|
Post by HomeAtLast on Dec 20, 2003 1:59:13 GMT -5
Life never gets any easier here. Oi. You people sit here and say you want Gene to shut up and leave you alone. But yet when you see him,as soon as he voices his opinions,no matter how "hurtful" they may seem(that's unintentional on his part,he's just trying to present what he feels God leads him to be the truth,for the sake of us all...),you just antagonize him. Maybe if you wouldn't give him the fuel for his fire,he wouldn'rt burn you so much. Ever think about guys? Michael, Sorry but I have never seen him being told to shut up and leave anyone alone. As for unintentional do not be so sure, he has called me an ignorant liar on more than one occasion and then when I asked him what my lie was he ignored the question. He has yet to answer it. How would calling me a liar bring me to understand his views and what good does that do me? the only fuel that I have seen given to him is to defend our faith of the RCC from his misrepresentations and prove him wrong with his misquotes. Blessing to you, Ann
|
|
|
Post by michaeldark on Dec 20, 2003 2:07:05 GMT -5
Michael, Sorry but I have never seen him being told to shut up and leave anyone alone. As for unintentional do not be so sure, he has called me an ignorant liar on more than one occasion and then when I asked him what my lie was he ignored the question. He has yet to answer it. How would calling me a liar bring me to understand his views and what good does that do me? the only fuel that I have seen given to him is to defend our faith of the RCC from his misrepresentations and prove him wrong with his misquotes. Blessing to you, Ann He believes most likely that well.....whatever you said,especially if it's a pro-catholic thing...was wrong and he doesn't need to explain it to you,if you pay attention to him you'll find out why you're wrong. Now I'm not him,so this is just speculation. The way i see it though he's like any other problem though,except maybe a severe disease. If you ignore him,he'll probably run his course\run out of fuel. But like say a fire,if you're gonna go on the battle against him,it just gives him more drive and ambition,makes him more consuming. It also re-enforces his notion that we Catholics are diluted and mislead people that mean well,but unfortunately don't walk his version of the path and still need saving...even though some of us have already found the light of the golden rays of the Son on our own.
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Dec 30, 2003 7:31:07 GMT -5
I've seen you post plenty that there is aspodfija in law breaking, in direct contrast to Paul's admonition in Titus 3, or in 1 Timothy 1. I don't believe Paul ever told anyone it was alright to be a lawbreaker, or that lawbreakers(wilfull) will go to heaven. You seem to forget that it was lawbreaking that got us to where we are today. Now it is foolish to think that Adam was kicked out of the garden for lawbreaking and that it is alright for people today to do the same without consequence. I'll state again for those who don't know my position, there is no salvation in law keeping, but after God's grace is granted to an individual, lawkeeping is expected by God.
You've been given the grace of forgivness which no one deserves, for your sins and are expected to sin no more. Isn't that what Jesus told Mary? "Go and sin no more". Do you think He was kidding?
In other words, what Jesus could have said was "go and keep the law".
"Sin is transgression of the law".
Lie to yourself if you wish, but in the end, God will let you know that He wasn't convinced because you lied to yourself.
[/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Dec 30, 2003 7:35:48 GMT -5
Michael, Sorry but I have never seen him being told to shut up and leave anyone alone. As for unintentional do not be so sure, he has called me an ignorant liar on more than one occasion and then when I asked him what my lie was he ignored the question. He has yet to answer it. How would calling me a liar bring me to understand his views and what good does that do me? the only fuel that I have seen given to him is to defend our faith of the RCC from his misrepresentations and prove him wrong with his misquotes. Blessing to you, Ann ROTFLOL!! Ann, I think it was Michael that told me to shut up and go away!!!
By the way, you have misquoted me and have stated your conclusions as my quotes and that's why I said you were lying. You seem quite able to quote accurately and there was no reason to misquote me except by design.
[/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Dec 30, 2003 7:47:59 GMT -5
You posted elsewhere that God doesn't want us to be afraid of Him, yet you preach fear and condemnation for not keeping your interpretation of God's Law.
I'm not preaching fear and condemnation, that's the way you're accepting what I say. Is it preaching fear or just a warning to tell you if you stick your finger in that light socket you'll die? Who's fault is it if you don't heed the warning and die?
