Not a bad decision. And now for some 'Bible porn':
That one is ready for use here on FR! Already rolled for beating others!
No, I don't own any of those (and most are KJV), but I can wish, can't I?
Posted on 01/05/2010 9:46:47 PM PST by the_conscience
I just witnessed a couple of Orthodox posters get kicked off a "Catholic Caucus" thread. I thought, despite their differences, they had a mutual understanding that each sect was considered "Catholic". Are not the Orthodox considered Catholic? Why do the Romanists get to monopolize the term "Catholic"?
I consider myself to be Catholic being a part of the universal church of Christ. Why should one sect be able to use a universal concept to identify themselves in a caucus thread while other Christian denominations need to use specific qualifiers to identify themselves in a caucus thread?
it may depend on who all
"we" includes.
And, as I noted somewhat tediously in a colorful post above (#5770--a black only, refined, edited version included below in honor of your preferences and our relationship) . . .
essentially . . . the business about the 100's of "unofficial" websites
. . . at some point . . .
unless and until the Vatican forthrightly cenusres them
It appears to me that our impressions are not remotely as off base, as alledged.
########################################
.
.
.
REF'D POST in black:
.
.
No, you may have posted from websites that purport to be owned by individual Catholics, but I have yet to see one that is actually sanctioned by the Church or even an individual diocese or parish. Get back to me if you can find one of these.
################
WHAT A MANIACAL FARCE of mangled, shredded "logic" and shredded organizational, sociological, member FACTS.
################
IF the INSTITUTION of The Vatican and associated congregations REALLY was the least bit interested in FACTUALLY, ACTUALLY, TRULY, REALLY, EFFECTIVELY, . . .
Disciplining folks
toward TRUTH AND RIGHTEOUSNESS, in such matters, THEN almost every bloke on the planet who could read Would constantly see tons of admonishments from THE VATICAN in print, on the web, preached frequently from every Roman Catholic pulpit:
Stern admonishments against such heresies. There would be demands to clearly display disclaimers of such having anything to do with Roman Catholicism/the Vatican. Failure to CLEARLY DIVORCE SUCH HERESIES from all Vatican related association would routinely involve real or threatened legal action.
We'd see a wholesale PROHIBITION AGAINST and lack of evidence of any such behaviors, actions
ON THE PART OF officials and priests of the Vatican and related congregations.
INSTEAD, We see the opposite. We see every kind of ENCOURAGEMENT TOWARD SUCH IDOLATROUS BEHAVIORS--As one might expect to see were such idolatries in fact, A CENTRAL PART of the foundational dogma of the organization.
ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN a tiny fractional minority of the Vatican documents.
PRETENDING That the Vatican prohibits, proscribes a list of idolatrous behaviors based on a tiny fraction of the Vatican documents while, IN FACT, most folks on the planet have abundant opportunity to OBSERVE THE OPPOSITE IS OUTRAGEOUSLY BRAZENLY ABSURD TO THE MAX! However, I'm sure, omniscient, Almighty God In Heaven is FOOLED to the max [/sar to the max].
You wrote:
“lol. I guess that’s what passes for intelligent discussion in the RCC. Seems more like fourth grade recess.”
Then maybe you should not have asked a fourth grade level question. Are you really claiming you don’t know what a mediator does? I seriously doubt it.
“I asked you the question. For you to ask me the same question without you answering it merely emphasizes your lack of an answer.”
No, it merely emphasizes that I refuse to play along with you. You see, I actually expect you to be an adult. If you have something to say, then say it. Don’t ask questions as a set up to some other point. Just get your point out there.
“The RCC and you call Mary a mediator. I don’t.”
Wow, look at that! You made a point without asking a silly question. Keep doing that.
“But you say Mary is a mediator so one would assume you know what you’re talking about and the definitions of the words you use.”
Yes, I do know. And you know too. And this is not mind reading on my part either. We’ve had hundreds of Marian threads at FR before and you’ve posted in them thousands of times.
“So what does a mediator do?”
Answer the questions yourself since you, if you were honest, would have to admit that you know already since we’ve talked about this literally hundreds of times.
“If you can’t tell us what a mediator does then perhaps you should find out so as not to repeat the aforementioned error Rome has taught you.”
And if you can’t be honest and admit we’ve talked about this hundreds of times, then you’re not much of a Christian.
Now, you were posting about the idea of a mediator in the
“Looks Like I Need Elocution Lessons (Loraine Boettner Rises from the Ashes of Stumped “Historians”)” thread back in November. Look at post 31 (posted on Sunday, November 15, 2009 5:26:34 PM by Dr. Eckleburg): http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2386784/posts
And then you talk about it post 33 too. And in 38 too. That’s the same thread in which you posted pictures of art works and distorted what they were about. What a shocker that you would do that! Yeah, shocker.
