: (Ephesians 5:29)

    And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. (Colossians 2:19)

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

    Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. (2 Timothy 4:2)

    Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; (1 Peter 5:2)

    We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:19-21)

    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)

    Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls. (James 1:21)

    Rejoice evermore. Pray without ceasing. In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. Quench not the Spirit. Despise not prophesyings. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thessalonians 5:16-21)

    For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; (Titus 1:5,7)

    Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. (Hebrews 6:1-2)

    But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. (Hebrews 10:12,18)

    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 3:21)

    That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) (1 John 1:1-2)

    Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. (2 Thessalonians 3:12)

    Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days. (James 5:3)

    And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey. (Revelation 10:9)

    These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; (Jude 12)

    Despite the breadth and scope of teaching in these church epistles, including the nourishment of believers, the titles and functions of pastors, the basics of Christian life, the feeding and nature of the body of Christ, literal and metaphorical eating, yet apart from the mere mention of the "feast of charity in Jude (which infers more than a morsel of bread and sip of wine) any mention of the Lord's supper is utterly missing.

    In contrast to the overshadowing centrality and critical importance of the Catholic Eucharist and the doctrine of transubstantiation, any mention of the Lord's supper is utterly missing in these letters to the churches, much less describes or teaches it as a sacrifice for sins which was consumed in order to obtain spiritual obtain life, and thus was the central ritual ministered by a distinctive class of sacerdotal priests, (apart from that of all believers), whose primary active function was to do so, as in Catholicism.

  • Should we criticize Pope Francis, or not? If so, how? Part 1.

    09/15/2016 6:13:04 PM PDT · 65 of 79
    daniel1212 to who_would_fardels_bear; Gamecock
    There is no need to "interpret" the Church's teaching. The Church's teaching is distilled into the Catechism which is full of clear statements of what the Church believes to be the truth. Some of those statements are difficult to fully comprehend like those regarding the Holy Trinity (e.g. Three Persons in one God, etc.) but there is no interpretation necessary.

    You mean the latest Catechism, and that this was an infallible document from its first issuing, and is not subject to change? Yet I would agree that there is no need to "interpret" the Church's teaching is RCs are to heed such statements as those of Pope Pius X:

    It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.

    ..in all cases the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate exponent.” — John Henry Newman, “A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation.” 8. The Vatican Council

    Thus in one century a Catholic ruler must obey the pope in exterminating all the heretics from his land, (Canons of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council (canon 3), 1215) and consider all such as have not "remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church," and are not "subject to the Roman Pontiff" to be damned according to conciliar and infallible papal statements.

    But in another century he is to affirm SS type baptized Prots as born again brethren.

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

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

    The Church believes their positions to be the truth because they are based in Holy Scripture, the interpretations of the Doctors of the church, the result of thoughtful discussion and prayer at various councils of wise and holy men, and because of the claim that Jesus stated the Church would be the one true Church.

    Not quite. Rome believes and 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. Thus reproofs that show that her distinctive claims are not warranted by Holy Scripture are dismissed since according to her intrerpretation, only here interpretation can be correct in any conflict, regardless of the evidence otherwise, or lack thereof.

    Read here by the grace of God if you will, before replying.

    The Doctors of the Church are considered by most all Christians (even Protestants) as being good guides to what Holy Scriptures says. Really? Consistent with what I said above about autocratic Rome, is this from "Doctor" Liguori:

    St. Ignatius once said that should the Pope command him to undertake a voyage by sea in a ship without a mast, without oars or sails, he would blindly obey the precept. And when he was told that it would be imprudent to expose his life to danger, he answered that. "prudence is necessary in Superiors; but in subjects the perfection of prudence is to obey without prudence. This doctrine is conformable to Holy Scripture: Behold, says the Lord, as clay is in the potter s hands.' Religious must leave themselves in the hands of the Superior to be moulded as she wills." St. Alphonsus De Liguori, True Spouse of Christ, p. 68 http://wallmell.webs.com/LiguoriTrueSpouseChristVol1.pdf

    Obey blindly; that is, without asking reasons. Be careful, then, never to examine the directions of your confessor....that in obeying your confessor, you obey God; force yourself, then, to obey him in spite of all your fears. And be persuaded that if you are not obedient to him, it will be impossible for you to go on well; but if you obey, you are always secure. But, you say, if I am damned in consequence of obeying my confessor, who will rescue me from hell? What you say is impossible." " St. Alphonsus De Liguori, The complete works of Saint Alphonsus de Liguori: the ascetical works: Volumes 10-11 (True Spouse of Christ) Google book search

    Vatican II appears to be the beginning of a new schism. A cynic might claim this is proof that the Church's claims to the truth are suspect. However, it has been quite some time since the Reformation which was the last major schism, and since that time those that broke off claiming to have the truth have since shattered into thousands of sects.

