Hey sister! You and I both know why SteveR gets so upset. There are only two people on this forum who supports the RCC in any way. To me that in and of itself would make him use a little introspection. You and I both know that he is an ecumenicalist - period.
He gets nasty with those who disagree with him. And, he gives us no reason why we are wrong? There is no doctrine of the RCC that he can defend.
So, SteveR, why is it that only you and JohnY give the RCC credence? It would be so helpful to the rest of us if you would answer that question. A Christian will not hesitate to attempt to answer questions posed to them regarding the faith. For instance, I speak out against the RCC because I believe that literally all of their doctrines are from the pit of hell. IMO, they are satan's church on this earth because they have confused the most people.
My position on abortion is simple; it is the de-facto murder of an innocent life even though our laws donât recognize it as such. So, abortion should be outlawed and those that have an abortion and those that perform that abortion should be prosecuted for 1st degree murder. Those who assist in abortions should be prosecuted for accessory to murder. If someone performs an abortion on themselves, that is also murder.
What this would do is drive these women to undergo what used to be called back-alley abortions and then they would risk injury or disease and of course prosecution if discovered.
My remedy would definitely reduce the number of abortions.
Now if a woman is a Christian and has undergone an abortion, our Lord will forgive her completely. If she isnât a Christian she needs to confess/repent from that sin along with all others and throw herself at the mercy of our gracious and merciful Savior.
I didn't read the article, but from the title I will simply say, good for Ohio and all others who restrict this abomination.
SteveR wrote: Sex might be a big deal for you Frank, but most normal people don't choose their vocation due to sex. If you will read the NT, you will find some great figures were NOT married. You want to accuse them too? I don't endorse the RCC forbidding to marry, but don't accuse others of acting upon temptations you have
Well SteveR by now you should know that once someone starts saying things I never said or implied, then I start ignoring them. I'm sure you won't mind.
Most homosexuals will not enter into an RC seminary. They have more freedom to practice that abomination outside of a religious institution. My question was why are 33 to 58 percent of priests homosexual. You never attempted to answer that question. Setting up a scenario that doesn't exist is called a strawman argument; changing the argument to one that doesn't exist.
Now, the ones that have a pedophile problem "will" become priests for that reason because they have lots of access and they are not likely to be prosecuted. Surely you know that.
Anyway, last one to you on this issue. You have confused no one.
Mike wrote: RCC. Priests don't marry, thus it's easier for the homosexual ones to hide their dislike of women as a priest than it would be as a protestant pastor. Little to do with RCC doctrine as such, rather a convenience.
Agree and then of course they can confess that sin to each other and receive forgiveness from each other. That makes it even more convenient.
My point though was that it would not be the norm for a homosexual to attend a protestant seminary and become a pastor.
And of course, most of us realize they are tolerated by the RCC.
Chris, shoveling coal on a fire sometimes causes the fire to be seen more clearly and then it can be extinguished. Not a bad thing to do in this case!
SteveR wrote: I'm not making that argument. Child rape is a serious issue, and I'm on record here many times condemning the RCC practice of covering up the crimes. But I don't blame all 1.2 billion Catholics for those crimes, just as people don't blame the Dave type characters in Mad Max movies for all the rapes in Australia
I also don't blame all of the 1.2 billion catholics.
But, let me ask you a question. Why do you think that homosexual men are more likely to become priests, than pastors in evangelical churches? What would draw them there?
I have read where somewhere between 33 and 58 percent are known homosexuals.
SteveR wrote: And a problem in Australia "220 Australian child sailors raped, brutalised Â image: http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/u/u/ll2/hd_video_icon.jpg" New reports of child abuse across the Australian military. An investigative team is expected to provide the parliament with its findings about sexual assault in the navy. The report includes the claims of 220 child sailors who say they were raped or treated violently at the HMAS Leeu-win naval base Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a4f_1399278371#SEkIiIdQdGi5bPIt.99
I remember a catholic apologist making a similar argument as you are making here. He stated there were more children molested by protestants than by catholics. He basically was arguing that if you aren't catholic, then you are protestant. That is really illogical!
Anyway, I think the argument that ladybug is making is that catholic priests are a necessary part of a religious order and they are known for being homosexuals and pedophiles.
