Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
***[ When one rejects God’s church, one has to have a really big lie to replace it. ]
Not according to the book of Revelation..
Which is the “Vision” of Jesus..(Rev ch 1:1)***
You wouldn’t want to expound on this would you?
Rev 1
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to show his servants what must happen soon. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,
And this makes your point how?
A reference to the Nicolaitans.. "Conquerers of the people" i.e. heirarchical clergy..
Crawl on your knees and bow to God. You have never shown a miniscule amount of understanding, love or charity to any of my friends here on Free Republic. Repent and show your love for God and for his children. Repent, I say, and never again doubt the love we have for Jesus. Repent and demonstrate that you are really a child of God. Repent and turn from your evil ways. Repent and be transformed or stay the way you are and spend eternity where no one wants to be. You are without excuse. We have given the gospel to you. We have told you of the love of Jesus, we have cried and prayed for you, whether you believe it or not. Mark, we love you, as only a child of God can love. Please repent and be set free from your dungeon of hate.
Jesus gave us His church.
How is this related? Do you claim that Jesus gave us something bad?
***Crawl on your knees and bow to God.***
I do that at every Mass in worship of God as the Apostles and Church Fathers have instructed us.
***You have never shown a miniscule amount of understanding, love or charity to any of my friends here on Free Republic.***
Call it tough love. I give charity to those whom the Holy Spirit moves me.
***Repent and show your love for God and for his children.***
I do that at least once per week, and as often as the Spirit of God moves me.
***Repent and demonstrate that you are really a child of God.***
Ditto.
***Repent and turn from your evil ways.***
Ditto.
***Repent and be transformed or stay the way you are and spend eternity where no one wants to be.***
Ditto. Wait: I thought that you guys believed that if I am of the elect that I cannot avoid going to Heaven and if I am not, then I cannot go to Heaven. So what’s the big deal? It doesn’t matter what I do, does it, under Reformed theology? If I am not of the Reformed elect, then what does repentence get me?
***You are without excuse.***
Absolutely true. I must not reject God or else I will burn in hellfire forever. I must act as He instructs, or else I will burn in hellfire forever.
***We have given the gospel to you.***
Actually, we’ve given the Gospel to you. All of Scripture. How do you like it?
*** We have told you of the love of Jesus, we have cried and prayed for you, whether you believe it or not. Mark, we love you, as only a child of God can love.***
And I appreciate it, without reservation, as do I for any child of God.
***Please repent and be set free from your dungeon of hate.***
I wasn’t aware of a dungeon of hate, but repentence for us is an ongoing process, not a one time deal. We must continuous be aware of our sinfulness and repent for each and every sin.
“God love (sic) us all and has freely given His Grace to all. I agree very much and thank you for opening this thread.”
This smacks of universalism - is that what you intended? For the Scripture teaches that only those called by God to become son of His are truly loved by Him; this being beyond the common love and common grace He freely bestows on all men. The saving love and saving grace is for the elect of God and none other.
Romans 9, for example:
“6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.
10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”
No didn't.. The word church means called out ones.. He gave us a family.. The word church has been morphed into corporate heirarchy.. since the year 33 a.d... a corporate heirarchy is/are Nicolaitans.. Jesus reaction to the APOSTLES arguing who would be greatest in "heaven" is an marked object lesson.. Wasted on a Nicolaitans by the way..
Out west here . . . least wise when I was growing up . . . we tended to tell it straight.
Parsing words for whatever reason is not quite the same thing.
One can deny the live long day . . . and night, too.
Or are you going to now tell me that your mention of meds was about my allergies?
God knows.
And so does everyone else . . .
Besides, you repeated essentially the same accusation in the post I’m replying to.
Yet I’m supposed to think of your labeling as lily white and mine as the blackest stink?
LOL.
ROTFLOL.
GTTM!
I don’t really mind all that much. I’ve been called lots of things all my life.
I do, however, take issue with folks who do so and pretend they haven’t . . . or who chronically do so and then who wail and whine outrageously over the least slight or perceived slight the other direction.
LOL.
Wasted on a Nicolaitans by the way..
= =
Seems to be the case . . . then and now.
