Jim Lincoln wrote: From Google, ladybug: "Catholic (before eating) â€“ "Bless us, O Lord, and these, Thy gifts, which we are about to receive from Thy bounty. Through Christ, our Lord. Amen." [ ] (Preceded and followed by the Sign of the Cross.)[ ]" But I would certainly agree if they don't go through the pagan ritual of crossing themselves, then I at least couldn't find anything unchristian about the prayer. Ah, yes, I did find this source on, http://tinyurl.com/y8bk2mjd (Sign of the cross - what is the meaning?), which is neutral on the idea -- there's nothing in the Bible about it, however.
I'm not surprised that you were confused by this. The fact they don't belong to Christ makes it an "unchristian" prayer.
A catholic can do nothing that is pleasing to our Lord. Everything they "do or say" is to earn their salvation.
Christopher000 wrote: I should add that for me personally, I don't lump all Roman Catholics into one basket. I know there are those who don't buy into all of the various doctrines, and I know there are many who are simply ignorant to either what the church actually teaches, or to how God's Word lines up with all that they teach. The hard truth though is that we will all be held accountable in the end, regardless, and I don't believe anyone will be able to pull the, "I was tricked", or, "I didn't know" cards. God provided us with His Word for very specific reasons and His Word is available to all, so any ignorance is willful ignorance that I don't believe will be an acceptable excuse for any.
Hey Chris. Here is how I view RCs. If anyone understands their doctrine and continues to support them in any way, whether that is by attendance or through ecumenicalism, "they are lost" - period. That doesn't mean they are not part of God's elect. Many RCs leave that cult and find true faith in Christ later on. But that is none of my business. I can only ponder the here and now.
I was raised in the RC church and never understood what they taught or stood for. But, that didn't excuse me or give a pass when it came to my salvation.
Connor7 wrote: Steve, what is your definition of ecumenical? I think you're guilty of Guilt by association, in nutshell you're saying, "Ladybug quotes and agrees with such and such people, these people are Catholics, therefore ladybug is promoting Catholicism." That's what you're saying and it's ridiculous, I can agree with Hilter's quote, "He who owns the youth, gains the future." In a general sense that's true, I agree with his saying. That does not mean I am promoting Nazism, Hitler's pantheistic worldview, or anything of sort. Furthermore you said, "Not realizing it, you just Blessed Catholic Educated Doctors and their studies" can you document this? See what you're alleging is that ladybug is blessing all their studies and all their beliefs, when that is not the case, so unless you can document where ladybug promotes all their beliefs and all their studies, I'll have to dismiss your claim as an unsubstantiated attack on ladybug.
SteveR wrote: Its not all bad ladybug I was happy you brought to the attention of the board the finding by Irelands finest OB Doctors. Perhaps they are the finest in the world on this subject. If I would have mentioned this study first, its impact might have been limited because their educational platform was RCC teaching
I donâ€™t think sister Ladybug is saying that if you are against abortion, then that means you are part of the body of Christ. Many Muslims and Mormons are against this practice. You are adding to her thoughts and twisting them to suit your ecumenical agenda.
Here is an easy way of understanding this issue. Abortion is the murder of an innocent life and those that support abortion cannot be in the body of Christ because they would be guilty of practicing a sin that is clearly condemned in scripture; namely murder. The same could be said for those who practice and support homosexuality.
In all of her posts, I have never seen her even suggest that any moral issues trumps the necessity of being born again from above. That means the Lord calls us and gives us a spirit of repentance and complete faith and trust in the sacrifice the Lord made on the cross.
What a great comment below. The mere fact that Dobson has so many professing Christian followers is the reason why the gospel has been so dummied down. In order for folks like Dobson to be successful, they have to resort to ecumenicalism as their primary means of advancing conservatism. The gospel is supposed to be divisive and offensive; not building false bridges to false religions. IOW, you wonâ€™t hear him tell the RCC that they will face the wrath of God. The fact that he was offered this award means that he isnâ€™t preaching the gospel of our Lord and Savior.
