Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
LOL. I never in my life knew someone who spent so much time clamoring about women's head coverings or the lack thereof.
A woman's hair is her head covering.
Next!
Look at the difference in terms of what each says about the creator.
I really don't see much of a difference. In both cases the person has ZERO chance of getting into Heaven. In fact, if God's true word is that ALL have a chance, then it would be more cruel, it seems, to create someone who has no chance, but yet has free will in the Apostolic sense. :)
And ask yourself: Is a human being really human without free will?
He would be less of a human being if he experienced that he didn't have free will. I'll agree to that. But of course, our actual experience is that of having a full free will. Therefore, regardless of which, if either, of our respective theologies is right on this, I don't think it really has any effect on our humanity.
“A woman’s hair is her head covering.”
That’s 1 Cor. 11:15, if anyone is listening!!!
And, no doubt, there are those who believe Einstein's theory of relativity and current cosmology are divine.
The Point at Infinity which is defined as the intersection of two parallel lines was first considered by Desargues (1591-1661) and Poncelet (1788-1867) was first to employ it.
It is mental exercise. Infinity is never reached. Therefore, parallel lines will never reach. We will spend an infinity getting to know God in heaven and we will never know Him. To say that two parallel lines meet at infinity is as good as saying they never meet, A-G. In other words, their angle of convergence is infinitely small. Only someone very naive would treat infinity as a real destination.
Einstein wasn’t even born until 1904
I am sure he knew of Desargues and Poncelet.
Since you have no source for it, I shall dismiss your claim at 8447 that Einstein had postulated there is “a common center to the universe towards all object will eventually fall.”
Then there was no reason to believe the universe was curved. By the way, light is bent by gravity not space or time.We have no clue whatsoever why gravity exists.
The fact that all points in the universe are diverging from each other (like dots on an expanding balloon), there is by implication a common center of gravity. Big Bang is postulated on the existence of the universal center of gravity.
But Big Bang fails to explain why, just as it fails to explain what overwhelmed the force that contained all the energy/matter in a dimensionless point, and resulted in the corresponding explosion.
What? Who removes our wickedness? Is it not the Holy Spirit? Are you saying He is doing an incomplete job? I must admit, this is a new one.
St. Paul doesn't think there is a "remannt," FK:
To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect [Heb12:23]
***Protestants put tehir faith iun 15th century west europeons; not in Christ.***
Prove it.
***Protestants have no faith in Christ they have faith in french and german lawyers.***
Sir, you are making assumptions on personal faith issues. I ask you to please stop. You have no right to tell me or any other Protestant that they have no faith just because we disagree with you. Again I ask you to stop. NOW.
The RCC corrupted early church teachings and sadly continues to do so. Reformed theology came about not due to wanting something new, but in wanting something as pure as possible this side of heaven.
If another 2000 years go by, who will recognize the Roman Catholic Church of today.
“Reformed theology is not new, nor is it ‘come lately’.”
I suppose its all in what one considers “new”. Compared to the theology of the Church of the 7 Councils, it certainly is “new”. You know, the Episcopalian heretics claim that their homoerotic “theology” is valid because “the Holy Spirit is doing a new thing.” It seems that the Reformers would argue the same thing, that the Holy Spirit was in their time doing a “new thing”, either that or that He went to sleep for 1500 years after Pentecost. In the West, there have been “new” theologies popping up for centuries. Its a problem for some of us, Athena.
“The RCC corrupted early church teachings and sadly continues to do so.”
Athena, do you believe this is also true of the Orthodox Church?
Oh, pleeazzzeeee. The Orthodox makes no bones about saying portions of scriptures are obsolete. Even Catholics would be hard press to say why they don't allow priests to marry in contradiction of scripture. As far as abridging the scripture, you won't find the ascension of Mary into heaven or her being perfect in scripture. I'd don't think I'd make that argument.
Normally, the Catholic/Orthodox argument is that you were given the keys and you can make any changes you feel necessary. I'd stick with that one if I were you, as shaky as that is.
BTW-It's a pleasure to know Catholics finally recognize Calvin as a Saint. We're making progress.
As long as it is not personal, racist, etc., he is etitled to believe and say that Protestats as a group "have no faith in Christ they have faith in french and german lawyers" because that's his opinion, just as the Reformed are allowed to believe and say that the Catholic/Orthodox Church is "idolatrous."
I have a personal question for you? Have you ever heard of or know about past participles?
Huh? Which ones?
LOL!!! You are joking, right?
I’d really like to caution folks about using Wiki as a definitive source for anything.
Christ is the Path, the Way, the Via. Not the chauffeur. The continuing claims that Catholics give credit to man weren’t right the first time a heretic said ‘em and they’ll never be right. We’re not on the hook, theologically speaking. We’re just following Christ’s instructions, not those of somebody who came along centuries later with a new twist on theology and hung up a shingle.
If perseverance is only for the elect, does that mean that the non elect do not persevere? Not even in their sin? But even the elect sin. Does that mean that there is a qualitative difference in the sin of the elect versus the non elect?
I got some strong replies to my posting of the hyper Calvinist article by folks that really seemed to adhere to its definition. :)
That is itself not biblical. Sola scriptura does not exist in the Bible.
"Every word of God is pure...Proverbs 30:5"
God is pure and His words are pure. Every word in the Bible is not the word of God.
The Bible is also not God.
Inspiration is not God.
The Gospels even are not direct quotes but narratives of what Jesus would have, or was known to have, or is believed to have said. Ancient writers quoted others based on their familiarity with the person. Their quotes are not direct quotes.
The Bible is what God revealed to lesser or greater degree, expressed in human terms, human emotions and human language.
The only way to know whether what we read is of any validity is to do textual criticism and this is possible only to a limited extent.
Some groups who claim Christ as their Saviour have an idolatrous relationship with the Bible.
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.