User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/26/2019 10:35:52 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Holy crap you aren't even analyzing the right text or even the right language. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Guess you don't care what the Bible actually says then. Good to know. Because God repents in it... Hebrew Genesis 6:6 6 ADONAI regretted that he had made humankind on the earth; it grieved his heart. Look at Luther's translation from original Hebrew of Genesis 6:6... 6. da reute es ihn, da er die Menschen gemacht hatte auf Erden, und es bekmmerte ihn in seinem Herzen 6. Then He regretted that He had made men on earth, and it grieved Him in His Heart. Latin Vulgate 6. paenituit eum quod hominem fecisset in terra et tactus dolore cordis intrinsecus 6. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart within him If you're relying on King James Translation published in 1611, it's several iterations down the road of translations from different languages, left to English scholars from the 3 major universities assigned by the King's Hampton Court Commission in 1604, and the nightly arguments about how to do the translation correctly after each individual scholar went off on their own for the day to translate specific chapters, then reconvened with their team every evening to debate the accuracy of the translations. You can see the failure in where things went of the rails with the Lord "repented" verses going back to Jerome, who was commissioned by Pope Damasus I in 382 to translate the Old Latin texts that has been translated from what the early Church fathers had. We have a perverted translation of Holy text passed on through the last 1637 years. It is interesting to watch an argument in favor of translations that were handled very poorly, then standardized with King James. Martin Luther's translation makes much more sense when looking at the Hebrew, spiritual, and doctrinal considerations. original Hebrew Book of Genesis: 6:6 -- And the Lord regretted that He had made man upon the earth, and He became grieved in His heart. King James Bible Book of Genesis: 6:6 -- And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. Regret and Repent have different meanings in English. Regret: to mourn the loss or death of; to miss very much; to be very sorry for. Repent: to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one's life; to feel regret or contrition; to change one's mind; to cause to feel regret or contrition; to feel sorrow, regret, or contrition for |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2019 10:37:06 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Latin Vulgate Jonas 3:10 10. et vidit Deus opera eorum quia conversi sunt a via sua mala et misertus est Deus super malitiam quam locutus fuerat ut faceret eis et non fecit 10. And God saw their works, that they were turned from their evil way: and God had mercy with regard to the evil which he had said that he would do to them, and he did it not. Jona 3:10 Luther Bible 10 Da aber Gott sah ihre Werke, daß sie sich bekehrten von ihrem bösen Wege, reute ihn des Übels, das er geredet hatte ihnen zu tun, und tat's nicht. 10 But when God saw their works, that they were converted from their evil ways, they repented of the evil that he had spoken to them, and did not do them. It's as if the various translators got some things right, and others really wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2019 10:38:21 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Latin Vulgate Jonas 3:10 10. et vidit Deus opera eorum quia conversi sunt a via sua mala et misertus est Deus super malitiam quam locutus fuerat ut faceret eis et non fecit 10. And God saw their works, that they were turned from their evil way: and God had mercy with regard to the evil which he had said that he would do to them, and he did it not. Jona 3:10 Luther Bible 10 Da aber Gott sah ihre Werke, da sie sich bekehrten von ihrem bsen Wege, reute ihn des bels, das er geredet hatte ihnen zu tun, und tat's nicht. 10 But when God saw their works, that they were converted from their evil ways, they repented of the evil that he had spoken to them, and did not do them. It's as if the various translators got some things right, and others really wrong. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Telling people that grace isn't a license to sin is basically telling them that grace doesn't exist, and actually boldly turning grace into "licentiousness". The law never made anyone righteous. Stop thinking it does, metanoia, and believe the good news. Lol. You've already lost the argument. No NT writer wrote the word "repent" in the Bible. They wrote the word "metanoia" which means something entirely different. But you'd know that if you read the article. Jonah 3:10 King James Version (KJV) 10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not. Of course, this is an issue requiring a lexicon, not the Bible. Terms have been redefined. But again, if you read that article you'd know that. Jonas 3:10 10. et vidit Deus opera eorum quia conversi sunt a via sua mala et misertus est Deus super malitiam quam locutus fuerat ut faceret eis et non fecit 10. And God saw their works, that they were turned from their evil way: and God had mercy with regard to the evil which he had said that he would do to them, and he did it not. Jona 3:10 Luther Bible 10 Da aber Gott sah ihre Werke, da sie sich bekehrten von ihrem bsen Wege, reute ihn des bels, das er geredet hatte ihnen zu tun, und tat's nicht. 10 But when God saw their works, that they were converted from their evil ways, they repented of the evil that he had spoken to them, and did not do them. It's as if the various translators got some things right, and others really wrong. LXX please. Show me how it was translated in Jesus' day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2019 10:41:20 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: where is he wrong? original Hebrew Book of Genesis: 6:6 -- And the Lord regretted that He had made man upon the earth, and He became grieved in His heart. King James Bible Book of Genesis: 6:6 -- And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. Regret and Repent have different meanings in English. Regret: to mourn the loss or death of; to miss very much; to be very sorry for. Repent: to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one's life; to feel regret or contrition; to change one's mind; to cause to feel regret or contrition; to feel sorrow, regret, or contrition for http://www.timothyministry.com/2012/07/the-great-meaning-of-metanoia.html?m=1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2019 10:47:14 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hate to say it, but church is a business. If they want more contributions they just allow everything and everybody to be more inclusive and not say boo. I am appalled by the way parishioners attend Church and how parents let their kids wear tramp clothes. (Would you let your 15 year old daughter walk up to take communion wearing a T-Shirt that says "Who says money can't buy you love?" ) Society has no standards, because we are now taught that standards are judgmental. So this is the shit you have. Enjoy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2019 11:10:44 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wish they would! But that's too much work. These protestors are parasites - they can't create anything. They'll be back next year. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's fairly simple: the United Method Church has affirmed that you must follow biblical rules to be a pastor. LGBTQ folks are enraged by this decision. The liberal socialist communist (LSC) way of doing business is NOT to create; it is to take over old established insititutions (the Episcopal Church, BSA to name just a couple) and thereby force themselves to appear "Mainstream." I foresee a time, within 10 years, in which the Roman Catholic Church and the Latter Day Saints see some major efforts from the individual local parishes to liberalize in this manner. The LSC will never give up. The Revolution, which so many members here long for, won't look like the original American Revolution, or the Civil War; it'll look more like Rhodesia, or the French Revolution. Or for that matter, as my earlier post stated: they will form an Official Church of the United States of America, and outlaw other churches. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2019 11:10:45 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Telling people that grace isn't a license to sin is basically telling them that grace doesn't exist, and actually boldly turning grace into "licentiousness". The man did not say "grace doesn't exist." That's your statement after you totally mischaracterize what he said. He basically said, "Just because a person is saved doesn't mean they should go out and sin." He pretty much just paraphrased Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2019 11:45:30 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's as if you're trying to undermine the scriptural authority of the Bible to push the LDS agenda. LXX please. Show me how it was translated in Jesus' day. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Telling people that grace isn't a license to sin is basically telling them that grace doesn't exist, and actually boldly turning grace into "licentiousness". The law never made anyone righteous. Stop thinking it does, metanoia, and believe the good news. Lol. You've already lost the argument. No NT writer wrote the word "repent" in the Bible. They wrote the word "metanoia" which means something entirely different. But you'd know that if you read the article. Jonah 3:10 King James Version (KJV) 10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not. Of course, this is an issue requiring a lexicon, not the Bible. Terms have been redefined. But again, if you read that article you'd know that. Jonas 3:10 10. et vidit Deus opera eorum quia conversi sunt a via sua mala et misertus est Deus super malitiam quam locutus fuerat ut faceret eis et non fecit 10. And God saw their works, that they were turned from their evil way: and God had mercy with regard to the evil which he had said that he would do to them, and he did it not. Jona 3:10 Luther Bible 10 Da aber Gott sah ihre Werke, da sie sich bekehrten von ihrem bsen Wege, reute ihn des bels, das er geredet hatte ihnen zu tun, und tat's nicht. 10 But when God saw their works, that they were converted from their evil ways, they repented of the evil that he had spoken to them, and did not do them. It's as if the various translators got some things right, and others really wrong. LXX please. Show me how it was translated in Jesus' day. If men corrupt the word and mistranslate it, either by accident, incompetence, or edict from him who tasked them with the translation, what is the reader to do? I've hungrily eaten the King James Bible since I was a kid and love to study and ponder it. It has obvious problems with the translation though, and that is man's doing. The King James Hampton Court Council were translating with the idea that the peasantry were illiterate masses who would get confused if they translated the words in ways they could understand as multilingual scholars. I suspect this is why many of the verses were abbreviated, and what appeared to be redundancies were actually important doctrinal components that should have remained. They also weren't so great at understanding syntax, grammar, and how to genuinely get the original message across, which is why we have the Lord "repenting" when it was really "regretting" or the people repenting and not the lord in the case of the inhabitants of Damascus in the book of Jonah. If you actually seek the truth, you will have no problems when you find it, but if the truth undermines some of the pretexts you've been living under, then you either question those and continue seeking, or start with the curricular reasoning. Either way, whether people are using the King James, the Latin Vulgate, the Luther, or any other Bible, there is clearly confusion when relying on one translation and being unfamiliar with the original tongues. Many of the phrases will make no sense at all, even in their untainted form, to a person living today, versus one living in whatever time period the chapter and verse are in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2019 11:49:41 PM EDT
[#9]
https://juicyecumenism.com/2019/02/23/african-united-methodists-wont-trade-bible-for-dollars/
(Here are remarks of Dr. Jerry P. Kulah, Dean of Gbarnga School of Theology, United Methodist University in Liberia, to the Reform and Renewal Coalition Breakfast at the United Methodist Church Special General Conference Session in St. Louis, Missouri, Saturday, 23 February 2019)
Friends, please hear me, we Africans are not afraid of our sisters and brothers who identify as lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgendered, questioning, or queer. We love them and we hope the best for them. But we know of no compelling arguments for forsaking our church’s understanding of Scripture and the teachings of the church universal. And then please hear me when I say as graciously as I can: we Africans are not children in need of western enlightenment when it comes to the church’s sexual ethics. We do not need to hear a progressive U.S. bishop lecture us about our need to “grow up.” ... Unfortunately, some United Methodists in the U.S. have the very faulty assumption that all Africans are concerned about is U.S. financial support. Well, I am sure, being sinners like all of you, some Africans are fixated on money. But with all due respect, a fixation on money seems more of an American problem than an African one. We get by on far less than most Americans do; we know how to do it. I’m not so sure you do. So if anyone is so naïve or condescending as to think we would sell our birth right in Jesus Christ for American dollars, then they simply do not know us. ... Please understand me when I say the vast majority of African United Methodists will never, ever trade Jesus and the truth of the Bible for money. See: https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2014/10/dont-listen-to-the-africans-says-catholic-cardinal Leftists are racists. And note the threat: "Be progressive or lose money". |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2019 11:53:15 PM EDT
[#10]
This is making me metanoid. Where’s the koinonia?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2019 11:54:57 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
https://juicyecumenism.com/2019/02/23/african-united-methodists-wont-trade-bible-for-dollars/ What he talks about is the same exact shit that US and European Catholic and Anglican leaders said about their African brothers in the past on similar issues. See: https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2014/10/dont-listen-to-the-africans-says-catholic-cardinal Leftists are racists. And note the threat: "Be progressive or lose money". Quote HistoryQuoted:
https://juicyecumenism.com/2019/02/23/african-united-methodists-wont-trade-bible-for-dollars/ (Here are remarks of Dr. Jerry P. Kulah, Dean of Gbarnga School of Theology, United Methodist University in Liberia, to the Reform and Renewal Coalition Breakfast at the United Methodist Church Special General Conference Session in St. Louis, Missouri, Saturday, 23 February 2019)
Friends, please hear me, we Africans are not afraid of our sisters and brothers who identify as lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgendered, questioning, or queer. We love them and we hope the best for them. But we know of no compelling arguments for forsaking our church’s understanding of Scripture and the teachings of the church universal. And then please hear me when I say as graciously as I can: we Africans are not children in need of western enlightenment when it comes to the church’s sexual ethics. We do not need to hear a progressive U.S. bishop lecture us about our need to “grow up.” ... Unfortunately, some United Methodists in the U.S. have the very faulty assumption that all Africans are concerned about is U.S. financial support. Well, I am sure, being sinners like all of you, some Africans are fixated on money. But with all due respect, a fixation on money seems more of an American problem than an African one. We get by on far less than most Americans do; we know how to do it. I’m not so sure you do. So if anyone is so naïve or condescending as to think we would sell our birth right in Jesus Christ for American dollars, then they simply do not know us. ... Please understand me when I say the vast majority of African United Methodists will never, ever trade Jesus and the truth of the Bible for money. See: https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2014/10/dont-listen-to-the-africans-says-catholic-cardinal Leftists are racists. And note the threat: "Be progressive or lose money". Where is the leadership in this? Inspired leadership acting with the authority of Jesus Christ would nip this in the bud long before it boiled over to this point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2019 11:56:19 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I mean, its clear that all Christians are saints according to the scriptures and all are part of the Royal Priesthood, yet that is not what the Catholic church teaches. And the Mary worship is scriptural how? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2019 11:58:17 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do the scriptures command authority of themselves, or does God's actual word command authority? If men corrupt the word and mistranslate it, either by accident, incompetence, or edict from him who tasked them with the translation, what is the reader to do? I've hungrily eaten the King James Bible since I was a kid and love to study and ponder it. It has obvious problems with the translation though, and that is man's doing. The King James Hampton Court Council were translating with the idea that the peasantry were illiterate masses who would get confused if they translated the words in ways they could understand as multilingual scholars. I suspect this is why many of the verses were abbreviated, and what appeared to be redundancies were actually important doctrinal components that should have remained. They also weren't so great at understanding syntax, grammar, and how to genuinely get the original message across, which is why we have the Lord "repenting" when it was really "regretting" or the people repenting and not the lord in the case of the inhabitants of Damascus in the book of Jonah. If you actually seek the truth, you will have no problems when you find it, but if the truth undermines some of the pretexts you've been living under, then you either question those and continue seeking, or start with the curricular reasoning. Either way, whether people are using the King James, the Latin Vulgate, the Luther, or any other Bible, there is clearly confusion when relying on one translation and being unfamiliar with the original tongues. Many of the phrases will make no sense at all, even in their untainted form, to a person living today, versus one living in whatever time period the chapter and verse are in. Here's the proof: https://studybible.info/interlinear/jonah%203:10.htm Notice that "turning from their evil way" was a work, but God changed his mind/repented. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2019 11:59:04 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryFriends, please hear me, we Africans are not afraid of our sisters and brothers who identify as lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgendered, questioning, or queer. We love them and we hope the best for them. But we know of no compelling arguments for forsaking our church’s understanding of Scripture and the teachings of the church universal. Quote HistoryFriends, please hear me, we Africans are not afraid of our sisters and brothers who identify as lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgendered, questioning, or queer. We love them and we hope the best for them. But we know of no compelling arguments for forsaking our church’s understanding of Scripture and the teachings of the church universal. And then please hear me when I say as graciously as I can: we Africans are not children in need of western enlightenment when it comes to the church’s sexual ethics. We do not need to hear a progressive U.S. bishop lecture us about our need to “grow up.” . |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2019 12:13:57 AM EDT
[#15]
The Christian Bible simply states that anyone who continually practices homosexual behavior without repentant actions on his or her own part, or responsibility, without an advocate before the Father (or God, or the One) just as with any other sin produced within the carnal mindset of any individual, or contrary to God's laws and statutes, will be judged by God as defective and then cast into outer darkness or into a place of eternal punishment as the law requires.
IMHO, I would not take this sort of behavior, open, or not, into a so-called Christian organization and consider this route to be as a person who buys fire insurance in case of an ensuing fire. Forever is a long time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2019 12:16:47 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LOL you're ducking and weaving out of explaining Jonah 3:10 of the LXX because they had God "metanoia" of the evil He spoke to do...which many older Bibles translate as "repent". Here's the proof: https://studybible.info/interlinear/jonah%203:10.htm Notice that "turning from their evil way" was a work, but God changed his mind/repented. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Do the scriptures command authority of themselves, or does God's actual word command authority? If men corrupt the word and mistranslate it, either by accident, incompetence, or edict from him who tasked them with the translation, what is the reader to do? I've hungrily eaten the King James Bible since I was a kid and love to study and ponder it. It has obvious problems with the translation though, and that is man's doing. The King James Hampton Court Council were translating with the idea that the peasantry were illiterate masses who would get confused if they translated the words in ways they could understand as multilingual scholars. I suspect this is why many of the verses were abbreviated, and what appeared to be redundancies were actually important doctrinal components that should have remained. They also weren't so great at understanding syntax, grammar, and how to genuinely get the original message across, which is why we have the Lord "repenting" when it was really "regretting" or the people repenting and not the lord in the case of the inhabitants of Damascus in the book of Jonah. If you actually seek the truth, you will have no problems when you find it, but if the truth undermines some of the pretexts you've been living under, then you either question those and continue seeking, or start with the curricular reasoning. Either way, whether people are using the King James, the Latin Vulgate, the Luther, or any other Bible, there is clearly confusion when relying on one translation and being unfamiliar with the original tongues. Many of the phrases will make no sense at all, even in their untainted form, to a person living today, versus one living in whatever time period the chapter and verse are in. Here's the proof: https://studybible.info/interlinear/jonah%203:10.htm Notice that "turning from their evil way" was a work, but God changed his mind/repented. From my previous post: Mistranslation bigtime. Hebrew Genesis 6:6 6 ADONAI regretted that he had made humankind on the earth; it grieved his heart. Look at Luther's translation from original Hebrew of Genesis 6:6... 6. da reute es ihn, daß er die Menschen gemacht hatte auf Erden, und es bekümmerte ihn in seinem Herzen 6. Then He regretted that He had made men on earth, and it grieved Him in His Heart. Latin Vulgate 6. paenituit eum quod hominem fecisset in terra et tactus dolore cordis intrinsecus 6. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart within him If you're relying on King James Translation published in 1611, it's several iterations down the road of translations from different languages, left to English scholars from the 3 major universities assigned by the King's Hampton Court Commission in 1604, and the nightly arguments about how to do the translation correctly after each individual scholar went off on their own for the day to translate specific chapters, then reconvened with their team every evening to debate the accuracy of the translations. You can see the failure in where things went of the rails with the Lord "repented" verses going back to Jerome, who was commissioned by Pope Damasus I in 382 to translate the Old Latin texts that had been translated from what the early Church fathers had. We have a perverted translation of Holy text passed on through the last 1637 years. It is interesting to watch an argument in favor of translations that were handled very poorly, then standardized with King James. Martin Luther's translation makes much more sense when looking at the Hebrew, spiritual, and doctrinal considerations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2019 12:26:07 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You call this ducking and weaving? Looks you you didn't read. From my previous post: Mistranslation bigtime. Hebrew Genesis 6:6 6 ADONAI regretted that he had made humankind on the earth; it grieved his heart. Look at Luther's translation from original Hebrew of Genesis 6:6... 