Like the apologist I noted, if you are more content with proving someone is wrong than in finding truth, you will make the mistake you are making.
Do you think that more homosexual men are drawn into protestant clergy or into the RCC?
Lady_Virtue wrote: Isn't she "Mrs." May, and not "Ms."? I dislike that pro-feminist title intensely, but unfortunately have seen it used for married women by the media before here in the States. I suppose the British press isn't any different...?
Hey sister I agree with your Ms. thought. I did a little internet (google) search and it appears the British use that title as well.
Anyway, the fact that she was a female holding a government position was all I needed. As soon as I noticed that, then anything she says about her god and why she serves was ignored by me.
But Narrowway certainly cleared up any social issues.
John Yurich USA wrote: Luther did not believe the Catholic Church is a Cult because he was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to know that a Cult does not worship the biblical and historical Jesus as God. The Catholic Church has always worshiped the biblical and historical Jesus as God as it states in the Apostles and Nicene Creeds "We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God. No the Catholic Church will not take me straight to Hell since I reject and repudiate all the unscriptural Catholic teachings and because I have done what the Bible states in order to be saved which is I put my trust entirely in Jesus alone for salvation.
The RCC says they worship the same god as the Muslims do. So, how can you say they are not a cult? I thought the God of Christianity was triune and of course Islam does not teach that.
Do you really realize how silly your arguments are.
SteveR wrote: No surprise, I could tell from your continuous vindictive responses you sounded like a sinner that was kicked out of the RCC. Granted, they kick people out for 'simple' stuff like divorce which is acceptable in the Protestant community, but do try to stay on topic
Well SteveR, I wasn't kicked out of the RCC, but here is my story. I remember arguing with a catholic apologist as to the evil of catholicism. I confirmed to him that I had been confirmed and baptized into the catholic faith as a teenager, After many back and forth exchanges, he told me this: "because you truly understand catholicism and reject it, you have excommunicated yourself". In other words, I was no longer invincibly ignorant.
That was one of the greatest assurances that I was in fact on that "narrow" path.
narroway wrote: "Total Depravity: Although fallen persons are capable of externally good acts (acts that are good for society), they cannot do anything really good, i.e., pleasing to God (Rom. 8:8). God, however, looks on the heart. And from his ultimate standpoint, fallen man has no goodness, in thought, word, or deed. He is therefore (completely) incapable of contributing anything to his salvation." [John Frame] Election: "Union between Christ and his people was planned already in eternity, in the sovereign pretemporal decision whereby God the Father selected us as his own. Christ himself was chosen to be our Savior before the creation of the world (1 Pet. 1:20); Ephesians 1:4 teaches us that when the Father chose Christ, he also chose us." [Anthony Hoekema]
I like that narrow view! If we aren't in Christ, then all our seemingly good works are meaningless. Total depravity is total depravity.
Our Lord never shares His glory with mankind. Without Him, we can do nothing.
 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of [his] good pleasure. (Phl 2:13 KJV)
 I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. (Jhn 15:5 KJV)
I am enjoying your comments and your thoughts about free-will. It seems certain that if someone has understanding, then of course they would exercise their free will and choose eternal life versus Godâs wrath. Who would choose wrath over eternal bliss; no one. Your logic is perfect.
I have a feeling you are debating with semi-Pelagianism and outright Pelagianism/Arminianism in the case of J4J. But, it is hard to tell from a forum like this unless someone simply states what they believe.
As you and I have discussed in private emails, free will versus Godâs sovereignty is a difficult thing to discuss. I agree with you although we may word things differently. There is nothing at all good in mankind that would draw them to the Savior. I tried to show in my previous post that understanding is impossible unless the Holy Spirit quickens our spirits and makes them alive and capable of understanding; so no free will that would lead an unsaved person to choose Christ.
Both of us give God all the glory which is as it should be. I had absolutely nothing inherently good in me to warrant His love and Salvation.
Interesting conversation and Iâm glad it is remaining civil. I just want to add the following thoughts.
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
 And you [hath he quickened], who were dead in trespasses and sins; (Eph 2:1 KJV)
 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved (Eph 2:5 KJV)
 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; (Col 2:13 KJV)
Now if something is dead, it is dead. If it is partially alive, then it isnât dead. So, my question would be what within man (whose spirit is dead and can have no spiritual understanding) can then understand the things of God.
