Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
I am not as optimistic. I think the radical left from the 60's has control of the Rats and they are saying immediate withdrawal and submit to the UN.
The Jewish/Palestinian conflict has been going on for 60 years. Have you seen much change from 60 years ago to today?
Yes. The Israelis keep giving away land they gained after being attacked and the demographics (birth rates) are working against them. Also the core generation that fought for the land after WWII are dead or dying and the following generations don't have the same strength.
AMEN!
We're supposed to discern among ourselves as best we can as to whether or not each of us is truly led by the Holy Spirit, for we are to "try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." (1 John 4:1)
But we should never deny that God's children are led by the Spirit. This is the method by which God has chosen to order His creation -- we are either led by the Holy Spirit or we are left to our own, death-loving habits and Christ-denying natures.
But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love." -- Ephesians 4:14-16 "That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
And since it seems there's always more to be found in Scripture than what we're even looking for, isn't this a beautiful verse from Ephesians 4:8?
"Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men."
Christ, when He rose from the cross, "led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men."
If I may...
"The difference between a decentralized structure and a centralized, supposedly-infallible hierarchy.
Yep.
"Power corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutely." -- Lord Acton, proving yet again God has a sense of irony. 8~)
AMEN Dr. E.! It's all about Christ, not us. And I thank God every day that such a thing does not threaten me at all. It used to, so I understand the mindset. But no more! Glory be to God. :)
We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. - I John 4:6
True enough. :)
Catholic teaching is the furthest thing away from the liberalism you're speaking of.
Liberalism grew outside of the Church and is in no way the cause of it
It is the false misunderstand of freedom that is the cause of liberalism and it is always grounded in pride.
True freedom is knowing the truth and being Free from error. It is not this false idea of freedom by being able to do what ever you please like the false self professed Catholics or any other Christian communities that endorse gay marriage ,abortion etc...
Sin is sin no matter how people try and sell it as freedom.
Those who call themselves Catholic who are liberals on Faith and Morals do not follow the teachings of the Church and are in grave danger of losing their Salvation unless they repent from this state their in
Next time,Dear WM,take the time and read what the Catholic Catechism teachings on Faith and Morals before you make such erroneous statements about the Catholic Church being liberal.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
Here are some excerpts
Freedom and Responsibility
1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one's own responsibility. By free will one shapes one's own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.
1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.
1733 The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. the choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to “the slavery of sin.”28
1734 Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary. Progress in virtue, knowledge of the good, and ascesis enhance the mastery of the will over its acts.
1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.
1736 Every act directly willed is imputable to its author:
Thus the Lord asked Eve after the sin in the garden: “What is this that you have done?”29 He asked Cain the same question.30 The prophet Nathan questioned David in the same way after he committed adultery with the wife of Uriah and had him murdered.31
An action can be indirectly voluntary when it results from negligence regarding something one should have known or done: for example, an accident arising from ignorance of traffic laws.
1737 An effect can be tolerated without being willed by its agent; for instance, a mother's exhaustion from tending her sick child. A bad effect is not imputable if it was not willed either as an end or as a means of an action, e.g., a death a person incurs in aiding someone in danger. For a bad effect to be imputable it must be foreseeable and the agent must have the possibility of avoiding it, as in the case of manslaughter caused by a drunken driver.
1738 Freedom is exercised in relationships between human beings. Every human person, created in the image of God, has the natural right to be recognized as a free and responsible being. All owe to each other this duty of respect. the right to the exercise of freedom, especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person. This right must be recognized and protected by civil authority within the limits of the common good and public order.32
I wish you Blessed day!
Oh, boy! Please explain what did this "time" measure? Don't you know that eternity is "timelessness?"
Time measures a reality, an existence. Just as Dr. E. said, God existed before He created. The alternative is that creation is itself eternal just as God is. The Bible just doesn't say that. The Bible says "In the beginning", YET we know that God HAS no beginning. Ergo, God existed before creation. I'm no temporal physicist, but this seems pretty basic to me. :)
We all believe in God, but God doesn’t “exist”, FK. Before existence, there is God. “...this seems pretty basic to me. :)”
Dr. E: Does the EO teach this or is this just your personal opinion? Because it sure isn't basic Christianity.
I am not sure if it is the official position of the Church. I do know that the Church considers God the ultimate unknowable Mystery.
1 Corinthians 2:9-16 ...
All talk, no substance. What proof does he offer? None.
It seems you're missing something
Evidence.
