yea I know Rome was home to freedom of thought and religious freedom
People were just dying to get in
Posted on 02/12/2003 8:35:27 PM PST by rwfromkansas
yea I know Rome was home to freedom of thought and religious freedom
People were just dying to get in
I deemed none of our Revolutionary Forebears "irrelevant", as you well know.
That is nothing but a willful FALSEHOOD on your part; a deliberate violation of the Ninth Commandment against a Christian (me), for which you are not even remotely ashamed ~~ let alone penitent.
And why must you fabricate Falsehoods about me, attributing things to me which I did not say and which you know I did not say?
It is so that you may provide yourself with an artificial pseudo-intellectual fig-leaf, a tissue of lies by which you may deny the PLAIN FACT of American Revolutionary History:
I'm not "casually dismissing" the fighting contributions for Independence by any of the other Religionists who participated in the American Revolution.
I am just observing that by comparison to the contributions of the Calvinist Presbyterians (all but one of Washington's colonels at Yorktown and well over half of his soldiery) and their Calvinist allies (probably bringing the total to over 90% of the American soldiery)... *most* of the other "christian" Religionists in America didn't show up to fight for American Republican Freedom at all (and that is nothing but a simple statement of numerical fact).
And if you don't believe that this is the case... why are you so utterly unable to answer my questions?
Why, oh why, do you suppose? Why why why why why?
Were they deceived as to the reality of events, and you are not? Were they confused? Perhaps hitting the hookah pipe a bit too hard?
If you can bring yourself to answer those questions above honestly... but, of course, you can't.
But your willingness to construct ad hominem Falsehoods rather than admit historical Facts, you have shown yourself to be one who loves Lies better than Truths.
So be it... after all, the reason that America is a Free Republic today, is quite precisely because the Nation's Independence was primarily executed as a Calvinist Presbyterian enterprise, prosecuted for the benefit of all other Americans. Even for the benefit of those who prefer Falsehoods to Facts, such as yourself.
No. No. No. Your slander and lies are knit together with the skill of a serpent. There was no wholesale liquidation of Bohemian Protestants. There were wars, battles, and mass immigration. You twist statistics in order to make your accusations appear as something more than pure trash when all that the statistics show is that people died in war and huge numbers of people fled the region. Such misuse of statistics and history is pure propaganda and used to hurl lies against the Church, it is a demonic enterprise.
I am sorry to say, Madam, but "bollocks" is not "crude language", unless you have a moral objection to the language of the Bible. Was this why you objected to my (now-deleted) post -- because your ears were offended by my "coarse" language?
If the Lord Jesus Christ could say to Saul the Persecutor, "Saul, Saul... I am your Lord and your God... why are you behaving as if you want to kick me in the balls?"... then it is fitting enough language for me, as a Protestant Servant of the Lord Christ, to likewise use when it is appropriate.
As a Roman Catholic, you may have a "moral objection" to the language of the Bible, for it is not your Final Authority on matters of Faith and Practice.
But I am a Biblical Christian.
I have No King but Jesus.
And I have no "moral objection" to using the "coarse" language of my Lord and my King when it is appropriate.
You may invent any Pharisaical standard you please. I will be content to understand that there is no higher "moral standard" for Language, than the language of My Christ.
That silly objection put away...
No. No. No. Your slander and lies are knit together with the skill of a serpent. There was no wholesale liquidation of Bohemian Protestants. There were wars, battles, and mass immigration. You twist statistics in order to make your accusations appear as something more than pure trash when all that the statistics show is that people died in war and huge numbers of people fled the region. Such misuse of statistics and history is pure propaganda and used to hurl lies against the Church, it is a demonic enterprise.
There were Wars, Battles, and Massacres (not just "mass immigration").
You say that the factual historical identification of Roman Doctrinal Intolerance (claimed by the 1911 Roman Catholic Encyclopedia as a "moral duty"!) is a "demonic enterprise".
Well, I say to you, the Constantinian Error of Conversion by the Sword at the very heart of Roman Catholicism is a "demonic enterprise".
