Posted on 05/16/2007 6:54:51 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
I strongly agree with you that Christ came to establish a family. That is the theme from Genesis to Revelation: First Cause and Final Cause, Alpha and Omega. The next heaven and earth is the end of this heaven and earth. And there are no religions in Revelation 21-22.
That makes me very sad indeed because no such assembly of men can protect itself from the tendency to fabricate doctrines and traditions – Judaism couldn't, Catholicism couldn't, etc.
Some of the doctrines and traditions of men can be as innocuous as the color of the clothing a minister or priest wears - or simply a waste of time - but some can spiritually lethal turning hapless followers away from God Himself. (Mark 7:7)
Personally, I eschew all of the doctrines and traditions of men across the board. I have cast all my burdens on the Lord, thrown all caution to His wind. My fate is in His hands. I believe Him and trust Him. That makes me a Christian, plain and simple.
But others are more comfortable relying on the counsel of their religious leaders, which is also fine by me. God didn’t make us with a cookie cutter. The foundation of New Jerusalem is made with twelve different gemstones.
Besides, many of the splits such as between Barnabas and Paul resulted in the Gospel of Jesus Christ being spread further and faster.
Praise the Lord, Sister! I am reminded of what came out of the first great Church council ... where disputation resulted in nothing of slavational importance since that issue was already commonly understood as settled, but rather in doctrine (don’t eat food offered to idols!).
Wow, wtalk about a Jungian slip ... slavational = salvational
I consider this daily. Thank you for saying this so clearly, dear, dear Sister of Grace. May Our Gracious Father grant us more grace daily, to be givers of grace as we have received it, amen.
Thank you oh so very much for your encouragements!
One only needs to look at the Internal Revenue Code for an example of the tendency of assemblies of men to compile over time large volumes of laws and regulations - or in this case, doctrines and traditions. LOL!
Thank you so very much for your encouragements and especially, your testimony!
Me too... John Chapter 10 indicates Jesus is the gate to the sheep pen.. and the gate is open but some sheep will not come out, NO refuse to come out.. Scaredy cats I suppose.. all huddled in a corner of the/a sheep pen.. silly sheep.. poor things..
True.. After bleeding myself over the schisms in the "church" for some years.. it dawned on me that God is not a MORON.. They are right where they are supposed to be.. RCC, EO, the reform denominations, JW's, Mormons, and many other so-called cults.. This seems like a beautiful plan.. Some come OUT of the sheep pen(s), some do not.. and some sheep are not sheep at all but goats..
The metaphor of the sheep pen is pregnant..
Sheep confronting each other through the dogma/boards of their sheep pens to the sheep pen of another is comedic when Jesus says COME ON OUT of the freeping sheep pen.. Would make a good premise for a novel or movie or even a cartoon.. That is; Sheep sniping at each other through the container of the sheep pens.. about who has the better sheep pen.. and that its SCARY outside the sheep pen..
There is a poster who has requested in post 542 that I name him no more; and that if I do refer to him, that I do it indirectly by saying "some people":
Please do not address me again. And if you feel the need to read my mind while talking about me behind my back to another poster, don’t do me the favor of giving me a courtesy ping, just remove my name from your post and say “some people”.
I will not comply entirely with these wishes. I will not include a courtesy ping on this post, as requested; but instead of saying "some people" I will instead say "he who has requested that I name him no more" (or HWHRTINHNM for short).
Elsewhere in post 542, HWHRTINHNM said:
It’s impossible to have a conversation with you without your continually insinuating that I’m lying. I do Christians the courtesy to assume that their opinions are what they state they are, I find it annoying and frankly intriguing that the same courtesy is not returned to me.
I am aware of nothing in post 542 which insinuated that *anyone* was lying, but rather that some materialists and strict empiricists are committing a subtle, but perfectly natural, understandable, mistake.
And I went out of my way, when naming Coyoteman and HWHRTINHNM in post 540, to use the word *apparently* within asterisks, to indicate that the description which followed was neither mind-reading nor an accusation, but rather my interpretation of their argument.
Finally, regarding the first line of HWHRTINHNM's post:
You may not remember, but I’ve “taken agin you” due to your snide assumptions.
To demonstrate that I do in fact remember, a bit of history:
A long time ago, in another thread, the issue came up in FReepmail between myself and HWHRTINHNM of divine revelation and just war, and HWHRTINHNM sent me a private freepmail which contained an argument against Christianity. By netiquette, I will not say anything of what HWHRTINHNM said in those emails, but I will quote a single line of mine, which is apparently the one which gave umbrage:
“That *sounds* unanswerable; so I am not sure if you really believe that, or if is a favorite chestnut from some atheist site, or if it is mere troll- or flame- bait.”
Would someone please extend my compliments and apologies to HWHRTINHNM and let him know that I *do* in fact remember, as illustrated by the quote above, and that I did not intend either to read his mind, or to insinuate that he was lying?
Cheers!
There is a poster who has requested in post 542 that I name him no more; and that if I do refer to him, that I do it indirectly by saying "some people":
Please do not address me again. And if you feel the need to read my mind while talking about me behind my back to another poster, don’t do me the favor of giving me a courtesy ping, just remove my name from your post and say “some people”.
I will not comply entirely with these wishes. I will not include a courtesy ping on this post, as requested; but instead of saying "some people" I will instead say "he who has requested that I name him no more" (or HWHRTINHNM for short).
Elsewhere in post 542, HWHRTINHNM said:
It’s impossible to have a conversation with you without your continually insinuating that I’m lying. I do Christians the courtesy to assume that their opinions are what they state they are, I find it annoying and frankly intriguing that the same courtesy is not returned to me.
I am aware of nothing in post 542 which insinuated that *anyone* was lying, but rather that some materialists and strict empiricists are committing a subtle, but perfectly natural, understandable, mistake. How such a post can be interpreted as "behind his back" when he was addressed by name, and in open forum, is beyond me.
Also, I went out of my way, when naming Coyoteman and HWHRTINHNM in post 540, to use the word *apparently* within asterisks, to indicate that the description which followed was neither mind-reading nor an accusation, but rather my interpretation of their argument.
Finally, regarding the first line of HWHRTINHNM's post:
You may not remember, but I’ve “taken agin you” due to your snide assumptions.
To demonstrate that I do in fact remember, a bit of history:
A long time ago, in another thread, the issue came up in FReepmail between myself and HWHRTINHNM of divine revelation and just war, and HWHRTINHNM sent me a private freepmail which contained an argument against Christianity. By netiquette, I will not say anything of what HWHRTINHNM said in those emails, but I will quote a single line of mine, which is apparently the one which gave umbrage:
“That *sounds* unanswerable; so I am not sure if you really believe that, or if is a favorite chestnut from some atheist site, or if it is mere troll- or flame- bait.”
Would someone please extend my compliments and apologies to HWHRTINHNM and let him know that I *do* in fact remember, as illustrated by the quote above, and that I did not intend either to read his mind, or to insinuate that he was lying?
Cheers!
Him is a her.
?!?!?!
Kinda reminds me of the problem I had reading Swift's Gulliver's Travels, when I was confronted by a seemingly unpronounceable word: "Houyhnhnms." This was a term of honor that the people of Lilliput conferred on the high muckety-mucks of their society. But I couldn't figure out how to pronounce the word!
Then in a vast inspiration, it came to me: "Houyhnhnms" is pronounced exactly like the sound of a horse's whinney, or neigh.
I felt much better then. :^)
I made the same mistake about Elsie...!
Cheers!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.