    Misleading, as Rome's limited unity is largely on paper, while those who esteem Scripture the strongest are far more conservative and unified in core beliefs and values that those whom Rome counts and treats as members. It seems you can be a Ted Kennedy Catholic more easily than a real conservative one.

  • Should we criticize Pope Francis, or not? If so, how? Part 1.

    09/15/2016 2:49:10 AM PDT · 62 of 79
    daniel1212 to who_would_fardels_bear; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; ..
    This essayist talks about "orthodox" Catholics as if they are a single, coherent group. This is what I thought for years hanging out with "orthodox" Catholics, trying to attend the most conservative churches, reading The Wanderer, etc. However, I come to find out that there are almost as many different sub-groups of "orthodox" Catholics as there are Protestant sects. Entire sub-groups of "orthodox" Catholics believe that all of the popes from John XXIII on are either anti-popes or at least no longer teaching official Catholic dogma. They would not agree with this essayist's take on John Paul II and Benedict as being popes who brought the Church back closer to Her original teaching. The "orthodox" Catholics I hung out with loved Ratzinger and believed it would be a Holy Miracle if he ever became Pope ... and surprise, surprise he did. But a lot of "orthodox" Catholics would have us believe that he is either an anti-pope or a "conciliar" quasi-pope, or just an ineffective pope. We do indeed live in interesting times.

    The blind leading the blind. I missed this thread, but your post reminds me of another:

    The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. — Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html

  • The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization | Duke Pesta and Stefan Molyneux

    09/07/2016 2:10:27 AM PDT · 9 of 573
    daniel1212 to Arthur McGowan; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; ...
    What was the role of the Catholic Church in building Western Civilization? >

    Posted by a priest who rejects what Scripture commands and advocates, and was the norm in making America strong, charging instead that there is not "even a single positive benefit to spanking children and a near endless amount of horrible effects."

  • The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization | Duke Pesta and Stefan Molyneux

    09/07/2016 2:03:38 AM PDT · 8 of 573
    daniel1212 to metmom
    And virtually every single predominantly Catholic country in this world is a third world hell hole. Look at their economies and standard of living. And the superstition and syncretism rife in their religious practices.

    You left out this goal: 67. To manage the global economy...there is urgent need of a true world political authority..

    such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to...ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties...”- ENCYCLICAL LETTER CARITAS IN VERITATE

  • Why Catholics are leaving the faith by age 10 – and what parents can do about it

    09/07/2016 1:53:48 AM PDT · 92 of 125
    daniel1212 to Finatic
    He has asked his mother who converted from being a Baptist if she would take him to a Baptist service some time. if anything, I would be inclined to take him to a Lutheran service but it does concern me that I sacrificed to send him to the school of my faith and it drives him away.

    He needs to go to a conservative evangelical church, esp. if he leans toward Hillary. Which indicates a need for actual conversion. Get him on FR.

  • Why Catholics are leaving the faith by age 10 – and what parents can do about it

    09/07/2016 1:49:15 AM PDT · 91 of 125
    daniel1212 to AlaskaErik

    Thank you for your dedication shown by 31.5 years of service to your country.

  • Why Catholics are leaving the faith by age 10 – and what parents can do about it

    09/07/2016 1:44:56 AM PDT · 90 of 125
    daniel1212 to Salvation
    You can always come back to the Catholic Church, the faith that Christ founded on the apostles.

    Such delusion is not going to help him.

  • Why Catholics are leaving the faith by age 10 – and what parents can do about it

    09/06/2016 5:51:24 PM PDT · 55 of 125
    daniel1212 to heterosupremacist; AlaskaErik; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; ...
    Sorry you were not man enough to move on, but if you may like it - or if you may not; if you were Baptized by a Catholic Priest on God’s Holy Altar, then you are - and ever shall be a Catholic.

    Pure delusion. The clear requirement for baptism is repentant faith in the risen Lord Jesus to save you on His account, by His sinless shed blood, (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37) otherwise one only gets wet, which sprinkling an innocent morally incognizant infant does.

  • Savior Hear My Humble Cry

    09/05/2016 7:01:46 PM PDT · 2 of 3
    daniel1212 to Revski

    Thanks for the song

  • FReeper Canteen ~ Sunday Chapel ~ CATCHING A SECOND WIND ~ 04 September 2016

    09/05/2016 6:46:14 PM PDT · 69 of 69
    daniel1212 to Kathy in Alaska
    Welcome to the Canteen, daniel1212, and a Blessed Lord’s Day to you and yours. Glad you enjoyed. A new Chapel is posted every Saturday evening, 8p eastern time, 4p Alaska time.