I also agree with your comment about him being like the Grahams and the Huckabees.
I also agree with your comment about his ministry simply being a â€śformâ€ť of dominionism. Unfortunately his thoughts are shared by many on this forum, as you know.
Anyway, sister thanks for your post. It matched my thoughts perfectly.
John UK wrote: That's interesting Frank about dominionism. We don't have that here in Wales, unless it is by way of a secret society. I'd love to read your meditations on it, but I am so limited now in what I'm able to read. Ah well. I'm sure it is most thorough and edifying. The younger ones ought to request it. My last post was a quote of Adam Clarke, bro. I thought it was very apt, especially as award seekers/receivers reminded me of the Pharisees in the NT, who just loved those greetings in the markets, praying on the street corners, wearing distinguishing apparel etc.
There are many levels of dominionism and it goes by many names, so my meditation is very rambling.
I looked at your post this way. Since you noted Adam Clarkâ€™s name, then you didnâ€™t commit plagiarism.
The fact that you didnâ€™t use a disclaimer of what he said meant that you agreed with him.
The fact that you agree with him to me means his thoughts became your thoughts.
So, when I said that I agreed with you, it was okay.
John UK wrote: Thanks Frank. It seems there are some who disagree with my little statement. But then, I'm not a man-pleaser, so I don't let that bother me none.
Not all, but many who disagree with the â€śprincipleâ€ť of not rewarding those who preach Christ are in the dominionist camps and believe that conservatism is a way of serving our Lord and Savior. They think they have a mandate to make folks follow the teachings of Christ without the necessity of being in Christ. I canâ€™t imagine associating a political or cultural cause with being born again from above.
Well, Christ said that without Him we could do nothing and that sounds pretty conclusive. How can a branch bear fruit when it is not in the vine?
I usually ignore those folks when they respond to me or cleverly respond to me without using my moniker. I have written long meditations on dominionism and on what it means to be a stranger and an alien in this lost and fallen world. If someone wants either one, then use the email. Yes, these folks who worship works are doing the same things as the Pharisees did and that the RCC does today.
I liked your thoughts and your analogy!
Sorry this was a little off topic, but in my mind there is a connection.
ladybug wrote: Great comment brother Frank- I agree. As for Dobson, he isn't someone that should be called a follower of Christ. Yes, your assessment of him is spot on - a religious politician. Luk 17:10Â So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.Â How sad when men seek the praises of men.
Thanks sister! I'm sure we agree on this issue. Those who seek fame and use Christ to do it, are not Christian leaders.
Luke 22:24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. 25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. 26 But ye [shall] not [be] so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. 27 For whether [is] greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? [is] not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.
John UK wrote: It is opposed to the very heart of Christianity to grant awards to men. Which just shows that this is anti-Christ in practice.
I agree fully with your comment, without nuance. Publicly awarding someone for serving our Lord and Savior is to detract from the fact that if someone is serving Christ, then it has nothing to do with them, but it is all due to the grace of our Lord and Savior. Mankind, even those in the ministry, wrestle with pride, greed and the need for earthly praise and everyone should understand that.
I am one who has wrestled with pride for much of my Christian walk, so I understand this dilemma. And I thank Him that He knows every evil thought that enters into my mind and still loves me unconditionally.
I am not a fan of Dobson and simply consider him to be a religious politician.
There are lots of scriptures to support your contention.
I thought Chrisâ€™ thoughts were right on! We can often fool each other, but the Lord knows our hearts perfectly.
ladybug wrote: Jim L. Rather than point a finger at others, you would do well to examine yourself. You display no evidence of the new birth, your 'god' is politics and the democratic party. Why worry about others when your own soul is in jeopardy?
Hey Sister! I hope all is going well with you and your family. Thanks for engaging Jim. I still can't believe he continued to post, but then satan's minions all work differently.
