| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/24/2022 5:40:39 AM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Childishness |
Posted on 03/06/2022 11:16:06 AM PST by CharlesOConnell
A man commits a serious crime, then he gets released. He has "paid his debt to society". But wait a minute, he's only ready for the half-way house. He's unlikely to get a prestigious job in his new prison suit coat, or any job at all; he has civil impediments, he can't vote or hold certain offices. His crime was serious enough that he won't be presumed to have been completely rehabilitated until he performs a notable service to society, or at least spends many years on the straight and narrow, so that his crime can be truly overlooked or forgotten.
In Catholic faith, your "debt to society" is paid by Jesus Christ on Calvary. It's called "eternal punishment", without Christ it keeps you from going to heaven. Supposing that you do take advantage of His sacrifice, you're truly sorry, have a firm purpose of amendment, if you relapse, you go again for forgiveness (to the Sacrament of Confession).
But your sin leaves a strong trace at another layer of impurity called "temporal punishment due to sin", like the civil impediments facing the half-way house prisoner. Because "nothing impure can enter heaven", there is a place or a state, a condition of purification to render you fit for heaven after Christ has finally saved you from hell. The Catholic Church calls it purgatory.
(Where is it in the bible? Where is the word Trinity in the bible? Where does it say that you only need a personal relationship with Jesus Christ? Many valid principles aren't stated explicitly in the bible, but it does say to "hold fast to the traditions you have learned, whether by word or by letter", because much of the Gospel wasn't written down, as Jesus only wrote in the sand, the majority of the Gospel was taught from word to ear to people who couldn't afford expensive books, the exceptions were what tended to get written down. But the implication that there is a purgatory, is contained in the bible--see the comments.)
The ex-con can receive a pardon or commutation of his probation from a Governor, if he performs some heroic deed, saving numerous lives, or, like Chuck Colson, performs a long-lasting, valuable community service helping numerous people who can't help themselves.
In the Catholic Church there are 2 ways for the residual, temporal effects due to sin to be expiated: suffering in this life, or after life, undergoing purifying suffering along with other people who will finally be saved, but have to suffer for long without the vision of God--that is what causes them their pain.
Their suffering isn't meritorious enough to grant their release, the saints in heaven and those on earth suffering and practicing virtue can pray for the suffering souls in purgatory. In no way is their release by slow transfer of suffering or practice of virtue, "buying heaven". It's a long, excruciating process.
How the misunderstanding arose that Catholics think they can buy their way into heaven, is involved with history more than 500 years old. For a millennium of Christendom between roughly 410 and 1410, there was a Medieval civilization with harmony between faith and government.
Many small farmers would cluster around the manor house of a military lord who would protect them, in exchange for a certain fixed obligation of labor and agricultural produce. In most cases, those "serfs" had much more leisure than factory workers of the industrial revolution; there were a large number of holy days without work, and except for planting and harvesting, there were long stretches of idle time.
Another large sector of the economy surrounded monasteries, where the monks developed most of the farming practices that stabilized the serfs and their manorial lords. The monks who worked those monastic lands were sworn to poverty, so that monasteries built up large accumulations of economic value over decades and centuries of labor.
At the beginning, when lands were being cleared and put into production there weren't prominent town fairs ruled by merchants and bankers. Money wasn't used for sustenance, not even much barter occurred, life was mostly agrarian.
Charity was woven into the economy of monasteries. It was estimated that you only need travel 12 miles in medieval England between monasteries, where you could get a meal and minimal lodging for free, based on need. And the charity was also spiritual, including the ancient Catholic principle of prayer for the dead, which is biblical. (See "prayer for the dead" in the original King James Bible in the comment.)
There were foundations and benefices for praying for the dead, that allowed a person of means to support monasteries' charitable works, and in proportional response the monks would pray for the souls of the donors.
It happened at the close of the middle ages, that militarily strong nobles cast their eyes on the labor value accumulated by the poverty-sworn monks of the monasteries, which those nobles perceived as monetary wealth, especially where gold and jewels had been donated by the devout to adorn churches.