6. da reute es ihn, da er die Menschen gemacht hatte auf Erden, und es bekmmerte ihn in seinem Herzen 6. Then He regretted that He had made men on earth, and it grieved Him in His Heart. Latin Vulgate 6. paenituit eum quod hominem fecisset in terra et tactus dolore cordis intrinsecus 6. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart within him If you're relying on King James Translation published in 1611, it's several iterations down the road of translations from different languages, left to English scholars from the 3 major universities assigned by the King's Hampton Court Commission in 1604, and the nightly arguments about how to do the translation correctly after each individual scholar went off on their own for the day to translate specific chapters, then reconvened with their team every evening to debate the accuracy of the translations. You can see the failure in where things went of the rails with the Lord "repented" verses going back to Jerome, who was commissioned by Pope Damasus I in 382 to translate the Old Latin texts that had been translated from what the early Church fathers had. We have a perverted translation of Holy text passed on through the last 1637 years. It is interesting to watch an argument in favor of translations that were handled very poorly, then standardized with King James. Martin Luther's translation makes much more sense when looking at the Hebrew, spiritual, and doctrinal considerations. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do the scriptures command authority of themselves, or does God's actual word command authority? If men corrupt the word and mistranslate it, either by accident, incompetence, or edict from him who tasked them with the translation, what is the reader to do? I've hungrily eaten the King James Bible since I was a kid and love to study and ponder it. It has obvious problems with the translation though, and that is man's doing. The King James Hampton Court Council were translating with the idea that the peasantry were illiterate masses who would get confused if they translated the words in ways they could understand as multilingual scholars. I suspect this is why many of the verses were abbreviated, and what appeared to be redundancies were actually important doctrinal components that should have remained. They also weren't so great at understanding syntax, grammar, and how to genuinely get the original message across, which is why we have the Lord "repenting" when it was really "regretting" or the people repenting and not the lord in the case of the inhabitants of Damascus in the book of Jonah. If you actually seek the truth, you will have no problems when you find it, but if the truth undermines some of the pretexts you've been living under, then you either question those and continue seeking, or start with the curricular reasoning. Either way, whether people are using the King James, the Latin Vulgate, the Luther, or any other Bible, there is clearly confusion when relying on one translation and being unfamiliar with the original tongues. Many of the phrases will make no sense at all, even in their untainted form, to a person living today, versus one living in whatever time period the chapter and verse are in. Here's the proof: https://studybible.info/interlinear/jonah%203:10.htm Notice that "turning from their evil way" was a work, but God changed his mind/repented. From my previous post: Mistranslation bigtime. Hebrew Genesis 6:6 6 ADONAI regretted that he had made humankind on the earth; it grieved his heart. Look at Luther's translation from original Hebrew of Genesis 6:6... 6. da reute es ihn, da er die Menschen gemacht hatte auf Erden, und es bekmmerte ihn in seinem Herzen 6. Then He regretted that He had made men on earth, and it grieved Him in His Heart. Latin Vulgate 6. paenituit eum quod hominem fecisset in terra et tactus dolore cordis intrinsecus 6. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart within him If you're relying on King James Translation published in 1611, it's several iterations down the road of translations from different languages, left to English scholars from the 3 major universities assigned by the King's Hampton Court Commission in 1604, and the nightly arguments about how to do the translation correctly after each individual scholar went off on their own for the day to translate specific chapters, then reconvened with their team every evening to debate the accuracy of the translations. You can see the failure in where things went of the rails with the Lord "repented" verses going back to Jerome, who was commissioned by Pope Damasus I in 382 to translate the Old Latin texts that had been translated from what the early Church fathers had. We have a perverted translation of Holy text passed on through the last 1637 years. It is interesting to watch an argument in favor of translations that were handled very poorly, then standardized with King James. Martin Luther's translation makes much more sense when looking at the Hebrew, spiritual, and doctrinal considerations. You're off in left field with Latin and German, when the Greek Old Testament (LXX), translated 100 years before Christ by 70 native Hebrew and Greek speaking scholars, and used by the Apostles (the real ones), settles the issue. The Hebrew word for "repent" (nacham, which literally means "to sigh") is always translated as metanoia, "a change of mind". Anyways, your agenda is to undermine the Bible so you can then sell people on a book that has no original text and is claimed to be translated from a non-existent language, so you really have no argument here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2019 12:38:23 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah I do. You're not addressing my point about metanoia, which isn't even in Genesis 6:6 in the LXX. You're off in left field with Latin and German, when the Greek Old Testament (LXX), translated 100 years before Christ by 70 native Hebrew and Greek speaking scholars, and used by the Apostles (the real ones), settles the issue. The Hebrew word for "repent" (nacham, which literally means "to sigh") is always translated as metanoia, "a change of mind". Anyways, your agenda is to undermine the Bible so you can then sell people on a book that has no original text and is claimed to be translated from a non-existent language, so you really have no argument here. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do the scriptures command authority of themselves, or does God's actual word command authority? If men corrupt the word and mistranslate it, either by accident, incompetence, or edict from him who tasked them with the translation, what is the reader to do? I've hungrily eaten the King James Bible since I was a kid and love to study and ponder it. It has obvious problems with the translation though, and that is man's doing. The King James Hampton Court Council were translating with the idea that the peasantry were illiterate masses who would get confused if they translated the words in ways they could understand as multilingual scholars. I suspect this is why many of the verses were abbreviated, and what appeared to be redundancies were actually important doctrinal components that should have remained. They also weren't so great at understanding syntax, grammar, and how to genuinely get the original message across, which is why we have the Lord "repenting" when it was really "regretting" or the people repenting and not the lord in the case of the inhabitants of Damascus in the book of Jonah. If you actually seek the truth, you will have no problems when you find it, but if the truth undermines some of the pretexts you've been living under, then you either question those and continue seeking, or start with the curricular reasoning. Either way, whether people are using the King James, the Latin Vulgate, the Luther, or any other Bible, there is clearly confusion when relying on one translation and being unfamiliar with the original tongues. Many of the phrases will make no sense at all, even in their untainted form, to a person living today, versus one living in whatever time period the chapter and verse are in. Here's the proof: https://studybible.info/interlinear/jonah%203:10.htm Notice that "turning from their evil way" was a work, but God changed his mind/repented. From my previous post: Mistranslation bigtime. Hebrew Genesis 6:6 6 ADONAI regretted that he had made humankind on the earth; it grieved his heart. Look at Luther's translation from original Hebrew of Genesis 6:6... 