Free Republic

In post 50 on the “Do Catholics pray to statues?,” I posted this:

“The religion forum of FR pushes a Marxist, Liberation Theology, socialist, Jesuit Pope, his Marxism totally in opposition to the political conservatism of FR”

The RF is in overdrive now, Time magazine coming out the next day with their Marxist man of the year, no telling how many FR Marxist threads pushing this Pope we are going to have to endure now.

FR is supposed to be a conservative site? Go figure.

Good grief, its not enough that the religion forum of FR pushes a Marxist, Liberation Theology, socialist, Jesuit Pope, his Marxism totally in opposition to the political conservatism of FR, looks like the RF is now trying to make idolators out of us!

In the coming judgments of the end time, if Romanists desire to incur God's wrath for refusing to repent of their pagan-Christian idolatry -

Rev. 9:20 And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk:

- that's one thing, that's their choice, but to try to make the rest of us FReepers idolators like themselves is quite another!

Will somebody please tell me how it is that here on FR, the greatest conservative anti-Obama site anywhere, we have the religious forum overrun by pro-Pope Francis Romanists, the RF basically a promotion platform for THEIR PRO-MARXIST JESUIT POPE WHO OBAMA ADMIRES FOR HIS “INCLUSIVE” PRO-MARXIST SPIRIT?

This on an anti-Marxist conservative site? Something doesn’t compute here.

On this thread, I expect we’ll get the typical fluff from the pro-Marxist Pope Francis apologists running roughshod on FR, Obama is wrong, their Pope cannot possibly be pro-Marxist, and other specious attempts to avoid the obvious.

I am Historic (non-dispensational, post-trib) Premill, I have fought the two kingdom, “next flight, why fight” mindset of Dispensational (pretrib) Premill for some 40 years now, it galls me to get lumped with the dispensationalists, as your types are prone to do, as if all Premills are the same. You are no more anti-two kingdom, anti-dispensationalist than myself.

I believe in one covenant (the new covenant), one kingdom, one people of God (one elect body). As a futurist I believe in one future second coming, first resurrection, last trump, that will close out this age and begin the next (the millennial)...and one hope.

This is not the earthly millennial of the Dispensationalists, with under the law Judaism ruling the world, but a Christian one. You, however, as an anti-futurist, anti earthly millennial, while we might agree on some things, have no such hope, yours is a very different hope.

Theology is always lived out, ideas have consequences. Pre-mill/pre-trib, dispensationalism...

The old saying, "its not what they say, its what they don't say," comes to mind when I read your post. Pre-mill/pretrib, dispensationalism has consequences, right...but you conveniently left out Amill, Preterism, Postmill. They don't have consequences?

The doctrine of the tyrannical Roman Catholic Church is Amill - talk about ideas having consequences! How is it you so conveniently leave out Amill? From Augustine (who gave the RCC Amillennialism) to Luther is about eleven hundred years of consequences for heaven's sake!

You wouldn't be Amill by any chance? Preterist? Postmill?

As a descendant of Francis Marion, does anybody know if Vaught was a conservative? One would think so. We know he was a hero veteran of three wars, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he was politically a conservative.

I am an Alaskan and have driven through Canada numerous times. I have observed except for “aboot” for about, and “eh,” there is very little difference in the speech of an American and a Canadian (not the French Canadians, of course).

I don’t get it. The midwest has a detectable accent, and of course the south, but California is especially noted for not having an accent

Cruz is a conservative, not a libertarian, listen to his some of his father’s speeches on youtube. If you want to know something about Cruz, check out his father, a conservative evangelical preacher. Evangelicals are diametrically opposed to the hedonism, dopesmoking, same sex marriage, abortion, and atheism, that libertarians stand for.

I know, a sad state of affairs for sure. But who’s at fault here? Many here put the blame on the Repub party, I disagree, bottom line it is the Republicans themselves. It is the Republicans that voted Romney their standard bearer, they have no one to blame but themselves.

