ROFL.
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 07/18/2010 6:04:05 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Oh quite the contrary.
We know that our sins are forgiven, yet we still sin.
Are they forgiven before we have committed them?
Are they forgiven before we have confessed them?
Are they forgiven before we have repented of them?
Revelations tells us no unclean thing can enter heaven.
In the Gospel of Matthew 12:31-32, Jesus says that the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in this age or the age to come. This in Jesus’ own words tells us that some sins can be forgiven, even after death, since the earthly life is one age, and the eternal life another.
Then in 1 John 1:9-10, we hear, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” So, how are these sins forgiven.?
If we have unforgiven sins at the time of our death, how can we ask forgiveness? And if we haven’t asked forgiveness for those sins, how can Jesus cleanse us? We’re dead, we can’t speak with our mouth or our heart.
Hebrews tells us the righteous in heaven have been perfected. How are the righteous perfected? When?
1 Corinthians tells us that each man’s work will be tested as though by fire, and if that work survives, the builder will receive a reward, if the work is consumed, the builder will suffer its loss and yet be saved, but only as through fire.
The purifying fire, if that is what happens in Purgatory is not the same as the punishing fire of hell.
We also don’t know if the fire is just a metaphor for the burning of love for Jesus in our hearts that convicts us and makes us ready to be with him.
No one perfectly knows their sin or perfectly confesses them. When we are judged, we will see many sins that we didn’t even register when they occurred.
Purgatory is a gift from God so that though we are still imperfect upon our death, uncleansed of sin, we are not denied life with Him.
—SMELLS LIKE . . .
—WADDLES LIKE . . .
—SWIMS LIKE . . .
—QUACKS LIKE . . .
—LAYS EGGS LIKE . . .
—FLIES LIKE . . .
DOH!
If you are referring to Catholics, then you've got wrong yet again. The Word is Jesus; the word is Scripture. We worship the Word; we do not worship the word. As I have posted and will again if asked, John 1, which is quite explicit. Why is it that Sola Scriptura types get so much actual, real and on paper Scripture wrong in favour of some sort of fantasy Scripture which does not exist and has never existed. Although, given the development of some of liberal-generated Bibles these days, there is probably no end.
I am wondering about the gender-neutral Bibles that are coming out of, for example, the Evangelical camp (several versions of the NIV). I also believe that there was a Bible published recently by somebody that completely eliminated all gender references. It is not the Catholic Church is savaging the word of God and sacrificing it on the altar of political correctness.
That would be the entire Bible, minus the books removed by the reformation.
“By the way, there is nothing in those links — absolutely nothing — that in any way supports your ludicrous falsehood that “there is a very large group of Catholics including bishops and cardinals who are pushing for the Catholic church to claim Mary as part of the Godhead...”
>I never said that.
Ah, yes, it was your citation of that passage in a reply to me that threw me off. Looks like I made a mistake. It also looks like you are so eager to have some excuse to accuse someone of dishonesty that you chose to ignore the obvious explanation and read my mind instead.
“If you can’t be truthful silence is the best action.”
That’s just shameful. An absolute disgrace. You know good and well—and you knew when you uttered that untruth—that it was an honest and extremely trivial mistake.
“Of course ignorance reigns supreme.”
Yes, yours, of Catholicism.
“For instance, there is a lot of “acting out” of Church doctrine such as making the cross over the chest, walking forward to touch or kiss a wooden cross at Easter, kneeling before statues, kissing the ring of a religious authority, sprinkling themselves with water and so on.”
____________________________________________________________________________
Such things as making the Sign of the Cross, using holy water, etc. are called “sacramentals”. They are of a lesser order than the Sacraments, which actually give grace and increase grace in the soul of the person receiving them, properly disposed. What I find insightful in your post is the recognition of the importance of using material things, postures of the body, etc., in Catholic prayer and ritual.
I'd like to excerpt an excellent article by Peter Kreeft, a well-known convert and Catholic apologist, that explains the importance of this in a far better way than I can:. Pardon me for the long excerpt, but I feel it's such an outstanding explanation of the Catholic sacramental view of things that I couldn't resist.
And it really ties in with your comment, in my opinion.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0030.html
excerpt:
To Protestants, sacraments must be one of two things: either mere symbols, reminders, like words; or else real magic. And the Catholic definition of a sacrament — a visible sign instituted by Christ to give grace, a sign that really effects what it symbolizes — sounds like magic. Catholic doctrine teaches that the sacraments work ex opere operato, i.e., objectively, though not impersonally and automatically like machines. They are gifts that come from without but must be freely received.
Protestants are usually much more comfortable with a merely symbolic view of sacraments, for their faith is primarily verbal, not sacramental. After all, it is the Bible that looms so large in the center of their horizon. They believe in creation and Incarnation and Resurrection only because they are in the Bible. The material events are surrounded by the holy words. The Catholic sensibility is the inside-out version of this: the words are surrounded by the holy facts. To the Catholic sensibility it is not primarily words but matter that is holy because God created it, incarnated himself in it, raised it from death, and took it to heaven with him in his ascension.
Orthodox Protestants believe these scriptural dogmas, of course, just as surely as Catholics do. But they do not, I think, feel the crude, even vulgar facticity of them as strongly. That’s why they do not merely disagree with but are profoundly shocked by the real presence and transubstantiation. Luther, by the way, taught the real presence and something much closer to transubstantiation than most Protestants believe, namely consubstantiation, the belief that Christ’s body and blood are really present in the Eucharist, but so are the bread and wine. Catholics believe the elements are changed; Lutherans believe they are added to.
