Posted on 10/10/2011 5:32:56 PM PDT by greyfoxx39
Let's assume for a moment that your (mis)usage of Mt 7:1-2 was in context (it's not). But let's assume for a moment it is.
Did you realize that to call someone...
...blind
...hateful
...and being judgmental...
...can itself be hateful & judgmental?
So, tell, us. Who issued you a religious license (that apparently only YOU on this thread has) to judge?
To label someone "judgmental" requires judgmentalism, does it not?
Then somebody can come back at me & say the same thing: "Did you not reference NavyCanDo as 'judgmental' -- doesn't that make you judgmental, too?" (And then somebody can call that poster the same thing...and it won't ever end)
Since Jesus obviously wasn't intending a never-ending round of Person #1 judging Person #2, and then Person#3 judging Person #1 for what was said to Person #2, and then Person #4 judging Person #3 for judging Person #1, ad infinitum...That makes it obvious that you're misusing the Bible to simply pin ad hominen labels upon others.
Therefore, if you have certain standards vs. what you perceive as "judging." Then don't judge the perceived judgmentalists! (Then ya might be better able to practice what you preach)
If you think somebody's words are "hateful." Well, hey, did you consider that if you're wrong, and you call somebody "hateful," you just might be engaging in hateful-behavior? (Therefore, just stop with the accusations).
reformation comes from within, REVOLUTION comes from the outside....you cannot possibly believe that protestantism did not change basic Christian teachings......remarriage after divorce, consubstantiation, gay (openly) clergy, no need for the sacrament of reconciliation, Holy Orders, female clergy,....it goes on and on....sorry charlie, there is only one true Christian church, the one founded by Christ, CATHOLICISM
Well obviously I’m not getting anywhere with convincing you to have a redemptive heart instead of a judgmental one, but I am doing a great job at getting you to exercise your typing fingers. Good Night!
There are a lot of doctrinal problems that would render Mormonism non-Christian. The most critical one being that Mormonism is polytheistic/pagan because it teaches that there is more than one God. Mormonism teaches that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are three separate gods, and that all men can also become a god.
Christianity is a monotheistic religion, which means that it believes that there is only ONE God. This is a non-negotiable core criteria of Christianity that is reiterated throughout both Old and New Testaments.
But what would the Christadelphians say?
Hank
Well, I don't know much about the Christadelphians, but if I remember correctly they embraced a form of the Arian Heresy, by denying the divinity of Christ. Nevertheless, even they would probably still acknowledge only ONE God.
However, the divinity and humanity of Christ are also generally regarded as essential components of Traditional Christianity. In other words, the Trinity is an essential doctrine of the religion. So I don't think that the Christadelphians would be too pleased with most Christians' assessment of the nature of God.
NY SLIMES causing problems for Republicans, so predictable.
Christ said if anybody comes after Him preaching a new gospel they would be anathema. It's the last line in the Bible. He also said false prophets and anti-christs would abound in the Last Days.
Most Mormons I've met are great people. BTW, however I'm not God.
(a) Luther was a Roman Catholic monk! A Roman Catholic professor! He never sought to rename any church after himself.
(b) Of course, it went back to its Biblical roots! Or are you going to try telling me that..
...Peter sold indulgences (what verse is that found?),
...that Paul said there multiple mediators beyond Jesus Christ -- Mary, the saints -- a saint mediator for every type of prayer??? - see 1 Tim. 2:5...ONE MEDIATOR...
...etc.
...gay (openly) clergy...
(forced singlehood among an un-New Testament priesthood has resulted in all kinds of gay & pedophile mayhem in the RC thru the centuries! Read up on 1 Peter 2:4-9 and Rev. 1:6 about the priesthood of all believers!)
sorry charlie, there is only one true Christian church, the one founded by Christ, CATHOLICISM
All "catholic" meant pre-Dark Ages was "universal." The Dark Ages were exactly that...a time when the "universal" church became a narrow parochial one and Christ the Head of the Church was often spiritually deposed by popery.
10th century - early 11th century:
* Papacy held by unworthy men under domination of Roman barons. The term that came to be known was "Pornocracy" Good examples were John X (Pope 914-928) amd John XII (died in 964). John X had affairs with Theodora and her daughter Marozia...the affair with the daugther destroyed his papacy. John XII became Pope at age 18, engaged in scandalous behavior, and died in the arms of his mistress. Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes, Pope John XII (955–963) (deposed by Conclave) was said to have turned the Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano into a brothel and was accused of adultery, fornication, and incest (Source: Patrologia Latina).[30]
* Popes were generally weak -- puppets of Italian or German overlords.
11th Century:
Per same wikipedia source above: Pope Benedict IX (1032– became pope in 1044, again in 1045 and finally 1047–1048).[36] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile adulteries."[37][38] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues to "his rapes... and other unspeakable acts."[39] His life prompted St. Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, Damian accused Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[40] In May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage.[41]
12th century:
* Twas Callistus II who in 1123 forbade the marriage of priests.
Early 13th century:
* Innocent III (1161-1216)...
...established the Inquisition, claiming absolute temporal power as well as spiritual power
...Defined the doctrine of transubstantiation [rather late in history, is it not?]
Latter 13th century:
* Boniface VIII (1234-1303) cont'd this grandiose claim of temporal power but wasn't able to back it up. [The Papacy wound up being moved to France for a time] Instead of leaving salvation in the Person of Jesus Christ, Boniface claimed there was no salvation outside of Holy Catholic and Apostolic church, thereby effectively rewriting John 14:6.
14th century:
* If "Holy Orders" all so important, why did we have Popes like Gregory X (1311-1312) prohibit new monastic orders?
