HOME/ABOUT  Prayer  SCOTUS  ProLife  BangList  Aliens  StatesRights  ConventionOfStates  WOT  HomosexualAgenda  GlobalWarming  Corruption  Taxes  Congress  Fraud  MediaBias  GovtAbuse  Tyranny  Obama  ObamaCare  Elections  Polls  Debates  Trump  Cruz  Kasich  OPSEC  Benghazi  InfoSec  BigBrother  IRS  Scandals  TalkRadio  TeaParty  FreeperBookClub  HTMLSandbox  FReeperEd  FReepathon  CopyrightList  Copyright/DMCA Notice 

Please keep those donations coming in, folks. Our 2nd quarter FReepathon is off to a great start and we have a chance of getting 'er done early! Thank you all very much!!

Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Free Republic 2nd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $34,172
38%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 38% is in!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by daniel1212

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Target Boycott Petition Breaks 1 Million Signatures

    04/30/2016 7:56:57 AM PDT · 90 of 135
    daniel1212 to Sasparilla
    ...the issue is accommodating (and subsidizing) a depraved desire at the expense of the discomfort and possible danger of those with normal and Biblical sensibilities... That is exactly the issue. No more. No less.

    And which is not opposed to showing grace to such, nor is opposition hypocritical, as (hopefully) boycott advocates are not claiming they not all sinners, but (hopefully) are not impenitently defending such and demanding accommodation for practicing it to the discomfort and possible danger of others who do not agree with it.

  • A Look at the Early Catholic Church from the Acts of the Apostles

    04/30/2016 7:48:15 AM PDT · 290 of 315
    daniel1212 to imardmd1
    Dan, you keep on confusing "pastors" who are mentioned once only for a class which in Ephesians 4:11 are separate as a class, similar to "scribes and Pharisees" in other scriptures. Certainly one person could be both, but the functions are not interchangeable.

    Which is simply on your say-so, while as said, besides apostles, presbuteros/episkopos are the ones charged with teaching and functioning as pastors/shepherds of the flock, to are to care for the church, and be "apt to teach," and "feed the flock," rebuke, exhort," etc.

    It looks like your head is so full of equating the two, particularly as they are regularly cross-branded in today's churches, that you cannot see that the functions are different as are the titles. Again and again.

    Which again is what your assertions seem to evidence, that your head is so full of imagining the functions of pastor, episkopos, and presbuteros not at all (even "dramatically" not) interchangeable, equivalent, and synonomous, that cannot see that episkopos, and presbuteros are actually used for the very same persons, and who are the only ones besides apostles charged with and described as functioning as spiritual shepherds over the flock.

    Peter called himself an elder, not a pastor.

    Nor need he to, as the later broadly refers to doing what only (besides apostles) episkopos/presbuteros are charged with and described as doing, functioning as spiritual shepherds.

    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)

    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)

    One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) (1 Timothy 3:4-5)

    Deacons assist them.

    If you want to get an idea of how one operates, attend a "Plymouth"-brethren-type church, where there are no pastors of the...two-class, clergy-run vs subjugated lay people hierarchies.

    That is simply another false dilemma, as if , as clergy-run equates to subjugated lay people as with Rome, and God hates a false balance. For Scripture does indeed clearly charges and describes presbuteros/episkopos are being over the flock, and enjoins conditional obedience - not obeisance - to them, and which are to Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine," and "speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority" sound doctrine, even "sharply" in some cases. (2 Timothy 4:2; Titus 1:13, 2:15)

    Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you. (Hebrews 13:17)

    Just a couple of comments on a typical volume, "Reimagining Church," by Frank Viola

    Just as i suspected. You have bought into the anti-authoritarian "Christ is the head of the gathering or meeting, and so human heads are required, that "the one who plants a New Testament-styled church leaves that church without a pastor, elders...," ("Pagan Christianity," http://www.victoryseekersministries.com/pdf/VSM%2041.pdf) "the New Testament knows nothing of an authoritative mode of leadership,” (Reimagining Church, p. 198) as if 1 Corinthians 14 does not testify to the failure of pastoral "taking the oversight," which is the other extreme from Romanism. If anything, churches like the S Baptist need more consensual centralized accountability, which is the Biblical model, but by street-level brethren given to hospitality, not lording it over the flock, yet with the superintendence and authority such as Timothy and Titus are charged with exercising. The balance is between such an elevated position that a 1 Cor 14 type meeting never can be realized, as only the pastor ever preaches or shares the word, and the flock can never see how the pastor lives or eat with him at home, or even Roman-type lording, and that of having no head pastoral oversight and authority, and to which leadership obedience is enjoined, and the preaching by such as Paul exampled in Acts 20.

    The pastor just called me up and asked me, a much unworthy servant, to share the word at tonight's house meeting, and in which time is provided for those present to ask for prayer, and to give a short testimony (which is invited), and worship and corporate prayer follows before the pastor or pastor-appointed speaker (the latter often being the case) gives a message, but i recognize him as the head pastor, and who has unique authority. (I would like to teach on "the devil wants your worship."

    You need to unravel in a systematic way until you get back to basics.

    Mere bombast, as it is you who ignore what Scripture systematically shows, and insist on reading a foreign ecclesiology into Scripture, as Caths do. I have thus sadly dropped you from my ping list as you represent an opposite detrimental extreme.

  • Target Boycott Petition Breaks 1 Million Signatures

    04/30/2016 6:28:10 AM PDT · 85 of 135
    daniel1212 to HiTech RedNeck
    I think it’s a good argument that the boycott is vast hypocrisy.

    Which you cannot prove, and evangelicals at least have traditionally been the most opposed of homosexual marriage (only 3% of American evangelical pastors somewhat agree that there is nothing wrong with homosexual marriage, and 87% opposed it, as did 99% of Protestant pastors who hold to very conservative theology, and 76-79% of evangelical overall. Sources.)

    Regardless, simply because they are inconsistent does not mean they should be criticized for this boycott action. A person who typically fails to oppose iniquity is not to be criticized when they actually do so. What are you doing to make known your opposition to Target accommodating the sad disordered perverse sensibilities of a minority while discomforting and possibly endangering women with God-ordained sensibilities?

  • Target Boycott Petition Breaks 1 Million Signatures

    04/30/2016 6:06:28 AM PDT · 83 of 135
    daniel1212 to SleepySimon
    I have severe doubts that anything negative will happen to Target.

    I do not: The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God. (Psalms 9:17)

    But meanwhile even if there is little pronounced effect of the boycott you certainly cannot (not that you necessarily are) criticize those who choose to boycott Target. History certainly would be critical of those who refused to boycott Nazi Germany based on the rationale that it would have little to no impact. Meanwhile the Left certainly believes in the efficacy of boycotts.

  • Target Boycott Petition Breaks 1 Million Signatures

    04/30/2016 6:00:04 AM PDT · 82 of 135
    daniel1212 to Bullish
    Why do you attribute such a statement to me when all I replied to HTRedneck was I get a kick out of him trying to speak for God?

    In a forum, esp. the religion one here, one is often pinged to a reply because they were also involved in the exchange with the poster being replied to. It does not infer that all those who are included are on one side or the other, but may be interested and respond further.

  • Target Boycott Petition Breaks 1 Million Signatures

    04/29/2016 9:31:43 PM PDT · 72 of 135
    daniel1212 to HiTech RedNeck; yarddog; Bullish
    (actually, mixed bathrooms were never forbidden in the bible).

    What kind of statement is that? Do you think the Bible needs to have a explicit statement, "Thou shalt have no mixed bathrooms/locker rooms," for that to be forbidden, when separation of genders is clearly taught, from clothing to sexual unions, and uncovering the nakedness of the opposite sex was restricted to marriage? And which is only defined as being btwn opposite genders?

    You are hardly helping the lost here by attacking those who protest impenitent perversity. But as we all sin, and must repents and be born again by faith in the risen Lord Jesus, may all be convicted of sin, righteousness and judgment, and find room at the cross and be saved on Christ's account, by His sinless shed blood, to the glory of God.

    Have a God night.

  • Target Boycott Petition Breaks 1 Million Signatures

    04/29/2016 9:20:15 PM PDT · 67 of 135
    daniel1212 to yarddog
    I hope someone gets it before me to save me the trouble as my Strongs Concordance is under several things including a telephone.

    Just get the free E-sword Bible program, then install and run, and hit the Downloads tab, and then Commentaries, and click on TSK. Then hit Download and then start.

    But i do not know what verse you are looking for.

  • Target Boycott Petition Breaks 1 Million Signatures

    04/29/2016 9:12:35 PM PDT · 63 of 135
    daniel1212 to WENDLE
    Walmart and Amazon have better prices anyway, though both are homosexual friendly. But you have to draw the line somewhere.
  • Target Boycott Petition Breaks 1 Million Signatures

    04/29/2016 9:10:30 PM PDT · 62 of 135
    daniel1212 to HiTech RedNeck
    The Lord came to save from sin, which everybody has, even those who think they are the best behaved people in the world. Not just to save from uncomfortable bathroom encounters.