That's what God does. He warns us of the consequences of disobedience, not daring us to be disobedient.
By the way, there will be aspodfija for most at the end because obedience to God is something people pick and choose and discard what they don't thin k they should have to observe instead of just being obedient.
[/color]
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Dec 30, 2003 10:56:38 GMT -5
ROTFLOL!! Ann, I think it was Michael that told me to shut up and go away!!!
By the way, you have misquoted me and have stated your conclusions as my quotes and that's why I said you were lying. You seem quite able to quote accurately and there was no reason to misquote me except by design.
[/color][/quote] gene, As I have explained before, I was not misquoting you, I was trying to understand you in other words. I was asking you questions and asking if I have understood them correctly. Trying to understand something does not make someone a liar. Blessings, Ann
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Dec 30, 2003 11:24:57 GMT -5
gene, As I have explained before, I was not misquoting you, I was trying to understand you in other words. I was asking you questions and asking if I have understood them correctly. Trying to understand something does not make someone a liar. Blessings, Ann O.K., I'll make a point to specify exactly, the next time it happens.[/color]
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Dec 30, 2003 11:51:20 GMT -5
O.K., I'll make a point to specify exactly, the next time it happens. [/color][/quote] gene, Thank you for that. I do not want or intend to lie. Blessings, Ann
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Dec 31, 2003 5:31:10 GMT -5
On choice 1, I wanted to say "it is a req" as well, but ran out of room This topic is very important to me, and It's a topic that greatly divides many Christians. Please give your opinion. I believe Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, and that it is a Christian requirement to take communion; How often would be another debate. Some would say only once in your lifetime, and some would say as often as possible God bless This really seems simple to me, but I haven't been raised as a Rc. The reason there can be no real presence is because all through the bible we have been told that the blood is the "life" of the body. Actually, it is the sewer system which carries impurities through the organs meant to cleanse the blood. It is the same with animals and that's why man was told NEVER to eat the blood or the fat of an animal. Human blood is no different. When Jesus said, "this is My blood", it had to be symbolic and not literal. Jesus was subject to the same impurities as we are.
It had to be symbolic because He had not yet been sacrificed for sin, as this was still a day away, so what He was doing was establishing the rite of communion as part of the covenant that He was about to ratify with His own blood. NOTICE, this was done BEFORE His sacrifice, not AFTER. What Jesus did or said BEFORE His crucifixation was sealed with His death and cannot change.
Jesus never said "Im changing this wine into My blood or this bread into My body. He simply said, "this is My body....etc", which is the common way to direct attention to a symbol.
The Rc "priest" claims to CHANGE the bread to the real, literal, body, spirit, and soul of God, which is false. That would mean that the literal Jesus would be coming to this Earth every day, in fact, continously, without ceasing, and this is not what He said in the gospels.
As keep stating, the WHOLE bible must be taken into consideration before a doctrine is instituted into a church, not just a verse here or there.
[/color]
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Dec 31, 2003 9:42:17 GMT -5
Some interesting observations. I would like to comment on some if time allows today. This really seems simple to me, but I haven't been raised as a Rc. [/color][/quote] Again although you may wish to think this is only a Roman Catholic belief, Eastern Orthodoxy follows a similar doctrine. [/color][/quote] I know this is from the Old Testament. Is this ceremonial or moral law or commandment/ And is there anything in the New Testament that says all followers of Christ must follow kosher laws. And I strongly disagree when you say that the blood system is similar to a sewerage system. Particulary when it brings life-giving oxygen to all our vital organs in addition to carrying away impurities. Blood is a good thing that has been given to us by our Creator. [/color][/quote] Yes, and Jesus's blood also gave him life-giving oxygen as well. [/color][/quote] I agree with you in a sense in that I don't think that the Apostles actual drank a cup of blood and a piece of flesh. The symbolism was the cup and bread of ever-lasting life in Him. That is the true miracle and gift of the Eucharist. [/color][/quote] For Jesus's first miracle at the wedding feast in Canaan, He never said "....I am changing these water casks in wine". Yet He did. Do you believe He did despite the fact He did not say it? The servants according to Scripture drew water. Yet when they were presented it was changed to wine! [/color][/quote] We've been over this incorrect assertion before and I do not wish to repeat it again. You obviously did not believe me the first several iterations. [/color][/quote] As I believe it has.