My last two votes were AGAINST Obama, not FOR the standard bearer Republicans picked. I know, lesser of two evils, I hate it.

The non-Catholic Christians who sit out elections, with the vast majority of socialist and Liberation Theology minded Catholics who vote with the Democrats, are BOTH the problem. Thanks for bringing up those who sit out elections.

As to the notion that it is ONLY non-Catholics who sit out elections, this must be your personal theory as there is probably as many Catholics who sit out elections as non-Catholics.

80% of the population is non-Catholic? Sounds like you consider non-Catholic Christians on a par with unbelievers.

Since most non-Catholic Christians are conservative, and do NOT vote with the democrats as most Catholics do, your percentages here on FR, a conservative site, don’t jive. The Catholics run rough shod here, so much so one would get the impression it is a Roman Catholic website. Look at all the threads on the RF, Pope this, Pope that, etc. Your 20% Catholic looks more like 99%.

This being a conservative site, most Catholics vote with the Democrats, and according to you only 20 % of the population are supposed to be Catholic, yet the RF is 99% Catholics, what’s wrong with this picture?

We have to compromise with paganism, eh? Reminds me of our illustrious Senator McCain “reaching across the aisle,” and our establishment Republicans compromising at every turn. Its the reason America is in the mess its in.

In religion, there is a name for this sort of thing, syncretism. The bishop is merely repeating what his predecessors did centuries ago. Protestant/Evangelicalism is an ongoing attempt to undue the pagan damage done to Christianity by the syncretist Roman church centuries ago.

The same sort of thing is what is wrong with America. Socialist Catholic voters being a big part of what’s wrong...yet they have the gall to call themselves “conservative” on this conservative website.

This bishop who advocates sycretism, the blending of paganism with Christianity, is a gutless compromising coward. So where does that put all you who support him on this thread? If this was the Old Testament, and we had some Isaiah’s and Jeremiah’s around, pagan Christians would know what it feels like to get their hides skinned.

If you are referring to the Roman institution, one doesn’t have to “have very little knowledge” about it, the information is out there for anybody to see.

I really don’t think I am going to take religious advice from a Catholic.

The first thing that crossed my mind also. When Rome says "Where Religion Went Wrong," since they represent the only true religion, they claim, it is everybody else that goes wrong, not them. The Papacy is infallible, you know.

I've never met an Aussie who wasn't a great guy - good drinking buddy

I agree. I remember in my Navy days back in the 60's, when our ship would pull into Hong Kong, there would be sailors and marines from all over the world in town, bar fights were regular events. In which the Aussies would always side with the "yanks" against whatever: the British sailors and marines, the French sailors with their cute little red thingee on their hats - cause for many a fight, etc. No better ally to have on your side in that kind of fight, no better ally in the fight against the Japanese in WW2! They were our allies in Vietnam also.

Ask and ye shall receive. I have just learned an aspect of utopianism I had never thought of before. Great post, thank you very much.

I haven’t heard that tie in before. You are probably spot on, but would you mind explaining how Libertarianism is a utopian philosophy like socialism?

Maybe, it depends. I would first have to know where you are coming from. If you are anti-Bible, some sort of neo-pagan belief (new age perhaps), then I won't be agreeing with you on much of anything.

I would imagine there perhaps was probably one-upmanship going on when the first Christian missionaries came to Hawaii to steer them away from their pagan fire goddess worship.

Nothing new here, re:the great commission and the book of Acts, Christians are commanded to do as you describe...what these Hawaiian missionaries were trying to do. Nothing new either with the difficulty they had trying to convince the pagans that their God was "one up" on theirs. And not just the Hawaiians, apparently you find it difficult to believe also.

If you are correct, I’d feel much better about him. I seem to remember, however, him mouthing the familiar libertarian mantra not too long ago, we should not let “what people do in their bedrooms or their private lives” concern us. A chip off the old block it appears.

