Posted on 10/07/2001 12:44:05 PM PDT by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
| Threads 1-50 | Threads 51-100 | Threads 101-150 |
| Thread 151 | Thread 152 | Thread 153 | Thread 154 | Thread 155 | Thread 156 | Thread 157 |
The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 158
Anything we believe should not be contradicted by Scripture, properly understood. With this caveat, I am in complete agreement with you. All of our arguing is about what "properly understood" means.
Were you sledding at Seven Springs, I have skied there and rode their down hill sleds, I'll bet it has really changed in the last 15 years. :-)
Yep, Seven Springs. Neither my wife nor I ski (I actually prefer being inside where it's warm), but we had made it an annual mini-vacation to go to Seven Springs during their Autumnfest. The last few years we would stay for a couple nights, but we didn't want to leave the baby for the night yet, so we just day tripped this year.
SD
Thanks, but it doesn't deal with how they determine who has more or who has less of the Holy Spirit, and why.
I found a link on the left column of New Advent home page,"Church Documents" and I read a long document on the Holy Spirit and while it mentioned that the HS is given at baptism, and it's function, it did not deal with my question.
Incidently, this document should have been named, "Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About The Holy Spirit, But Didn't Know Where To Look." ;-)
I read what it had on the CE under Holy Spirit, but it didn't explaine who they feel has the HS, and how it all works. Do all regular members have it, do the bishops have more of it, and does the pope have even more?
Every Christian becomes a dwelling place for the Holy Spirit at his Baptism. The Holy Spirit, being like the Father and the Son Truly God, is not divisible or quantifiable. It can not be said then that a particularly holy person has "more" of the Spirit inside him. The same for priests or bishops or popes. They are filled with the Holy Spirit in the same way that we are.
What is different in holy people is that they are more in tune with the Spirit within than others. Through our faith and obedience we become less of our own (selfish) selves and more channels for the Spirit within to work through us. We literally become willing slaves to the power of God within us.
When we sin and turn away from God, when we do what we wish rather than what God wishes, we are ignoring the Spirit within and letting our own desires dominate our lives. Our will be done, not His.
As we believe and pray and obey, the Spirit becomes more of who we are, and our "selves" become less. We are more attuned to God. As our devotion increases our understanding of God likewise grows.
SD
Thank you SD, that is pretty well the same as I believe.
Remember,
Steve waves back. :-)
His family background is Methodist, but to my knowledge Rush has never indicated his denominational affiliation. The use of the phrase "born again" to describe the conversion experience is used more by Baptists and evangelical Christians than by the old mainline Protestant groups.
SoothingDave and JHavard have agreed on something substantive. I think we can close up shop here. Steven, do you have your oft-promised last-man-standing reply to the thread prepared?
(Just kidding!)
What would you bet that if he simply made a logical decision as to what Church he would go to, it would be Catholic.
He admires the pope, especially their stand on abortion and their no bend policies. I have heard him on this subject many times.
He's been with us since he ascended. I just happen to believe his word. He's around and speaks to His sheep. Evidently either he doesn't speak to you or you don't listen. Either way your statement is a denial of His own words. Your problem is you want something in the flesh to stand and talk audibly to you evidently. I hope I never get that way.
My point seems to have slipped past you or you are blowing smoke and I don't pretend to know which. If the garbage is posted to a website as authoritative and offered up for argumentation against anyone, it is 1) lying to the unlearned, 2) making ya'll look dumb, and 3) a waste of our time when you guys present it. It's no wonder pegleg shot himself in the foot a number of threads back. They haven't a clue what they're talking about and he doesn't know the material to begin with.
I have used and continue to use internet sources. But, I don't cut and paste Christian answers to Catholic Questions or any such nonsense. 'If you don't know it and won't research it, what are you doing here and why are you professing it..' that's my approach. You see, something happens when you realize you're personally responsible for your soul and the word of God - if you're a Christian and serious, you learn as much as you can. And you don't allow anyone to feed you a line of garbage that cannot be backed up or that doesn't line up with the word of God.
Do you understand? Can you see, in light of the above, that it was wrong for you to equate the specific material regarding 1 Timothy 5 located at Catholic Answers as if, for instance, it were something the Pope said?