Jim is pro-abortion and even though he posts against homosexuality, he supported the biggest proponent of that; Barack. He sometimes claims he is against feminism, but he supported their heroine. How someone can openly and shamelessly support these agendas and still claim to be in the body of Christ is beyond my comprehension.
But, thanks to you and others, his agenda is exposed.
Oh and Jim, if a woman is raped, then she can have the child and then give it up for adoption. If you understood that the unborn was really life, then you would also understand that the life in the womb hasn't done anything to be murdered.
And even though you changed Ladybug's comment to say she somewhat agreed with the life of the mother argument; she didn't say that. Read her link!
ladybug wrote: Apparently you didn't read my response... less than ONE PERCENT of ALL abortions are performed to save the mother's life - so your excuse that a baby can be murdered if the mother's life is at stake is not even legit. As a matter of fact, this article says abortions are NEVER NECESSARY to save the mother - https://www.liveaction.org/news/former-abortionist-abortion-is-never-medically-necessary-to-save-the-life-of-the-mother/ So you can quit harping about how it's necessary to kill a baby to save the mom - it just doesn't even happen enough to harp on. As for your continued push on the Jews stance on abortion, I already discredited that view in another post, which proves once again you don't read what others say, especially when you are proven wrong. Here's that link for ya, since you are so very fond of links - https://www.str.org/articles/what-exodus-21-22-says-about-abortion#.WTNnnuvyvGg Brother Frank stated he thought you would go away after Hitlery lost the election. Instead, you continue to push the Satanic/liberal agenda under the guise of 'Christian', then have the audacity to claim other trolls here are not saved. Remember, unless you are born again, you cannot see the kingdom of God.
The below says if we can identify a sluggard, then donâ€™t provide for them. We can't control our tax dollars, but we can control our personal giving.
2 Thessalonians 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
I remember the below posting and saved it because I offered to pray for her and she never responded to me. For some reason, I do save some posts that concern me. Others offered and she never responded to them either.
10/22/13 10:25 AM get real | earth
they aren't doing anything really, people like me who earn minimum are still having their tax returns garnished even though I qualify for a break because of impoverishment, I own no home or car can not afford health insurance and my taxes have been garnished for the last ten years, its like trying to pay off loan sharks, the interest alone would have paid them off ... my health is so bad I'm literally waiting to die with no money to go to the doctor, and they are taking my taxes, the only disposable income I could use for a Doctor and meds ...
Isaiah 3:11 Woe unto the wicked! [it shall be] ill [with him]: for the reward of his hands shall be given him. 12 [As for] my people, children [are] their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause [thee] to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.
It is impossible to stamp out terrorism regardless of the tactics used. Islam itself is a religion that teaches that everyone either convert, pay the infidel tax or be put to death. Those who pretend to take a milder approach are simply professing Muslims and donâ€™t believe what their faith teaches. But, there are millions who do believe this.
In the cultures of the West, you will likely never hear a politician simply say Islam itself is evil; they would simply be thought of as a religious hate-mongering bigot.
1 John 5:19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.
Revelations 13:7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. 8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
This is just so you donâ€™t confuse anyone, although I doubt you will. I have sent this to you probably 10 times without getting a response, but it is a good read anyway.
This is from a pro-life site so it is biased towards doing the right thing. Notice how it is worded versus your pro-death agenda. 99.99999 percent of abortions are for convenience sake; plain and simple. Whatever percent that is left, should be done in accordance with the below. This is just so you donâ€™t confuse anyone. http://prolifephysicians.org/app/?page_id=2
"When the life of the mother is truly threatened by her pregnancy, if both lives cannot simultaneously be saved, then saving the motherâ€™s life must be the primary aim. If through our careful treatment of the motherâ€™s illness the pre-born patient inadvertently dies or is injured, this is tragic and, if unintentional, is not unethical and is consistent with the pro-life ethic. But the intentional killing of an unborn baby by abortion is never necessary."
You are beginning to sound more like a parrot than a troll. But, neither responds to specifics that are posted and you have never responded to the above.
