- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Lord’s Prayer opening may be ‘problematic’, says archbishop
Posted on 7/8/23 at 10:28 pm to Squirrelmeister
Posted on 7/8/23 at 10:28 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:The Bible, itself, is a historical record. Sorry if you don't accept it as such even though you'll accept every other historical account of antiquity, especially if it seems to contradict the Biblical narrative.
For which there is no historical or archaeological evidence
There are also several archeological evidences that point to support for the Biblical narrative, such as the Ipuwer Papyrus that seem to allude to events from the biblical narrative.
quote:If you actually read the Bible with anything but pure skepticism, your particular interpretation of those events would change.
Gee, a “god” who could have snapped his fingers and made the Egyptians Yahwists, or erased the Egyptians from existence. He could have winked his nose and turned the Sinai peninsula into a lush land full of potential to grow crops (oh wait he hated farming, see Cain’s first sacrifice). He could have turned the Canaanites into worshippers of the “one true god”. Nope, the righteous and just God decided instead to plague and kill Egyptians, force his chosen people to wander for 40 years in a condition that was worse than being slaves to Egyptians, and then force his people to go kill the Canaanites and plunder from their toil and hard work, and not leave any women children or suckling infant alive. Because God loves us all and wants us to be happy!
God works through means, typically, which means that He allows us humans to participate in His plans for redemption. He doesn't typically "wink his nose" and make everything happen, though He does sometimes work miraculously to accomplish His goals.
God didn't hate farming but gave it as a means for humans to procure food. Cain's sacrifice wasn't rejected because God hates fruits and vegetables (the garden of Eden was filled with fruit to eat, after all), but because sacrifices after the fall required blood. Abel's sacrifice was an animal sacrifice while Cain's was not.
The Egyptians were punished for their sin and rebellion. God is still a God of justice, after all. All of the examples that you and others provide of God being mean are actually examples of His justice. The Canaanites were actually given a long time to repent of their idolatry but they didn't, so God judged them by sending in Israel to conquer the land.
The result of the conquest of Canaan was not so that the people of Israel could be happy, but that He would be worshipped by a special people chosen by Himself that would reflect an eschatological representation of the "elect" from both Jews and Gentiles after the mission of Jesus Christ was accomplished. While God does bless His peoples, eternal peace and happiness is meant for the age to come, not necessarily for this age.
BTW, since you reject God, you have no rational basis for condemnation of anything, much less the God of the Bible. All you have is arbitrary opinions.
quote:He didn't "force" them to eat anything. He gave them manna for bread and quail for meat, which the people desired to eat. God told the people that He would give them so much meat that they would get sick of it. He was talking about the quantity of the meat, not the quality of it. God was able to preserve the meat so that the people didn't get sick from it by itself, just like God gave the people manna, which would rot and gather worms if they gathered too much of it (against God's command), but kept and didn't rot or stink if they obeyed and gathered enough for the Sabbath.
He forced them to eat rotten quail for a month until they vomited it out of their nostrils, then killed a bunch of them. If only they had repented!
And God sent a plague to kill a bunch of them because they were unhappy with God's provision. The wandering in the desert for 40 years was a plague in itself meant to kill off an entire generation of people to keep them from seeing the promised land since they grumbled against God and were not thankful for His deliverance. God blessed the people and they rejected His blessings. That's basically the entire story of the Bible, leading up to Jesus, who was the bread of life given to the world and the Jews continued to reject that blessing.
quote:Not at all. He continued to keep His promises to them, which they were glad of at first, but then wanted what was right in their own eyes instead of what God said was right. He blessed them, and they spit in His proverbial face, time and time again.
They rejected him because he decreased their happiness and increased their suffering.
quote:God doesn't do anything evil. He allows evil to occur, which means He is the first cause of all things, but He is not the 2nd cause (the immediate cause) of evil, because God cannot do anything evil. A better translation of Isaiah 45:7 is "darkness", not "evil", any way. Again, He blessed Israel and they continued to reject Him. When they repent and honor Him and obey His commandments, He forgives them and blesses them. The recurring theme of the OT (a great picture of it is found in the book of Judges) is that God gives Israel His commandments, they covenant with Him to obey and receive blessings, and then they disobey and receive the covenant curses. They repent and God forgives and blesses, and then they disobey and receive curses again. But I'm sure you knew that, being a Bible scholar and all.
