Free Republic

See what I mean? This woman even went so far as to claim there is a Biblical definition of wife as "partner" (there is none), and then proceeded to describe the actual subordinate wives of the Bible as "slaves." They weren't.

No matter what you say about our terrible government, they haven't censored or banned Bibles yet, nor have they redefined "slavery" in the dictionary. This is pure woman-talk right here, and I've heard it a thousand times. Thanks for the encouragement, but no thanks.

I don't know why other people aren't getting married, but I'm not getting married because women are awful. Everyone balks about homosexuals trying to redefine marriage, but they are only following the example of women before them.

Wives aren't supposed to be "partners," and they certainly aren't supposed to be bosses. Wives are supposed to be chaste, subordinate, kind, gentle keepers or the home and children. In case you hadn't noticed, women are tyrannical thugs who hate children, and hate their homes. They dump kids in God-forsaken public schools, or worse, murder them before they are even born, so they can be "free" to escape their responsibilities at home. The ones that bother to earn money instead of collecting child support and welfare use it to fill their debt-heavy home with cheap Chinese garbage. And I'm supposed to not only accept all this evil, I'm supposed to adjust my life to better accommodate her plans. No thanks.

You can blame government all day, but I doubt highly that government can force women to be awful, materialistic child-haters. It is clearly their natural state.

"But we should not add to our idolatries and corruptions by succumbing to the grave sin of despair. It is the antithesis of faith."

Who is despairing? The loss of the United States, especially when it is so corrupted and repulsive to God, is nothing to despair.

"For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ..."

I don't see any sin in refusing to put faith in a nation of belly-god worshipers and enemies of salvation.P

I don’t know the future, but if you’re hoping that God will bless a nation of unrepentant and covetous fornicators, blasphemers, false teachers, idol worshipers, thieves, money lenders, gluttons, tyrants, prodigal parents, sluggards, schemers, feminists, and murderers, you’re reading a Bible I’ve never heard of.

Even if the program is still around in 30 years, I have no intention of collecting a dime. I don’t want to have to explain to God why I thought it would be okay to accept blood-soaked money from thieves, gamblers, drunkards, Sodomites, fornicators, and murderers. My spirit is more precious to me than a measly decade of unprofitable loafing with stolen prosperity instead of working honestly with my two hands to earn my keep.

No, it was the perfect combination of taboo, tribalism, and chemical-induced stupor to generate the emotional response he wanted. Just a different sort of easy applause-getting material narcissists always use.

The "Tea Party" never was. The real Tea Party was a criminal act whereby patriots took a beloved thing that was being heaped with taxes, and threw it away. They made it evident that they would sacrifice everything rather than pay even a wooden shekel to a despot.

Your "Tea Party" loves subsidies. Your "Tea Party" loves social programs. Your "Tea Party" loves luxury, and it doesn't care how many 3rd-world children it takes to supply it. Your "Tea Party" doesn't want to make sacrifices, and it never will.

This writer makes the same crucial error that most Republicans make, namely that identifying as a "Conservative" is the same as being conservative.

Just like no one with an ounce of sense believes that a murdering, pedophile, desert pirate is a holy-man, no one can honestly believe that a subsidy collecting, welfare check cashing, feminist, bureaucratic, union supporting individual is trying to conserve anything that the country was founded on. In fact, looking to politicians as some sort of key to fixing the mess caused by politicians is in itself ironically non-conservative.

Considering how firmly entrenched the Collectivist programs of the Democrat party are, and how loath "Conservatives" are to surrender those safety nets, elections are now just a matter of rearranging deck chairs while the ship slowly sinks into icy waters.

Justify, justify, justify. Everyone else is to blame. And that is why there is not a majority of Conservatives in this country.

Enjoy your stolen money. Maybe the country that comes after this one won’t need to justify theft anymore.

Until there is a mass rejection of collectivist entitlements like Social Security and Farm Subsidy by the citizens, I will never be convinced there is a majority of conservatives in this country.

You can name yourself whatever you want when the pollsters call, but your fist-full of stolen prosperity reveals you to be no more than a common thief, the same as any other degenerate “progressive.”

Don’t listen to anyone here who tries to convince you to get married!

The only reason divorce is a “mere” 50% is because so many men have become expert obsequious toadies who will do whatever their wives order them to do, especially the poor doomed idiots in “churches” who have been convinced Jesus wants them to be quiet ATM machines for women. Anyone trying to convince you that becoming the bond servant of a female in this anti-male environment is a good idea is really trying to justify the horrible condition he currently suffers himself, or is a woman trying to maintain the obscene system of slavery that our benighted government has created.

I have seen the dull-eyed, forlorn husbands and their pitiful children longing for sweet escape from the heavy chains of the American Wife & Mom, from coast to coast. Don’t join their ranks!

Please delete my account. I no longer wish to be associated with this site, it’s moderators, or it’s members.

That is not the answer to the question I asked, and you know it.

I find you utterly repulsive.

Please stop sending me posts. I have no desire to speak with such a person as you.

It's nice that you both wish to include me in this, but if you keep sending me idiotic blasphemy like...

Confessing direct to God is no different than confessing to yourself.

...I'll just let you know how illiterate you sound. "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." - 1 Timothy 2:5

I know it is one thing to claim both your tradition and Scripture, but when your tradition so boldly refutes Scripture, don't you even have the slightest tinge of remorse?

I already told you I have no interest in non-sequitur, yet you persist. Because you are unwilling and unable to answer the simple question at hand, you have shown yourself to be desultory and disingenuous, and certainly a person not to be taken seriously.

I suggest you examine your motives, and question why you are willing to go to such unscrupulous depths to protect your obviously flawed and unsupportable position. Until then, note that you are only fooling yourself.

See, you saying "Not a doctrinal issue" doesn't change the fact that these traditions specifically deal with doctrine, and that these traditions are different from the Romans. Purgatory is a place where the dead have their sins purged. Not only is that a doctrinal issue, but you can never, ever claim the Greeks believe in an afterlife of purging sin. You say that the Filioque is nor "core doctrine" (whatever that means), but if anything is "core" to doctrine, it is the nature of God. Likewise your bizarre compartmentalizing of "discipline," as if Greek discipline traditions weren't necessary things in their worship doctrine.

I'm sorry that you believe these straw-men made your case, but the fact remains that there are two sets of very different extra-biblical Catholic traditions, and you have yet to explain why one set is acceptable, and one is not.

1. No Purgatory
2. No Authority of Popes/No Papal Infallibility
3. Seven Sacraments not seen as Meritorious/No Chrismation
4. No Filioque
5. No Ancestral Sin/No Immaculate Conception
6. No "Doctrinal Development"
7. No Celibate Priests & Bishops
8. No Theological Councils Recognized After 787 A.D
9. Orthodox Require Fasts in order to have Weekly Communion
10. Baptism by Sprinkles Not Valid, Thrice Immersed Only Valid Baptism
11. No Instrumental Music

Why are your orally-transmitted doctrinal traditions correct, and these orally-transmitted doctrinal traditions wrong?

"Which points do you find core doctrine different?"

If you don't know the stark differences between the traditions of the GO and RC, I guess that tells me all I need to know.

Tertullian said of these practices that "without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone": Baptizing by immersion three times, giving the baptized a "drink of milk and honey," forbidding the baptized to take a bath for a week, kneeling in Sunday mass was forbidden, and the sign of the cross was to be made on the forehead. (De Corona 3-4)

Jerome said that these "observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law." (Dialogue Against the Luciferians 8)

Why aren't these traditions observed anymore?