    Thanks "Frozen Chosen?"

  • Why Spanking Does Not Work | Elizabeth Gershoff and Stefan Molyneux

    09/05/2016 4:37:38 PM PDT · 184 of 185
    daniel1212 to Arthur McGowan
    I see another “Bible-believer” using a computer. WHERE IN SCRIPTURE are you given permission to use a computer??? Cite me just ONE VERSE!!!

    I am not sure what you think support your opposition to Scripture, for it is one thing to engage in a optional practice that is supported in principle in Scripture, that of a use of means of communication, and another thing to oppose and attack a practice that is clearly commanded and advocated. And it is also another thing to make as binding belief something that has no support and is contrary to what is shown. Thus you attack what Scripture commands and are an unScriptural priest in a church that makes as binding doctrine things which are nowhere seen in Scripture by believers, and is contrary to what it does teach.

  • Pope Francis calls climate change a ‘sin’

    09/05/2016 6:10:43 AM PDT · 192 of 202
    daniel1212 to Elsie; Arrian
    Anything like the CCC you take your marching orders from?

    Your #143 post droned on for more than 25 redundant paragraphs, most well exceeding 100 words; a 3000 word run-on-sentence!

    Let alone these intolerable lengths in post 143 were the product of his own brethren, aside from attributions. But which excuses having to deal with the refutation of a mere 3 paragraphs.

  • Pope Francis calls climate change a ‘sin’

    09/05/2016 6:01:18 AM PDT · 191 of 202
    daniel1212 to Arrian
    The Greeks and Romans internalized that the path to wisdom was clarity and succinctness, attributes they stressed in their learning and speaking. They understood that in order to convince another in an argument one must first get, then hold, their attention. But this is a bridge to far for you. Your #143 post droned on for more than 25 redundant paragraphs, most well exceeding 100 words; a 3000 word run-on-sentence! Now you’re back at it again!!! It’s obvious your catalyst is relentless Bible Thumping and has absolutely nothing to do w/either seeking or sharing knowledge. As such, I have nothing else to say; now or in the future. Suggest you try a soap box.

    I have learned that without substantial substantiation, RCs tend to simply engage in more argument by mere assertion, or vain attempts at some sort of documentation. But in your case with me it is that of making provocative assertions that call for challenges, and then resorting to a lofty intellectual sneer in response.

  • Pope Francis calls climate change a ‘sin’

    09/05/2016 5:54:22 AM PDT · 190 of 202
    daniel1212 to BlackElk
    So your argument is that there was an indisputable complete canon for 1500 years, or any years concurred on before Trent? And that the maverick Luther did not include disputed books in his Bible? And that the instruments, discerners and stewards of Holy Writ are the infallible interpreters of it?

    No, the Truth (not an argument) is that there were TWO canons of the Old Testament in common usage among Jews and Christians in the early centuries of Christianity.

    I am not sure how you are disagreeing with my post, and thanks for your civil response, but see on the Septuagint here by the grace of God.

    Note also that the Lord seems to refer to the tripartite divisions of the proposed Palestinian canon in Lk. 24:44, while none of the OT books quoted or referenced by the Lord were a manifest issue of dispute with those who sat in the seat of Moses.

    A remaining question: Did Luther choose the Masoretic Canon over the Septuagint because his religious beliefs disagreed with SOME aspects of SOME of the Apocrypha.

    This should be of help, and here for more on "Luther quoted, by Gods grace.

  • Why Spanking Does Not Work | Elizabeth Gershoff and Stefan Molyneux

    09/04/2016 5:23:45 PM PDT · 167 of 185
    daniel1212 to aMorePerfectUnion; Arthur McGowan
    The notion that a priest doesn’t believe the Scriptures would have surprised me before I came to FR.

    Indeed. Another example of Catholic selective rejection of Scripture.

  • Why Spanking Does Not Work | Elizabeth Gershoff and Stefan Molyneux

    09/04/2016 3:13:01 PM PDT · 164 of 185
    daniel1212 to Persevero
    If it did not work God would not prescribe it. He does not require us to do it all the time or a lot or whatever, but it is biblical discipline. He did not make an error. I’ll believe the bible over and against a bunch of atheist sociologists.

    Indeed, or misguided sppsd Christians. If spanking was bad then either the nature of man has changed, or the saints of the Bible were engaging in a practice that does not even have "a single positive benefit" "and a near endless amount of horrible effects."

