Posted on 04/30/2010 8:03:48 AM PDT by Quix
.
|
7 “When you pray, don’t babble on and on as people of other religions do. They think their prayers are answered merely by repeating their words again and again. 8 Don’t be like them, for your Father knows exactly what you need even before you ask him! 9 Pray like this: Our Father in heaven, --New Living Translation 7And when you pray, do not heap up phrases (multiply words, repeating the same ones over and over) as the Gentiles do, for they think they will be heard for their much speaking. [I Kings 18:25-29.] 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him. 9Pray, therefore, like this: 15But if you do not forgive others their trespasses [their [j]reckless and willful sins, [k]leaving them, letting them go, and [l]giving up resentment], neither will your Father forgive you your trespasses. --Amplified Pray with Simplicity 5"And when you come before God, don't turn that into a theatrical production either. All these people making a regular show out of their prayers, hoping for stardom! Do you think God sits in a box seat? 6"Here's what I want you to do: Find a quiet, secluded place so you won't be tempted to role-play before God. Just be there as simply and honestly as you can manage. The focus will shift from you to God, and you will begin to sense his grace. 7-13"The world is full of so-called prayer warriors who are prayer-ignorant. They're full of formulas and programs and advice, peddling techniques for getting what you want from God. Don't fall for that nonsense. This is your Father you are dealing with, and he knows better than you what you need. With a God like this loving you, you can pray very simply. Like this: 16-18"When you practice some appetite-denying discipline to better concentrate on God, don't make a production out of it. It might turn you into a small-time celebrity but it won't make you a saint. If you 'go into training' inwardly, act normal outwardly. Shampoo and comb your hair, brush your teeth, wash your face. God doesn't require attention-getting devices. He won't overlook what you are doing; he'll reward you well. |
Mark Kirby: O Mother of Good Counsel, I am all thine, Most Holy Mary, There is no part of my life that is not open to thee, I want to be completely transparent with thee, Praying in this way, I can be at rest, |
.
.
.
Oh darn, I didn’t see that this was to OB1kenOB or whoever it is that thinks reason is funny and dishonest.
Jewish oral tradition was very close to tape recording. But nonetheless, do you not consider the words of Jesus Christ, the second Person of the Trinity, to be worth more than, for instance, the Chronicler?
Did not those inspired by the HOLY SPIRIT of GOD write down what HE brought to their minds - exactly like Jesus said HE would?
Inspiration is not dictation. Moses wrote what God dictated. That has not happened since.
Tell me, why did the Lord even bother to include the writings of Paul and Peter and John, etc. outside of the specific words of Jesus in the bible? Could it mean he had more for us to understand and know about the Christian life?
Certainly, as an addendum to the Gospels. Tell me, are you advocating that the words of mere men are as important as those of Christ?
You know so much AND the Bible relieves you from the use of logic. But when I read the teaching of the Catholic Church on the punishment due to sin, I find in § 1472 the following [emphasis added]:
Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is call the "eternal punishment" of sin.
Let me assure you that I never even thought of addressing the subject of "eternal punishment" of "grave sins". I assumed you knew that such sins don't have the chance of going to purgatory to be purged. If that is what's bothering you, why didn't you specifically ask me about it instead of just quoting some part of the catechism and not saying anything? And yes, I do have a very Biblical answer on "eternal punishment" for "grave sins", although I don't call them that.
Now it's probably beneath the notice of someone who finds logic laughable and thinks of philosophy as largely dedicated to twisting words, BUT work with me for a minute.
No, I don't find logic laughable, nor do I think that philosophy is largly dedicated to twisting words - but what I do find laughable is when the logic is unlogical, and philosophy that denies the meaning of the terms used and twists them to mean something else.
Now, the same section says that the punishment "dealt with" in Purgatory is the "temporal".eternal" punishment of sin -- one far more grave -- NOT dealt with in Purgatory.
That punishment is dealt with in some other way or ways, but NOT in purgatory which, the quote shows, specifically deals JUST with the temporal punishment of sin.
Okay, I think I just addressed this in my statements above, and the RCC does teach that.
So unless "temporal" equals "eternal", and "some" equals "all" and "one part" is the same as "both parts," your original contention certainly appears to be mistaken,
I don't really get where you get that I think that at all! It's just as I said, I never address "eternal punishment" in dealing with the purgatory issue. I do believe that we are both getting a little to confused on this: you thinking that I appear to be mistaken, and me not even considering addressing a part of sin that leads to "eternal punishment".
SO your original contention was "Purgatory is the place to purge your soul from the punishments due to the sins you committed while living on earth"
But as we have seen the teaching is that only SOME of "the punishment due to the sins you committed ...." is treated in Purgatory.
Okay, yes, only SOME sins qualify for being purged in purgatory. The other sins require an "eternal punishment" from which there is no release. Have I got it right according to your thinking process now?
The Wonder, the amazing forgiveness is the forgiveness of the eternal consequences, and purgation is a kind of grace, though the thinking is that it's an uncomfortable kind of grace.
You just lost me here! How about explaining this further for my feeble benefit?