SteveR wrote: Well Frank, if you wouldn't use Scripture for gotcha moments instead of learning from them, you would know the Womans daughter was healed because of her great faith. Chapter 15 continues.... Matthew 15:27 Â And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table. Â Â Matthew 15:28 Â Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.
Yes, it would appear that she was sincerely reaching out for help. I am referring to those who are simply trying to push a false gospel.
Matthew 15:26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
Proverbs 9:8 Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.
Matthew 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
Yes sister, I think your admonition is good and well taken. I will sometimes engage them just to correct their obvious errors so the casual observer isnâ€™t confused, but will not enter into exchanges with them. And I will never address them as brother/sister I also think some of their comments can genuinely confuse those brothers/sisters in Christ who do not have much discernment. Our parrot is obviously a troll with some mental problems and he engages to incite dissent. That is what a troll does. We have several who fit this category on this forum.
I wonder what would happen if everyone never responded to them at all? My guess is this one would continue to post, but then who knows. But, your thoughts coincide with the above scriptures and thanks for your admonition!
1517 wrote: Frank and Ladybug, I was asking a legitimate question, not nitpicking or trying to wander off. Ladybug DID state she believes God would not have his elect remain in a dangerous organized religion. Hence, my question concerning the Reformers. There was a time, multiple times in fact, that Israel strayed into idolatry and false doctrine, but GOD still had His people in the midst. I am genuinely trying to understand how you reconcile your statements.
Not sure what historical period you are referring to, but the Jewish nation was Godâ€™s chosen people and there was none besides them. Therefore, where would those practicing Jews go to get away from those who werenâ€™t practicing?
The subject matter is not historical Israel, but the false religions of today and IMO, since Christâ€™s church began.
See I actually came up with a new word; old manitis. I wonder if Webster will add it? Nice seeing you posting sister!
ladybug wrote: 1517 I never said sinners weren't saved, I said they will not stay in a dead religion. I believe brother Frank's response covers that.
Well said sister! Good for you for not allowing this fellow to nitpick and set up rabbit trails. All you have ever said is God saves sinners and when He saves them, they will come out from false religions. Yes, my post to JY covers that very well.
I remember once posting something that I felt required me to refer to a missionary trip I made into communist Romania. Canâ€™t remember what it was, but I felt that in order to comment appropriately, that had to be revealed. It was something like IMO what I said was dependent on where I saw it and when I saw it. Anyway, he accused me of using that to exalt myself over others?
I confronted him with his insensitivity and judgmental attitude and he simply ignored me.
 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?  And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?  And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in [them]; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.  Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean [thing]; and I will receive you,  And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (2Co 6:14-18)
Well parrot, for starters the above verse 18 is dependent on verses 14-17; especially verses 16 and 17.
Now, since you attend the RCC, according to your own testimony, â€śyou are not a son of the most highâ€ť. That is your testimony and I only posted this for the occasional viewer who "might" be confused by your comment.
Are you really going to say that being a child of God is not synonymous with being saved? One is the exact same as the other. At salvation, we become children of God.
Buckeyes wrote: (TMC) @Frank Did you happen to look into the website that the term â€śalt-rightâ€ť originally came from? It was started and edited by Richard Spenser and argued for the extermination of all black people along with other KKK and Neo-Nazi positions. Therefore, Iâ€™m sure the left would be very misguided in lumping you in with those creeps!
Culturally I am certainly on the right, but do not associate that with being a Christian, and what they have done is lump me and everyone else on the right with these hate groups. They do it when it benefits their cause. Even Jim from Lincoln does this when he can.
Last night I was listening to Tucker Carlson debate a left wing civil rights attorney. The attorney said that the fellow who went after the young Muslim girl and then killed two people was part of the alt right and I think he may have went further by using Trump's name. That is when I decided to research it and I found what you said.
Anyway, Tucker apparently was ready and it turns out the fellow's facebook page actually said he was a Bernie Sanders supporter and did not vote for Trump.
This is probably poorly said because I channel flip and seldom hear all that is said by anyone. But, my point is valid.