Is the USA Now Under God's Judgement?

Originally posted by MarkJS
You're close... It's Just (as in justice).. for a person to die for their own sins.

Like I said..that's what makes God special... He cared so much for you... that He Died For You... so you would not have to. That would be above just.... and into the God-kind-of-love category. That is why it's so bad...so wrong...to ignore (T)His sacrifice.

Does that even make sense to you? That a god would have to sacrifice himself so that he can save people? Why can't he just forgive without bloodshed? Why did he make up such silly rules? My kids don't have to cut a chicken's head off for me to forgive them.

reply to post by Hydroman

Tell me about this relationship.

Personal
Off the top of my head. I will say how a person naturally should feel for their Creator. The giver of life. That is evidenced by how the person walks thru this life. A deep prayer everyday involving the Father in every way. Seeking his wisdom never going astray. Because we are not the highest intelligence in existence. That's just easy as pie to see. And makes me wonder about people who can make such a claim. Something is missing inside them.
It's called love.

Originally posted by randyvs
Personal
Off the top of my head. I will say how a person naturally should feel for their Creator. The giver of life. That is evidenced by how the person walks thru this life. A deep prayer everyday involving the Father in every way. Seeking his wisdom never going astray.

Therefore, Muslims have a true relationship with Allah? Hindus have a true relationship with Vishnu? Ancient Greeks had a true relationship with Zeus?

Originally posted by randyvs
Because we are not the highest intelligence in existence. That's just easy as pie to see. And makes me wonder about people who can make such a claim. Something is missing inside them.
It's called love.

It is easy to see? I think it is very possible that something with higher intelligence could exist. Just haven't seen it yet.

Are you suggesting that non-believers cannot love? Or don't have the capacity? Do believers have a monopoly on love?

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by MarkJS
You're close... It's Just (as in justice).. for a person to die for their own sins.

Like I said..that's what makes God special... He cared so much for you... that He Died For You... so you would not have to. That would be above just.... and into the God-kind-of-love category. That is why it's so bad...so wrong...to ignore (T)His sacrifice.

Does that even make sense to you? That a god would have to sacrifice himself so that he can save people? Why can't he just forgive without bloodshed? Why did he make up such silly rules? My kids don't have to cut a chicken's head off for me to forgive them.

Remember sin is debt

The Christian position is, there is a DEBT that must be paid. Your children will eventually die whether you forgive them or not. Your forgiveness doesnt satisfy that debt. Christ dying on the Cross forgives our debt and gives us everlasting life

reply to post by defcon5


We're getting a bit far offtopic, and can probably take up the differences between Protestant and Catholic theologies and whether Luther "fixed" Christianity or just created a new one in another thread, but I need to comment on this:

The transfer of the Title was the beginning of the Pope having earthly political power over Europe to do such things as run the Inquisitions and set the calendar. To this day we use a calendar that was set by a Pope. This is hidden very well from Catholics themselves by the Church, and there are apologists all around the net who try and muddy up this little fact, especially the exact date that it happened (this somewhat relates to the 1260 year prophecy that I mentioned above, and the protestant counter-reformation). Look it up in a History book yourself if you're not sure the information you are getting is correct.

I'm not aware of any church teaching that hides the fact that the Gregorian Calendar is named for Pope Gregory, who ordered that the Julian calendar be reformed because its inaccuracies were piling up over the centuries. Most people just don't care, and I don't know why they would.

In addition, saying that Nero was once the head of the Catholic church simply because he had a title that is similar to one used by the Pope today (and, no, "Pontifex Maximus" is not an official title of the Pope or any other church official, as published in the Annuario Pontificio,) is on a par with saying that Hugo Chávez is the natural successor to George Washington, as they are both referred to as "President."


A bit more on topic, though, I'd like to say that I'm distressed by this hatred of Catholics, whether based on actual historical facts, or not. I am not a life time Catholic -- I converted from Methodism earlier this year, based, in part, on my study of the early church, and I really thought that statements like "Catholics aren't Christians" went out of favour decades ago. However, I have seen a great deal of anti-Catholic sentiment on ATS in the past few months, and it is generally founded in ignorance of history and what the church actually teaches.

