Posted on 07/08/2018 10:03:40 AM PDT by Luircin
Actually, MHGinTN is correct.
YOU were the one who posted post 17.
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3669317/posts?page=17#17
“The “Toilet where Luther strained to produce the Reformation” has been found.
17 posted on 7/8/2018, 2:42:50 PM by Al Hitan “
I doubt it.
Temptation is not sin.
Engaging in the temptation, even mentally, is.
I wonder how many venial sins it takes to equal one mortal sin.
I'm sure the RCs have a number for this.
In either case, it misses the point as all sin separates us from God.
Rome seems to overlook Romans 4:7-8
7“BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED.
8“BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.”
Your nasty post the other day is an example of what you do? ... Odd that you would admit it, given the degenerate nature of the text you so boldly posted at Freerepublic, which was pulled as soon as someone noticed what it says about your ‘Catholic mind’..
You spittle about things you do not know. The post dsc put up at FR the other day was shame, so shameful I noted to Salvation that I could not believe that poster is an actual Devout Catholic. The words were so nasty that the moderator pulled them and then the thread. Don’t endorse what you do not know the facts about.
Seriously, grow up. If you are going to make your posts about someone, ping them.
Come in from the dark fringe to His full light.
It is something to realize that Lawrence v Texas was only imposed by an out of control Court in 2003 and that in 15 years the perverts and their Romans 1:18-32 allies have run amuck to the extent that they have and are now trying to push for the criminalization of sound doctrine if they can get away with it.
The man who wrote the opinion for this decision, Kennedy, is leaving the Court and I must imagine that he feels his opinion is secure or he might stay till he died.
Get back on topic?
You’re the one who brought up Mary.
Thank you for trying to change the subject to what Luther wrote about a bunch of terrorists.
You didn’t read the article, did you?
That remains 0 Romanists who have actually read and engaged with the article in favor of maintaining their hatred for a man they’ve never met.
Really really pathetic.
Yes, let’s get on topic.
Did you read the article or not?
Polly want a cracker?
I’ve read various articles about and around Luther’s advice to “sin boldly”. All attempts to reconcile that sentiment with actual Christianity are vain. When it takes you thousands upon thousands of words to attempt to explain a two-word statement, you should be canny enough to realize that you’re on the wrong side. Just give up.
Spencer might be amazed at the developments in our society which trend to keep people in ignorance. I’m not just talking about the rampant Bulverism (things like Homophobia or Islamophobia assume a psychological cause rather than principaled reasons) but a politically harnessed stance that rejects not just what investigations may have been made but the evidences which may be given at all.
I’ve summed this up by saying that for some people, with respect to those they favor, that anything less than a conviction for crimes cannot be evidence of wrongdoing. Also that these same persons seem to normally be perfectly willing to accept any serious charge made vs the not-favored.
Trying to reason with such individuals that their stance on the first point in fact would eliminate all criminal trials -— if evidence is not evidence without a conviction based on it then nothing that is properly evidence can be presented before conviction ... and if I chose to go on I might try to show how that view plays into a presupposition that all criminal proceedings, at least against the favored, are injustices imposed because of their race or affiliations (a form of Bulverism, someone only would convict because they oppose the accused unjustly) -— has been like bouncing balls off of Abrams tanks ... fun but pointless as no damage is ever done.
In frustration I’ve finally shifted to challenge that who are they to even care about wrongdoing at all ... and sadly in every instance this seems to have been interpreted as a defense of someone they are griping about rather than a full frontal attack on their ethics.
I am going to infer by your refusal to answer the question that no, you did not read the article.
Instead you continue to be angry at a man who you don’t even know, while refusing to get to know him at all.
This is why people call you hateful, ebb.
Read your PM.
So in other words, you did NOT read the posted article.
Pathetic, can’t even bring yourself to read a different opinion.
And I should try to take you seriously now why?
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.