  • Why Spanking Does Not Work | Elizabeth Gershoff and Stefan Molyneux

    09/04/2016 2:58:29 PM PDT · 162 of 185
    daniel1212 to papertyger; Arthur McGowan
    I can tell from watching the first five minutes of the video that a) Gershoff is trying to refute a rather simplistic view of corporal punishment applied by parents with no insight into the human condition, nor their children’s individual personalities. b) Her use of “weasel” words such as “linked” to tie together both strong and weak conclusions makes her more advocate that researcher.

    Indeed. reminds me of some Climate Change cooking. Based upon her conclusions, saints of the Bible, as well as those born before 1950 where (I have read) 99% parents spanked, then they should have been the most mal- adjusted children, with frustrated parents. And instead now we have touchy-feely snowflakes who demand all that offends them be shut down. Which ultimately means using the power of the state, which ultimately is physical.

  • Why Spanking Does Not Work | Elizabeth Gershoff and Stefan Molyneux

    09/04/2016 2:36:01 PM PDT · 160 of 185
    daniel1212 to Arthur McGowan
    ew studies have failed to find even a single positive benefit to spanking children

    Like a car thief cannot find a police station.

    This article talks some sense:

    Whenever I read something on the spanking controversy, I remember an incident in a downtown day care. It happened at about 6:05 p.m., five minutes past the deadline for parents to depart with their offspring. The staff was itching to leave, and an occasional dirty look aimed at a tardy parent darted through the mask of cordiality stretched across their faces. I was hurriedly helping my son put on his socks, shoes, and coat, when I heard a commotion behind me. I turned; it was another late parent walking toward us carrying a boy of about four, her arms locked firmly around his middle. He was kicking and yelling at the top of his lungs, "No! No! Put me down!" She was talking to him in the very best contemporary parenting book manner: very calmly, very firmly, not raising her voice. "It's time to go now," she said. "I've given you 20 minutes to play with the day-care toys. That's enough. Daddy's got dinner ready, and he's waiting for us at home."

    She put him down by the kiddie coat rack, and knelt beside him. He seized this brief moment of freedom to unleash a barrage of blows to her head and chest. "Let me go!" he yelled as he connected with her chin. She looked around in embarrassment. I averted my eyes. "That hurt," she said evenly, taking down his coat, "That really hurt. I don't like that." She grappled with him in a fruitless effort to force him into his coat; he wriggled out easily, shoving her face as far away from him as possible. The struggle continued for minutes, then reached a stalemate. The day-care staff, looking on with increasing disgust and fatigue, offered such helpful comments as, "Come on Tyler. It's time to go home now."

    As I left with my son, I reflected upon the spirit of the age that has blessed us with such incidents. Perhaps some nonaversive method of discipline would have made that terrible child comply with his mother's request quickly, but I cannot think of it. I am convinced that the most effective solution in that particular instance would have been a sharp, compliance-inducing swat on the bottom.

    A New Definition of Spanking

    But what parent does that today when people are watching? The antispanking movement has done a brilliant job propagating the view that spanking is just another form of child abuse. Normal parents are not just frightened of appearing abusive; they also fear that an occasional swat to the behind can turn their little darling into a dangerously aggressive adolescent and an incorrigibly criminal adult, as the "scientific evidence" says. In fact, the antispanking movement, and its agents in the mainstream media, has used this weak, and in some cases simply non-existent, evidence to beat parents into submission. Antispanking advocates have given us nothing more than a smattering of half-truths along with heavy smacks of propaganda.

    Before I continue, let me state categorically that I reject spanking as a primary method of discipline. Let no one see this article as encouragement to parents to spank their children for every little thing. It goes without saying that I support all efforts to end the physical abuse of children, but I do not think that spanking, used rarely and judiciously, is abuse. Rather, it can be useful in some situations, with many kids.

    But what is spanking? Antispankers define it as broadly as possible, not just to show that spanking causes harm, but to more easily place it on a continuum with child abuse. One antispanking article, for example, defined spanking as "any disciplinary hitting of kids that's not injurious or currently considered abusive." Note the emotive and misleading word hitting which can include punching, cuffing, boxing the ears, and slapping the face. But the meaning of the word spanking, which has remained relatively stable over the centuries, is quite different from these abusive behaviors. The English language's most authoritative source, the Oxford English Dictionary, defines the verb to spank as "To slap or smack (a person, esp. a child) with the open hand." Its earliest etymological entry, dated 1727, reads, "To spank, to slap with the open hand.

    More: Questioning the Research

    A Questionable Link

    Is Spanking Harmful?

    Also of interest, New Study Finds Spanking Is Good for Kids