I believe that it truly grieves God when his followers quibble with each other (never mind killing each other, as in the Reformation or Northern Ireland civil war) and find it hard to believe that a loving God, who sacrificed his only son for all of us, would really care what day we worship him on, whether we believe Christ is present in the Eucharist, or whether we believe that works are reflective of salvation, rather than a part of it.

It is a demonstrably false statement to say that any Catholic or Protestant who believes in Christ, his salvation and the love that God has for us is not a Christian. As I pointed out earlier, it isn't a matter of the USA being under God's judgement, for we are all under his judgement, and how we treat other believers cannot help but be a part of that.

reply to post by Hydroman

Are you suggesting that non-believers cannot love? Or don't have the capacity? Do believers have a monopoly on love?

Of not Hydro ! Excuse the sarcasm please.

Originally posted by GeneralMishka
Remember sin is debt

The Christian position is, there is a DEBT that must be paid. Your children will eventually die whether you forgive them or not. Your forgiveness doesnt satisfy that debt. Christ dying on the Cross forgives our debt and gives us everlasting life

I have forgiven debts owed to me as well. They didn't even have to ask for the debt forgiveness. My brother-in-law owes a few hundred dollars to my wife and I. We don't hound him for it. Matter of fact, I'm not worried about it.

Now, explain to me the mechanism of blood sacrifice. How does it work? God sees the blood and says, "Finally I can forgive people because someone is bleeding." Wtf?

reply to post by DarthMuerte
Lets just hope it boils down to poor leadership. I’m good with either though.

reply to post by defcon5

Killing of Christians under the Inquisition and Papal Decrees that go directly against what is Biblically written make up the other aspects of this prophetic quote.

You're aware that less than 5,000 people were killed during the Inquisitions, right? And that the Protestants killed at least that many Anabaptists in and around the events that culminated in the Anabaptist Kingdom of Münster?

The early protestant reformers ALL realized this, not just Luther (though he was one of the first, maybe the first). Its even in the Westminster Confession of Faith that was agreed to between pretty much all the protestant faiths

If "pretty much all" means Reformed, a variety of English schism faiths and Church of Scotland, maybe. The Lutherans did not affirm this document, nor did any other European radical reformers, and the Church of England has repudiated it.

No, you're getting it backwards. The Pope, who was the bishop of Rome, accepted the Title of Pontifex Maximus for political reasons, and took on the powers of the Pontifex Maximus. This is why he is called the Holy Pontiff, the word pontiff obviously coming from Pontifex. So the popes became part of the line of Emperors.

Again, you're confusing "title" with "role" -- the term "pontiff" refers to any Bishop in the Catholic church, and "Pontifex Maximus" is not, and has never been, the official title of the Pope. Claiming that the Pope descends from the Roman religious hierarchy, rather than the Christian religious hierarchy (ie: Ignatius in the FIrst Century) is a speculative misstatement that has no basis in historical fact.

Hopefully you are beginning to understand that there is a legitimate reason why folks say that the RCC is related to the 'Beast”, the Antichrist, and isn't considered a Christian faith. All the original Protestant Churches agreed to the Westminster Confession of Faith, they all are supposed to believe and be teaching Historicism.

No, I cannot see any such reason. Citing five hundred year old conclusions and claims made by harsh critics of the Catholic church is akin to asking Romney what we should think about Obama. All you've shown so far are negative statements from sources that one would expect to make such negative statements, and wild speculation that has no basis in fact.

All of the "original Protestant Churches" did not agree to the Westminster Confession of Faith, unless you limit it to the Reformed Theology churches and a handful of others.Given the absence of the Lutheran church, your statement is far from accurate.

God clearly tells us that there will be an apostate church, and warns us about it. You bet he cares if some church, claiming him as its God, twists his word into things that it was never meant to say.

I don't disagree that the church could fall into apostasy, but given the continued similarity between the practices and beliefs of the current Catholic church and the earliest documented church, and the differences between that early church and the various Protestant churches, I'm not sure that I'd be too quick to say it's the Catholics that are in apostasy. There are plenty of much more obvious candidates among the vast variety of Protestant and near-Christian faiths.