(Protestant writer William Cobbett wrote in his 1824 "A History of the Protestant Reformation in England and Ireland", an anecdote, that an incredibly valuable, hand illustrated bible was stripped of it's bejeweled, gold cover, the much more valuable hand-illumined manuscript, thrown in the mud and trampled by horses hooves by raiders suppressing the monasteries in Henry VIII's England.)
A new religion growing up around this seizure of monastic lands and valuables, that sought to discredit the Catholic Church, spread the black legend that the "sale of indulgences" was abusive. But this was very exceptional. Today the stipend of a Mass said for the dead is $10.
We receive that transaction by believing Him. Thereby it is our free will choosing The Righteousness of Christ by what He has done not by what we can do. That is the Grace of God in Christ on our behalf.
Regarding the resurrection, let me approach this another way: each descendant from Adam will receive resurrection because of what Jesus did on the Cross. The first to receive resurrection to a real physical body of greater dimensional variability than we now posses was Jesus. When He comes inthe clouds to receive us unto Himself, we will receive resurrection to real physical bodies like He has now (1 John 3:2). After the Tribulation and the one-thousand year reign of Christ upon the Earth there comes the Great White Throne of Judgment, when all descendants fro0m Adam, except those reurrected in the Rapture will receive resurrection bodies fit for eternal physical existence in a higher dimensional variable realm. Some of these resurrected will be bodily in the Presence of The Lord and some will be in eternal bodies NOT ever again in the Presence of God.
If you choose the first resurrection is when Christ was resurrected to a glorified body. A second resurrection event is when we receive resurrection bodies and are whisked away to the Father's House. we are partaking in His resurrection, biut you can call it a second event. A third event is when the Great white Throne of Judgment takes lace.
Our spirit is not limited by our present time and space. It is the stuff of higher diomensional variables. The sopirit that God breathed into Adam's soul is an entirely higher order of existence.
did you write that yourself? where’s the link citation?
A Copyright Attorney Examines the Writings
In 1981 the church hired copyright attorney Vincent L. Ramik of the law firm Diller, Ramik and Wight to examine Ellen White’s writings and present them with his conclusions. Two factors should be considered here, which make the story even more fascinating:
1) Ramik had been raised a Roman Catholic (though not a “practicing” Catholic at the time of his research [read interview below]) and one of the books he examined was, in fact, The Great Controversy—not exactly flattering to that Church or the Pope.
2) Ramik later admitted in an interview that he had been biased against Ellen White when he went into the project, for he had read the work of many of her critics from D.M. Canright right up to the pre-publication manuscript of The White Lie itself.
Nevertheless, after more than 300 hours of researching approximately 1,000 relevant cases in American legal history, Ramik’s conclusions were as follows:
“Based upon our review of the facts and legal precedents, we conclude that Ellen G. White was not a plagiarist and her works did not constitute copyright infringement/piracy.” (Adventist Review, Sept. 17, 1981)
“Considering all factors necessary in reaching a just conclusion on this issue, it is submitted that the writings of Ellen G. White were conclusively unplagiaristic.” (Ibid)
Regarding the specific portions of other writers that she had used, Ramik said that she had “modified, exalted, and improved” the writings of others in an ethical, as well as legal, manner. (Ibid.)
In Ramik’s conclusion he points out several factors that should be carefully considered when one attempts to accuse Ellen White of literary theft or deceit.
1) Her selections “stayed well within the legal boundaries of ‘fair use.’”
2) “Ellen White used the writings of others; but in the way she used them, she made them uniquely her own”—adapting the selections into her own literary framework.
3) Ellen White urged her readers to get copies of some of the very books she made use of—demonstrating that she did not attempt to conceal the fact of her use of literary sources, and that she had no intention to defraud or supersede the works of any other author.
We should keep in mind that Ramik’s conclusions were based on studying not only Ellen White’s writings, but approximately 1,000 cases involving literary property rights from the years 1790-1915. While we realize that the conclusions of one attorney will not convince everyone, we do think that his research was valid, fair, and extensive.