Maybe this explains the EO's fixation on the material world, and things like tactile icons and priests in long robes and jeweled hats
You will never miss an opportunity to mischaraterize the Church for which things of the world are but a passing moment.
***Because, as you say, it is mentioned only in the Epistles.***
I DIDN’T say it was ONLY in the epistles. You said it wasn’t even in the Bible. I showed you one place where it is. Others:
Direct my footsteps according to your word; let no sin rule over me.
How can a young man keep his way pure? By living according to your word.
Your statutes are my delight; they are my councilors.
My soul is weary with sorrow; strengthen me according to your word.
Turn my eyes away from worthless things; preserve my life according to your word.
And much much more. Sanctification is rampant throughout the Bible. All these came from one psalm.
***The term does not appear in the Bible save for the Epistles, so no other Apostle, who actually knew Christ in Person, taught it or knew it for that matter.***
Then why does 1 Peter (who was not Paul) mention sanctification in verse 2 of chapter 1?
Keep jumping.
I was making a comment about what FK posted, namely: "Once a low level true faith is established by God (salvation), then sanctification begins and we move toward a higher level. This movement not only benefits us personally in our personal relationship with God, but it also makes us more useful to God to accomplish His plan for us as individuals. A fully saved person can and will always grow in Christ."
You extracted one word out of it, instead of the whole context. Where is the mention of God's plan in the Bible? Stop obfuscating the issues by taking things out of context.
Then why does 1 Peter (who was not Paul) mention sanctification in verse 2 of chapter 1?
1 Peter was written in Pauline style to pacify the rift between him and Peter. 1 Peter is distinctly Pauline in character and language.
***1 Peter was written in Pauline style to pacify the rift between him and Peter. 1 Peter is distinctly Pauline in character and language.***
You said NO one taught or KNEW it, other than Paul. 1st and 2nd Peter were NOT written by Paul, so, obviously, you are wrong. Admit it.
Interesting concepts, FK. God created the world (gave it 'existence') but God remained in the unchanghing eternity. We assign existence to the created; we can't assing the same characteristic to the uncreated.
Yet, the bible tells us that God is "active" and activity is incompatible with changelessness.
1 and 2 Peter were written decates after the Epistles. You said it was in the epistles. At that time 1 and 2 Peter did not exist. I was asking what did other Apostles teach, before anything was written, or while Paul wrote the Epistles, given that none of them mentions sanctification. Stop obfuscating the issues.
***The term does not appear in the Bible save for the Epistles, so no other Apostle, who actually knew Christ in Person, taught it or knew it for that matter.***
Direct quote from you. You said no other apostle taught it or even knew about it. You are wrong. Someone other that Paul did teach it and so, obviously knew it. Was 1st Peter written by Paul? No. Was 1st Peter written by ... um... Peter? Was Peter an apostle? As an apostle, then, when he wrote about sanctification, did he or did he not know what he was writing about?
TC: No, I base it on the activity of the revealed triune God not the abstract god of the greeks. Because God revealed himself and those facts are known through Scripture I can trust his promises. The a priori lies only within the self-revealing God. Without the triune God as the starting point all other (natural) theologies must start with man and are nothing more than tail chasing.(emphasis added)
Yes, that is EXACTLY why the Renaissance philosophers, along with today's practitioners of New Theology, are pulling their hair out. With an impersonal and irrational God, there can be NO answers to the most important questions of man. With man as a starting point there is only emptiness and frustration. But with our Triune God as a starting point man can be fulfilled, and he can have the answers to all the important questions. Man CAN know his place in the universe. Great post, TC. :)
Amen. We are taught to expect that sort of reaction, even from other Christians as we have seen. I remain very surprised that other Christians viscerally resent our missionaries witnessing in "their" countries, which their faiths apparently own (I guess). They and the lost fail to understand what is behind that missionary work. It is born of love and it is what God calls all believers to do.
Time measures change or, as Aristotle would put it "motion".
Think about what a clock is. It's an attempt to make an obsesvable closed system (so that the clock isn't affected by things outside it) in which something happens (and something else counts the thing that happens - but that's not essential, We could hire a grad student do the counting for us if the system is observable.)
Since, as much as possible, the cause of what happens is constance (closed system) therefore the manner of it's happening should be similarly constant.
But it depends on change/motion, on something happening.
That's why it's hard to apply the concept of time to a situation in which there is nothing but the changeless/immovable God. Which is why it seems simpler to think that time began with the first act of creation.
Just for your amusement. I owe it all toe Aristotle.
Ummm. No! Peter was written long after Peter was dead.
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.