| 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.
——>“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.”
That’s right, you weren’t. But you are, however, accountable for what you believe and certainly for what you post regarding the Bible and God Almighty, are you not?
——>Actually, I did read it, Phil. I had not realized that you all are supposed to be the 144,000, or either I forgot it. I thought it was the Jehovah’s Witnesses who believed they were the selected 144,000. (Does 12000x12 mean anything to you?)
“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.”
REMNANT. Who are the remnant? If you say the church, then you’re going to have to explain what it is a remnant of. And if you make the woman the church, you’re going to have to explain how the virgin Bride of Christ is preggers.
You keep lopping off Israel. Not a good idea. You end up with all kinds of kook theories like other planets with sinless people, etc. You MUST take God at HIS word, not HIS word and EGW’s word. Sorry. That won’t cut it. You can’t have both.
Let ME help YOU.
Safe?
When dancing angels are falling from pins due to overcrowding and now we are tangled within a catfight of varying opinions!
Taint NO one SAFE!
Watch out; or we Christians will be cited for theft of a LOT of Jewish writings!
...surely by now the old one stinketh!
I’m old too, but I pour it out in buckets full!
—> LOL!
Any post that you’ve made that starts with LOL! Goes on to prevaricate, obfuscate , or equivocate.
Again today!
I did not know that, Seven. It’s interesting indeed. Thank you!
I doubt he’s actually laughing.
Bet that he’s trying to disguise a ragepost ‘cause he gets pissed when we laugh at him.
—> Bet that he’s trying to disguise a ragepost ‘cause he gets pissed when we laugh at him.
Very possible, yes.
I took it as nervous laughter, preceding a post that was false.
—> In Phil’s world, statements made by family lawyers are standards of proof now, are they?
If Ravi’s family or ministry hired a small law firm to issue a statement that mirrored Phil’s post, he’d no longer have sinned…
That would cut out at least 50% of the posts around here!
Cc: Phil since I mentioned your name
Excellent, AMPU.
Page 17
Considering all factors necessary in reaching a just conclusion on this issue, it is submitted that the actions of Ravi Zacharias were conclusively and conclusively platonic.
CONCLUSIONS:
Based upon our review of the facts and legal precedents, we conclude that Ravi Zacharias was not involved in sexual immorality and his conduct did not constitute abuse of any kind.
By:_______________________
Vincent L. Ramik
Falseworld Legal Services, LLC
VLR/skl
I doubt we can reduce the poster’s obsession with the sins of Ravi because the poster is in stealth mode telling us he is not as bad as Ravi so he is okay.
That is one cool emoji! I’m surprised Mark has used it already.
That is my "I just exonerated Ravi with one cut and paste" technique!
I had no idea how easy this discussing things online was until I attended:
LOL+
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.