I can’t understand how Graham keeps getting reelected, the people of South Carolina are not dumb...or liberal.

Indeed, Glenn Beck, Rand Paul, Libertarians in general, are amoral. In the name of their amoral libertine ideology, let the world descend into a homosexual same sex marriage cesspool, they could care less.

The people living in the east Mediterranean and middle east area are no stranger to Volcanic carastrophies and powerful earthquakes, you know. The area of the Bible, of the “angry Judaeo-Christian sky god” of which you speak. Is this some sort of one-upmanship going on here, the pagan gods (little “g”) of the Polynesians having it one up over “the angry Judaeo-Christian god” (which you have with a little “g” I notice)?

From my Christian perspective, the God of the Bible (big “G”) does not come in second to ANY pagan god, the Polynesian kind or any other kind. As the creator of heaven and earth, the Hawaiian volcanoes, and the huge one this article is about, he knows all about having created them. There is only one God, the God of the Bible (big “G”), pagan gods (little “g”) only exist in the minds of pagans.

You may not have meant for your post to be taken this way, if so I apologize, it just appeared this way to me.

I live in Alaska, Lee, we have a lot of people up here who devoutly read their Bibles, they have never heard of such theoretical systems as Preterist, Amill, Postmill. I have asked them how they see the tribulation section of Revelation, the second coming, first resurrection, and the millennial reign of Christ in chapters 19 & 20. Without fail, everyone of them see them as having not happened yet, future events. It is the way the Revelation naturally reads to them.

Which convinces me that Preterist Amill, with its placing of the whole of Revelation in the past, the first resurrection spiritualized, not future, in the past, followed by the tribulation just prior to 70AD, followed by a figurative millennial reign of Jesus Christ which they claim they are in now, followed by the second coming of Christ to take place AFTER the millennial reign which we are supposed to be in now, is nothing more than a theory one has to read into the Revelation.

Ordinary believers unaware of a theory they are supposed to be reading into the narrative, NEVER come up with Preterist or Amill interpretations. As to Postmill, when I explain it to them, they shake their heads in amazement that any one would believe such a thing.

Iscool, you have some very informative links. Especially the one by the Nazarene Church. Not just the Pseudo-Isidorian forgery, this reveal Rome has a VERY long history of forgeries, much of which I wasn’t aware of. Thanks for your post.

I would suggest everybody read Iscool’s Nazarene Church link. [I’m not a member of the Nazarene Church denomination, by the way, neither is Iscool]

My intention was actually to include Lee N. Fields, an oversight, I apologize for that.

I appreciate revealing your preterist “leanings,” it is thus no wonder you would not see the situation in Syria as having prophetic end time significance. I note you also seem to be pretty opposed to dispensational premill, I am a historic premill, so I am about half with you on that, not the premill.

In my view, preterism is a far worse error, whether in combo with Amill or Postmill.

Apparently Lee N. Field comes down on your side in the following post. If I’m not mistaken he is some sort of a Preterist-Postmill combo, and very outspoken on it, if he is indeed Preterist, in the prophetic vacuum that Preterists are in he is naturally going to dismiss what’s happening in Syria as having any prophetic significance.

It would also be interesting to know how many that have sided with you on this thread are indeed Preterists. How about you? What is your position eschatologically?

One’s position on the millennial reign of Rev. 20 has a lot to do with how they interpret such things as middle east events, and their world view.

I read your posts on this thread, you appear to have made an honest attempt to answer the assertion of this thread, rather than attacking the ex-nun. You may be an honest lady yourself, but your post, however, amounts to a cover-up for a liar, the Pope during the decretals. He lied according to what one Bible handbook I have says:

Whether Nicolas [Nicolas !, 858-867, Pope during the Pseudo-Ididorian Decretals, first Pope to wear a crown] knew them to be forgeries, at least HE LIED (my caps) in stating that they had been kept in the archives of the Roman Church from ancient times. They served their purpose in stamping the claims of the Medieval Priesthood with the authority of antiquity.