I talked about Mary as a mediator/intercessor in this thread for instance: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2322223/posts
And I found that thread in all of about 2 seconds. So, you, I and many others have posted about this often in the past. You have seen what I have posted - because you have responded on this very issue in the past. And I know what you believe on this very issue - because I have responded to your posts.
After Jesus died, Grace came...It came to the adopted church...
This post just illustrated the inherent dangers of YOPIOS.
Some will take flawed interpretation of the teachings of Saint Paul, convince themselves that this is somehow the Word of God and use that to dismiss the ACTUAL Word of God.
Saint Paul's teachings were about the Gospel, they were NEVER intended to replace the Gospel.
Your notion that Matthew 25 was nullified by His Resurrection is absurd. Palm Sunday occurs in Matthew 21. His teaching in Matthew 25 occurred two or three days before His Crucifixion, nobody could ever assume that He was teaching about something that would become moot in less than a week and if it was moot Saint Matthew would never have written about it decades later.
I wonder if some here have ever even read the Gospels and if they have why they resist them so much.
Nothing like a bit of red herring in the morning!
The question is not, "Is God in control?", but, "What has God decided to do?" No one here claims God isn't in control, or that he wound the Universe up and walked away. Some of us ARE saying that God gives us decisions to make, just as I, when riding my horses, give them decisions to make. Not all of them - like people, I think, total freedom would terrify them - but some decisions.
One of my 3 horses arrived after a summer at a ranch in Colorado (the friend who sold me Trooper loaned him to the ranch while I arranged transportation. They used him for cutting cattle, and my friend THOUGHT they would take good care of him).
Trooper arrived with holes in his sides from where they had spurred him thru the skin. The holes were about 3/4 the size of the palm of my hand. 18 months later, Trooper has two white spots where the holes once were, and he still is very sensitive to any touch there.
Calvin believed in a God who owned a ranch in Colorado. He believed God wanted to make every decision for us, and would do whatever it took to enforce his decisions. He expects us to stand before God someday, bloody holes in our sides, too terrified to do anything without permission.
I don't believe in that style of riding, and I don't think it describes the God revealed in scripture, either. My goal is to have horses that willingly cooperate with me, and who CHOOSE to help me achieve my goals. And while I'm pretty new to riding and training, I will boast that I don't have to catch my horses to ride them. They come to me, and put their heads in their halters.
Here are some statistics (NT) to think about, using the ESV translation:
BELIEVE - 264 times in 220 verses FAITH 243 times in 227 verses ELECT - occurs 24 times in 23 verses / election 7 times in 7 verses / chosen occurs 30 times in 28 verses
Gift & Faith - 4 verses, only Eph 2 seems to link them but the Greek does not support.
“And that not of yourselves. That is, salvation does not proceed from yourselves. The word rendered that--\~touto\~--is in the neuter gender, and the word faith--\~pistiv\~ --is in the feminine. The word "that," therefore, does not refer particularly to faith, as being the gift of God, but to the salvation by grace of which he had been speaking. This is the interpretation of the passage which is the most obvious, and which is now generally conceded to be the true one. “ - Barnes
gives faith, gives belief - none where the giving is about belief
I read every verse with believe and faith in the NT, and I didn't find one that supported the idea that faith is a gift given us from God, or that God gives us belief. Maybe I missed one, and so I'm sure someone will point out the 50-100 verses supporting this central idea of Calvin's.
However, I found multiple verses where God (Jesus) rebukes someone for having 'little faith'...rather odd, for God to condemn someone for not having enough of what God alone gives, isn't it?
My votes would be for 1 and 3 with a caveat that there is no reason for 2 to presuppose any former control or intellect.
You wrote:
“Frankly I don’t understand why Catholics don’t wish to admit they believe Mary to be co-equal with the Son, that she imparts grace, that the atonement is nothing more than Christ showing us how to live, that the inspired works in scripture is no more than any other writings, or that they actually do worship (yes, not venerate) relics and Mary.
But then, perhaps I do and I suspect they know also.”
Wow, that has to be one of the most ridiculous and erroneous posted things I’ve ever seen. That’s worse than the bunny with a pancake on its head. Let’s see:
1. “Frankly I don’t understand why Catholics don’t wish to admit they believe Mary to be co-equal with the Son,”
Well, it’s probably because none of us believe it. I’ve never encountered a single Catholic who does believe it. Not one.
2. “that she imparts grace,”
What she does with grace is merely as a vessel used by God.