For more information on Ramik and his research, choose a link below. Read the conclusions prayerfully and then decide for yourself:
Summary of Ramik’s Conclusion, An Interview With Ramik, and the Story Behind Ramik’s Investigation (PDF file) (HTML VERSION)
Ramik’s Full Report
Ramik’s examination and conclusions are usually mentioned only in passing (if mentioned at all) by the critics when their allegations are presented. His research is treated in such a non-chalant way that it would be easy to underestimate the significance of his findings. One brother who took issue with Ramik points to the fact that in one of the cases studied a defendant was found guilty. Ramik had, however, studied 1000 cases in his research, and many are referred to in his full report above. What is important is Ramik’s conclusions after studying all of the case histories and comparing them to Ellen White’s writings, not the outcome of one of the cases studied. When that many trials are examined, inevitably the results will show both guilty and not guilty verdicts. We hope that by making the reports and interviews available many seekers of truth will be blessed and many questions will be answered.
When asked how he would sum up the legal case against Ellen White as far as charges of plagiarism, piracy, and copyright infringement were concerned, Ramik answered:
“If I had to be involved in such a legal case, I would much rather appear as defense counsel than for the prosecution. There simply is no case!” (Adventist Review, Sept. 17, 1981)
https://whiteestate.org/legacy/issues-ramik-html/
Page 17
Considering all factors necessary in reaching a just conclusion on this issue, it is submitted that the writings of Ellen G. White were conclusively unplagiaristic.
CONCLUSIONS:
Based upon our review of the facts and legal precedents, we conclude that Ellen G. White was not a plagiarist and her works did not constitute copyright infringement/piracy.
By:_______________________
Vincent L. Ramik
VLR/skl
https://whiteestate.org/legacy/issues-ramik-html/
——>Actually, I did read it, Phil.
——>“I suppose you didn’t even give it a second thought to post what she actually wrote? That’s careless (or dishonest).”
Terrific. But ACTUALLY, I was stating in the form of a question that AMPU was either careless or DISHONEST for not posting what EGW ACTUALLY wrote.
He also didn’t leave a link to the citation.
——>Also, do the 144,000 include those people EGW met in the other worlds?
Why? They’re in OTHER worlds, and they’re already SINLESS.
——>Can you tell where to find this info in the Bible?
“Seriously, why bother? Once that’s been done, you’d only jump to something else unrelated that you think will be a “gotcha.” It gets tiring. People know your M.O. by now, and I’m not going to do your homework for you.”
Wait, who said that?
——>“Then I was taken to a world which had seven moons.” Where is this supposed to be? You asked, “Any mention of Jupiter or Saturn? LOL!” Well, it sure ain’t Earth.
Any mention of Jupiter of Saturn? LOL!
——>“Wings were given me, and an angel attended me from the city to a place that was bright and glorious.” Why did she need wings? She had an angel attending her. John didn’t need any, so why did she?
You would have to ask her. It was her vision. I wasn’t there.
Does this mean anything to you?
Rev 12:17And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Rev 14:12Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
Rev 22:14Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
The invisible things of him are clearly seen. If the things that we could see at the crucifixion are an indication of the things that we should not see, and I believe they are, then God poured out his wrath without mixture on Christ for our sins. I hope you are right on this one.
Selah
MHG: There is no second resurrection but there are stages in the resurrection
Seven: Why is there a reference to a “first” resurrection?
There are 2 resurrections:
John 5:
25Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
26For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
27And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
28Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
30I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
The Bible teaches two different resurrections. Jesus spoke of one resurrection for those who are saved, and another resurrection for those who are lost.
https://ssnet.org/blog/two-resurrections-second-death/
—> Some thoughts...
1. Denial
2. A multi-thousand word copypasta from a cultic source
3. Rage posting
4. A diatribe against OSAS or Ravi or both
5. A (50th) repeat of all the verses he posted that have been refuted...
6. A claim to self-righteousness.
COPYPASTA WINS!!!!!!!🏆🏆🏆
—>AMPU was either careless or DISHONEST for not posting what EGW ACTUALLY wrote.
😭😭😭
—> Why? They’re in OTHER worlds, and they’re already SINLESS.
He believes Whites lies!
Incredible
PS - Luircin: looks like you win! All of the Above
Phil, Ellen white was a thief. Simple as that.
That the Falseworld religion you were raised in hired an attorney to do damage control is meaningless.
That you lap it up, rationalize it, or justify it in your posts says more about you than anything.
Thou shall not steal.
So much for your wild claim of keeping the Law.
Just when you thought it was safe outside……….😀🤗😄😃😂😊
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.