6. da reute es ihn, da er die Menschen gemacht hatte auf Erden, und es bekmmerte ihn in seinem Herzen 6. Then He regretted that He had made men on earth, and it grieved Him in His Heart. Latin Vulgate 6. paenituit eum quod hominem fecisset in terra et tactus dolore cordis intrinsecus 6. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart within him If you're relying on King James Translation published in 1611, it's several iterations down the road of translations from different languages, left to English scholars from the 3 major universities assigned by the King's Hampton Court Commission in 1604, and the nightly arguments about how to do the translation correctly after each individual scholar went off on their own for the day to translate specific chapters, then reconvened with their team every evening to debate the accuracy of the translations. You can see the failure in where things went of the rails with the Lord "repented" verses going back to Jerome, who was commissioned by Pope Damasus I in 382 to translate the Old Latin texts that had been translated from what the early Church fathers had. We have a perverted translation of Holy text passed on through the last 1637 years. It is interesting to watch an argument in favor of translations that were handled very poorly, then standardized with King James. Martin Luther's translation makes much more sense when looking at the Hebrew, spiritual, and doctrinal considerations. You're off in left field with Latin and German, when the Greek Old Testament (LXX), translated 100 years before Christ by 70 native Hebrew and Greek speaking scholars, and used by the Apostles (the real ones), settles the issue. The Hebrew word for "repent" (nacham, which literally means "to sigh") is always translated as metanoia, "a change of mind". Anyways, your agenda is to undermine the Bible so you can then sell people on a book that has no original text and is claimed to be translated from a non-existent language, so you really have no argument here. We're in agreement that it is incorrect to translate the Hebrew into "repent". I believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. When it has been mishandled by men over the millennia, excluding books here, changing meaning there, it requires a lot of study to get to the root meanings. My agenda is the truth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2019 1:04:10 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I sin, fairly regularly, in various ways that are equally condemned. We all have our crosses to bear. The difference between me (and literally most other Christians) and the political LGBT crowed is that I neither celebrate my sin, nor demand my church celebrate and accept my sin. I just try to do better. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Read the bible homosexuality along with other sexual depravity is an anathema to Christianity... 
I'm not giving anyone a free pass, but people do tend to cherry pick which sins they get upset about. The difference between me (and literally most other Christians) and the political LGBT crowed is that I neither celebrate my sin, nor demand my church celebrate and accept my sin. I just try to do better.  I don't argue with that. I'm not saying that something that is called a sin in the Bible isn't a sin. I guess I'm saying that someone who also sins (in a different way) shouldn't get super high-and-mighty and do the "but that's different" about their sin, while getting all sanctimoniously condemning about someone else's.Someone who won't acknowledge their sin and feels that there's nothing wrong is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2019 1:09:08 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, all sin is bad. That's why we have repentance. This isn't about cherry-picking sin, though. It's about changing doctrine. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
There's all sorts of stuff about all kinds of sexual immorality in the Bible. One of my friends likes to play the "homosexuality is condemned in the Bible!" card while he has behaved in ways that are equally condemned. But that's different...
I'm not giving anyone a free pass, but people do tend to cherry pick which sins they get upset about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2019 1:14:17 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What I'm thinking of is someone who is doing something sinful while pointing at someone else doing something sinful and getting all pissed about it. If that were pointed out (hey, you're doing stuff that's also condemned) they wave it away like, "But that's different." That's cherry-picking. My sin is okay (or not that bad) but that guy over there, his sin is sooooo bad, let's focus on how bad he is! What particular sin other than homosexuality do you feel the church is being asked to celebrate/normalize/portray as heroic/ etc...??? ETA: Example- Drunkenness... Do you see anyone here demanding alcoholic clergy? Murder- Do you see anyone demanding clergy having actually participated in genocide? Adultery- do you see anyone demanding preachers who try poaching the flock’s spouses? I’m not seeing it. I’m not even gonna go into bestiality... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2019 3:16:03 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What I'm thinking of is someone who is doing something sinful while pointing at someone else doing something sinful and getting all pissed about it. If that were pointed out (hey, you're doing stuff that's also condemned) they wave it away like, "But that's different." That's cherry-picking. My sin is okay (or not that bad) but that guy over there, his sin is sooooo bad, let's focus on how bad he is! |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2019 4:50:03 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
I don’t understand where people keep getting this. What particular sin other than homosexuality do you feel the church is being asked to celebrate/normalize/portray as heroic/ etc...??? ETA: Example- Drunkenness... Do you see anyone here demanding alcoholic clergy? Murder- Do you see anyone demanding clergy having actually participated in genocide? Adultery- do you see anyone demanding preachers who try poaching the flock’s spouses? I’m not seeing it. I’m not even gonna go into bestiality... This predates the whole Methodist church trying to celebrate homosexuality. I'm not onboard with that. Quoted: Ahhh. I have my own sin to worry about. I'll help out another with theirs If possible, but I'm too busy to judge it. That doesn't mean I want to mainstream their sin, though. I'm just saying on a personal level, I've seen many people turn a blind eye to drunkeness, whoring around, all sorts of things, but when it's gay people—oh wait—THAT'S DIFFERENT and they cite the Bible as their reason for being so offended. That doesn't wash. When the Apostle Paul condemned homosexuality, it rang true because he was consistent in how he lived his life. When Joe Whorearound condemns it...not so much. It doesn't mean that Joe Whorearound is biblically "wrong" when he condemns homosexuality... but really? Him? With how he lives, he gets all high and mighty? You see what I'm saying here? ETA: I personally take a "pray for them and love them" stance towards gay people. (Just like I should do for everybody.) Jesus didn't command that I make gay people's lives miserable. I do wonder why some gay people believe they were born that way. I don't understand that. But that is neither here nor there. I'm just saying that you can't go wrong by praying for God's best for them and not being an asshole to them. (But if they want to get my church to perform their wedding, they will get a polite refusal. I'm just saying.