TextAre you aware that humans are not the only creatures of this planet who can be gay? I would argue that just because they cannot make child does not mean that it is not "natural." We have scientific evidence to support that people are born that way. Where is your irrefutable evidence to support otherwise? The bible does not qualify because it has been refuted time and time again.

reply to post by Anundeniabletruth


@ Anundeniabletruth

What is natural depends upon where you are. If you lived in a homosexual environment then naturally you would believe that the practice of homosexuality was normal. That is if you also practiced this type of living.

As far as scientific evidence to prove that a man or woman was born with that disposition would really put God on the spot if it be true. I would be interested to learn just what this scientific evidence is that you have. If God made a rule that homosexuality was improper and a abomination to Him and then created a man with that disposition then God is very cruel isn't He? In other words you are telling me that God purposely created a man with the intention of burning him in ethereal fire for eternity.

Now if you have true evidence to show this as truth then I would say that It really makes no difference either way because there would be no God to argue about. Why so? Because then you have proved that God does exist as a liar. So in effect you are stating that God is a liar and a cruel God or that the people who wrote that God said homosexuality is an abomination are liars.

If you feel that you can prove scientifically that homosexuality is not of free will then please show it to all of us. If it is a compulsory malady then that individual has been robbed of free will. That is a very serious charge against the Creator. Naturally all of this hinges on whether you believe or do not believe that God exists.

One of the first problems with the whole idea, is translation. There is a big difference between God DOES and God ALLOWS. Our present translation is set up to make God look like the bad guy. Big Shock, the PTB want to make sure nobody finds the real God.

The work these guys are doing here is starting to expose just how big the errors in translation are.

www.thechronicleproject.org...

reply to post by DarthMuerte


No it is not. All I have to do is look to my children for that answer. They are bright, pure and full of life as it was intended. I will not have people like you trying to convince them that some outside force is bringing these problems upon us. I have raised them to believe that they can control their own destiny and how their actions can affect others. The more we subscribe to the notion of victimhood, the greater our problems as a nation will become. Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way.

reply to post by Seede



"What is natural depends upon where you are. If you lived in a homosexual environment then naturally you would believe that the practice of homosexuality was normal. That is if you also practiced this type of living."

At least you aren't denying that homosexuality can be something that is "naturally" occurring. Even though there is evidence to support that someone who grows up around more gay people is no more or less likely to be gay or straight. I even knew a two mom family and both of the daughters and the one son ( children were their natural children from previous relationships with deadbeat guys who didn't want to be fathers. Boy and girl are one woman's kids and the other girl is the others. They are in their 20s now and the boy, the oldest, was 7 when their moms got together. ) are completely heterosexual... unless of course they are in the closet which wouldn't make much sense seeing how their mothers were a same sex couple. I even had more gay friends in school than straight friends, I guess because I was also not allowed any of the "main" groups of teens... I am nowhere near being gay.

So people who grow up around gay people don't "turn gay." That's just some weird fear that crazy people have.

Let me just point out that I did say "evidence" and not "proof" because much like with the bible, any religious document really, I personally have yet to see "proof." But there is indeed much more that would qualify as "evidence to suggest" that many animals of this planet ( including humans ) are born homosexual, well I would think that more are born bisexual really, than there is to suggest that any religious documents might be 100% accurate.

One example is that studies have been done and do point toward a very strong possibility that if one identical twin is gay then the other will likely be as well, while there is a much lower chance of a non twin siblings being gay just because their brother or sister is. The odds of a pair of identical twins both being gay is higher than the odds of fraternal twins both being gay.

That was just one example of many that you can easily find using a search engine. It is truly undeniable that any unbiased and open minded person would support the claim that there is indeed much more evidence to support that people are born with their sexuality than there is to support that any of the earthly religions are true or real and not just stories. This is coming from someone who does believe in a higher power.

The whole anti-gay thing is just about people who want to tell others how to live, that is all. I've personally met more young people who consider themselves to be "Christian" who believe that gay people are indeed born that way than I have young "Christians" who believe it's a personal choice. I've also never met an atheist who thinks that people "choose" to be gay. Not that "atheists" have any more credibility than "Christians," the majority of both groups tend to act a bit crazy. I've also never met an Agnostic person who thinks that people just decide to be gay... outside of prison.