How can an understanding within a manâs dead spirit bring about the quickening (being born again).
Christopher000 wrote: Hi John, not everyone here is as highly intelligent, as you've worded it, as you are. Instead of referring to Frank as abnormal and insane, as well as inferring the word "evangelical", as being something dirty, why not patiently instruct Frank on the reasons why it's ok for the church of Rome to teach doctrines which are diametrically opposed to God's own Word just as long as they claim to worship the biblicalÂ andÂ historical Jesus? Maybe some patience will pay off.
Another good point Chris! The catholic trolls "never" talk about the errors of catholicism. They simply do what the RCC teaches. They say that Jesus is God, but then they teach that Mary is co-redemptrix. Now what kind of a God listens to or needs someone to assist Him in anything.
The pope is correct; they do worship the same god as the Muslims do.
No, what they have done is redefine/spin all scriptural issues to confuse the foolish. And because it works so well with the lost, that is why I call them satan's church.
SteveR wrote: That isn't the first time you mentioned hearing hissing sounds. Better check with a Dr, you might have ear trauma from your years of being a Heavy Metal Rocker. Otherwise, its your dad calling you home. Either way, it wont be pleasant...poor thing
No Steve, what I think John meant by his hissing sound expression was the fact that satan is referred to as a serpent in the Garden and of course a serpent makes a hissing sound. When I read his comment, I simply thought he was comparing the RCC to satan/serpent. As you know, I actually think the RCC is satanâs church on this earth, so it was easy for me to see this.
Christopher000 wrote: Rome has evolved with the times here in the US, having to morph into something it's not, and has never been as the land became more civilized and freedom of religion came to take its place. The church can still be seen in its partial glory abroad in situations like this, and many others, not to mention santeria and voodoo, etc, being intermingled into the lives of the faithful without any public rebuke from the local churches. The church is still involved directly or indirectly in many slaughters abroad as it seeks to protect its own, or works alongside local governments to rule their part of the world.
Very well said Chris! I always say that the RCC absorbs its deviants. As long as they pay homage to Rome, such as the voodooists you mentioned, then all is okay. Remember, they say even Muslims worship the same god.
As I have often said, I was raised a catholic and back then we didnât refer to ourselves as Christians, but as catholics. Now the media and ecumenicalism have made the terms interchangeable.
The infamous crusader thought: convert and repent later.
Here are some good examples of how societal pressures and mores have led to the dilution of Christâs church resulting in compromising even the basic principles of biblical morality. Feminism is no longer even argued, but the argument is now with radical feminism; homosexuality is no longer argued, but the bar has been lowered to "gay" marriage; abortion as de facto murder is seldom noted, but now the bar has been lowered to debating reasons for abortions or for partial birth abortions; the illogical unscientific concept of evolution is largely accepted with the bar being lowered to theistic evolution; divorce is tolerated to the point where there are no consequences either in our pulpits or in our congregations; saving sex for marriage is ridiculed and the bar has been lowered to a level that I canât even define and the list could go on and on and on and on ad infinitum. The common thread that runs through this short list of compromises is that when something becomes legal and/or intellectually or morally acceptable to the âworldâ, then the church abandons the strict narrow positions of scripture and simply lowers the bar or eliminates the bar altogether.
In this manner absolute truth doesnât exist since the bar is continually being lowered.
Ladybug sent me this a while back and it matches your thoughts.
George Everard's Not of the World
Look at the great Pattern which he is bound to follow. Christ was no ascetic. He was in contact with the world at all points. He went into the house of publican and of Pharisee. He mingled with men in the streets, on the mountain side, on the sea-shore. Yet there was . . . a holy elevation, a heavenly-mindedness, a living above the world while He was in it.
So must you be if you are His follower. You must not forsake the path of common life. You must not shut yourself up in the cell of a monk, or imagine that you have nothing to do with the world to which God sends you. But while you are in the world â let your spirit rise above it. Through the indwelling presence of the Lord Jesus, live a new and heavenly life. Let your eye be upward to a Father in Heaven, and your hand engaged in doing His work.