* Urban VI (Pope 1378-1389) alienated French cardinals
15th century:
* Gregory VII (Pope 1406-1415) Deposed by Council of Pisa in 1409 but refused to step down until deposed by the Council of Constance...Benedict XIII also claimed Papacy during that same time and was deposed by same Council of Pisa.
* John XXIII (1414-1418) tried and executed reformer John Huss
* Sixtus IV became Pope in 1471 (died in 1484) and he engaged in nepotism on a grand scale and left finances in chaos! Per Wikipedia source above, he was alleged to have awarded gifts and benefices to court favorites in return for sexual favors.
* Alexander VI (Rodrigo Borgia) (late 1400s into early 1500s):
Then occurred the first of those ugly domestic tragedies for which the house of Borgia remains notorious. On 14 June the Duke of Gandia, lately created Duke of Benevento, disappeared; the next day his corpse was found in the Tiber. Alexander VI...shut himself up in Castel Sant'Angelo. He declared that henceforth the reform of the church would be the sole object of his life—a resolution he did not keep. Every effort was made to discover the assassin, and suspicion fell on various highly placed people. When the rumour spread that Cesare, the Pope's second son, had done the deed, the inquiries ceased. No conclusive evidence was ever revealed about the murder, although Cesare remained the most widely suspected."
Also: "The bulls issued by Pope Alexander VI : "Eximiae devotionis" (3 May 1493), "Inter Caetera" (4 May 1493) and "Dudum Siquidem" (23 September 1493), conferred similar rights to Spain in relation to the new found lands in the Americas as Pope Nicholas V had previously done in the bulls Romanus Pontifex and Dum Diversas.[8] Morales Padron (1979) concludes that these bulls gave power to enslave the natives.[9]"
"When Alexander VI heard the news, he lured Cardinal Orsini to the Vatican and cast him into a dungeon, where he died. His goods were confiscated, his aged mother turned into the street and many other members of the clan in Rome were arrested, while Alexander's son Goffredo Borgia led an expedition into the Campagna and seized their castles. Thus the two great houses of Orsini and Colonna, who had long fought for predominance in Rome and often flouted the Pope's authority, were subjugated and the Borgias' power increased...Three more high personages fell victim to the Borgias' greed this year: Cardinal Michiel, who was poisoned in April 1503, J. da Santa Croce, who had helped to seize Cardinal Orsini, and Troches or Troccio, Alexander's chamberlain and secretary; all these murders brought immense sums to the Pope. About Cardinal Ferrari's death, there is more doubt; he probably died of fever, but Alexander VI immediately confiscated his goods anyway...Although there is no doubt that Alexander VI liked to eliminate any cardinal and immediately confiscate his property, there is no sufficient evidence on the methods used in these murders. It has been suggested that the family used their favorite poison Cantarella, an arsenic variation, which was offered to their poor victim in a form of drink with an innovative nickname, the "liquor of succession." Since raw forms of arsenic then known were not immediately fatal, Alexander VI must have had a method invented for the preparation of this substance, but no confirmation of this has survived." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Alexander_VI
Obviously when you had Popes like Borgia in power, God had enough with the "church as it was" -- time for a reformation!
16th century:
* Paul III (Pope in 1534) promoted relatives to senior positions (nepotism) and restored the inquisition. Paul IV also promoted the Inquisition.
* Per Wikipedia source, Pope Julius III (1550–1555) was alleged to have had a long affair with Innocenzo Ciocchi del Monte. The Venetian ambassador at that time reported that Innocenzo shared the pope's bedroom and bed.
Note that many Protestants were burnt at the stake between 1528-1581.
Primary sources for above papacy info: Church History by Robert C. Walton (Zondervan, 1986) and Routledge Who's Who in Christianity by Lavinia Cohn-Sherbok, and where sourced, Wikipedia.
I had always heard that what Luther said about competence versus belief was that he would rather be operated on by a Turkish surgeon than by a Christian butcher.
‘Course in those days was there that much of a difference?
Joseph Smith was a con artist, not a “prophet” and anyone who understands and still accepts his nutty, unbiblical teachings is the very definition of a “theological nut job”.
Not impressed, I've read the Bible 7 times.....this year and numerous times every year, now that doesn't make me an expert but I can use the brain that God gave me and what I've learned is that J. Smith was a liar and a fraud, a false prophet that the Bible warns us about so many times. Mormonism is a religion based on a lie and a false prophet.
Many people, some on this very thread have cited chapter and verse about false prophets and adding to or subtracting from, the gospel of Jesus Christ, I won't reiterate. The best I can do is pray for you that God, in His grace, will show you the true way, The true Savior, His only Son, who suffered and died on the cross that you and I may be saved.
My prayers are with you and for you.
Unfortunately, the part you’re missing regarding the authenticity of true Christianity is that it is not determined by conformity to the Bible, but by the Church.
You can cite what you consider theological discrepencies until the cows come home, but what you can not cite is a verse that tells Christians what constitutes Scripture, let alone one that makes Scripture the final authority of faith and practice.
Absolutely. Just don't use "potty language" or make personal attacks against fellow members and a few other common sense rules and you may certainly express your opinions.
A point that needs to be constantly restated, as so many try to make an issue of it, usually using Jews as an example,saying, "Jews aren't Christian, would you not vote for a Jew either"? Missing the point that Jews generally don't claim to be Christian or to have the correct version of Christianity.
I'd have zero problem voting for someone of the Jewish faith, who was also conservative.
Sadly; you left out the REAL reason: Christians are COMMANDED to contend for the faith; and MORMONism is a heresy from Hell.
We are instructed to JUDGE as to what is being taught is true or FALSE.
Good point!
http://lds.org/churchhistory/presidents/leaders.jsp
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.