The Papacy which was the growth of several centuries, was made to appear as something complete and unchangeable from the very beginning. The object was to ante-date by five centuries the Pope’s temporal power. It strengthened the Papacy more than any other agency, and formed to a large extent the basis of the canon law of the Roman Church.

What the lead article says about the Roman church and forged documents and Papal Power is spot on. I have taken notice how everyone of the FR Catholics have responded.

Now, I know what I am going to say here is not true of all Catholics, the ones I’ve known personally, but the ones who post on the RF, not so, they appear a very dishonest lot. Which is why nothing meaningful ever comes out of any discussion with them.

Generally speaking, I don’t find this among Protestants (using the term to mean non-Catholic Christians), but then they don’t have primacy claims over the whole of Christianity to defend.

I guess, when you think about it, we shouldn’t be shocked at the dishonesty, my goodness, everything hangs on the Roman church’s claim that the Popes reign over Christianity is historically valid (the rest of Christianity - yea, the entire world - must be in subservience to the Pope). As the lead article brings out, they have used dishonest means to establish the primacy.

The institution of the Papacy is simply a lie, the fact that they use lying forged documents to establish it, proves it. And the lying tradition continues on.

Just wondering, does your screen name mean you are the wife of a Scotsman in Scotland?

correction:

They would look at you with a blank face were you to bring up the inquisition, the St. Bartholowmew Day massacre, or Luther’s 95 thesis.

More Papist propaganda, using the RF to push their Roman institution. It is only apostate Protestants who could possibly fall for such propaganda, or superficial in their faith Protestants who know nothing, nor do they care, about the historical roots of their faith, namely the Reformation.

They would think you with a blank face were you to bring up the inquisition, the St. Bartholowmew Day massacre, or Luther’s 95 thesis.

When I see a thread with a name like this, a red flag immediately goes up: libertarian alert, libertarian alert. The stealth liberals (libertarians) are at it again. In order to promote their man for POTUS, Rand Paul, they’ve got to get in campaign mode now, continually bashing the GOP.

Not that the GOP doesn’t need bashing, but not for the reason libertarians bash it. Truth be told, the FR libertarians don’t want to see the RINO’s purged out of the GOP, their chances for getting their man, Rand Paul, would be diminished. Neither do they want to see real Repub conservatives get elected.

This thread is just stealth libertarian propaganda, which we are going to see more and more of as we get closer to the next POTUS election.

These “hymns” sound flat compared to Pentecostal southern gospel singing. To liven up things a bit, here’s one by the Speer Family: “I never shall forget the day.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek5s8VcpT1E

You don’t want to miss Sue Dodge, the big gal in the white dress, singing her part about half way through the video!

You know nothing about me, and have a very odd imagination.

You are a libertarian, aren't you? That's all I need to know. It's no great mystery to understand what libertarians are all about. Conservative they aren't.

The situation is indeed loathsome, except for Ted Cruz, who do we have up there that’s fighting for us? As a Christian conservative, I can count on Cruz on the issues that mean the most to me.

Where I differ from you is pinning my hopes on ANY libertarian. They talk a good line on certain things, but there isn’t an iota of difference between them and the democrats on moral issues.

If the gop stands for so little that it can be “infiltrated” by a group that is so small and marginalized as the LP then good for the libertarians.

So you admit that libertarians are, as I made reference in a previous post, stealth infiltrators? Would to God you would leave us alone and do your stealthy infiltrating in the other party, your moral soul mates. You could have joined in with them in their last convention when they tried to vote God out.

Too many so-called conservatives have become statist control freaks.

"So called" conservatives, eh? A conservative seeks to preserve the concepts this country was founded on. Not a one of the founders would support your libertarian sodomizing of America. The founders weren't a bunch of sissy long haired pot smoking queers.

"Statist control freaks?" You are no more against socialism than Christian conservatives. Libertarians accuse Christian conservatives, because we are against the moral destruction of America they assume we want a theocracy. Not so, all we want is the conservation/preservation of Christian values - which doesn't meant a thing to you as a libertarian.