3. “that the atonement is nothing more than Christ showing us how to live,”
I’m not even sure what that’s supposed to mean. I always thought the atonement was Christ dying on the cross for our sins, you know, the redemption. Gee, do you anti-Catholics believe something differently?
4. “that the inspired works in scripture is no more than any other writings,”
We believe that the scriptures are inspired and inerrant. No other writings are both inspired and inerrant.
5. “or that they actually do worship (yes, not venerate) relics and Mary.”
I know of no Catholic who worships Mary or relics. We do venerate them.
Yep! Break out the spurs! Show your creation who is Boss! Ride em, God! Whahoo!!!!!!!!!!!!
Perhaps you should go back and read what I wrote based on your statement, I'm pretty sure you didn't understand me.
No, of course it's not an exclusively Roman Catholic et al thing.
I was responding to an extremely offensive (to me and my congregation--sadly not so untrue of all Pentecostal/Charismatic congregations) accusation that
my congregation
had a stage for entertainment, period . . . as though only entertainment went on in my congregational worship and that only my congregation had such a stage.
I wanted to point out that Roman Catholic et al congregations also elevate goings on at the front of their congregations at least as much.
Thanks for the informative pictures clearly showing that only the altar is reliably, consistently elevated in Roman Catholic et al congregations.
I think my point stands that Roman Catholic et al congregations consistently elevate parts of the goings on in the service.
The Music Minister in our congregation is on the stage, true. However, as I've noted, the stage is wholesale darkened--NOT highlighted as in a performance. We see enough to be able to follow his spirit and actions before God and observe how God is touching him--allowing us as a congregation to kind of MORE "lean into" what God seems to be doing or about to do in the worship service.
And, he sees how God is touching different people in the congregation as well as the congregation as a whole. Otherwise, I don't think the stage would be important at all in our congregation.
One word: ultradispensationalism
“But it does seem rather inconsistent with the rest of his life, as little as I know about it. An interesting mystery.”
The progression of Baptists in the Carolinas went (very) roughly like this:
The Separate Baptists under men like Shubal Stearns (pre-Revolution)
The Separates split (various reasons which were not so much doctrinal, some had to do with pacifism) into
1. Missionary Baptists (Pro-Organized missionary work)
2. Primitive Baptists (Anti-organized missionary work; Calvinist)
3. Separate Baptists
All three of which still exist.
A very large number of the Missionary Baptists later united in the South under the Southern Baptist Convention, and they were either defensive of the slave owners or just reluctant to oppose slavery; some were just silent on the matter.
This, of course was Civil War days, when there was a definite division between Southern Baptist Convention and Northern Baptist Convention.
In the early 20th Century, many of the Southern Baptist churches which had originally been Missionary Baptist perceived liberalism in the seminaries of the Convention, just stopped fellowshipping with the SBC and returned to their Missionary Baptist roots; and this is mainly in the Carolinas, Blue Ridge, and Smokies region.
There’s a lot about slavery involved in the development of various Baptist groups in the south.
An interesting story that was told by a now deceased pastor of one of the largest Baptist churches in the South (Greenville, SC), was that up through the 1950s his and many churches had a large number of black folks in attendance. Yes, they sat separaely in the balconies of that large church. Don’t know if there were separate restrooms, drinking fountains, etc.
There was always an “invitation” at the end of the sermons, where people could come for spiritual help at the front of the church. Blacks joined whites, and they put arms around each other, and prayed with one another. The separate seating could be criticized, although I’m not sure it was actually forced. Nevertheless, there was no complaining, and the black folks knew they were welcome, and they prayed and cried and slobbered together during the invitation times.
Then the balconies started to empty. Each week there were fewer and fewer black fols in attendance. When that old pastor began to inquire, it was discovered that many of those black families had been visited by “civil rights” activists and intimidated because they were attending (and members of) that “white man’s” church.
So then he black folks were actually further segregated, feeling that they had to find all black churches to attend.
No further conclusion was really drawn by the old preacher, who actually loved those people; visited them in their homes, in hospitals, preached their funerals, attended their childrens’ graduations, performed some of their weddings.
Not a bad decision. And now for some 'Bible porn':
That one is ready for use here on FR! Already rolled for beating others!
No, I don't own any of those (and most are KJV), but I can wish, can't I?
“Either God is in control or men are in control.”
False dilemma.
It's what we call the front of the church--where the steps up to the stage plus about 12-15 feet in front of the steps (before the first row of seats), are.
That's one of the differences between us. We don't have a stage to be entertained on. We have a altar - which is a table, not a stage.