|
|
|
Post by michaeldark on Dec 31, 2003 22:09:27 GMT -5
Gene,I appologize if I upset you by by calling you a problem. I didn't mean that you're a problem,I meant if you cause us problems. i would never ignore you myself,but I'm saying if people ignored the things you say they deem offensive,then there would not be problems between you and whoever the "offended" party may be. Or if they tried to take what you say and put it into a context like they'd say it? that could help to.
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jan 5, 2004 6:17:05 GMT -5
Some interesting observations. I would like to comment on some if time allows today. Again although you may wish to think this is only a Roman Catholic belief, Eastern Orthodoxy follows a similar doctrine. So, you say this is correct because some others believe it also?[/color] I know this is from the Old Testament. Is this ceremonial or moral law or commandment/ And is there anything in the New Testament that says all followers of Christ must follow kosher laws. The reason for "kosher" in the O.T. was for HEALTH reasons. The same thing applies today. It is a known fact that it is not healthy to eat the blood or fat of animals today as well. In fact, there is no reason for anyone to eat animal flesh today as the diet God gave to Adam is available today year round. It wasn't after the flood.[/color] And I strongly disagree when you say that the blood system is similar to a sewerage system. Particulary when it brings life-giving oxygen to all our vital organs in addition to carrying away impurities. Blood is a good thing that has been given to us by our Creator. True, but it is still unhealthy to consume blood in any form except by transfusion.[/color] Yes, and Jesus's blood also gave him life-giving oxygen as well. and?[/color] I agree with you in a sense in that I don't think that the Apostles actual drank a cup of blood and a piece of flesh. The symbolism was the cup and bread of ever-lasting life in Him. That is the true miracle and gift of the Eucharist. {b] Yes, but the Rcc DENIES that there is any symbolism.[/b][/color] For Jesus's first miracle at the wedding feast in Canaan, He never said "....I am changing these water casks in wine". Yet He did. Do you believe He did despite the fact He did not say it? The servants according to Scripture drew water. Yet when they were presented it was changed to wine! True, but the topic was a "lack of wine". What Jesus did was change the water into LITERAL wine{grape juice}, and we have witness to that. There is no such speaking of literal blood or flesh at the last supper.
[/color]
|
|
|
Post by LauraJean on Jan 5, 2004 11:37:44 GMT -5
What Jesus did was change the water into LITERAL wine{grape juice}, and we have witness to that. There was no such thing as grape juice until the mid 1800's. But even if there was, do you REALLY think the wedding celebrants wouldn't know the difference? I guess that depends on what the meaning of "IS" is, isn't it? JN 6:53 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in himMT 26:26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Jan 5, 2004 17:54:12 GMT -5
So, you say this is correct because some others believe it also? [/color] What I am saying is that this is not a unique belief amoung Roman Catholics that you appear to have aluded to. [/color][/quote] But there is nothing in the New Testamnet that commands the followers of Christ not to eat flesh? [/color][/quote] I am glad to see that transfusions are not prohibited under SDA doctrine. [/color][/quote] And it is safe to assume that the blood of Jesus in it's human form worked the same as it does in us. [/color][/quote] DENIES? You say that somewhere in Roman Catholic doctrine it says that that the Apostles drank His actual blood and ate His actual flesh. [/color][/quote] I did hear that SDA believe it was grape juice. In any event, the point was He never spke the the words. He just did it!!
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jan 7, 2004 12:31:27 GMT -5
Yes, but the Rcc DENIES that there is any symbolism. DENIES? You say that somewhere in Roman Catholic doctrine it says that that the Apostles drank His actual blood and ate His actual flesh. Yes. The Rcc declares that the bread and wine are the real presence of Jesus, body, spirit, soul and divinity. In fact, I've asked Rc people if they pray to the wafer. I get no answer, but if it is really Jesus, why not? So, the question to any Rc who reads and writes here is the same, do you pray to the wafer and if not, why not?
[/color]
|
|