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2019 5:28:31 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I understand that. I'm just saying that plenty of people have their own Biblically-condemned sins to worry about, but they get very exorcised about homosexuality while waving away their own faults. If you were to point out that their whoring around wasn't exactly sanctioned by the Apostle Paul either, they'd look at you blankly. This predates the whole Methodist church trying to celebrate homosexuality. I'm not onboard with that. I'm very old-fashioned about church. I think church should be where we are held to a higher standard. We don't need to water it down by letting this thing or that thing now be acceptable. Other churches have already done that. We don't have to have EVERY church do that. I'm just saying on a personal level, I've seen many people turn a blind eye to drunkeness, whoring around, all sorts of things, but when it's gay people—oh wait—THAT'S DIFFERENT and they cite the Bible as their reason for being so offended. That doesn't wash. When the Apostle Paul condemned homosexuality, it rang true because he was consistent in how he lived his life. When Joe Whorearound condemns it...not so much. It doesn't mean that Joe Whorearound is biblically "wrong" when he condemns homosexuality... but really? Him? With how he lives, he gets all high and mighty? You see what I'm saying here? ETA: I personally take a "pray for them and love them" stance towards gay people. Jesus didn't command that I make their lives miserable. I do wonder why some gay people believe they were born that way. I don't understand that. But that is neither here nor there. I'm just saying that you can't go wrong by praying for God's best for them and not being an asshole to them. (But if they want to get my church to perform their wedding, they will get a polite refusal. I'm just saying.) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I don’t understand where people keep getting this. What particular sin other than homosexuality do you feel the church is being asked to celebrate/normalize/portray as heroic/ etc...??? ETA: Example- Drunkenness... Do you see anyone here demanding alcoholic clergy? Murder- Do you see anyone demanding clergy having actually participated in genocide? Adultery- do you see anyone demanding preachers who try poaching the flock’s spouses? I’m not seeing it. I’m not even gonna go into bestiality... This predates the whole Methodist church trying to celebrate homosexuality. I'm not onboard with that. Quoted: Ahhh. I have my own sin to worry about. I'll help out another with theirs If possible, but I'm too busy to judge it. That doesn't mean I want to mainstream their sin, though. I'm just saying on a personal level, I've seen many people turn a blind eye to drunkeness, whoring around, all sorts of things, but when it's gay people—oh wait—THAT'S DIFFERENT and they cite the Bible as their reason for being so offended. That doesn't wash. When the Apostle Paul condemned homosexuality, it rang true because he was consistent in how he lived his life. When Joe Whorearound condemns it...not so much. It doesn't mean that Joe Whorearound is biblically "wrong" when he condemns homosexuality... but really? Him? With how he lives, he gets all high and mighty? You see what I'm saying here? ETA: I personally take a "pray for them and love them" stance towards gay people. Jesus didn't command that I make their lives miserable. I do wonder why some gay people believe they were born that way. I don't understand that. But that is neither here nor there. I'm just saying that you can't go wrong by praying for God's best for them and not being an asshole to them. (But if they want to get my church to perform their wedding, they will get a polite refusal. I'm just saying.) For the most part the other sinners (all of us are sinners of course) don’t demand that our sins be sanctioned and celebrated by the church. I’ll take your example of “Joe Whorearound” and use it. The difference seems to be that Joe isn’t trying to force the church into celebrating and sanctioning his immoral behavior. If he were to come to church with his “whore” dangling on his arm, wife on the other, demand you change your way of thinking about him, “accept” that it’s now “moral” behavior, and then force the church into officially sanctifying his adulterous relationships via some kind of official ceremony, all in spite of scripture, then I’d agree they were the same. Buuut... that isn’t happening in any kind of organized movement, so I don’t think they are. I don’t hate gay people for being gay. I DO hate the acts of some in celebrating a sin while rubbing my face in it constantly, demanding I change my views, and then demanding I restructure my very faith to incorporate a celebration of their behavior, all while defying scripture completely. Maybe I’m wrong or missed it, but nowhere else do I see a similar group trying to intentionally fracture the church and turn scripture on it’s head to push their agenda. I believe this is the primary reason you are seeing a stronger reaction to homosexuality from many of us vs. other sins. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2019 6:39:34 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don’t mean this to sound argumentative or confrontational (not singling you out- your post/reply is just handy for what I’m talking about in general): For the most part the other sinners (all of us are sinners of course) don’t demand that our sins be sanctioned and celebrated by the church. I’ll take your example of “Joe Whorearound” and use it. The difference seems to be that Joe isn’t trying to force the church into celebrating and sanctioning his immoral behavior. If he were to come to church with his “whore” dangling on his arm, wife on the other, demand you change your way of thinking about him, “accept” that it’s now “moral” behavior, and then force the church into officially sanctifying his adulterous relationships via some kind of official ceremony, all in spite of scripture, then I’d agree they were the same. Buuut... that isn’t happening in any kind of organized movement, so I don’t think they are. I don’t hate gay people for being gay. I DO hate the acts of some in celebrating a sin while rubbing my face in it constantly, demanding I change my views, and then demanding I restructure my very faith to incorporate a celebration of their behavior, all while defying scripture completely. Maybe I’m wrong or missed it, but nowhere else do I see a similar group trying to intentionally fracture the church and turn scripture on it’s head to push their agenda. I believe this is the primary reason you are seeing a stronger reaction to homosexuality from many of us vs. other sins. I understand the distinction you're trying to make. All I'm saying is that plenty of Joe and Jane Whorearounds would be quite butthurt if a fellow Christian or church pastor called them out for whoring around. They may not demand that the church sanction their whoring officially, mainly because they're so used to everyone not saying anything about it in the first place. They think it's no big deal. If anyone actually pointed out how the Bible condemns it, they'd be like ??? Because obviously, that's different. I'm basing this on what I've personally witnessed, as well as complaints I've heard from preachers (well, I've read complaints or heard in their sermons). Whoring around with the opposite sex is one thing, but whoring around with the same sex is a whole 'nother thing! That's what some people think. It really does depend on the church, and how regular a church-goer they are. I wouldn't imagine that every church would let that kind of behavior slide. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2019 7:29:36 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I understand that. I'm just saying that plenty of people have their own Biblically-condemned sins to worry about, but they get very exorcised about homosexuality while waving away their own faults. If you were to point out that their whoring around wasn't exactly sanctioned by the Apostle Paul either, they'd look at you blankly. This predates the whole Methodist church trying to celebrate homosexuality. I'm not onboard with that. I'm very old-fashioned about church. I think church should be where we are held to a higher standard. We don't need to water it down by letting this thing or that thing now be acceptable. Other churches have already done that. We don't have to have EVERY church do that. I'm just saying on a personal level, I've seen many people turn a blind eye to drunkeness, whoring around, all sorts of things, but when it's gay people—oh wait—THAT'S DIFFERENT and they cite the Bible as their reason for being so offended. That doesn't wash. When the Apostle Paul condemned homosexuality, it rang true because he was consistent in how he lived his life. When Joe Whorearound condemns it...not so much. It doesn't mean that Joe Whorearound is biblically "wrong" when he condemns homosexuality... but really? Him? With how he lives, he gets all high and mighty? You see what I'm saying here? ETA: I personally take a "pray for them and love them" stance towards gay people. (Just like I should do for everybody.) Jesus didn't command that I make gay people's lives miserable. I do wonder why some gay people believe they were born that way. I don't understand that. But that is neither here nor there. I'm just saying that you can't go wrong by praying for God's best for them and not being an asshole to them. (But if they want to get my church to perform their wedding, they will get a polite refusal. I'm just saying.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2019 8:11:35 AM EDT