    Regardless, that is not an argument against boycotting any business that sanctions what God calls iniquity: "have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." (Ephesians 5:11)

  • Target Boycott Petition Breaks 1 Million Signatures

    04/29/2016 9:07:30 PM PDT · 61 of 135
    daniel1212 to HiTech RedNeck
    And why is this worse than gay marriage. Explain please. It should have been an anticlimax.

    That is not the argument, nor is that a valid argument against the boycott, though there is linkage. It is simply wrong to offend as well as possibly endanger those with normal, Biblical moral sensibilities in order to accommodate the perverse disordered sensibilities of a minority. Free speech rights do not apply here. See arguments against the boycott responded to here, by God's grace.

    And in any case, since Target wants everyone to "feel like they belong" but which means those who do not subscribe to this immoral inclusive policy do not feel like they belong, then why are you attacking the latter boycotting the store?

  • Target Boycott Petition Breaks 1 Million Signatures

    04/29/2016 8:45:16 PM PDT · 56 of 135
    daniel1212 to HiTech RedNeck; WENDLE; Extremely Extreme Extremist; yarddog; Mears; OSHA; Sasparilla; ...
    And how would you like God to treat you that way?

    He supports that and will, for while God is gracious even to impenitent sinners as we should, but God's graciousness such as making the sun to shine on the lost is not the same thing as supposing that God would sanction doing what is evil and harmful to others. The situation here is not that of refusing to accommodate the need of someone to use the rest room, as there are ones for each gender, but the issue is accommodating (and subsidizing) a depraved desire at the expense of the discomfort and possible danger of those with normal and Biblical sensibilities.

    To suppose God would sanction that is contrary to His word.

    But if a homosexual needed to simply use the bathroom for its purpose and no one else was in it, then a Christian would be gracious to offer it. And after give him a gospel tract or otherwise share the gospel with him.

  • Target Boycott Petition Breaks 1 Million Signatures

    04/29/2016 8:31:27 PM PDT · 53 of 135
    daniel1212 to Maudeen; HiTech RedNeck
    I signed and now on to PayPal boycott. I’ve had to do some removal of auto pays. It is going to take me a few days.

    Very good. https://www.afa.net/action-alerts/sign-the-boycott-target-pledge/ I also called Target Guest Relations at 1-800-440-0680 (press 1 for store experience) and expressed the following.

    Hello. I understand that the policy of Target is to welcome people to use whichever "restroom or fitting room facility" they feel "corresponds to their gender identity," since "everyone deserves to feel like they belong." However, this is Biblically immoral and means making many women feel like they do not belong because they are uncomfortable with allowing men in their bathroom. Therefore according to your own judgment they and others who disagree with this policy do not belong in your store, and I myself have joined the many others who have decided to the boycott against shopping at Target. And I discourage others from so doing, and encourage them to join the boycott of Target due to its immoral inclusive yet exclusive policy. -------------------

    Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. (1 Timothy 1:15)

    Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out... (Acts 3:19)

    The Asian (it seems) young lady was very nice, and stated that not everyone who worked at Target agreed with that policy, however she could not give her personal opinion (but the tone was apologetic), but that she would surely pass on my comment, and simply asked for my first and last name, which I do not think is in their system anywa

  • A Look at the Early Catholic Church from the Acts of the Apostles

    04/29/2016 6:44:29 PM PDT · 261 of 315
    daniel1212 to imardmd1
    Actually, though sometimes interchangeable when invested in the roles of one person, they are not synonomous....The functions of pastor, episkopos, and presbuteros are not truly interchangeable, and most certainly are not equivalent, nor are they at all synonomous. To think so is dramatically wrong.

    But which you fail to establish, and which is contrary to the evidence otherwise which you hardly interact with, as your argumentation is much that of assertions and arguments that the texts do not teach.

    And, applying the Granville Sharp Rule, the pastors are a separate group from the teachers (the διδασκαλοι didaskaloi), and that doesn't leave much room for them.

    They are a separate group, as are apostles from teachers, and we see in Acts 13:1 that there were "certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen," but (applying the rule against a false dilemma) pastors being listed separate from teachers does not mean pastors do not teach and do not have much "room" for ministry any more than apostles being separate from pastors and teachers means they do not engage in both. Nor does it mean that the persons in each office could not have more than one gift.

    But as per the term, the main function of pastors is to shepherd the flock: "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine" (1 Timothy 5:17) They need not have the gift of teaching, but they still must be able to. For while apostles were the chief pastors, and deacons in some sense also pastured, yet the apostles appointed presbuteros/episkopos to "take care of the church of God" (1Tim. 3:5) thus requiring them being "apt to teach" and threby "feed the flock" with the word of God as its overseers, (Acts 20:28,32) and to "reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine," (2 Timothy 4:2) and to whom obedience is enjoined. (Heb. 13:17) This is incontrovertible, and which pastoring is not said of deacons, while you have not shown why presbuteros/episkopos does not refer to the same persons, as Scripture shows they did.

    Now, the literal pastors of the first local church, the prototype at Jerusalem, were the seven deacons.

    Which assertion can only mean that they help the head pastors in ministering to temporal needs, though as with Phillip, such could also function as evangelists. But it is clear that besides apostles, presbuteros/episkopos are the ones charged with teaching and functioning as pastors of the flock.

    That ministry was separated so that the twelve could give themselves continually over to the ministry of the Word and prayer, which would be the figurative "feeding" of the spiritual needs of the "flock" of the assembly (as well as each other), which is--now guess, eh?--teaching. Thus, this asrrangement defined who the pastors and teachers were, and what they did.

    For the moment leaving the issue of episkopoi and presbuteroi aside,

    You left them aside for sure, only to later leap to asserting that episkopos, and presbuteros are not truly interchangeable, equivalent, synonomous despite the fact that this is what the Holy Spirit describes them as being.

    So who are the pastors in Eph. 4:11? If the office of deacon is not comprised by "pastor" there is no place for the deacon, is there?

    No, as again, besides apostles it is clear that presbuteros/episkopos are described and charged with functioning as pastors. The best you can say is that the term pastors no more excludes presbuteros than it excludes deacons, but the latter are not the ones shown or described spiritually pastoring the flock.

    [Peter] is commanded to "feed" the lambs of the flock (1 Pet. 2:2,3) while the Shepherd is away. Here, he is given the task of getting little new lambs to suckle on their mother ewes, getting the "milk" of the Gospel, which is sustaining the saving faith until full assurance is a real felt experience, and the stronger food of discernment is in the offing (Heb. 5:13-14). You see the analogy, do you not? There is only one Spiritual Pastor, One Shepherd (Jn. 10:16). A teacher is just a nurse for the little spiritual babes, a mower who distributes hay for the weak ones, and shows the stronger where to graze.

    Wrong, as presbuteros/episkopos are clearly described as shepherding the flock, as its overseers. And which includes rebuking rebellious souls sharply, (Titus 1:13) as well as leaders who sin. (1Tim. 5:20)

    As a presbuteros Peter would not forsake the needs of the assembly and "go a-fishing." He woyuld be present as a didaslalos as they gather together to teach everything whatsoever he had heard Jesus command,

    But presbuteros are the ones charged with teaching and spiritually pastoring under the apostles, and nowhere are deacons charged with teaching, but they minister, and the word is even used for a female who ministered, (Rm. 16:1) but not by teaching men.

    The functions of pastor, episkopos, and presbuteros are not truly interchangeable, and most certainly are not equivalent, nor are they at all synonomous. To think so is dramatically wrong.

    Which is just as baseless and absurd as it was the first time someone said it, and your laborious description of Peter or the preceding utterly fails to teach what you assert. Titus is charged by Paul to ordain presbuteros in every city, and which are called episkopos, (Titus 1:5,7) and gives Timothy the requirements for episkopos, taking care of the church, as he did in keeping his own children in subjection, (1Tim, 3:1-7) and goes on state that presbuteros who rule well are to be counted worthy of double honour. (1Tim. 5:17) Paul calls all the Ephesian presbuteros together and charges them with feeding the flock as its episkopos, (Acts 20;17,32) never inferring any distinction btwn the two, but showing that episkopos are presbuteros and presbuteros are episkopos.

    Please read 1 Peter 5:1-11, and come to terms with the fact that the common current church manifestation of rule is so way out of balance, Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, or Baptist, that none of such congregations are any longer effective of prospering in their worldly-oriented polities. They need to be restored to the New Testament model.

    It is aberrant teaching as yours that gives Rome ammunition. While all the above have problems, with Catholicism being in its own class, esp. Rome, the main theme in your ecclesiology is that of rejection of authority. However, as said, Paul charges pastors to "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine," (2 Timothy 4:2) "These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee," (Titus 2:15) and the writer of Hebrews charges, "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you." (Hebrews 13:17)

    The deacons diakonoi, when functioning scripturally, are the pastors literally serving and managing the physical needs of the constituents of the assembly, exclusively.

    Which is simply not what they are charged with or described as as doing, as instead the only description of their duties was to take care of the physical feeding, though some as Philip also functioned as evangelists. You whole eisegesis seems driven by an animus against authority.

