Posted on 03/29/2007 5:20:08 AM PDT by Gamecock
dangus:
He refers to his wife. Of course, these days that's not dispositive, but it sort of shows which way the smart money would bet.
If the stork has a delivery, it would be.
If the stork is merely on a surveillance run, then shooting him is merely natural family planning; it's a good thing if men learn that they don't always have to give the woman the bird.
Of course, Catholics also don't believe in firing blanks.
I do not follow any man-made corporation or belief.
Me neither. I'm a Catholic.
I'm wondering if there is anybody on this thread who does claim to follow a man-made corporation or belief.
But I'm out of here until after 20 Nisan (first Sunday after 14 Nisan, that is.)
Thank youSomething about crayons and their acuity.
Nothing more nothing less. You can read anything you want. But you seem to be consistently wrong. I have posted on FR before there was a Religion blog. My first posting was: Are you really saved ? It was in Feb 2000. I was there at the founding of the Religion blog. My input was solicited about it's content and general tone. It has gone downhill ever since with denominational name calling To wit: the need for a Religion Moderator. XeniaSt is Xenia Street in Denver, where I used to live.
and claims of bashing by the inarticulate and those who are
unfamiliar with the Holy Word of Elohim.
One might wonder about confusion from a church that proposes that its doctrine does not change.
Yes, one might wonder. :) Every time a new ruling is handed down it is what they have always and everywhere believed. Why don't they just write down and pronounce all of their beliefs at once and be done with it? I suppose that would unfairly take away power from future Popes to, uh, ....... say what they have always believed? Hmmmm......
Why did the Apostles need to have that council in Acts 15?
Why didn't Jesus just sit them down before his Ascension and pronounce all of their beliefs at once and be done with it?
Well, THAT council was part of the formation of the Bible. I put that in a different category from anything that happened after the Bible was set, or mostly so, in God's Church. There is nothing wrong with a council that reiterates what is in the Bible, I just object to new doctrine or dogma not supported by the Bible.
Why didn't Jesus just sit them down before his Ascension and pronounce all of their beliefs at once and be done with it?
The theater for God handing down all the teachings we needed to know was His work through the authors of the Bible. Jesus certainly "could" have done what you suggest, but He obviously had another preference.
Sorry, but I simply reject the "different category" argument; the notion that the rules changed when the ink dried on the papyrus of the NT. Christ founded the church, and he did so before a single word of the NT had been written.
The answer to your question is simply that the church today is the same church that came to an authoritative decision in Acts chapter 15, and she teaches the same way today.
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.