Actually, that's a FALSE statement.
No, it is a true statement. You made it. The facts are false, but your statement is true. You have been attacking the Church with reckless abandon over the past few days and have made wild and unsubstantiated accusations.
NO! Our stage is not for entertainment.
That is what stages are for. And that aligns with all of the Pentecostal services which I have attended.
Our music minister is IN LOVE WITH JESUS AND WORSHIPS GOD MORE INTENSELY, AUTHENTICALLY, FOCUSEDLY THAN ANYTHING ELSE HE DOES. . . . and probably than I've ever seen anyone else do. HE TRULY LEADS WORSHIP.
So? Music is not worship by itself.
You called your raised platform, the steps up to it and the space in front of it an altar. The Church's altar is a table. We are different there.
NO! That's UNTRUE. I did NOT call the platform/stage an altar. That's entirely wrong headed to interpret what I said in that way.
Read your quote that leads off my post. You did call it directly an altar - you said it was the stage, the steps and the space immediately in front of the steps.
I mentioned the stage/platform and steps leading up to it ONLY TO LOCATE the mental "altar" in our minds and hearts. We consider the FRONT CARPETED AREA IN FRONT OF THE PLATFORM--BETWEEN THE FRONT ROW OF SEATS AND THE STAIRS UP TO THE PLATFORM--TO BE OUR ALTAR AREA.
You called it the altar. Voluntarily and without any prompting. You see, coming from my background, we would not even conceive of calling a stage or steps or area in front of the stage and altar. For Christians, altar has a specific meaning.
Your stage is a place of entertainment or the place to put on a show; where the actors perform. The altar is a place of a re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Jesus. Your entertainers versus our priests. We are different there.
MORE BRAZENLY FALSE ASSUMPTIONS AND ASSERTIONS.
I've already spoken above to the aversion every staff person and the whole congregation have regarding entertainment vs authentically leading worship and authentic-focused-on-God-worship. Entertainment is NOT what goes on during our worship services. Period. We consider it offensive to God and to us. Any hint of that would be a very good way to get jerked off the darkened platform quite quickly.
I really don't care about what you say that you've said and to whom. Yours is the actions and the directions of men. You may have some great God fearing men, but I fear that your descriptions of the proceedings are not Christian; they are very pagan.
Our fledgling dialogue is over. I will no longer work with you toward more mutual respect between Prottys and Roman Catholics/Vatican associated believers. I will not tolerate that kind of outrageously insulting duplicity about/toward something as dear to me and to many I care for deeply as the uncommon authentic worship which occurs at our church.
You may look to yourself and the outrageous posts over the last few days, including to me, as to the reason behind this. You have posted some rather disgusting things - many of them not worthy of even a nominal Christian.
You have taught me that such an assumption of good faith is an outrageously foolish thing to extend to you. I won't have to learn that lesson by repeated trips around the same mountain.
That mountain of duplicity and obscene false representation has been erected by none other than yourself. Look to your recent posts, and assume the persona of a Christian, and ask yourself if these represent Christianity.
Mmmmmm. Kippers. Finest kind!
The question is not, "Is God in control?", but, "What has God decided to do?"
Sholem Aleichem and alleuia! Some people are wedded to a mechanistic, Newtonian view of things: Control means push button or pull lever, this or that happens.
Others however, having worked with animals or sailed boats, understand the control admits of delicacy and finesse, and even appears sometimes to be yielding. I get the boat where I want her to go by letting her do what she wants and by persuading her, by trimming the sails, using the rudder to change her hydrodynamic profile, that she wants what I want.
They were not.
In spite of the claims of sola Christus, many of our opponents define themselves in terms of non Catholic.
What boggles the mind is that even when you get an articulate and well supported response you reject and ridicule it and counter with the most dubious of sources.
It is an emotional response to the idea of attacks upon the third grade gaggle of girls who thrill in the idea that they somehow possess some gifts that nobody else has. A third grade girls' club. In this case, for both sexes of all ages. Emotion has no reason. Emotion will use reason to justify itself.
Does it reflect RC beliefs?
In my work I know a lot of Hispanic people and on occasion we talk about our faith. They have to put up with me because I'm their boss, but I believe they are honest and sincere. A couple of them mentioned some big feast date prior to Christmas as being a bigger deal than Christmas. I reminded them about the reason for the season, but it seems to be a common attitude.
If your church doesn't hold to these misplaced priorities it sure doesn't discourage them.
What options does that leave you?
If your church doesn’t hold to these misplaced priorities it sure doesn’t discourage them.
################
INDEED.
Though it seems that hell will freeze over before most such gain that insight and truth.
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.