    The episkopos is the business manager and ruler of the physical plant, the personnel relationships, and interactions with the worldly community.

    Which simply more reading into the text what is not there, as while they are to have a good testimony, their active functions are to care for the church, and be "apt to teach," and "feed the flock," rebuke, exhort," etc. as shown.

    A bishop [episkopos] then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) (1 Timothy 3:2-5)

    The presbuteroi, the elders, have responsibility for the teaching of the assembly, especially as directed toward one-on-one or one-on- or -very few disciple-making and training in the never-ending process of bringing constituents to full stature in the Lord, following the Great Commission in detail, and making the recruitment of new disciples the overruling concern for even having an assembly.

    As shown, presbuteroi are charged with feeding the flock as its episkopos, (Acts 20:28,32) and the terms are elsewhere shown to be synonymous, and never in any manifest distinction, despite the desire of some to see such.

    Each local assembly is scripturally meant to be autonomous, not "catholic" in polity nor engaging in attempts to rule beyond the local church.

    And how do you get this out of Acts 15? Granted, the limited unity of the NT church was under clearly abundantly manifest men of God, (2Co. 6:4-10; 12:12) of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, and Rome's so-called apostolic successors even fail of the qualifications and credentials of manifest Biblical apostles. (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12) but the principal of consensual centralized leadership, in scope as far as practical, with the veracity of its judgments resting upon the degree of Scriptural substantiation, is certainly what is Scriptural and a goal to be sought, despite the Roman abomination of it. A lot of autonomous churches of variegated variant beliefs, and so that heretics can jump from one to another, is not.

  • A Look at the Early Catholic Church from the Acts of the Apostles

    04/29/2016 9:58:30 AM PDT · 255 of 315
    daniel1212 to imardmd1
    The Greek word for "pastor" is ποιμήν (poimēn) and is used once in the NT. The adjective presbuteros (translated 'elder') is the comparative form of πρεσβύτης presbutēs (old), The protoype Jerusalem assembly was governed by a plurality of older, more spiritually mature men, whose angel/messenger/spokesman was James (Acts 15). Similarly, Paul constrained Titus to appoint elders (plural) in each city (singular). While the elders may have had a pastoral function, the title "Pastor" was not one used in the first churches, and is absent from the NT as being equated with episkopos as is done today, That whole concept of government of churches by an episcopacy is entirely a Romish military-style to subjugate great masses of humans despite their supposed freedom in Christ.

    Actually, all the terms are synonymous, as manifested by their interchangeable use in Scripture. The Greek word for "pastor," poimēn, is used many times in the NT, denoting one who shepherds/pastors flocks, and thus it is most often used for Christ, and is also used for those whom God gave to the church. As such it is a general term for those who are ordained, who are otherwise called presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer), these two also being used interchangeably.

    But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd [poimēn]. (Matthew 9:36)

    And he gave some [G3588: "them" or "who are" cf. 2Co_1:4; Eph. 2:11], apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors [poimēn] and teachers.. (Ephesians 4:11) If pastors were different then presbuteros would have also been named as a pastoral office that God gave the church.

    For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders [presbuteros] in every city, as I had appointed thee:.. For a bishop [episkopos] 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)

    And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders [presbuteros] of the church. (Acts 20:17)

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

    Therefore pastors refers to those who shepherd the church, who are called elders (referring to the type of person)/episkopos (referring to the type of function of the episkopal office).

    God always ordained government, both religious and civil, and enjoins conditional obedience to them. But not as an elite hierarchical system, much less autocratic or infallible, as Rome imagines herself to be.

  • A Christian Doctor Was Fired for the Most Frightening, Orwellian Reason You Can Imagine

    04/28/2016 7:04:57 PM PDT · 32 of 32
    daniel1212 to CottonBall
    Huh? Dr. Walsh did not make anyone at his work listen to his sermons.

    Exactly. Please go read again what I said and was responding to.

  • A Look at the Early Catholic Church from the Acts of the Apostles

    04/28/2016 7:02:47 PM PDT · 225 of 315
    daniel1212 to aMorePerfectUnion
    Priest is not a NT office of the Church. This is simply eisogesis from hundreds of years later, read back into Scripture to justify it... like so many other doctrines made up out of whole cloth.

    Indeed, it is error begetting error, as if the Holy Spirit of Christ had no good reason for distinctively using the word for priests/high priest over 280 times (mainly as the latter), but never using it for NT pastors but instead using presbuteros over 60 times for NT pastors.

  • A Look at the Early Catholic Church from the Acts of the Apostles

    04/28/2016 7:02:25 PM PDT · 224 of 315
    daniel1212 to ADSUM; aMorePerfectUnion; MHGinTN
    Calling Catholic Answers deceitful liars tells us a lot about your intentions and your willingness to accept the Truth.

    Indeed, as does your defense of them, with opposition being because as a former weekly and serving RC, i am to go where the Truth leads, and thus my comment on Catholic Answers, who cannot tolerate my or other sound reproof. Bring one of their apologist to debate here and lets see his sophistry exposed by God's grace. That of Staples already has been.

    Specifically, we’ll examine the words of Christ to Peter and the apostles: “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” As CCC 553 says, Christ here communicated not only authority “to pronounce doctrinal judgments, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church,” but also “the authority to absolve sins” to the apostles.

    These words are unsettling, even disturbing, to many. And understandably so. How could God give such authority to men? And yet he does. Jesus Christ, who alone has the power to open and shut heaven to men, clearly communicated this authority to the apostles and their successors. This is what the forgiveness of sins is all about: to reconcile men and women with their heavenly Father. CCC 1445 puts it succinctly: The words bind and loose mean: whomever you exclude from your communion, will be excluded from communion with God; whomever you receive anew into your communion, God will welcome back into his. Reconciliation with the Church is inseparable from reconciliation with God.

    The problem - besides avoiding the fact that Holy Spirit nowhere describes pastors as a distinct sacerdotal class of believers distinctively titled NT "priests" - as easily manifest in the light of Scripture is that you have a Biblical statement followed by RC conclusions - and which must include what is not stated here - which are not what Scripture reveals. For the meaning of the binding and loosing statements must be interpreted in the light of the rest of Scripture, which fails to support the doctrine of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility of office, nor the idea that the people regularly came to NT priests to confess their sins - neither of WHICH ARE ANYWHERE SEEN!

    That God gave binding and loosing authority to men is not unsettling, except perhaps to anarchists, for this is nothing new. Under the law fathers or husbands could bind their daughters or wives to their vows or loose them (which means a vow of Mary to perpetual virginity - which she would hardly have made before marriage - would require this), and if the respective man any ways made them void after that he hath heard them, then he would bear her iniquity. (Num. 30) But this binding/loosing authority did not require or infer ensured infallibility.

    In addition, the judgements of the OT magisterium were binding or loosing, with dissent from which being a capital crime: If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the Lord thy God shall choose; (Deuteronomy 17:8) "And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously." (Deuteronomy 17:13) But this binding/loosing authority did not require or infer ensured infallibility.

    And in the NT,this what corresponds to Mt. 18;15-18, "if thy brother shall trespass against thee..if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." (Matthew 18:15) It does not even mention settling doctrinal differences, though in principle that flows from it, while regarding personal conflicts Paul instructs the church to chose wise men from among them as judges in such matters, (1Co. 6:5) which RC laity cannot. But this binding/loosing authority did not require or infer ensured infallibility.

    Nor did the verity of the judgement of the ecumenical council Jerusalem rest upon the premise of ensured magisterial infallibility (unlike that of RC doctrine: "...the mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true," Karl Keating, founder of Catholic Answers; Catholicism and Fundamentalism San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988, p. 275), but instead it rested upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, and with James providing the Scriptural conclusive judgment, confirmatory of Peter and Paul.

    Moreover, it is revealed that healing can be synonymous with forgiveness, so that the one forgiven is healed, referring to removing God's hands of chastisement for sins, perhaps those of ignorance, in response to the intercession of others, and which do not need to be even be confessed to obtain forgiveness, as in the case of the man sick of the palsy. "Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?" (Mark 2:9)

    And which corresponds to James 5, in which a sick believer is to call for the NT presbuteros - not priests - and "let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him." (James 5:15)

    Thus the closest thing to what Catholicism reads into Scripture is not even speaking of believers confessing their sins, much less regularly. And in further contrast to Catholicism, what James describes here is assured healing, while for Caths this text is used to justify her "Last Rite" sacrament, which is typically a precursor of death. >Meanwhile, in even further contrast to Catholicism, the ONLY place that exhorts confession of sins is to other believers in general:

    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. Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit. Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins. (James 5:16-20)

    This cannot be restricted to the presbuteros, and reveals that which judicial binding or loosing is restricted to the earthly government, spiritually this power is provided for all who are of Elijah fervent holy faith. And which Mt. 18 likewise applies to:

    Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 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 18:18-20)

    "Two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them," applies to all believers, but just as "any thing that they shall ask it shall be done for them" is contingent on being in accordance with the word of God and His will, so likewise "whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.." Autocracy is reserved to God, not man, Rome or cults.

