Bible-Burners (build it yourself bibles)

New Oxford Review ^ | February 2004 | Dwight Longenecker

[klossg]

After searching on Five solas alone, I would not argue with you about these 5 things being important in loving Christ. For like you, I am after Christ and Christ is more than after me. My goal is to follow the Christ and love those around me and throw my sins upon him and beg for his love.

I do this as much as possible. As I am sure you do as well. And yet I still need more. In my human weakness and fallen nature, I continue to pine for Christ, though some assure me that I have him since I confess him as my Lord and Savior. When I attend Mass and receive Christ in the Eucharist, I rejoice and yet I still want more. When I hear the gospel at Church, during mass or a bible study or on my own with my family or by myself ... I feel Christ and know Christ made me for himself. But, still I want more and know that I am not worthy of the Love of the Trinity.

You can put your faith in something like "Five solas alone" and I say fine, it is better than stating that you have heaven all locked up because you are Protestant and that is all that is required. But, that should not really lead to saying Catholics in general are false Christians and you have it all wrapped up like a 99 cent Taco Bell burrito. I mean continue to search for the truth but know that neither you nor I are perfect. Or can you assure me that either of us would land straight in heaven to day if we dropped dead.

It seems you are not doing this by your comment of "I totally agree with you post on keeping a scorecard. I am just attempting to show that they are not the poor innocent victims."

But, I have seen you post the same type of "flamebait" from a Protestant point of view. (By the way I like that - flamebait. It is what it is). So, continue to cast stones. It keeps us busy from experiencing the truth together.

I bet you are a fantastic guy and loaded with the love of Christ, even though you might think calling Paul St. Paul is a terrible thing! You might find the same with me, if we could get past the point of me believing in Transubstantiation and the Assumption.

[dangus]

>> The evidence should have been looked into regardless ("The judges must make a thorough investigation..."), as you see in the second passage (that you conveniently failed to quote). I am not diminishing Daniel's importance in that specific instance in the least, I am saying that this adds no precedence that did not already exist. <<

Like I said, the prophet Daniel did not surpass Mosaic law, but rather demonstrated a techniques of investigation which had not been common: cross-examination and crime-scene investigation. Without demonstration of the need for these practices, even the judges in Daniel's time failed to discover the truth. (You'll note that Daniel was not a judge at the time.)

>> Being a Protestant, I do not acknowledge the extra verses in the Book of Daniel. <<

My point exactly. But aren't you even curious why this one chapter was excluded, suddenly, in the 16th century, when it had been included for 1800 years?

[sanormal]

Henry 8th needed out of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon for political reasons, not for lack of an heir.

Catherine's nephew (Charles V) became the Holy Roman Emperor and united the Houses of Burgandy and Hapsburg. Henry understood that being married into such a family would eventually threaten his sovereignty with vassalage and the very independence he had been fighting for against France.

ANY child that Henry and Catherine would produce would eventually threaten England's independence because of dynastic succession. This, in part, explains why the English were so opposed to Mary's marriage to Philip II.

Henry and Catherine's daughter Mary married Philip for political reasons and the result was an eventual subordination of English sovereignty to the Holy Roman Empire.

The only way out was for Henry to get out of that family, hence putting Catherine away. Just as the only way for England to preserve its independence was to overthrow Mary.

[DTwistedSisterS]

No, you forget the ACLU...

[Iscool]

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the Church couldn't execute anyone. It was the state that did this.

During the Dark Ages, wasn't the church, and the state one and the same (since Constantine) and continues today (Vatican)???

[annalex]

Not at all. They were often mutually hostile. Check out the Investiture Controversy.

Wiki
Sources

[muawiyah]

Hey, I always watch for the guys wearing their nightrobes ~ and that puts these formal hierarchy guys in the same bag as the Taliban.

(NOTE: just showing how little thinking can go into these broad, sweeping statements that seek to have us apply modern standards to ancient history).

[muawiyah]

Anti-Spanish sentiment is frequently mistaken for anti-Catholicism. You have to notice the national sympathies of statements made at the time.

For the most part Americans were unchurched and wouldn't have been concerned if you were a Catholic, or a Jew, or a Hindu, or whatever ~ and this is exceedingly frustrating to geneologists. Sometimes if you know what church they belong to you can figure out which Bob Smith they might be.

[muawiyah]

BTW, the Inquisition gets the blame for a lot of things that were not part of the Inquisition. The Grimaldi family, for example, was into genocide, and they were powerful enough to get the Pope to "bless" what they were doing ~ or they would have killed him and gotten a new pope, Fur Shur.

There's quite enough to blame the Catholic hierarchy for without burdening them with stuff they didn't really do (like start the Dark Ages ~ which is a popular belief ~ even among Catholics)

[muawiyah]

Not just the Cathers, but also the Waldensians.

[muawiyah]

I suspect you are a cousin ~ one of our number (under a different name) was in the company of Pizarro in Peru. In the end, the Governor sent by the King of Spain had him excuted by being quartered and drawn (the reverse of the more humane normal method). Then, tossed his remains into the fields to be eaten by the wild dogs.

His crime, however, wa refusing to confess to a priest. Seems there really were Spanish Protestants.

[muawiyah]

And both of you guys are confounding the so-called "Religious Wars" in France (which occurred between two royal factions) with the Inquisition.

My own French ancestors LOST the Religious Wars, but escaped to America.

[muawiyah]

Henry's grandfather (great grandfather?) in France (Rene of Anjou) had 2 wives and 3 concubines.

Not just that it was a family tradition, but these guys were in the wool trade. They transported uncarded wool to Italy, and carded wool from Italy to Turkey to be made into rugs. They then peddled the rugs throughout their various domains in France, etc. Columbus worked for Rene for awhile.

The very same family is easily found involved in the development of the Camisard movement and the Quaker movement. They were also involved in starting the Counter Reformation.

I think it's safe to say that Moslem cultural values filtered into the top run of the French aristocracy, and this colored the history of religious development for the next 500 years.

[muawiyah]

Lincoln's mother and sister are buried on a farm owned by one of my ancestors at the time. It's now a state park. I do not tolerate any disrespect directed at the Lincolns.

By the time of his Second Inaugural it was clear that Lincon had been selected by God to lead this nation to a new beginning.

[muawiyah]

If you knew Hindu tradition regarding the symbolic meaning of The Great Fish, you'd understand what and who was discussing matters with Jonah.

Kind of interesting to find that reference in the Bible.

[AlaninSA]

I do know it. They are extra because they are not in the Protestant Bible. Snippy today, aren't you?

The comment to which I was responding was somewhat obnoxious in its dismissal of books found in the Catholic Bible. It showed "snippy" behavior (at best) or outright ignorance (most likely from a 19-year-old) at worst.

[TradicalRC]

By the time of his Second Inaugural it was clear that Lincon had been selected by God to lead this nation to a new beginning.

All power comes from God. So I wouldn't argue that aspect, however, it was a bloody and unnecessary war. Shameful.

[muawiyah]

Yes, the South should have given up slavery earlier in its history.

[TradicalRC]

The northern states weren't without slavery. Other countries eliminated it without war. We could've as well, however, that war wasn't *about* slavery.

[muawiyah]

The Northern states had eliminated slavery. That was the issue that brought on the war.

Else, why would the South have demanded the enactment of the laws that punished people for freeing slaves.