As for your last two paragraphs, well, I really don't want to comment on them...you wouldn't like what I would say, and I want to be charitable to you.
To rid Spain of the Muslims.
I would venture it was their policy to be morally correct too, problem is, they weren't.
Yes. That is a problem with Catholics, as well. But are Catholics who procure, perform, aid, advocate, accept, help to legalize, ad infinitum, abortions excommunicated and otherwise sanctioned or is it just a ‘morally correct stance’?
They oughta be and there are a bunch of us trying to get that implemented.
Even more simple; most self described Followers of Christ aren't.
The first heresies were failure to follow what the Apostles taught and instead take the traditions as taught by influential men who sought power over the assembly.
The first heresies were Judaizing and Gnosticism. The later heresies were usually taught by bishops who had to be removed from the Church either at the time or even post mortem (ie Tertullian and Origen).
All heresies were perpetrated by men who thought that they knew better than the Church. Good luck with that...
Catholics do not interpret the Bible apart from the authority of Jesus. The traditions of ordinary men, versus the traditions of the Apostles.
And that is a shame that the Church has to face up to. Yet, a verse by verse commentary is not necessary when the teachers are catechized properly. I will say again that the lack of catechization is what has driven so many people from the Church into the arms of the organizations that are ready to receive them.
I am plain spoken. (That's an understatement. LOLOL!)
But for that reason, I use His Name Word of God when speaking of Jesus Christ ...
And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him [was] called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes [were] as a flame of fire, and on his head [were] many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies [which were] in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on [his] vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. – Revelation 19:11-16
Give us this day our daily bread. – Matt 6:11
I am that bread of life. – John 6:48
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. – John 6:63
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. – John 5:24
Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. - Matt 4:10
It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. - John 6:45
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. – Matthew 5:18
This coming from a person, who like Augustine, was it, would not believe the "gospels" if the authority of the Catholic Church had not moved him to? I'm not all that convinced too many Catholics believe the Bible is inspired by God at all. "Mere" men? Really???
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
THX
WELL SAID.
Or as I might put it, the traditions of ordinary men, versus the traditions of the Apostles, according to the traditions of ordinary men who also happened to be considered at the time "Fathers of the Church" or "successors" to the Apostles, regardless of Scriptural context or authority. Okay, sure, if you say so...
I’m with you on this. I will accept the “temporal” punishment, or discipline - as my Heavenly Father calls it - on earth, where it will do me some good in my life in the nasty here and now. I will also accept that Jesus Christ is my “purgation” - my place of cleansing - as “the blood of Jesus Christ our Lord cleanses us from all sin.”. All sin is sin and the “wages of sin is death” not a little discomfort for an undetermined length of time between earth and the sweet by-and-by.
Thanks, bro. Have a peaceful night and a productive, restful, inspirational weekend!
“They oughta be and there are a bunch of us trying to get that implemented.”
Yes, most of us want to be virtuous but at what cost?
So on the one hand, the faith of Catholicism has no responsibility or blame whatsoever concerning all the pedophile priest scandals, (and whose administration did not lead towards those scandals), because these priests were all lone wolf bad apples who were in fact perverting everything true Catholicism stands for. But on the other hand, the faith of Reformed theology IS to blame and is indeed culpable for leading to the likes of Jim Jones and David Koresh 500 years later? Come on, even this one would get picked up at an airport screening.
THX.
You 2.
Novelty? Hmmm? Acts 10:26, “But Peter took him (Cornelius) up saying Stand up I myself also am a man.” versus “Pescatorio”.
Sad but necessary. Sometimes we're just forced to roll with the times. When I was a teenager I would have been ever so glad that none of my teachers then looked anything like the ones getting arrested every five minutes today. Those were good wholesome times. Sigh.
But I found this very interesting [from the SBC site]: Autonomy - We affirm the autonomy of the local church. Each church is free to determine its own membership and to set its own course under the headship of Jesus.
I take this to mean that any church can do whatever it pleases and that the 16 million members of the SBC are not held to any of the principles or resolutions of the SBC. Would you please confirm that for me? If true, then the claim that all churches under the SBC hold all the positions of the SBC is not valid.
The wording IS a little tricky but the general idea is that while the SBC does not claim authority over any church to dictate beliefs to it, if one wants to be a voting member of the SBC then one has to be in general agreement with the goals and aims of the SBC. The following is from the SBC Constitution (pdf). When you see "messenger" think "voting delegate":
So as you can see, the key phrase is "friendly cooperation with the Convention and sympathetic with its purposes and work". Off hand, I'm not aware of any church ever being thrown out over this but it could have happened. I take it to mean that if a church is right there on the main stuff and close enough on the secondary stuff (Arminians and Calvinists ARE welcome) then the church can be in. There is not any sort of litmus test on a church by church basis for agreeing to ALL of the resolutions that come out of the Conventions. It's basically the overall "friendly cooperation".
Therefore I cannot claim that all SBC churches agree on every issue on which the SBC gives a position, but I can say that there is very substantial agreement on the major issues, including social issues like homosexuality, abortion, women clergy, etc.
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.