[#27]
I didn't read the 10 pages above, but the vote is in and the press is obviously disappointed:
------------------------------------ Feb 26 (Reuters) - The United Methodist Church voted on Tuesday to uphold and strengthen its ban on same-sex marriage and LGBT clergy in a move likely to alienate large numbers of followers who had pushed for reform. By a vote of 438-384, delegates from around the world attending the church's General Conference in St. Louis reinforced a United Methodist Church policy established in 1972 stating that "the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching." Known as the Traditional Plan, the new policy includes penalties for breaking its rules and asks those who will not obey it to find another church. The Traditional Plan is designed to serve as a coherent United Methodist Church policy on LGBT clergy and their marriage practices after years of inconsistency among individual United Methodist churches, with some churches denouncing homosexuality as a sin and others embracing gay and lesbian clergy members. Before opting for the Traditional Plan, delegates rejected an alternative known as the One Church Plan, which would have allowed individual churches to decide whether to perform same-sex marriages and welcome gay and lesbian clergy members. Under that plan, the statement that homosexuality is at odds with Christianity would have been eliminated. The vote roiled many in America's second-largest Protestant denomination. Tom Berlin, a delegate, told Reuters that some supporters of the One Church Plan held small protest demonstrations afterward. ------------------------------ There's more here: http://news.trust.org/item/20190227000549-5u92j |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2019 8:54:01 AM EDT
[#28]
The sky is falling!! Read more here.
United Methodists tried to come to terms with a General Conference that was meant to unify but instead underscored divisions and had all sides acknowledging a high level of pain.
“Catastrophic” was the summary judgment of the Rev. James Howell, a Western North Carolina Conference delegate. “The church as we’ve known it will not be. It’s going to fracture in ways — different ways,” he said. Leaders of the United Methodist seminaries joined in a statement imploring that the Traditional Plan be rejected, arguing it would drive young people in the U.S. from ministry in the denomination.
“If the Traditional Plan passes, we will very soon lose an entire generation of leadership here in the United States,” they said. The Rev. Kah-Jin Jeffrey Kuan, president of Claremont Theological Seminary, said the seminaries’ unhappiness with the Traditional Plan’s passage runs deep.
“Some of our seminaries may consider whether to leave the denomination,” he said. The Rev. Susan Henry-Crowe, top executive of the denomination’s United Methodist Board of Church and Society, registered her dismay in a statement. “The United Methodist Church’s special General Conference failed Tuesday (Feb. 26) to love LGBTQIA people, recognize their gifts in the church, maintain our unity in the midst of diversity, and to live out our Gospel mandate to seek justice and pursue peace,” she said. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2019 9:28:23 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lutheran Church Missouri Synogogue |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2019 9:31:54 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lutheran Church of Finland went full LGBTQ retard and purged their ranks as a result. Thousands quit Lutheran church in Finland after its Archbishop came out in favour of same-sex marriage https://im.mtv.fi/image/5951588/landscape16_9/1024/576/8c217ae51381a5960c792fb8fdf9606d/Jq/piispat.jpg Meanwhile in Sweden..... http://www.truthandaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/lesbian-bishop.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2019 9:35:28 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "The Burns family ran a general store in a one store town and still managed to do badly. They were Methodist, a denomination my father always referred to as Baptists who could read." |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2019 9:39:21 AM EDT
[#32]
Don't worry, fags. You'll just try again every year until you get what you want.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2019 9:39:24 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wonder what would happen if a church in a lib area like San Francisco or New York City flew these flags? https://www.gettysburgflag.com/media/catalog/product/cache/2/thumbnail/520x416/602f0fa2c1f0d1ba5e241f914e856ff9/t/h/thin-blue-line-usa-waving_1.png |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2019 9:55:26 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is a YUUGE beef with me about the UMC. They assign pastors rather than letting the congregation interview candidates and make a selection. In other words, no one in the congregation is invested in the new pastor. The new pastor may or may not 'fit in' to the community or the congregation for that matter. I was on the Pastor-Parish relations committee at my church when our long-time pastor was moved away by the UMC. Our pastor was a dynamic evangelist who really grew the size of the congregation and inspired lots of improvements. The new pastor was a guy looking for a place to land until retirement in a few years. No energy, no vision, no charisma. He could give a good sermon but that was all. Unfortunately he could go from zero to angry asshole in about five seconds. Next pastor the UMC sent us was a woman. All hell broke loose. Waves of people left the church. We could have told the UMC not to send us a woman but that advice would fall on deaf ears. Ever since then, our church is a shadow of its former self. Very sad, really. Now we have a 60 year old man but he's a SJW. Nice guy and somewhat energetic, but still when sitting in the pew on Sunday morning, I feel I am being preached at instead of preached to. There's no doubt in my mind that we won't rise again until we can select our own pastor. For that reason among others, I advocate a split and a new rule with whatever body we join that we can pick our own pastor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2019 10:15:30 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
https://juicyecumenism.com/2019/02/23/african-united-methodists-wont-trade-bible-for-dollars/ What he talks about is the same exact shit that US and European Catholic and Anglican leaders said about their African brothers in the past on similar issues. See: https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2014/10/dont-listen-to-the-africans-says-catholic-cardinal Leftists are racists. And note the threat: "Be progressive or lose money". |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2019 10:21:09 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Source, other than "Army contractor guy?" Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: What do "reformation" mean? The Roman Catholic church had long adopted paganism and ignored Christ by the time that happened. Besides, I hear there is a Go-Fund-Me to raise money to buy Martin Luther an indulgence ..... Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Catholicism (emphasis mine) "The missionary history of the [Catholic] Church clearly shows her adaptability to all races, all continents, all nations. In her liturgy and her art, in her tradition and the forming of her doctrine, naturally enough she includes Jewish elements, but also elements that are of pagan origin. In certain respects, she has copied her organization from that of the Roman Empire, has preserved and made fruitful the philosophical intuitions of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, borrowed from both Barbarians and the Byzantine Roman Empire—but always remains herself, thoroughly digesting all elements drawn from external sources...In her laws, her ceremonies, her festivals and her devotions, she makes use of local customs after purifying them and "baptizing" them. " |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2019 10:30:27 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is it your assertion that Catholic doctrine does not follow the Bible? https://gunowners.wordpress.com/2012/11/01/st-gabriel-possenti-patron-saint-of-gun-owners/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2019 10:32:15 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Of course we follow the Bible. The scriptures are central to Catholic doctrine. Are you suggesting otherwise? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Is it your assertion that Catholic doctrine does not follow the Bible?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2019 10:33:04 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