Yahweh did evil (which he admits he creates) unto his chosen people, Isaiah 45:7.
quote:We've covered this one previously. Continue reading and you'll see that God was giving the people over to their sins through the law that they couldn't keep, and He "defiled them" by allowing them to sacrifice their children, which He then went on to condemn. Not because He wanted them to do it, but because He allowed it out of judgement for their rebellion against Him. It's all in the context of the passage, if you would take a minute to read it.
He defiled his people by requiring them to kill and burn their firstborn children, Ezekiel 20:26.
quote:He's holy and the people sinned in their rejection of their creator, like you are sinning in your rejection of Him.
Yahweh was a dick and the people were right to reject him.
quote:He's jealous for the worship that is owed to Him as creator. Worship of anything other than God is idolatry.
But he’s a jealous god and can’t have his people worshipping other gods, Exodus 20:3-5.
quote:As God, He is within His rights to transfer His creation from one location to another (from the land of the living to the unseen realm) as He sees fit. Since all people have sinned against Him and deserve eternal death, there is nothing unjust about Him "killing" anyone.
Read the Bible and count how many people Yahweh killed.
quote:Technically, God is sovereign over all deaths, including those of the Assyrians and Babylonians and Philistines. However God does not delight in the death of the wicked. He punishes disobedience, though, which I would hope you would take seriously for your own sake.
He could have killed Assyrians and Babylonians and Philistines… but his favorite people by far to kill were… his chosen people.
quote:Seriously? He wiped out many of the Egyptians to redeem Israel. You already mentioned the conquest of the Canaanites where tribes were wiped out and many people were killed. God defeated the Philistines in battle many times. God allowed Israel to be defeated as judgement for their wickedness and unbelief, when those times indeed occurred.
He was powerless to kill foreign peoples because their gods were stronger. The Philistines defeated Israel and stole the ark. He couldn’t defeat the Canaanites of the plains because they had iron chariots (Israel only had bronze presumably). He couldn’t defeat the Moabites even when Elisha promised the Israelite coalition they would defeat Moab.
2
Posted on 7/8/23 at 10:28 pm to Champagne
quote:Neither the Catholics nor the Protestants bear much resemblance to the practices of the first Christians.
THE PROTESTANT sects began the Rebellion against the Church that Jesus Christ founded.
But, yes, it is entertaining to watch the lackwits insisting that the Catholics are "worshipping the devil."
Posted on 7/8/23 at 10:28 pm to Timeoday
quote:
Just change the name of Catholic Priest to "Pedos"? Please tell your local "Pedos" to leave the Lord's Prayer alone.
AGAIN, he's one of YOUR guys. He's a Protestant and NOT a Roman Catholic, Genius !!
Posted on 7/8/23 at 10:29 pm to Iron Lion
Which prophecy exactly? Many Christians throw that term around way too much
Posted on 7/8/23 at 10:30 pm to Timeoday
quote:
Once again, we have a Catholic entity trying to destroy faith by attacking the Lord's Prayer. It is not the first, nor will it be the last time they try.
Where do you ignorant people come from?
HE IS ONE OF YOUR GUYS, GENIUS.
HE IS CHURCH OF ENGLAND THE CHURCH FOUNDED BY HENRY VIII.
Posted on 7/8/23 at 10:32 pm to Diamondawg
quote:
But as to the Archbishop, I am starting to wonder if Catholic leadership are Christian at all. More PC gibberish.
Do you bother to read anything before you start attacking the Roman Catholic Faith? Or is it just an automatic reflex with you?
Posted on 7/8/23 at 10:32 pm to Smeg
quote:in the literal sense, Ok, I'll give you a little rope on this one.
