Posted on 02/22/2011 2:53:04 PM PST by Natural Law
An alarming trend is developing in the Free Republic Religion Forum in which a caucus identifier is being claimed for non-existent or impossibly defined groups. With the caucuses being self defined we see nonsense like the Sola Scriptura Caucus. Of course it doesn’t mean all Scripture, only the thread initiators or Forum Moderators definition of Scripture. Jews who believe in the Scripture of the Old Testament are excluded. Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, and Jehovah’s Witnesses are excluded even though they believe in the sufficiency of their own versions of Scripture. The not so transparent purpose of these faux caucuses is clearly to exclude a group of FReepers in a modern day repetition of “Whites Only” and “Irish Need Not Apply” prejudice. If this is allowed to stand what will we see next; caucuses so narrowly defined so as to only include one’s bridge club or to exclude an individual FReeper? How about a caucus designation for everyone but citizens from New York? How about a men’s only caucus? How about a caucus for those of us who drive BMWs? And what is being discussed in these faux caucus threads? Critical doctrinal issues such as ruggedized aircraft, home schooling, and civil unrest in Egypt. Give me a break!
LOL! I know exactly what that means because we have a lump of cat. A large lump.
>>LOL! I know exactly what that means because we have a lump of cat. A large lump. <<
Ours is also like a “Bag of Cat”.
Seems that when you lift him up, all the bones and muscles slip to the bottom.
Kind of like lifting up a bag of Jello!
You are a blessing and an encouragement. PRAISE GOD.
I could understand that.
I like the Heaven Visitation narratives that include mention of animals.
Or somewhat like a bag of loose sand?
Particularly if he isn’t all that interested in being moved?
THAT’S it!!!!!
LOL.
I know the type.
BTW, congrats on 20 years with a great cat.
We already know there will be horses. Why not our other beloved animal companions like dogs and cats? We’re not told, but we can hope :-)
Dawg, it’s not all that difficult. You’re either worshiping the true God or you’re worshiping a god of your own making. That’s the message of Scripture.
Those not in Christ are all idolaters, full stop. And even Christians will from time to time be tempted to focus their gaze on something other than God, which is idolatry. See 1 Cor 6:10, Eph 5:5, Col 3:5.
My suggestion is to put aside the philosophical construct that you normally use and try to understand the biblical philosophical construct. You may not agree with it but at least you’ll understand it’s position.
As i have been blessed :-)
Loose bag of sand? Yes, you’ve met my kitty!
What does 'the trend' mean? Sorry, but I'm confused with your post. Are you saying you look at the meaning of Galatians and at the trend of the Apostolic Church, which I assume you are talking about the Roman Catholic Church, in a different way from...what...? The Bible, different Churches...I'm confused by your meaning here.
Your ridiculous little illiterate opinion has been noted.
Sorry if I am confusing. I said I was pleasantly surprised that you used the term “Roman Catholic” for Catholics, as it is better than “papist,” “romanist,” “RC,” etc.
When I said “Catholic > Roman Catholic > papist,” I was trying to clarify that, although using the term “Roman Catholic” is better than using the term “papist,” using “Catholic” without the “Roman” is best.
I hope this clears things up.
Thanks for the clarification
Surely you mean a queenly or princely bag of loose sand? We are talking about their majesties are we not?
Yeah, IMHO,it is. And it's particularly so because, if I listen to some of the words people use, it sounds like they think there is more than one god.
The question still is, since my thoughts and intentions as I turn to God will be, are bound to be, in some respects erroneous until the day I see Him face to face, when it the error so great as to be disastrous? Certainly, IF the Muslims can be said in any way to worship the God of Abraham, then it is as if they looked through a very thick veil, discerned immensely badly, and drew disastrous conclusions from what they thought they saw. But there is a difference between, "They worship the God of Abraham, whom they misunderstand terribly," and "They worship some other god," which think is a very difficult way of speaking. I AM very open to "They worship an intellectual idol of their own making," but that's importantly different from, "They worship another god." As far as putting aside my philosophical constructs is concerned, one of my habitual addresses to is "Not as I think Thou art but as Thou knowest thyself to be."
How do you know enough to have an opinion ?
This isn’t a topic that requires much knowledge in order to form an opinion.
Thank you. Praise God!
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.