Most Protestants believe the Eucharist only symbolizes Christ, though some, following Calvin, add that it is an occasion for special grace, a sign and a seal. But though I was a Calvinist for twenty one years, I do not remember any emphasis on that notion. Much more often, I heard the contrast between the Protestant “ spiritual “ interpretation and the Catholic “material “, “magical” one.
The basic objection Protestants have to sacramentalism is this: How can divine grace depend on matter, something passive and unfree? Isn’t it unfair for God’s grace to depend on anything other than his will and mine? I felt that objection strongly until I realized that the sheer fact that I have a body — this body, with this heredity, which came to me and still comes to me without my choice — is also “unfair”. One gets a healthy body, another does not. As one philosopher said, “Life isn’t fair.”
It’s the very nature of the material world we live in, the very fact of a material world at all, that is so “unfair” that it moved Ivan Karamazov to rebellion against God in that profoundest and most Christian novel, Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov. As he explains to his believing brother Alyosha, “It’s not God that I can’t accept, it’s this world of his” — a world in which bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people. But it might be better than fair rather than less, gift rather than payment, grace rather than justice, “fair” as “beautiful” rather than “fair” as rational “ — like a sacrament.
The sacraments remind us that the whole world is a sacrament, a sacred thing, a gift; and the sacramental character of the world reminds us of the central sacrament, the Incarnation, continued among us in the seven sacraments of the Church, especially in the Eucharist. The sacramental view of the world and the Catholic doctrine of the sacraments illuminate each other like large and small mirrors.
Both the sacrament of the world and the sacrament of incarnation/ Eucharist also remind us that we too are sacramental, matter made holy by spirit. Our bodies are not corpses moved by ghosts, or cars steered by angels, but temples of the Holy Spirit. In our bodies, especially our faces, matter is transmuted into meaning. The eyes are the windows of the soul.
AS NEAR AS I CAN FIGURE . . .
IT must go along the lines of . . .
GIVEN THEIR pontifical, magicsterical exclusivist SUPREMACY BY ORDER OF MARY's instructions to GOD ALMIGHTY . . .
CHRIST WAS DOIN' IT WRONG when HE, CREATOR GOD taught the Disciples in the upper room the OUR FATHER IN HEAVEN . . .
WHAT HE SHOULD have done . . . first . . . is trotted them outside, quickly constructed a clay figure, commandeered some candles from the nearest camel caravan . . . given proper genuflecting training . . . and proceded with the extensive indoctrinations in all the rituals right then and there.
Given that her upstart Son got it all wrong, Mary has been working overtime through the power-mongering magicsterical to set things right ever since. Maybe that's the beginning of "A mother's work is never done."
Yeah, wellllllllllllll, ya know . . .
some RC’s hereon have gone on record more or less agreeing with Jimmy Carter that St Paul
GOT IT LOTS WRONG.
Thank you for the clarification.
ROFL.
“Catholics believe in the entire revealed Word of God and do not spiritually impoverish ourselves by recognizing only a redacted subset of the Written Word of God.”
Reason and truth will get you nowhere with these people. Do it like they do.
Ahem...
I have an absolutely unimpleachable source that proves all protestants are Satan-worshipping cannibals who practice both polygyny and polyandry, such that one often finds three men or three women in the same bed polishing off a feast of roast Catholic infant.
Anything they say to deny this is an incredible lie, and if they complain at the viciousness of the lie, they are only showing their victim mentality.
See? There, all done, in mere seconds.
THANKS FOR YOUR KIND WORDS.
I’D REALLY MUCH rather be wrong.
However, we must face reality, not fantasies.
I have never heard of Paul being raised up. Is this a personal revelation? Or is this something your pastor/denomination preaches.I have read of the conversion of Saul persecutor of Christians, to Paul, minister to the Gentiles.
I googled the words and found nothing, not one place that supports the description of Paul’s conversion as him being raised up.
His message was nothing new. Paul’s conversion is thought to have happened around 35AD and the letter to the Galatians around 46AD. Why the gap of 10 years? Galatians was not his first epistle. Wouldn’t such a huge new revelation have been proclaimed years earlier? Are you saying that Peter and the others preached for more than 10 years without knowing that Jesus died for our sins?
Dispensation is that by Jesus’ sacrifice we do not have to suffer the punishment we deserve for our sins. The gates of heaven are no longer closed to us. The wages of sin is death and the dispensation is that by Jesus’ life, death and resurrection we are saved.
I don’t understand it at all, Quix. Somehow, they think giving us this information exonerates their teaching and beliefs. Don’t they read what it actually says? If a Protestant were writing the official beliefs and doctrines for the Catholic Church, it could not be more unbelievable. And yet, it’s accepted and praised and proudly given as a testament to the truth and veracity of the Church in all its glory.
I know. It REALLY IS literally mind boggling that they have such 0.00000% insight into their own junk.
As I said above, I know atheists with far more intellectual honesty and insight.
Shocking.
In which books of Scripture have we added these doctrines?
---------------
I've about come to the conclusion . . . that short of a literal DAMASCUS ROAD type conversion, A HUGE PERCENTAGE OF RC'S JUST DO
NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY
TO SEE THEMSELVES ACCURATELY ON SUCH SCORES. It seems like there's a spiritual blindness or cloud or some such actually PREVENTING understanding rather wholesale.
THANKS FOR YOUR KIND ENCOURAGEMENTS.
I guess that means you won’t be holding my coat when the tar and feather me and run me out of town on a rail?
LOL.
LUBBRO
You would have to answer that for me. Because I really don’t know which Scriptures were taken from where, and added to to come up with those traditions, or doctrines.
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.