    Thus while Catholics presume to quote Mt. 18; Jn. 20 and Ja. 5 as if these refer to some new power of ensured magisterial infallibility, and of souls regularly coming to a sacerdotal priests to confess sins, this is simply not what Scripture teaches, and does not support referring to Cath clergy with the title that the Holy Spirit nowhere uses for NT pastors.

    Can you explain why the Holy Spirit did not include the word “Trinity” in the Old or New Testament?

    Sure, as it is a theological term referring to the nature of God, which men are free to use if what it describes is Scripturally manifest, versus presuming to use a term the Holy Spirit abundantly distinctively uses for clergy under one government but never distinctively uses for NT clergy, and which are never shown or described as having the unique sacerdotal function of the former clergy. Thus your comparison is invalid, as are your other arguments.

    May the Holy Spirit help you understand His Truth.

  • A Look at the Early Catholic Church from the Acts of the Apostles

    04/27/2016 6:06:06 PM PDT · 51 of 315
    daniel1212 to Salvation
    Are you saying you don’t believe St. Luke or St. Paul?

    See above. It is you who are saying you don’t believe St. Luke or St. Paul - of the Holy Spirit of Christ.

  • A Look at the Early Catholic Church from the Acts of the Apostles

    04/27/2016 6:01:32 PM PDT · 48 of 315
    daniel1212 to ADSUM; Salvation; Mrs. Don-o; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; ...
    Answer The English word “priest” is derived from the Greek word presbuteros, which is commonly rendered into Bible English as “elder” or “presbyter.” The ministry of Catholic priests is that of the presbyters mentioned in the New Testament (Acts 15:6, 23). The Bible says little about the duties of presbyters, but it does reveal they functioned in a priestly capacity.

    Which is simply lying sophistry, which "Catholic Answers" specializes in, for in reality what "derived" means is that is this is where its etymology evolution leads, but which does not mean the end result is a valid representation of its original meaning (examples: cute used to mean bow-legged; bully originally meant darling or sweetheart; Nice originally meant stupid or foolish; ), and in the case of "priest" for presbyter it is certainly a different one.

    Due to her erroneous understanding of the Lord's Supper (“Eucharist”), Catholicism (by the end of the 2nd century or later) came to consider NT pastors to be a distinctive sacerdotal class of clergy, distinctively called “priests” (which the RC Douay Rheims Bible inconsistently calls them: Acts 20:17; Titus 1:5), and sometimes “episkopos,”), but which the Holy Spirit never does. For the word which the Holy Spirit distinctively uses for priests *, is “hiereus” or “archiereus (over 280 times total, mainly as the latter).” (Heb. 4:15; 10:11) is never used for NT pastors. Nor do the words presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) - which He does use for NT pastors (over 60 times) - mean "priest." Neither the Hebrew word, "ko^he^n," nor the Greek word "hiereus," or the Latin word "sacerdotes" for priest have any essential connection to the Greek word presbyteros. It follows that the Latin word "sacerdos" which corresponds to priest has no morphological or lingual relationship with the Latin word for “presbyter” (for which statements and certain others I rely on the knowledge of others, by God's grace). Nor are presbuteros or episkopos described as having 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.

    Jewish elders (Hebrew "zaqen") as a body existed before the priesthood of Levitical priests (Hebrew "kohen"), most likely as heads of household or clans, and being an elder did not necessarily make one a Levitical priest (Ex. 3:16,18, 18:12; 19:7; 24:1; Num. 11:6; Dt. 21:2; 22:5-7; 31:9,28; 32:7; Josh. 23:2; 2Chron. 5:4; Lam. 1:9; cf. Mt. 21:13; 26:47) or a high priest, offering both gifts and sacrifices for sins. (Heb. 5:1) While elders exercise could some priestly functions such as praying and laying hands on sacrifices, yet unlike presbuteros and episkopos, elders and priest were not the same in language or in distinctive function. Like very young Samuel, one could be a kohen/priest without being an zaqen/elder, and one could be a elder without formally being a priest, whose primary function was to offer expiatory sacrifices for the people.

    The Catholic use of "priest" for what Scripture calls presbyteros/elder is defended by the use of an etymological fallacy since "priest" evolved from "presbyteros, if with uncertainty," with presbyteros being considered and called priests early on, based on Latin biblical and ecclesiastical language, and who were later referred to in old English (around 700 to 1000 AD) as "preostas" or "preost," and finally resulting in the modern English "priest," thereby losing the distinction the Holy Spirit provided by never using the distinctive term of hiereus for NT presbuteros, or describing as them as a distinctive sacerdotal class of believers.

    However, etymology is the study of the history of words, their origins, and evolving changes in form and meaning. over time, but etymologies are not definitions. The etymological fallacy here is that of erroneously holding that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily essentially be the same as its original or historical meaning. Since presbyteros incorrectly evolved into priest (and were assigned an imposed unique sacerdotal function) therefore it is erroneously considered to be valid to distinctively use the same title for OT priests as for NT pastors, despite the Holy Spirit never doing so and the lack of unique sacerdotal distinction for NT presbyteros.

    All believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church, that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). But nowhere are NT pastors distinctively titled hiereus, and the idea of the NT presbuteros being a distintive class titled "hiereus" was a later development, with an imposed functional equivalence, supposing NT presbyteros engaged in a unique sacrificial ministry as their primary function.

    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." (http://books.google.com/books?id=ajZ_aR-VXn8C&source=gbs_navlinks_s)

    And R. J. Grigaitis (O.F.S.) (while yet trying to defend the use of priest), reveals, "The Greek word for this office is ‘?e?e?? (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 [from old English "preost"] took on its definition." (http://grigaitis.net/weekly/2007/2007-04-27.html)

    Titus 1:5-7: Bishops and elders were one: the former (episkopos=superintendent or “overseer,”[from “epi” and “skopos” (“watch”) in the sense of “episkopeō,” to oversee, — Strong's) refers to function; the latter (presbuteros=senior) to seniority (in age, implying maturity, or position). Titus was to “set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders [presbuteros] in every city, as I had appointed thee: “If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop [episkopos] must be blameless...” (Titus 1:5-7) Paul also "sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church," (Acts 20:17) who are said to be episkopos in v. 28. Elders are also what were ordained for every church in Acts 14:23, and bishops along with deacons are the only two classes of clergy whom Paul addresses in writing to the church in Phil. 1:1. This does not exclude that there could have been “archbishops/elders” in the New Testament church who were head pastors over others, but there is no titular distinctions in Scripture denoting such, and which distinctions are part of the hierarchical class distinctions which came later, and foster love of titles and position which the Lord warned about. (Mk. 10:42-44; Mt. 23:8-10).

    Even the fourth century Roman Catholic scholar Jerome (347-420), confirms,

    The presbyter is the same as the bishop, and before parties had been raised up in religion by the provocations of Satan, the churches were governed by the Senate of the presbyters. But as each one sought to appropriate to himself those whom he had baptised, instead of leaving them to Christ, it was appointed that one of the presbyters, elected by his colleagues, should be set over all the others, and have chief supervision over the general well-being of the community. And this is not my private opinion, it is that of Scripture. If you doubt that bishop and presbyter are the same, that the first word is one of function, and the second one of age, read the epistle of the Apostle to the Philippians. Without doubt it is the duty of the presbyters to bear in mind that by the discipline of the Church they are subordinated to him who has been given them as their head, but it is fitting that the bishops, on their side, do not forget that if they are set over the presbyters, it is the result of tradition, and not by the fact of a particular institution of the Lord. (Commentary on Tit. 1.7, quoted. in “Religions of authority and the religion of the spirit," pp. 77,78. 1904, by AUGUSTE SABATIER. A similar translated version of this is provided by "Catholic World," Volume 32, by the Paulist Fathers, 1881, pp. 73,74).

    There is more if you care to read itby God's grace.

    They were ordained by the laying on of hands (1 Tm 4:14, 5:22), they preached and taught the flock (1 Tm 5:17), and they administered sacraments (Jas 5:13-15). These are the essential functions of the priestly office, so wherever the various forms of presbuteros appear—except, of course, in instances which pertain to the Jewish elders (Mt 21:23, Acts 4:23)—the word may rightly be translated as “priest” instead of “elder” or “presbyter.”

    Wrong, and which presumes the Catholic church is smarter than the Holy Spirit who refrains from ever using "priest" for NT pastors. Priests were not the only ones to lay hands on souls, which "a certain disciple named Ananias" did on Paul, (Acts 9:1-18) and deacons also could teach the flock, and perform healing, (Acts 8:5-7) and "certain prophets and teachers" sent Paul and Barnabas on their mission (Acts 13:1) while the distinctive and essential active duty of a priest is to offer sacrifice for sins, (Heb. 10;11) which for Catholics means the Eucharist, which NT pastors are never described as doing.

  • The Church Testifies to the Resurrection

    04/26/2016 7:04:36 PM PDT · 193 of 194
    daniel1212 to delchiante; MHGinTN
    s Paul talking about things like ‘Mon’Day or ‘Tiws’ Day or Thors Day and April and May and July , and Christmas time or Easter time and Year of the Dragon? Or was He speaking of biblical days like the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th Days. Passover, Unleavened Bread, First Fruits, Weeks, Booths? Because if one is saying Paul is telling them to ignore the biblical days, we have a problem when He tells the Corinthians to keep the feast.