Even the Pope himself has "apologized" for the greivous sins of the Roman Catholics against their "separated brethren". But Roman Catholic parishioners like yourself are still unable to face the Facts of History.... engaging in the Holocaust Denial language of "mass immigration" ("We're just Relocating the Jews to the East") rather than admitting what actually transpired: MASS MURDER.
And why can Roman Catholic parishioners like yourself, not admit the Historical Facts for which the Pope himself has apologized?
Because you are deeply ashamed of the actual Historical Record of "Roman Intolerance".
Well, then, try to wrap your Mind around this fact of History...
The Pope is Morally Correct to Apologize for the Sins of his "church".
Considering the actual Historical record of "Roman Intolerance", You SHOULD BE ashamed.
Where does one go to find that little addendum?
SORRY?!?! For what are you sorry? I was busy on another Thread. It was "your turn" to return the Serve.
Don't apologize, Steve. It's not a problem.
As I have said before -- as a Five-Point Calvinist, I have no greivous Theological Objection to playing "Doubles Tennis" with a Classical Amyrauldian. (It's just darn hard to find a "classical amyrauldian", True Amyrauldians are as rare as a needle in a haystack)
By contrast, the Roman Catholics say that the Bible is the "Magisterial Center" of their Church Tradition.
Well, it would be hard enough for Protestants if Roman Catholics even knew their own Magisterium, and their own Tradition.... but they don't.
But what is worse, Roman Catholics don't even know the "Magisterial Center" of their own Church Tradition... the God-Breathed Bible.
There is NO excuse whatsoever for a Roman Catholic saying that "Bollocks" represents "coarse language", considering that the Lord Christ Himself used such language to condemn the Persecutions of Saul the Pharisee:
"Saul, Saul... I am your Lord and your God... why are you behaving like you want to kick me in the balls???"
Gosh, I'll bet that the average Roman Catholic DOESN'T EVEN REALIZE that Jesus was specifically employing this allegedly "coarse language" for the specific purpose of accusing the Pharisee Saul, a great LEGALIST as he once was, of a violation of Levitical Law against his own God (Leviticus 21:20, Deuteronomy 23:1).
Roman Catholics like to talk about their "Magisterial Tradition" in regards to the Christian Bible.
The fact of the matter is...
They glory in their Traditions, but I say... My Kingdom! My Kingdom for a Roman Catholic who actually knows the freakin' Patristics!!
And as for a Roman Catholic who knows The Bible... now even for the great Gerry Matatics, I fear that is entirely too much to ask.
Your turn to Serve the ball, my Amyrauldian compatriot.
Goad, Rod, Prick... whatever.
The Hebrew word for testicle is stone, and wood is also a rod, or the male organ. (http://www.kingdomlife.com/kingdom/woodandstone.htm)
The implication is that Jesus was accusing the Persecutor Saul of kicking God in the pricks (or "goads", if you prefer Ancient English for some reason)... a violation of Levitical Law against his own God (Leviticus 21:20, Deuteronomy 23:1)
As such, Siobhan's objection against the language of bollocks, or "kicking against the pricks", just represents a Roman Catholic objection to the language of the Bible.
In short, it is Pharisaical.
As for myself, I'll stick to Biblical Terminology, and will not be ashamed.
The Lord did not mean genitalia here. Prick, when used elsewhere in the KJV does not mean genitalia. The Lord is telling Saul that his actions are futile. He is engaging in an activity that is similar to, and as ignorant as, kicking against a sharp stick.
As such, Siobhan's objection against the language of bollocks, or "kicking against the pricks", just represents a Roman Catholic objection to the language of the Bible.
No, it is an objection to a bizarre interpretation.
In short, it is Pharisaical.
In short, it is personal interpretation.
As for myself, I'll stick to Biblical Terminology, and will not be ashamed.
You don't stick to bible terminology. You created a convoluted maze, just so you could justify an earthy Jesus and your own inappropriate language.
ke/ntron, ou, to/ a sharp, pointed instrument used for piercing to hurt or kill; (1) literally, of insects with a poisonous tip stinger (RV 9.10); figuratively, of death power to hurt (1C 15.55); (2) literally, of prodding instruments goad, spur; proverbially, of a driving or impelling force that is hurtful to resist strong conviction, emotional pain (AC 26.14)
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.