AMEN! AMEN!
Mark: My tag line is a quote from St. Augustine
Touché!
I know the verses; I don't twist them though.
You write: "Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith." -- Habakkuk 2:4"
And the next verse says "Yea also, because he transgresseth by wine, he is a proud man, neither keepeth at home."
Is this supposed to be a veiled hint at Christ? That's a stretch.
It's not about me. It's about you, and others like you, who then must believe what is not in the bible.
In fact, I don’t even know why YOU are arguing about it
I have no argument with anyone. I am simply asking questions directed at people who make extraordinary claims.
By presuming to be the mouthpieces of God.
Actually, that presumption was grabbed soon after all the Apostles were gone. Our clergies do not claim the supernatural powers that your clergies do (you and the Latins). Our leaders have no need for that sort of power to spiritually guide the flock. All they need are the indwelling Spirit and the Scriptures.
Being free is not a presumption of pride. We are not robots.
Perceived, experienced, or "relative" freedom is very different from "freedom to control" God. Once it is believed that man determines his own way and destiny then it certainly is a presumption of pride. That is, unless one believes in a weak or irresponsible God.
A change in human desire can happen for many reasons. We don't necessarily know why we change in the course of a lifetime.
If we change because we have been given faith, then we should know why. If we change from "bad" to "worse", then we will not know why.
FK: "But to some, our testimonies must be thrown out in toto, because they do not rise to the level of "proof" required by some who do not believe in such phenomena."
Yes, it burns you doesn't it, because if you had proof you would be the first to post it! So, you dismiss it. Conveniently. It's funny how we demand proof for everything else in life except what we believe. Amazing.
It used to "burn me". :) But now not so much. I know I have used my best arguments with you based on both Scripture and reason. So, I have just come to think that there exists no proof that you as an individual would accept. That part is out of my hands, and there is nothing I can do about it. All of us have different levels of proof that we will accept on certain things. Some accept proof on a preponderance, or a reasonable proof, or sometimes it must be beyond a reasonable doubt. Still others might require it to a scientific certitude, by the measure of science at a given time. IOW, "proof" as a term is very relative. I believe that on matters of faith that God determines the exact level of "proof" required by each of His children. For example, some believe BECAUSE they have seen, while others believe without seeing.
So, I have just come to think that there exists no proof that you as an individual would accept. That part is out of my hands, and there is nothing I can do about it. All of us have different levels of proof that we will accept on certain things. Some accept proof on a preponderance, or a reasonable proof, or sometimes it must be beyond a reasonable doubt. Still others might require it to a scientific certitude, by the measure of science at a given time. IOW, “proof” as a term is very relative.
I believe that on matters of faith that God determines the exact level of “proof” required by each of His children. For example, some believe BECAUSE they have seen, while others believe without seeing.
= = =
INDEED!
With relative hazards and . . . rewards accordingly vis a vis to our responses—particularly in our hearts—to the level of proof God provides.
He may have designed us to relate responsively to Him with say a level of proof at 5.0. Yet, if we stamp our feet and insist on our own way unless He provides a level of proof at 9.9 . . . He is not likely to be impressed nor compliant with our demands of Him on that score.
For others, He may provide miracle after miracle . . . either because it is His good Daddy-loves-blessing-some-kids-differntly-pleasure to do so in His relationship with that individual or—because He designed that individual to do best in that kind of context as they are being trained to rule in their slot and role in eternity.
imho, of course.
But, as you say, then we get a Democrat who will cut the funds and personnel needed, catering to special interest groups, and the wall will be as good as nothing.
In my opinion, that would be politically untenable. With an unmanned and unfunded wall there will certainly be several tunnels and workarounds, etc. However, conservative groups that care about border security such as the Minutemen will YouTube all the exit tunnels they can find and show America the waste of the money spent on the fence. That would leave the Democrat (or McCain) to either officially justify an open borders policy or shut up. Most Americans want a secure border, or else McCain-Kennedy-Bush would have passed.
In addition, just on technical terms I really do think an existing wall WOULD deter SOME of the traffic, even if it was unmanned. Gaping holes would form but video crews would be there too. It would be a nightmare for any disinterested President who inherited a wall.