    Wrong. The Galatians were hardly being warned about lapsing back into observing pagan days, times, months and years, as instead they were warned about being circumscribed, and seeking to be justified under the Law!

    Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. (Galatians 5:1-4)

    How in the world does that sound like lapsing back into observing pagan days like Saturnalia? Being not entangled again with the yoke of bondage contextually refers to salvation under the Law, and which includes judging when to worship based upon external signs. The FACT is that the only specific day that any pastored, called-out assembly/church ever are described meeting together on is the first day of the week, while observing liturgical Jewish days is relegated to being typological, as re as dietary laws and temple purification, which are no longer binding on believers. (Col. 2:16,17; Heb. 9:10).

    As for the "feast" of 1 Co. 5, that refers to Christ being the Passover, which He fulfilled, and the only literal feast there would that which commemorates the Lord's death, the day of which is not mandated, but is "as oft as ye do this."

  • The Church Testifies to the Resurrection

    04/26/2016 7:03:15 PM PDT · 192 of 194
    daniel1212 to delchiante; metmom; MHGinTN
    I recall saying sanctification in a post, not salvation. That may be mind reading on your part. I can go back and see and will apologize if I did. But you used the ‘inferred’ which tells me, it was you who thought that, not I.

    If you had cared or dared to follow the link then you should have been be able to see that the context was not that of sanctification, but of believing a false gospel and false Jesus:

    That was Paul’s gospel. which gospel is taught today? Rome’s with Good Friday or Paul’s with Passover (14th)? Rome’s with Holy Saturday or Paul’s Unleavened Bread (15th)? Rome’s with Easter Sunday or Paul’s First Fruits (16th)? The difference is stark when they land on different days. Even more stark when they land in different months. 2 Cor 11:3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. 4For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully.

    This is more serious than your absurd idea of deviant sexual sins being what really went down in the garden.

    Sola Scriptura, shall we?...Paul is making known the gospel in 1st verse in the 3rd verse says, inspired by the Holy Spirit, that the FIRST IMPORTANCE TO THE GOSPEL IS THAT CHRIST DIED FOR OUR SINS ACCORDINING TO THE SCRIPTURES. And Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, uses the ‘According to the Scriptures twice in consecutive verses) What Scriptures is Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, referencing here? The Holy Spirit could have inspired Paul to just write that Christ died for our sins, leaving out the ‘According to Scripture’ or as some versions state ‘In Accordance with the Scriptures’ But that isn’t what is written.

    Indeed, and "according to the Scriptures" that the Holy Spirit chose to record, the Scriptures both he and or other apostles clearly referenced were only those which prophetically spoke of Christ death and resurrection, and never the specific calendar day, that "the Lord died on the 14th Day of the Father’s 1st month," which you read into Paul's mind and make so important:

    "He [David) seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption," (Acts 2:31)

    And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David. Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption: But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption. (Acts 13:32-37)

    And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. (Acts 8:31-33)

    Such is the evidence of what "according to the Scriptures" referred to, and multiple to the OT can be seen here , by God's grace, and while there is more prophetic material outside of what we see in the NT that can be used to substantiate the Lord as being the promised Messiah who fulfilled the promises, but nowhere is the specific calendar day gone into as an important belief as part of the gospel "by which ye are saved" to which Paul referred in 1 Co. 15, despite the multitude of Gentiles.

    But cults typically look for some ignored or debatable point to major on in order to justify themselves as the elite, and denigrate those outside their chosen group. So what is the name of your movement and its teachers?

    Rome can’t even get what Paul calls the first importance of the gospel correct.

    So now that specificity which Paul never stated as being of great importance in gospel preaching, that "the Lord died on the 14th Day of the Father’s 1st month, is now of "first importance" since you read into "according to the gospel" that which is not manifestly mentioned.

    That comes with study and testing those teachings and doctrines with Scripture.

    There it is. Another typical cultic aspect. Just like the Watchtower disciples something that takes much study is made essential to be saved.

    Is it a minor detail? Most would say yes. Protestant daughters certainly would run to Rome’s defense

    How typical of cults with their false dilemmas: if you do not agree with them then you are defending Rome. Works for 7th day sabbath-keepers, annihilationists, "sacred name" proponents, etc.

    According to the Scriptures, Christ died for our sins on Passover, the 14th Day of the Father’s 1st month..

    As attesting to Christ being the Lamb of God such has its place, but which does not even mean it must be a yearly observance, nor that is was so important to believe that Paul and the other preachers specified this.

    Anybody ever ask Rome why Good Friday isn’t Passover every year? I didn’t have to because the Father told me the difference between Passover, according to the Scriptures and Good Friday according to Rome. Is that, at it’s most infantile elementary level, another gospel? Does it matter?

    No, "another gospel" includes those who add to the gospel that which Scripture does not in order to be saved, and which is what you have done by charging those who hold to the calendar of Rome are preaching "another gospel," which is most of Christianity save for some elite cult. That they should not hold to the calendar of Rome is one thing;l but it is another to make that a matter of "first importance" as btwn a true Christ/Spirit/gospel and a false one.

    Depends on whether people want Sola Scriptura to be the final arbiter of religious doctrinal debates- or not.

    Indeed, and which testifies to what Paul specifically referenced as being "according to the Scriptures," and foundational beliefs. Which was not that of explaining that the Lord died on the 14th Day of the Father’s 1st month.

  • A Christian Doctor Was Fired for the Most Frightening, Orwellian Reason You Can Imagine

    04/26/2016 5:26:00 AM PDT · 24 of 32
    daniel1212 to matthew fuller
    I think that the Seventh Day Adventist Church is a cult. I’m not the only one- http://www.truthorfables.com/SDA_Cult.htm http://christinprophecy.org/articles/the-seventh-day-adventists/

    Or at least cultic, but which is irrelevant as to the rights of the individual being violated here.

  • A Christian Doctor Was Fired for the Most Frightening, Orwellian Reason You Can Imagine

    04/26/2016 5:18:03 AM PDT · 23 of 32
    daniel1212 to Amendment10; T-Bird45; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; ...
    But I won’t draw a conclusion because the article doesn’t provide enough information on the issue imo. And I wouldn’t be surprised if we got conflicting testimonies about what actually happened if we had the opportunity to ask questions of the people involved.

    You already did draw a conclusion that Walsh was possibly violating the 14th Amendment protections of staff members who got the “assignment” of listening to them despite the substantiated testimony that he was not the one who did that, and which is no way to serve on a jury. And you have to go with the evidence that you have, not what you speculate may be "out there," which it seems you are desiring.

    The director of human resources sent an email giving his colleagues the "assignment" of listening to his sermons. Then the department left a voicemail on the doctor's machine, letting him know his employment was terminated. The most insulting part, however, came when they did not hang up the phone, but mocked him after thinking the call was over. One of the callers said, "you can't preach that and work in the field of public health," Walsh recalled.

    Moreover, The religious freedom bill could protect persons such as Walsh from state which make or enforce laws which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States by punishing them for their religious or ideological views expressed off the job, such as upheld traditional morality versus destructive ethos of modern social engineering.

  • Outrage Abounds over Target’s Decision to Allow Transgenders in Any Bathroom(+00k now)

    04/25/2016 6:27:34 PM PDT · 38 of 43
    daniel1212 to doldrumsforgop
    I called Target Guest Relations at 1-800-440-0680 (press 1 for store experience) and expressed the following.

    Hi. I understand that the policy of Target is to welcome people to use whichever “restroom or fitting room facility” they feel “corresponds to their gender identity,” since “everyone deserves to feel like they belong.” However, this is Biblically immoral and means making many women feel like they do not belong because they are uncomfortable with allowing men in their bathroom. Therefore according to your own judgment they and others who disagree with this policy do not belong in your store, and I myself have joined the many others who have decided to the boycott against shopping at Target. And I discourage others from so doing, and encourage them to join the boycott of Target due to its immoral inclusive yet exclusive policy.

    The Asian (it seems) young lady was very nice, and stated that not everyone who worked at Target agreed with that policy, however she could not give her personal opinion (but the tone was apologetic), but that she would surely pass on my comment, and simply asked for my first and last name, which I do not think is in their system anyway.

    Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. (1 Timothy 1:15) Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out... (Acts 3:19)

  • Target Responds To Hidden Camera Video of Staff Telling Man He Can Use Ladies Room

    04/25/2016 6:20:13 PM PDT · 28 of 64
    daniel1212 to hattend

    I called Target Guest Relations at 1-800-440-0680 (press 1 for store experience) and expressed the following.

    Hi. I understand that the policy of Target is to welcome people to use whichever “restroom or fitting room facility” they feel “corresponds to their gender identity,” since “everyone deserves to feel like they belong.” However, this is Biblically immoral and means making many women feel like they do not belong because they are uncomfortable with allowing men in their bathroom. Therefore according to your own judgment they and others who disagree with this policy do not belong in your store, and I myself have joined the many others who have decided to the boycott against shopping at Target. And I discourage others from so doing, and encourage them to join the boycott of Target due to its immoral inclusive yet exclusive policy.