There isn’t a dimes worth of difference between libertarians and the rats. Since they choose the Republicans to infiltrate, they must see them as easier to deceive than the rats. This is true of only the RINO’s.

Stealth liberals are something, I don’t know who you think you are fooling, real conservatives - not the RINO’s - know what you are all about, very little different from Obama’s agenda, you want once Christian America to be remade in your image, an antichrist atheist type country.

Libertarians: confused liberals of the right. Libertarians are not conservatives. They can’t get elected under the name Libertarian, so they become stealth Republicans flying under the radar so to speak, posing as conservatives hoping they won’t get exposed for what they are. The dope smoking hippies, sodomites and queers, love ‘em.

While we had our differences in the Revolutionary War, Britain has since been our ally in two world wars, Korean, Desert Storm, Afghanistan, and Iraq wars. Reagan and Thatcher together brought down the Soviet Communists. The long running alliance is strained now, however, with the comrade we have running things.

Fabian, since you believe the Bible, good thing, here’s something you might consider.

The synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, are mostly about the birth, ministry of Jesus, his death, burial, resurrection, and ascension. His mission was to go to the cross and die as a man among men, for our sins. He didn’t come to blow everybody away with his deity, that wasn’t his focus.

His identity as God come in the flesh, we see that taught in the gospel of John, and the epistles. Both being written much later in the first century. These have much to say about Christ’s deity.

His name in Hebrew, Yeshua, a transliterated form of Jah-shua, means God-savior. Though the synoptic gospels had little to say about the “God” part of God-savior, the gospel of John and the epistles certainly do! God became our savior: while not elaborated on in the synoptics, is central in the gospel of John and the epistles.

I am a follower of Jesus

Except for Muslims and Jews, those I mentioned, Jehovah Witnesses, socialist (Fabian and otherwise) and extremely liberal Unitarians, etc., would say as much. Does this mean you don't go to church anywhere?...if so, not surprising since most don't consider "Jesus is God" to be garbage.

Well, since you believe “Jesus is God sort of thing” is garbage, what are you then? Jehovah Witness? A wretchedly liberal Unitarian? Muslim? Jewish? These all have in common your belief.

Or, perhaps one of the “nones” this thread is about? Having no religious affiliation. Which is it?

Pardon for butting in, but the the bars on the confederate flag in the form of an X, is taken from the cross of St. Andrews (the flag of Scotland), with a bunch of stars thrown in. The south being largely of Scots-Irish descent.

Ted Cruz or Allen West

When Obama was elected for his first term, some dignitary in Europe lamenting over his election, wrote that it isn’t Obama that’s the problem its the American people that voted him in. He basically said this was prime evidence that America that we once knew is no more.

And he was/is right. The people voting the comrade in twice confirms it. Hate to be so pessimistic, but looking ahead I doubt its going to get much better, these same clueless people are going to vote Hillary the beast in next go around.

On the right, what will we have to vote for? As long as the RNC gives us people like Romney and McCain, there isn’t much to encourage conservatives to vote. Rand Paul? He’s a libertarian, not a conservative.

Doesn’t the month of Elul plus the ten days have some kind of connection to the number 40, i.e. Israel’s 40 years in the wilderness?

Also, wasn’t Elul the month in old Israel when the tithing was done? The tenth that is the Lord’s separated out from the rest of the flock?

LOL, I got a real belly laugh out of that one. Poor guy in the middle, good thing he has on his armor, a Protestant getting double teamed on the RF?

because Protestants and others have failed to post sufficient threads of their own liking, the Religion Forum has a distinctively Catholic flavor

Thanks, good info, I'll take it to heart. Maybe I'll even take your advise and get around to posting a thread of my own (when I have more free time, when one posts a thread he has to stay pretty close by it appears) I'm sure it will be interesting if and when I do.