Unfortunately, Sen. McCain's record is not very good when it comes to illegal immigration. He has sided with Democrats on that issue.
I totally agree.
But then seeing Guliani (who actually helped get a mafioso appointed to serve as Homeland Security chief for a couple of months before his shady past was made public), I am not very encouraged by the people McCain is surrounding himself with.
Kerik is a real wise guy? I didn't know there was a reasonable showing of that. I know he's in all kinds of hot water, but are any of the charges related to organized crime?
Here is the scoop: cut down the demand, and the supply will dwindle. In order to cut down the demands the unethical businesses that hire illegals must be punished by existing laws.
Yes, I think that is a large part of it. Unfortunately for all of us, none of Bush, McCain, Obama, or Clinton(s) have the slightest interest in doing that. :(
For that to happen, the president can exert pressure on local governments to enforce the law or face consequences. Immigration is a federal matter and those who break the immigration law, either by hiring or abetting those who hire illegal aliens, are subject to federal prosecution.
I'm not sure that a president really has the clout to pressure local law enforcement anymore. Possession of, sales of, and consumption of marijuana is a federal crime, yet in a few states, most notably California, it is done "legally" in broad daylight under state law. How could any majority of any state legislature, with a Governor's signature, pass something in categorical contradiction to federal law? They must have correctly foreseen that any president would do nothing. Also in the same category I would include euthanasia and gay marriage laws (either already existing or likely in the future).
Never mind, in addition, risking potential epidemic outbreaks since the illegals are not checked for communicable diseases when they enter the country and could be carrying anything from the plague to the Ebola virus.
I agree that this is a very valid concern.
We are also sending a mixed, and hypocritical, if not schizophrenic message to the world, on the one hand ...
Yup. It is hard to justify defending the borders of other nations if we refuse to defend our own. It is a travesty.
It's time to hold someone accountable! When politicians become liable for their mistakes, like every other citizen, perhaps we will have responsible (better) politicians. Imagine that!
Absolutely. That's why I intend to vote for pure conservatives with any chance I get. :)
Considering the cost and the "efficacy" in such case, it's not worth tax-payers' money.
I'm not sure that a president really has the clout to pressure local law enforcement anymore
Sure he does. One way to do it is through Congressional allocations of federal money. The President has a lot of clout, especially when it comes to homeland security. We are talking national borders here.
Possession of, sales of, and consumption of marijuana is a federal crime, yet in a few states, most notably California, it is done "legally" in broad daylight under state law. How could any majority of any state legislature, with a Governor's signature, pass something in categorical contradiction to federal law?
Local laws can only be stricter than the federal law. It is the unwillingness of the federal authorities to pressure renegade States to comply. I would consider it an act of open rebellion for any State to thumb its nose at federal laws and go from there.
Sometimes confrontation is the only way; the last rest resort. But, let's make it clear that for confrontation there must exist two conditions: (1) the challenger and (2) willingness to confront. Apparently, in our case, there is plenty of challenge, but no willingness to confront. That's precisely how the Roman empire crumbled.
***This smacks of universalism - is that what you intended?***
The term Catholic means all. God has extended His Grace to all; but not all take it.
1 Tim 2:
1
First of all, then, I ask that supplications, prayers, petitions, and thanksgivings be offered for everyone,
2
for kings and for all in authority, that we may lead a quiet and tranquil life in all devotion and dignity.
3
This is good and pleasing to God our savior,
4
who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth.
5
For there is one God. There is also one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus, himself human,
6
who gave himself as ransom for all.
All of us, sir. Everyone. But not all will heed the call. Not all will follow where the Holy Spirit leads.
***(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)***
But God calleth all; without Him and His Grace, we will suffer the fate that original sin demands we do.
When you refer to Nicolaitans, do you mean that you characterise Catholics as leading lives of unrestrained indulgence and promiscuity?
Is that what you think of Christians?
***I do, however, take issue with folks who do so and pretend they haven’t . . . or who chronically do so and then who wail and whine outrageously over the least slight or perceived slight the other direction.***
Do you have an example of me wailing or whining?
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.