    The Asian (it seems) young lady was very nice, and stated that not everyone who worked at Target agreed with that policy, however she could not give her personal opinion (but the tone was apologetic), but that she would surely pass on my comment, and simply asked for my first and last name, which I do not think is in their system anyway.

    Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. (1 Timothy 1:15)

    Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out... (Acts 3:19)

  • Ubuntu 16.04 Brings More Privacy and Big Changes to the Desktop

    04/25/2016 2:08:58 PM PDT · 22 of 23
    daniel1212 to Maurice Tift
    t. There were a few problems getting it to play DVDs, but the key turned out to be installing libdvdcss2.

    Which is probably illegal. But Windows 10 also stopped providing DVD support.

  • Ubuntu 16.04 Brings More Privacy and Big Changes to the Desktop

    04/25/2016 1:58:01 PM PDT · 21 of 23
    daniel1212 to VitacoreVision
    While there is always a learning curve when migrating to a new operating system, the curve switching to Ubuntu from Windows 7, 8, or 8.1 is nowhere near as steep as it is from any of those to Windows 10.

    It is such typical hype as this that is an argument against Linux. As a long time Windows "power user" who has tried every major and some minor Linux distros (i just booted up the latest Remix beta on a another PC to see if i can run an app on it), i can attest that the above statement is absurd, and indicates the writer is ignorant of Windows 10. It is not much of a learning curve at all to go from W/7 which most W/8 users would be familiar with, and with the simple addition of Classic Shell Windows 8 or 8.1 is little different from Vista or Win 7.

    In contrast, switching to any Linux distro from Windows is a far greater learning curve unless you just want to surf the Internet.

  • The Church Testifies to the Resurrection

    04/25/2016 1:31:43 PM PDT · 186 of 194
    daniel1212 to delchiante
    Let me ask it this way- Is it possible Rome has a false Mary and false Jesus or do they just worship Jesus falsely?

    Both can be the case but that is not and has not been the issue, but that of applying 2 Cor 11:3 (different spirit Jesus, Spirit, gospel) to those who simply hold to Good Friday Holy Saturday and Easter Sunday as Rome does. However, this practice itself does not mean they are preaching a false gospel. Despite your additions to what Paul preached, he did not mention the specific days that Christ died on, and making belief in these necessary for salvation, as you inferred, is a false gospel.

  • The Church Testifies to the Resurrection

    04/25/2016 5:00:22 AM PDT · 182 of 194
    daniel1212 to metmom
    Salvation is by faith in Jesus, not adherence to a specific calendar. Nor does keeping track of days indicate any level of spiritual maturity or superior-to-thouness, nor anyone’s openness to receiving other spiritual truths. It’s just an elitist mindset that leads to spiritual pride.

    Then there is the sacred name movement.

  • The Church Testifies to the Resurrection

    04/25/2016 4:57:51 AM PDT · 181 of 194
    daniel1212 to imardmd1
    Since there is no worship without an integral sacrifice, the weekly honoring of the day of His resurrection and of the outpouring of the Holy Ghost needs to be recognized by the Bride for which He poured out His life, His Spirit, His Blood, and His Love. And that often. "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" (Act 20:7 AV). Now, what do you make of that, dear FRiend and Brother in the Lord?

    What i expounded was not a denial of this perhaps being the LS, but a denial of the Cath Eucharist, for the context of the quote you choose, what i said was

    considering the centrality and fundamental critical importance of the Cath Eucharist, then surely the practice and doctrine of the Catholic Eucharist with its NT priests would be clearly and often described in the life of the NT church, from Acts to Revelation, especially in the light of the many descriptions, teachings and exhortations and commendations and criticisms and solutions for problems which are given it. And with its descriptions of pastoral work. But in the entire record of acts and life of the NT church, which are interpretive of the gospels, we have no manifest description of the Catholic Eucharist, the sober formal ritual administered by a sacerdotal class of clergy distinctively titled "priests.".

    The clear contrast is btwn the breaking of bread ("with gladness and singleness of heart'), and a central "source and summit of our faith" formal ritual sacrifice at the hands of a special class of believers distinctively titled "priests," for they presume to offer Christ as a sacrifice for sins to the Father under the appearances of bread and wine, either of which they imagine is the "real" body and blood of Christ, and which is to be eaten in order to obtain spiritual life.

    Consider how the Eucharist is described according to RC teaching:

    "the source and summit of the Christian life," around which all else revolves, as all the "other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it;" (CCC 1324

    "the cause of that communion in the divine life," (CCC 1325) and the work of our redemption is carried out;" (CCC 1364)

    "through it Christ becomes present whole and entire, God and man;" (MYSTERIUM FIDEI, 39)

    "the same sacrifice with that of the cross...a sacrifice of propitiation, by which God is appeased and rendered propitious;” (The Catechism of the Council of Trent)

    and that the active duty priest is "most of all to offer the Eucharistic Sacrifice;" (Pastoral Reflections on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Cardinal John J. O'Conner)

    Canon law states that it is the duty of parents that children who have attained the age of reason "are nourished by this divine food as soon as possible" after their first sacramental confession.(Can. 914)

    Obviously if the NT church held or was to hold to this belief with its critical centrality and nature then this central critical ritual sacrifice by priests would be often described in the life of the church, this being interpretive of the gospels, and exhorted as a central means of grace, and with its theology explained someplace therein, at least in Hebrews with its teachings on the grace of the "better" covenant. But in contrast we see it as described. Which is not opposed to your description that "the breaking of bread is to be an occasion of remembrance, one of removing it from the ordinary meal of replenishing one's body of nutrients...the weekly honoring of the day of His resurrection and of the outpouring of the Holy Ghost needs to be recognized by the Bride for which He poured out His life, His Spirit, His Blood, and His Love." But the sacrifice is that of oneself in service to others, effectually remembering Christ's sacrifice for us. To the glory of God.

  • Are Amazon’s Month-To-Month Prime Memberships Ever Worth The Extra Money?

    04/24/2016 6:25:35 PM PDT · 67 of 78
    daniel1212 to NYAmerican
    “What about the politics and morality of Amazon and its CEO Bezos?” It absolutely IS important! Unfortunatley, the list of ethical suppliers seems rather limited. Sure, I go to Chik-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby every chance I get. But where do I go for the other 99% of the things I need?

    See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3424151/posts?page=169#169 re. HRC buyer's guide Thank God for info and a few pro values businesses.

  • Are Amazon’s Month-To-Month Prime Memberships Ever Worth The Extra Money?

    04/24/2016 6:15:22 PM PDT · 66 of 78
    daniel1212 to MayflowerMadam
  • The Church Testifies to the Resurrection

    04/24/2016 5:25:39 PM PDT · 175 of 194
    daniel1212 to delchiante; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; boatbums; ...
    Today is the 16th Day. The Day after the Sabbath. The Feast of First Fruits/Wave Sheaf (Leviticus 23:10-11), according to Scripture. The commemoration of His Resurrection. He is risen! That was Paul’s gospel. which gospel is taught today? Rome’s with Good Friday or Paul’s with Passover (14th)?

    As long as the world runs on an antichrist calendar that points to Roman truth and versions of events, people of faith are not having their minds transformed into what He was teaching Israel. Conformity to the world, even a ‘judeo-christian’ world is deceptive. That is why scripture says Satan deceives the whole world.

    I agree we should get the day of Passover correct if we are going to celebrate the resurrection (though Christmass is basically out for me), but if the specific day was so important that those who get the day wrong are believing a false gospel then that is akin to elitist Catholicism and cults. That itself is deception.

  • Incorruptibles?

    04/24/2016 5:13:22 PM PDT · 171 of 191
    daniel1212 to ealgeone
    German reformer Martin Luther's (1483-1546) writings often address the subject of Mary:

    Came across this older post of yours, and though you would be interested in the series by Swan on this issue. That God for what helps .

  • The Church Testifies to the Resurrection

    04/24/2016 2:05:25 PM PDT · 170 of 194
    daniel1212 to MHGinTN
    An exact day is not essential for our Salvation,

    Nor does it mean one is preaching "another Jesus" if they hold to a wrong specific day of crucifixion, which was the point being refuted.

  • Don't Boycott Target Over Transgender Bathroom Issue: Here's a Better Alternative

    04/24/2016 1:43:09 PM PDT · 200 of 218
    daniel1212 to Elsie
    On what AUTHORITY?

    A form of citizens arrest i guess.

  • Don't Boycott Target Over Transgender Bathroom Issue: Here's a Better Alternative

    04/24/2016 11:12:09 AM PDT · 175 of 218
    daniel1212 to LYDIAONTARIO
    All according to demonic plan .

    But as all have sinned, may they and all find grace to repent and be born again by contrite faith in ther risen Lord Jesus.