I understand that it's only authoritative if is said while standing on one foot with a martini in one hand, a straw up your nose a 5 pound weight dangling from your pony-tail and a donkey well prepared to kick you aft. Authoritative seems to be a highly subjective word when it comes to anything said by any Catholic. If the NI&O is crap, which I've been told it is, and the Pope doesn't know what he's saying or is always misinterpreted, and if councils and doctrines are always misinterpreted - sounds like knowbody really knows what's going on - including you guys. That or someone is doing one heck of a pr job on the lurkers trying to make it look as if it all really does make sense - somehow. (NOT).
God's word is steady and reliable. It doesn't create confusion. And nothing further than the 66 books of the Bible are needed for instruction for salvation or living our everyday lives. A point which has been addressed repeatedly and which I'm not sure even one of you has addressed. If ya'll could take it for what it is and read it without the Catholic Church hangin over your shoulder, you might learn something.
Peter wasn't a bishop in Rome and if he ever saw Rome, there is certainly no proof of it - no evidence. The only group arguing fervently that he was there is one that has something to gain from it being true - that is not proof, it's motivation to ignore the truth on the side pushing the claim. Peter being in Rome is not part of our faith. Therefore if one wishes to make claims based on it, it is encumbant upon the claiment to prove his case. The Claiment has thus far failed to do so and simply appeals to reason (Python: "Oh Please"), 'others believe it, why can't you'. Answer: I'm not stupid.
If such levels of proof used on the Catholic side here were used in scientific method, the theory of evolution would no longer be debated - it would be over with and the evolutionists would have won on the 'oh trust us' argument. Like evolution, the Catholic argument of Peter in Rome only looks right if you stop paying attention to facts and pesky details and just don't think about it. Sorry, Catholics, I *can* think for myself and I can see the facts and pesky details. And thank you Bigmack for adding this!
There has been lots of ink spilled over acts. But issues regarding what is not written are as important, again as those not written. This is how it has been dated up to now. And the events in Acts can be roughly dated. Most place acts between 60-63 AD.
And as regards the Jews, you're right, you don't know. And you don't know the census levels do you. If I were persecuted and run off, the last thing I'd want to do is return. We know that some jews yet remained in the time of Paul's late writings; but, that is as much as we can say.
Goes right back to the original point. Paul was dealing with them. And there is no reason to believe that Peter needed go to Rome in order to teach a majority Gentile audience in order to handle a few jews that were there - any more than it would have been necessary for Paul to go to Peter's territory of responsibility in Babylon and teach any Gentiles there. Paul didn't leave Italy to interfere with Peter in Babylon and Peter didn't step on Paul's feet in Rome. Peter wasn't there.
What part of "Son of God" do you not understand? Last time I looked, that is a term that is quite well explained and understood in the Bible. If you want to be sensational, Dave, try having a valid point to make.
Just wanted to repeat this and aim it back at the earlier point being made: Jesus was tempted like every man and showed that a man on his own relying on God could live a sin free life. Jesus was taught as a boy and when he'd learned all he needed to answered only to the Father and the authorities (the law). He gave the know-it-all(know nothing) leaders of the then temple riddles for meat. Jesus gave a solid example. Men do not need their hands held to the grave. And men don't need to be indoctrinated in philosophy in order to know God or understand the Bible. All men are personally responsible for knowing the Word of God and for their own walk with God. So regardless what a man is told, if he is told wrong, he is still responsible for it. And that is the reason to demand proof from anyone who tries to foist upon you anything beyond the 66 books of the Bible!
Actually, no you didn't ask for a simple declaration. You asked a question and I answered it directly and completely. Did it get a little too close to home when I answered that all men are responsible for the word of God and will be judged by it (not by Catholic Doctrines and Dogma and tradition etc..). OOPS. Run and hide behind by your nonsense games if you wish. I'll keep repeating it for all. Jesus said we'd be Judged by the words he was given by God to speak - His testimony, His words... Not the words and decrees of an institution. Play word games with that. If you confuse the issue enough, maybe someone will believe the Catholic approach that the Catholic Church has the final say. You'll only be decieving yourself and whoever listens to you.
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.