I know the word ‘father’ is problematic for those whose experience of earthly fathers has been destructive and abusive
quote:That's where you hang
“I know the word ‘father’ is problematic...and for all of us
This post was edited on 7/8/23 at 10:33 pm
Posted on 7/8/23 at 10:33 pm to Diamondawg
quote:
Our Church just disaffiliated from the United Methodist Church. In fact, 189 did so in Mississippi alone. We are now a part of the Global Methodist Church which follows Wesleyan principles. The heathens in the progressive UMC have been going against the Book of Discipline and ignoring the parts they don't like; like gay marriage, openly gay Bishops, Pastors and the like.
Your Methodist faith is an off-shoot of the Church of England.
How many times are you Methodists going to keep splitting up? Should that not be a clue that you guys may have gotten it wrong?
Posted on 7/8/23 at 10:35 pm to Smeg
There is absolutely nothing that a prog will leave alone. Nothing. Literally nothing is sacred to them. All they are capable of doing is agitating and destroying.
Posted on 7/8/23 at 10:36 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Imagine you are a dutiful Catholic living in the Holy Roman Empire in the year 1410. How do you recognize the office and fulfillment of Apostolic Succession? Which pope do you honor of the three who claimed the office at the same time?
Oh be quiet. Your Protestant sect has less then ten thousand members in all of the USA.
Posted on 7/8/23 at 10:41 pm to Northshoretiger87
quote:
However, I wouldn’t have been surprised sadly if it was a Francis appointed bishop saying it.
Why would you throw in that gratuitous bashing of the Catholic Church?
This thread is a MOST excellent demonstration of the depth of Anti-Catholic hate on this board. It's an automatic response like Pavlov's Dog with these haters. Start a thread about something stupid that Protestant pastor says and there are more posts bashing Catholics than there are posts bashing their fellow Protestant.
OP just likes to make shite up and then use that to bash Catholics. Are you a Leftist, OP? This tactic is exactly what Leftists use to bash Christians and conservatives.
Posted on 7/8/23 at 10:44 pm to Champagne
quote:This is clearly a difference of opinion. It was the Reformers' charge that Rome had rebelled against the Church that Jesus Christ founded and that reformation was needed. The claimed church of Rome of the 1500s (and even today) bears little resemblance to the Church of 2,000 years ago, with popes ruling instead of elders and the traditions of men usurping the very word of God.
THE PROTESTANT sects began the Rebellion against the Church that Jesus Christ founded.
quote:I'll agree that this article is certainly an example of rebellion against Christ's Church, the true "catholic" (universal) Church of Jesus Christ. Sola Scriptura condemns this very act of rebellion in this instance, as evidence by the attack on Scripture, itself.
This Rebellion CONTINUES, as we see from this article about the Archbishop in the Church of England.
quote:I can't speak for anyone else, but I speak against all rebellion against Christ and His Gospel, which includes Catholicism, with its rejection of Christ's merit as sufficient to save, and the Christian's salvation by receiving His merit by faith alone.
The Rebellion continues, as we see from the almost daily Catholic Bashing that happens here.
quote:When the Church apostatizes, the Christian has the duty to remove himself from it and join himself to a visible body that seeks the purity of the the Word against such apostasy. That's what the Reformation was about.
The Rebellion continues as the Protestant sects CONTINUE to split from one another again and again. We now have hundreds of Protestant sects because of this Rebellion.
Catholicism isn't without its share of infighting and schisms. I mentioned it in another post, but there was a time when there was a fight for several decades about who the true Pope was. There were three claiming that office at one time in the 14th and 15th centuries.
ETA:
Way to go with the Protestant bashing. You are clearly sensitive to anti-Catholic sentiment, but you have no problem with bashing Protestants.
This post was edited on 7/8/23 at 10:45 pm
Posted on 7/8/23 at 10:44 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Neither the Catholics nor the Protestants bear much resemblance to the practices of the first Christians.
Not true WRT the Catholic Faith, and the historical record is fairly clear about that, if you were to only take the time to study.
Posted on 7/8/23 at 10:50 pm to Champagne
quote:Seriously? We need look no further than the celibate priestly caste to find the first major difference.quote:Not true WRT the Catholic Faith
Neither the Catholics nor the Protestants bear much resemblance to the practices of the first Christians.
quote:I have found that I know more about early Christianity than about 98% of purported Christians. This is possible because I study the Church itself, rather than just memorizing verses from a Book.
the historical record is fairly clear about that, if you were to only take the time to study.