  • Don't Boycott Target Over Transgender Bathroom Issue: Here's a Better Alternative

    04/24/2016 11:09:12 AM PDT · 174 of 218
    daniel1212 to Bob434

    Once about 95 we were offering gospel tracts in church street station in Orlando, and i went inside to us the men’s room and passed a couple tracts out on the way, which i had been told not to do, but.. after i came out two security personnel were waiting for me, and took and finger printed me, and warned me that i would be arrested if i ever did that again. Outside was public prop. so they could not police there. But what a contrast.

  • Don't Boycott Target Over Transgender Bathroom Issue: Here's a Better Alternative

    04/24/2016 11:02:01 AM PDT · 171 of 218
    daniel1212 to Bob434

    Praise God, and despite the initial warning of how busy they were, the wait for an operator after jumping thru the numerical hoops was less than 3 minutes.

  • Don't Boycott Target Over Transgender Bathroom Issue: Here's a Better Alternative

    04/24/2016 10:46:18 AM PDT · 169 of 218
    daniel1212 to TwelveOfTwenty; dp0622
    I frequently use the HRC buyer's guide when making my choices.

    You mean to shop at places that are not shop? Its worse than I thought. Amazon 85 (rating; Wal-Mart 90(!); Target 100;

    Walmart as an example:

    Policy Description

    Rating

    Non-discrimination policy includes sexual orientation for U.S. and global operations*

    + 15

    Non-discrimination policy includes gender identity for U.S. and global operations*

    + 15

    Contractor/vendor standards include sexual orientation and gender identity alongside other named categories

    + 5

    Company-provided domestic partner health insurance (including parity in spousal and partner COBRA, dental, vision and domestic partners legal dependent coverage)

    + 10

    Parity in spousal/partner soft benefits (bereavement leave; supplemental life insurance; relocation assistance; adoption assistance; joint/survivor annuity; pre-retirement survivor annuity; retiree healthcare benefits; employee discounts)

    + 10

    Offers equal health coverage for transgender individuals without exclusion for medically necessary care

    0

    Organizational LGBT cultural competency (diversity trainings, resources or accountability measures)

    + 10

    Company-supported LGBT employee resource group or firm-wide diversity council that includes LGBT issues, OR would support a LGBT employee resource group with company resources if employees expressed an interest

    + 10

    Engages in appropriate and respectful advertising and marketing or sponsors LGBT community events, organizations, or legislative efforts

    + 15

    Engages in action that would undermine the goal of LGBT equality

    0

    Final Rating

    90

    Versus Auto Zone 10:

    Policies and Benefits

    Policy Description

    Rating

    Non-discrimination policy includes sexual orientation for U.S. and global operations*

    + 10

    Non-discrimination policy includes gender identity for U.S. and global operations*

    0

    Contractor/vendor standards include sexual orientation and gender identity alongside other named categories

    0

    Company-provided domestic partner health insurance (including parity in spousal and partner COBRA, dental, vision and domestic partners legal dependent coverage)

    0

    Parity in spousal/partner soft benefits (bereavement leave; supplemental life insurance; relocation assistance; adoption assistance; joint/survivor annuity; pre-retirement survivor annuity; retiree healthcare benefits; employee discounts)

    0

    Offers equal health coverage for transgender individuals without exclusion for medically necessary care

    0

    Organizational LGBT cultural competency (diversity trainings, resources or accountability measures)

    0

    Company-supported LGBT employee resource group or firm-wide diversity council that includes LGBT issues, OR would support a LGBT employee resource group with company resources if employees expressed an interest

    0

    Engages in appropriate and respectful advertising and marketing or sponsors LGBT community events, organizations, or legislative efforts

    0

    Engages in action that would undermine the goal of LGBT equality

    0

    Final Rating

    10

    Others: Ace Hardware 10; Trader Joe's 20; he Trump Organization 0;
  • Don't Boycott Target Over Transgender Bathroom Issue: Here's a Better Alternative

    04/24/2016 10:22:22 AM PDT · 161 of 218
    daniel1212 to DugwayDuke
    I would suggest that Target needs to explain exactly how sharing a bathroom with a male makes a female feel like they, the female, belongs?

    Indeed. Target infers those (mainly females) who are uncomfortable sharing a bathroom with those of the opposite gender do not belong in Target. Therefore they should agree with the boycott.

  • Don't Boycott Target Over Transgender Bathroom Issue: Here's a Better Alternative

    04/24/2016 10:22:04 AM PDT · 160 of 218
    daniel1212 to bpete123; LYDIAONTARIO; Sir Napsalot
    1. Public bathrooms are a courtesy, not a right. As customers, we should be thankful for any accommodations stores provide and should politely say “thanks but no thanks” to any public bathrooms that do not meet our cultural or sanity standards.

    Staples stores are also a a courtesy, saying "no thanks" to those that do not meet our cultural/moral standards is an extension of saying "no thanks" to bathrooms that do not. Boycotting a store based on its policies is what big business seem to fear when the Left threatens it, so why is it dismissed by conservatives?

    2. To suggest that stores should keep private areas safe for children establishes a false sense of security and takes the onus off of parents to provide for the safety of their own children. Specifically, no parent should send young children into a bathroom unattended. Fathers should take their young children with them into the men’s bathroom or mothers should take their young children with them into the women’s bathroom.

    2. To suggest that stores should NOT keep private areas safe for children fosters a real sense of insecurity and takes the onus off of businesses to provide for the safety of their own customers. Perhaps Playboy and the like should be stocked at the child level racks. After all, it is the job of parents to police their children, or avoid stores that do not meet their our cultural/moral standards

    However, the boycott is not simply about children, or even must include them, as it is practicing by extension the reasoning of your first argument, for the issue includes subjecting the majority of women (at least) to discomfort (due to healthy normative Biblical feelings) in order to accommodate the feelings of a minority with a perverse disorder. A $solution would be to create a third bathroom for the latter, and which would not be shameful since their orientation is what they overall are encouraged to take pride in.

    3. There is no evidence that man/child sexual perversion is an issue for transgender people beyond the average norm.

    The percentage of transgendered persons is too minute to make that a meaningful statement, while the issue is not simply restricted to them, but that the Target policy is inclusive of anyone who feels like this bathroom "corresponds with their gender identity." Examples of what Target's policy can lead to: NY Daily News: Seattle man undresses in women's locker room at local pool to test new transgender bathroom rule; Life Site News: Sexual predator jailed after claiming to be ‘transgender’ to assault women in shelter. And this is only the beginning.

    4. Given the above, it makes more sense to be more concerned about other groups in public bathrooms than transgender people. For instance, currently, people on the sex abuse registry are not prohibited from public bathrooms.

    Given the above, people should boycott store that that do not meet our cultural/moral or sanity standards, which is the very thing you labor to dismiss.

    4. Truth be told, people currently enter opposite sex bathroom for any number of reasons already, both good and bad. People often “commandeer” opposite sex bathrooms when their own bathrooms are out-of-order or there are long lines. People bring good sense and courtesy to these situations and they find a way to work it out.registrations, policies, and rules do not keep bad people from doing bad things.

    "Good sense and courtesy" means you do not sanction making women or children uncomfortable by allowing men in their bathroom. And overall your reasoning presumes people will act "reasonable," which is subjective without a supreme and sure moral standard that defines morality, even if somewhat subject to interpretation. And it is the Bible as being that standard that is being implicitly attacked. Consistent with that rejection, the LGBT movement manifests that what is "reasonable" to them is promoting and requiring acceptance and advocation of perverse disordered "orientation" and actions.

    People with more nefarious purposes can hide out in bathrooms or dress to look like the opposite sex in order to commit crimes anyway.

    But which is not the same thing as fostering it, under the premise that whatever gender you perversely feel you like gives you the right to use the corresponding facility. Thus your argument fails to both justify enabling anyone to use whatever gender-specific bathroom they feel like, and to invalidate the boycotting of stores which sanction this immoral confusion.

    As is the conservative argument when it comes to firearms,

    No, but if you re going to make that poor analogy, no sane advocate of the second amendment advocates letting persons to use the shooting range based upon their estimation of themselves and degree of comfort, and how the gun may be used besides shooting at the target.

    5. The North Carolina law is unenforceable and provides for no reasonable way it can be executed.

    Of course it is enforceable and executable, since it enables stores to prevent manifest males from using the women's room, and enables the state to punish those who do.

    Thus both you and Trump are wrong, and which superficial reasoning in effect censures those true conservatives who boycott stores which support that which fosters Biblical immorality.

  • The Church Testifies to the Resurrection

    04/24/2016 10:21:54 AM PDT · 166 of 194
    daniel1212 to delchiante
    Today is the 16th Day. The Day after the Sabbath. The Feast of First Fruits/Wave Sheaf (Leviticus 23:10-11), according to Scripture. The commemoration of His Resurrection. He is risen! That was Paul’s gospel. which gospel is taught today? Rome’s with Good Friday or Paul’s with Passover (14th)? Rome’s with Holy Saturday or Paul’s Unleavened Bread (15th)? Rome’s with Easter Sunday or Paul’s First Fruits (16th)? The difference is stark when they land on different days. Even more stark when they land in different months. The difference is stark when they land on different days. Even more stark when they land in different months. 2 Cor 11:3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. 4For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully.