#2 could've happened decades ago. To their mindset it is not optional. They won't stop until they get their way. Then they walk away from it after they screw it up. This is the modus operandi for the LGBTWTFBBQ movement. Destroy tradition/morale/decorum/principles and then move on to the next host body. They just haven't quite been able to put ole John Wesley out to pasture yet. There are quite a few people that are shifting from "hate the sin but love the sinner" because they have finally figured out that with this particular cause the sinner hates you and wants to destroy your organization. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2019 10:40:04 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Catholic here. The Catholic Church does a better job of following the Bible than any other organized religion. But they miss the mark by a mile and the leadership will be the least in heaven. IMHO. I'm a Republican Baptist ....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2019 10:41:49 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There's this thing called the internet - maybe you heard of it? Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Catholicism (emphasis mine) "The missionary history of the [Catholic] Church clearly shows her adaptability to all races, all continents, all nations. In her liturgy and her art, in her tradition and the forming of her doctrine, naturally enough she includes Jewish elements, but also elements that are of pagan origin. In certain respects, she has copied her organization from that of the Roman Empire, has preserved and made fruitful the philosophical intuitions of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, borrowed from both Barbarians and the Byzantine Roman Empire—but always remains herself, thoroughly digesting all elements drawn from external sources...In her laws, her ceremonies, her festivals and her devotions, she makes use of local customs after purifying them and "baptizing" them. " |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2019 10:43:36 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Please to quote me the scriptures that outline the procedures for purchasing an indulgence to get someone out of purgatory, or torturing Jews to get them to convert. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2019 10:46:35 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm fine with non-practicing homosexuals seeking relief from their affliction in church, same as I'd be for an alcoholic for example. What I have an issue with are open practitioners of it attempting to reinterpret God's word to suit themselves. Even worse is church leadership attempting to openly engage in apostasy to further that agenda. YMMV. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The LGBTQ community doesn't want to hear the truth: homosexuality is sin. Ultimately, I don't oppose open homosexuality in churches because it's a worse sin than others. What I oppose is the unrepentance and acceptance of a homosexual leader. YMMV. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2019 10:47:28 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My experience with the UMC is that the conference would change out the pastor if a given congregation was too conservative in their views. An incompatible SJW type would be sent in to "fix" the congregation and usually drive off the more conservative members. I've seen it happen in at least a half dozen local congregations that my wife and I and other friends and family have attended. The conference selects the pastor and the congregation has very little say in the matter. A pastor in the UMC almost has to commit a crime before a congregation can have him/her replaced. In the one my wife's family attended for the past 50+ years, the congregation petitioned the conference/bishop to get rid of an SJW woman pastor who recruited openly gay women to attend and then pushed to have them in leadership roles while pushing out more conservative members. We got rid of her and the conference sent a replacement who was worse. I was a trustee there for a few years and the more involved I got, the more I realized the apple was rotten to the core. We left and never looked back. We saw virtually the same scenario play out at many other local UMC congregations over the next few years where friends and family attend. Stick a fork in it, it's done. After a few months, we noticed that the family members weren't in church on Sundays. Someone noticed that their Facebook accounts showed at vacation spots like the beach and hiking in the mountains. Interesting that they were unable to work, but they able to drive 6-8 hours and go on vacation. Most of the ministers nowadays seem to be SJW. There seem to be very few "normal" young people that want to get into Methodist ministry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2019 10:47:40 AM EDT
[#45]
At breakfast this morning, I was talking about this to a retired Methodist minister. Its no surprise that he is a traditionalist and was happy with the outcome.
He stated that this issue had been a sore spot for quite a while. This vote was supposed to put it to rest once and for all. I told him that was a fine theory. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2019 10:53:27 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why don't they just go form their own church instead of changing the UMC? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's fairly simple: the United Method Church has affirmed that you must follow biblical rules to be a pastor. LGBTQ folks are enraged by this decision. This is why people within the Catholic Church started dismantling traditional Catholic doctrine in the 1960's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2019 10:54:10 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I sin, fairly regularly, in various ways that are equally condemned. We all have our crosses to bear. The difference between me (and literally most other Christians) and the political LGBT crowed is that I neither celebrate my sin, nor demand my church celebrate and accept my sin. I just try to do better. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Read the bible homosexuality along with other sexual depravity is an anathema to Christianity...
I'm not giving anyone a free pass, but people do tend to cherry pick which sins they get upset about. The difference between me (and literally most other Christians) and the political LGBT crowed is that I neither celebrate my sin, nor demand my church celebrate and accept my sin. I just try to do better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2019 11:03:50 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LOL..."please knock down my Elizabethian England propaganda!" Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Please to quote me the scriptures that outline the procedures for purchasing an indulgence to get someone out of purgatory, or torturing Jews to get them to convert. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2019 11:04:16 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Please direct me to the verses in the Bible that call for, for example, a patron saint of gun owners.... https://gunowners.wordpress.com/2012/11/01/st-gabriel-possenti-patron-saint-of-gun-owners/ Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Is it your assertion that Catholic doctrine does not follow the Bible? https://gunowners.wordpress.com/2012/11/01/st-gabriel-possenti-patron-saint-of-gun-owners/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2019 11:17:11 AM EDT
[#50]
The liberal media reports "the Methodist church may split", you can't believe everything you read in the media. I think the liberal Methodist members will convert to Catholicism. This is what happen when people identify based on their sexual deviation. As someone in this group once said "I like big boobed redheads but I'm not having a parade over it".
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
