Posted on 10/14/2007 8:25:58 PM PDT by Salvation
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
I make fun of “Slow Children” signs too but I guess you wouldn’t find that funny either.
I’ll be honest, I don’t care much about your beliefs, about as much as you care about mine, I would imagine.
I think that we should care about his beliefs, in the manner that we care about whether our children shut off the lights when leaving the room.
We ought to look upon our Protestant brethren as noble Columbus looked upon the Indian when he arrived in North America. The difference is, of course, wilfull, versus undeveloped, but still, we have the burden - the Great Mission - given to us and we must bring the Good News of Salvation - not the oppressive news of everlasting hellfire - to the spiritual savages and deal with the descendants of the Lutheran Visigoths, hacking and slashing at the Bible and its contents.
We need to uplift them. We need to be as sheepdogs, guiding the hapless and helpless and empty headed sheep into the safety of the Lord. It is beyond me how to get the most obstinate and hard headed and stoney hearted back into the fold. Yet, that is part of our charge.
Lord help us all.
If a person says your beliefs are wrong, he is saying that you are going to hell if you don’t change your ways. He did this on post 5732.
If a person calls my beliefs warped, twisted, unBiblical, he is in effect, saying I am going to hell unless I recant. He did this in post 5701.
If a person says that what I believe is a NASTY theology, he is saying that I will go to hell unless I repent. He did this in post 5640.
If a person says my beliefs are not Christian, he is saying that unless I change to his belief, I will go to hell. He did this in post 4381.
I could go on. He, and others, say these things to hurt those who believe as we do. When you call into question the beliefs of others, you are most certainly saying that they will go to hell unless they change.
Any good Christian knows that God is the sole judge of the soul.
I’ve looked at a topo map.
Jerusalem does not have seven hills.
No, you are incorrect. You should see all of my posts on this thread. I do not think that any body that is actively preaching faith in Jesus Christ can be Mystery Babylon.
I do, however, think it is most likely that it is something occultic that comes out of Rome.
I agree. The Rome of today does not rule over the kings of the earth. I think I said this elsewhere.
However, it was the city that ruled over the kings of the earth in the days of John. At that time, Jerusalem certainly did not.
Jerusalem does not have seven hills.
Close, but you just didn’t fit all the imagery into its proper place.
It's a symbol referring to the relationship between Jerusalem and Rome at the time of the crucifixion of Christ and the persecution of the Church. Rome is the beast with seven heads and ten horns on which the woman rides.
Of the "harlot" we are told, "the kings of the earth committed fornication" with her. This imagery is taken straight from the book of Ezekiel, where Israel the harlot is described like this:
"You offered yourself to everyone who passed by, and multiplied your acts of harlotry. You also committed harlotry with the Egyptians, your very fleshly neighbors, and increased your acts of harlotry to provoke Me to anger. " (Eze. 16:25,26)Jerusalem is described as "the great city" in chapter 11, "which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.""Then the Babylonians came to her, into the bed of love, And they defiled her with their immorality; So she was defiled by them, and alienated herself from them. She revealed her harlotry and uncovered her nakedness. Then I alienated Myself from her, As I had alienated Myself from her sister." (Eze. 23:17,18)
You need to understand the spiritual nature of the book of Revelation and put yourself in the place of 1st century Christians or you will never get the symbols.
The fact remains that there is no way you can get the "harlot" image to fit pagan Rome. Only Jerusalem (Israel), the wife of God, was in a position to play the spiritual harlot.
This is also seen by understanding the contrast between the "harlot" and "the bride" (heavenly Jerusalem) in Revelation.
TC, I respect you, and I know you have lots of knowledge on the subject, but I also know we come from entirely different perspectives on this. You have to read what I say by looking through my premill lens. I have to read what you say by looking through your preterist lens.
When I see a place where those biases would affect interpretation, symbology, or even history, then I should be honest about my own (and your) tendencies in certain directions.
The topo map clearly does not have Jerusalem having 7 hills. (There are only 3 clear hills inside the entire Old City.)
I haven’t checked the topo of Rome yet, but I will. I’ll try to be just as honest.
“I am certain the English language affords you sufficient latitude to establish the “error of Rome” as you call it without mongering hatred.
Excerpts taken from historical documents may or may not be delivered in a hateful manner. It’ll be case by case.”
This is the first Religion thread I’ve read for years. Very testy, indeed.
I must say I admire your magisterial tone!
To: suzyjaruki
And you have the kindness of a mother.
My drinking days are in the distant and dusty past of college and divorce; hemachromatosis has taken care of that. But I occasionally indulge in a Guinness.
I find it interesting that some people cannot separate beliefs from the person holding them. For instance, I work very closely with a devout LDS member. I like, respect, and trust this man. At the same time, I regard his beliefs as completely wrong and anti Christian.
In his posts, irishtenor exhibits evidence of being a righteous and good man. I regard his beliefs as completely wrong, as well.
My LDS friend and I get along well. We have not had direct debate because we are in a professional environment; if we did so out of that environment, then as far as I am concerned, our discussions would remain on a different level or plane and not reflect upon our professional relationship.