    To relegate those who disagree on which specific day the Lord was crucified on -which specificity Peter or Paul did not even mention when preaching the gospel in such narratives as Acts 10 or 13 - into believing in a different Jesus, is, in a word, cultic. I leave you your minute elitist sect, even if you are correct on the day.

  • Don't Boycott Target Over Transgender Bathroom Issue: Here's a Better Alternative

    04/24/2016 10:21:46 AM PDT · 159 of 218
    daniel1212 to theBuckwheat; biff; Nifster; doug from upland; jwalsh07
    At the very least, everyone who is just taken aback and revolted by Target’s policy should call their Target Guest Relations at 1-800-440-0680 and tell them that this substantially changes their willingness to shop there.

    Thanks. I called (press 1 for store experience) and expressed the following.

    Hello. I understand that the policy of Target is to welcome people to use whichever "restroom or fitting room facility" they feel "corresponds to their gender identity," since "everyone deserves to feel like they belong." However, this is Biblically immoral and means making many women feel like they do not belong because they are uncomfortable with allowing men in their bathroom. Therefore according to your own judgment they and others who disagree with this policy do not belong in your store, and I myself have joined the many others who have decided to the boycott against shopping at Target. And I discourage others from so doing, and encourage them to join the boycott of Target due to its immoral inclusive yet exclusive policy.

    Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. (1 Timothy 1:15)

    Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out... (Acts 3:19)

    The Asian (it seems) young lady was very nice, and stated that not everyone who worked at Target agreed with that policy, however she could not give her personal opinion (but the tone was apologetic), but that she would surely pass on my comment, and simply asked for my first and last name, which I do not think is in their system anyway.

  • Don't Boycott Target Over Transgender Bathroom Issue: Here's a Better Alternative

    04/24/2016 8:57:19 AM PDT · 141 of 218
    daniel1212 to LYDIAONTARIO
    I love Landsend clothing but when they featured Gloria Steinem in their catalog, I wrote 2 complaint letters telling them how disgusted I was and that there will be no new clothes purchased from them for the family this year. I received 2 apology letters from them. And they explained they do NOT donate to planned parenthood, etc. Boycotts work. I am just a little customer too.

    May God bless you!

  • Don't Boycott Target Over Transgender Bathroom Issue: Here's a Better Alternative

    04/24/2016 7:32:47 AM PDT · 118 of 218
    daniel1212 to SeekAndFind; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; kinsman redeemer; BlueDragon; metmom; boatbums; ...
    I have joined other FReepers in signing the boycott pledge. Besides, Amazon and Walmart have better prices anyway.

    >That brings to the reality that transgender people feel as uncomfortable in a restroom that does not align with their gender identity as you feel with the idea of sharing a restroom with a person whose anatomy does not align with the sign on the door.

    So this means the feelings of of perverse disorders take priority over those of God-ordained sensibility?

    >If Christians start boycotting every corporation that operates out of progressivism's politically-correct profit-motives, our choices are going to be very narrow, our voice further sidelined and our influence further diminished.

    Really? Then why does big business fear the boyoctt of an even smaller minority?

    States, colleges, professional sports associations, global corporations and performers have all joined the boycott of states whose laws require that in public environments, people use the restroom that corresponds with their birth certificate. So maybe boycotting Target is tit-for-tat turn-around-is-fair-play. But what does that accomplish?

    So when the whole world worships the Beast then you would argue, "what does dissent from this accomplish?"

    >Maybe... a proactive campaign that seeks to fight predation of women and girls...would yield superior results

    Well, how about a boycott of store that foster this?

    >and addresses the dehumanizing abusive bullying of transgender people.

    How about addressing the dehumanizing abusive bullying of persons and businesses that essentially refuse to salute the flag of Sodom?

    >Instead of boycotting, why not call on Target to insure the safety of women and girls while they are also providing reasonable accommodation to transgender individuals?

    Why should accommodation, at the expense of God-ordained orientation, of any perverse destructive disordered be fostered? Is that ultimately honoring the Creator and helping the person and society according to His word?

  • The Church Testifies to the Resurrection

    04/24/2016 7:06:50 AM PDT · 163 of 194
    daniel1212 to MayflowerMadam; Elsie
    You can spew pope-stuff ‘til the cows come home; it means nothing to non-Catholics. So you’ve wasted time and keystrokes. We believe the Bible; you believe a man/pope. Why don’t we just stipulate that our religions’ tenets are different, agree to disagree, and move on? I’m good with that. I get the concept of “free will of man, and I respect your choice.

    Actually, Elsie is not a Catholic, but was posting in parody as a "Catholic_Wannabe_Dude," arguing as they do. It is the latter who continue to post provocative distinctive Cath teachings, including arguing that since Rome gave us the Bible, which she is did not, then she is the authorative infallible interpreter of it, which logic invalidates the very NT church she presumes to represent, since it began in dissent from the historical magisterial stewards of Scripture.

    However, it is the one true church, the corporate body of Christ, that testifies to the resurrection and thus to the living God, as it alone 100% always consists of born again believers, which is a result of the resurrection of Christ by faith in the resurrected Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, to the glory of God, and to which Scripture testifies.

  • The Church Testifies to the Resurrection

    04/24/2016 6:34:19 AM PDT · 162 of 194
    daniel1212 to imardmd1
    This is a good point to bring out, and one to reinforce. The "not discerning the Lord's body" is not about the bread, the symbol of his flesh. It is about the unified assembly of saints, the local body of people of which He is the Head and Authority.

    Glory to God, and which is simply contextual exegesis, and which focus on the church as the body of Christ proceeds into the next chapter. And which is characteristic of Paul ever since he was charged with persecuting Christ by persecuting His church then Paul. Moreover, considering the centrality and fundamental critical importance of the Cath Eucharist, then surely the practice and doctrine of the Catholic Eucharist with its NT priests would be clearly and often described in the life of the NT church, from Acts to Revelation, especially in the light of the many descriptions, teachings and exhortations and commendations and criticisms and solutions for problems which are given it. And with its descriptions of pastoral work.

    But in the entire record of acts and life of the NT church, which are interpretive of the gospels, we have no manifest description of the Catholic Eucharist, the sober formal ritual administered by a sacerdotal class of clergy distinctively titled "priests." Breaking of bread is only mentioned 4 times in Acts, but as a communal meal eaten with gladness and singleness of heart, not a somber sacrifice for sins offered at the hands of priest. Likewise in the only other books in which it is described, which is only 1 Cor. and Jude, the latter simply calling it a "feast of charity."

    But like the distinctive sacerdotal priesthood and so many other Cath beliefs, the Cath Eucharist is unseen in the life of the very church which she audaciously claims to be!

    Meanwhile, I think even most evangelical churches, who contritely, somberly think of the Lord's death in taking part in the Lord's supper with a piece of bread and bit of grape juice, largely miss the depth of meaning in remembering the Lord's death by being manifestly treating the other faithful blood-bought saints as members of that body, which the communal breaking of bread signifies (not that I always treat the faithful as members for whom Christ died). And by likewise excluding those who by behavior "separate themselves [from the body], sensual, having not the Spirit," (Jude 19) or believers who will-fully walk in impenitent manifest sin, as described:

    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... 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 5:8,11) Though not being clearly manifest, by inference this commemorative feast may refer to the Lord's supper, though again, the body is the church: "purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover sacrificed for us."(v. 7)

  • The Church Testifies to the Resurrection

    04/23/2016 7:35:02 PM PDT · 149 of 194
    daniel1212 to ebb tide
    You're quoting the USCCB, the United States Conference of Communist “bishops. It has no doctrinal authority.

    Really? Then what does require assent? Only what is infallible?

  • The Church Testifies to the Resurrection

    04/23/2016 7:31:10 PM PDT · 147 of 194
    daniel1212 to Steelfish; ealgeone; HossB86; ebb tide; Elsie
    Your argument in comparing one church with a broadly defined groups of churches is simply spurious unless:

    •You can find and argue with someone here who defends all the churches you call Protestant

    • You make complete comprehensive doctrinal unity the criteria for validity, and define Jn. 17 are referring to this, and ignore the divisions in Catholicism.

    • You define unity based upon formal professions, and limited to binding beliefs, and not on what is actually believed and can be disagreed on (including what is binding) in Catholicism.

    •You can prove that under the Cath model for determination of Truth and for unity Caths there is no division, and that under a SS a superior , unity cannot be realized.

    • You can prove that under the Catholic model for determination of Truth the flock will never experience confusion and formal division, and that the flock cannot and do not engage in interpretation of their supreme authority (their church), even if holding to basic unity in core teachings.

    • You ignore the fact that those who hold most strongly to the most fundamental (and attacked) Truth held by the Reformers (and a minority of Catholics), that of the authority of Scripture as literally being the wholly inspired and accurate word of God, are overall yet the most unified major religious group in core beliefs, in contrast to Caths overall.

    • You can prove that the basic premise for the Catholic model for determination of Truth, that being the magisterial historical stewards of express Divine revelation, and inheritors of Divine promises of God's presence and preservation means such are the infallible authorities on what Scripture is and means. And thus those who knowingly dissent from this magisterium are in rebellion to God.