Posted on 7/8/23 at 10:51 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
This is clearly a difference of opinion.
The Reformers accused the Catholic Church of a LOT of things but they were ALL pre-texts for what they really wanted to do: loot the churches and monasteries and substitute their OWN power structure for the Catholic Church that they destroyed.
King Henry VIII is the best example. I'm sure he would tell you that the Catholic Church rebelled against the Church that Christ founded, so he was justified in looting the churches and monasteries and beheading the Catholics who refused to convert.
Posted on 7/8/23 at 10:54 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I have found that I know more about early Christianity than about 98% of purported Christians. This is possible because I study the Church itself, rather than just memorizing verses from a Book.
If you would read the writings of the Church Fathers, and other early writings, you'd see how wrong you are - not about Protestants memorizing Bible verses and ignoring all of the written history of the Early Church, you are right about that. They believe in Bible Alone (a belief that is not in the Bible) so they will ignore the Church Fathers.
Posted on 7/8/23 at 10:55 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Seriously? We need look no further than the celibate priestly caste to find the first major difference.
I thought that Jesus was celibate? What about Paul? I thought that both of them talked about the desirability of celibacy?
Posted on 7/8/23 at 10:58 pm to Smeg
THIS is my last post in this thread because it's been totally hi jacked.
Discuss the article posted by the OP. All other topics are off-topic.
The only reason I got into this thread was to correct the legions of idiots who, without reading even a little bit of the article, immediately wrote posts bashing the Roman Catholic Faith - thanks guys - I guess that when the US Govt really does finally decide to persecute Christians, you guys will help them GET the Catholics.
Discuss the article posted by the OP. All other topics are off-topic.
The only reason I got into this thread was to correct the legions of idiots who, without reading even a little bit of the article, immediately wrote posts bashing the Roman Catholic Faith - thanks guys - I guess that when the US Govt really does finally decide to persecute Christians, you guys will help them GET the Catholics.
Posted on 7/8/23 at 11:21 pm to Champagne
quote:That's a bold statement to accuse the Reformers at-large for such things. Many works were written during the Reformation, and the vast majority of it was theological in nature. They spent a lot of time risking their lives to talk about the Scriptures, getting them in the hands of the common person (who was barred from having such access by the RCC), and understanding them rightly, not trying to loot Catholic churches.
The Reformers accused the Catholic Church of a LOT of things but they were ALL pre-texts for what they really wanted to do: loot the churches and monasteries and substitute their OWN power structure for the Catholic Church that they destroyed.
King Henry VIII is the best example. I'm sure he would tell you that the Catholic Church rebelled against the Church that Christ founded, so he was justified in looting the churches and monasteries and beheading the Catholics who refused to convert.
BTW, I'm no fan of King Henry the VIII. A lot of sin was committed under the auspices of holiness, which, as a Catholic, you should be well aware.
John Calvin and many of the Reformers were actually quite keen on the idea of a separation of Church and State for this very reason. They didn't believe the government should be sticking its nose into the business of the Church, except to come along side her to help promote the expansion of the Gospel. In those days, the Church and State were commonly intertwined, and heresy and apostasy were commonly punished by the State through the death penalty. Both Protestants and Catholics were at war with each other early on, and governments were creating martyrs of both sides. The Reformed Puritans actually fled Protestant England because of its insistence of worship according to the State's religion (Church of England).
Posted on 7/8/23 at 11:22 pm to Champagne
quote:
Your Methodist faith is an off-shoot of the Church of England.
How many times are you Methodists going to keep splitting up? Should that not be a clue that you guys may have gotten it wrong?
Protestantism in general was a mistake. How do maintain any sense of orthodoxy, when you're a schismatic church? How do you prevent further splits?
I think our only two viable options at this point are Catholicism, and Orthodoxy, although both have their issues. The Catholic Church is in terrible shape, look at the people who lead it, and Orthodoxy may only be safe, because of the ethnic component and the physical remoteness of the Orthodox world from the Western one.
This post was edited on 7/8/23 at 11:35 pm
Page 5 of 15
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News