What you regard as taunting, I regard as making a valid point. So be it.
5,732 posted on 09/08/2007 9:53:02 AM MDT by MarkBsnr (V. Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae. R. Et concepit de Spiritu Sancto.)
To: irishtenor
I do not tread on irishtenor’s beliefs.
I do, however, believe that the belief of the creation and subsequent casting of the bulk of humanity into hellfire forever for no reason other than it’s the whim of the Almighty is a nasty belief. Especially when it completely contradicts the bulk of the Bible and practically the entire Gospels.
I believe that Calvinism is warped and twisted and completely unBiblical and completely opposite to the beliefs of the Church Fathers. I have debated with irishtenor and found, to this point anyway, that he is rational and serious and yet commmitted to this belief. How would you have me proceed?
5,701 posted on 09/07/2007 7:58:15 PM MDT by MarkBsnr (V. Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae. R. Et concepit de Spiritu Sancto.)
To: irishtenor
What a nasty theology.
And what a tortuous logic it requires to defend it.
“Ony chilrdern of God have the capacity to please God. Only a child of God can choose to please God. In that sense, only a child of God has free will.”
The robot slave is the only one with free will; all those who exercise free will to not worship God don’t have free will...
I’ve posted before quantities of verses pulled from all over the Bible saying that God wants all people to be with Him. It is the purpose of His creation of man - to have all of them willingly worshiping Him.
I’m afraid that we are rehashing old ground here - I give you the Gospels which give direction to all men and you give me Saint Paul who was admonishing a couple of churches under his bishopric - and then apply them to all men (when they were specific to those churches) over top of and instead of the words of Jesus.
5,640 posted on 09/07/2007 11:16:59 AM MDT by MarkBsnr (V. Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae. R. Et concepit de Spiritu Sancto.)
To: irishtenor
You don’t appear that way to me.
You have a simplistic elitist philosophy complete with a Gnostic knowledge about your eternal salvation.
It ain’t Christianity. It’s a cheat, developed by a power mad tyrant in Geneva.
4,381 posted on 08/26/2007 7:36:25 PM MDT by MarkBsnr (V. Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae. R. Et concepit de Spiritu Sancto.)
I read them and I don’t see where he says you’re going to hell. He may not have a lot of respect for your beliefs but I just don’t see him saying anything about you being hellbound.
***I was at one time contemplating becoming Catholic, but I’ve changed my mind. (Partly as a result of what I’ve read in this forum.***
Glenmerle, if I have in any way contributed to your decision not to become Catholic, I most sincerely apologize. Jesus deserves so much better from me and it must grieve Him deeply if I have led someone to turn away from His Church. My witness is very poor. I have a problem with my temper and am not able to be charitable at all times. I ask you to forgive me.
I know. It is precisely that reason that I don’t normally reply to any of them.
I care about them in the sense that I don’t wish them to go to hell, I do wish that they experience the love of God but my weakness and humanity and my protectiveness of the Church come to the fore when they attack the Church.
Some accuse Catholics of loving the Church more than Christ but they don’t understand that loving the Church IS loving Christ and loving one another IS loving Christ. I know I fall short and I do pray about it.
Oops, I should have pinged you to 211 and 212.
Might I suggest you would be more honest if you were dealing with Scriptures rather than investigating topo maps. That seems to suggest you are only fueling your own biases.
Is it you contention that all those verses I mentioned have no significance, or that you merely disagree with the connection that I’ve drawn from them?
I just looked at a topgraphic map and ancient Jerusalem was not built on 7 hills. There are only 3 hills inside the Old City, and perhaps 4 if you include the ridge that runs up to the supposed site of the Davidic palace.
100 AD Rome, on the other hand, does have at least 7 hills inside the walled-in area. Again, this is an issue of how you count the humps of a ridged mountain. In any case, they are inside the city while Mt Olives is outside of Jerusalem.
The Mount of Olives is outside the city (as evidenced by the map, and also by the gospel accounts themselves.)
One attempt I saw to come up with 7 include the Mount of Olives and tried to make the one Mount into 3 hills.
Now I’ve got to find a topo of the Rome of St John. One account I read said that when the city was founded the founders intentionally put it behind 7 hills to protect it from the sea. It says they intentionally named it “7-Hilled City” to draw attention to the symbolism of the number 7.
That raises the issue of Rome 17 saying that the sea captains of the world would stand off from the destruction of that city and lament its loss. It appears to be a port city.
That does not describe Jerusalem which is 40 rough, highland miles inland as the crow flies. Rome is about 30 miles across a less highland region from the coast; again as the crow flies.
Whatever else we might say about the destruction of the 7-hilled city, the destruction does not seem to be of a type that endangered the lives of those ships standing off the coast.
I started 217 last night, fell asleep, went to the office, and returned just shortly ago to the home office.
I made a few posts in between, but rather than look them up, I just posted 217 with updates.
The topo maps are reality. As facts, they will be hand-in-hand with the truth of scripture. Truth is truth wherever it's found.
If it is named as Sodom & Egypt, then it probably isn't also Rome.
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.