Originally posted by adjensen
You're aware that less than 5,000 people were killed during the Inquisitions, right?

Those numbers are put out by Catholic Apologist (Wiki is loaded with them BTW), they are far off from reality. Sort of like how holocaust deniers keep finding excuses to decrease the number killed in Germany. One of the ways that they use to do that is to start subdividing the numbers into smaller groups, and saying that others don't fit certain criteria.

For example:

Albigenses Massacre

The doors of the church of St Mary Magdalene were broken down and the refugees dragged out and slaughtered. Reportedly, 7,000 people died there. Elsewhere in the town many more thousands were mutilated and killed. Prisoners were blinded, dragged behind horses, and used for target practice.[31] What remained of the city was razed by fire. Arnaud wrote to Pope Innocent III, "Today your Holiness, twenty thousand heretics were put to the sword, regardless of rank, age, or sex."

The church keeps very strict tabs on what is going on on wikipedia, they source their own apologist writers to dispute what has been historicially written by those who witnessed the events first hand, and wrote about them.
More examples:

The Spanish monarch and his confederates acknowledged that they must have lost 400,000 men, in that tremendous conflict, and immediately after it-but the Papists boasted, that including the women and children, they had massacred more than two millions of the human family, in that solitary croisade against the southwest part of France.

-- Bourne, George, The American Textbook of Popery, Griffith & Simon, Philadelphia, 1846, pp. 402-403

So here we have a quote from the monarch of the country itself saying that he lost over 400K, and that the popes forces were boasting that number up to 2million. Today, now that its not considered politically correct behavior to put unbelievers to the sword, the church wants to lower that number to under 5000...

We know that the RCC put more then 5000 people to death just for witchcraft (yes, I am aware that others did this as well), let alone all the Protestants, Gnostics, and Jews that they put to death.

Originally posted by adjensen
And that the Protestants killed at least that many Anabaptists in and around the events that culminated in the Anabaptist Kingdom of Münster?

This happened during the time that Luther was in hiding and writing his bible, far less to do with religion, then with one individual prince. It was really about Franz von Waldeck losing part of his territory, then getting the RCC to come in an slaughter the Anabaptist peasants:

Franz von Waldeck
Franz von Waldeck's attitude towards the Reformation was ambiguous. In 1533, by treaty, he conceded full religious freedom to the city of Münster. When the Lutheran movement failed due to acts of radical Anabaptist sect, he reasserted control over the city with help from the Holy Roman Empire. Soon after the surrender Münster, which was re-Catholicised, Franz turned his influence to simply furthering the teachings of Luther. His reformation efforts in 1541 met with unified resistance in the Bishopric of Münster. In 1543 in Osnabrück, together with Lübeck Superintendent Herman Bonnus, Franz planned to introduce the Reformation. In Minden, where the Lutheran doctrine had been widely accepted even before he took office, Franz attempted in 1535 to reach out to the balance of the city beyond just the cathedral chapter. These efforts at aiding the Reformation were closely linked to his desire to have his relationship with Anna Polmann legalized and to have the three dioceses of Münster, Osnabrück, and Minden secularized, in order to create a secular territory for his heirs.

I underlined the important bit, and you can add that to the death toll of the “less then 5000” Christians you claim the RCC killed...

Anyway, Waldeck seemed to swing back and forth between both Catholic and Lutheran, as far as who would give him the best advantage at the moment. Lutherans were starting to become popular amoung the german population, and the princes had to go with whichever group that the people seemed to support, or risk a rebellion. Some stayed Roman Catholic, some became Lutheran, and Germany remains this way today (heavily split between the two religions).

reply to post by defcon5


The Albigensian Crusade wasn't part of the Inquisition, coming over four hundred years prior, which was my point.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the Catholic church, and the political powers that were intertwined with it over the centuries, doesn't have blood on its hands. What I am saying is that, in many instances, the Protestant churches have demonstrated that they are no better when they are in political power. That's why I am a staunch supporter of the separation of church and state.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by defcon5

 

The Albigensian Crusade wasn't part of the Inquisition, coming over four hundred years prior, which was my point.

Catharism (/ˈkæθərɪzəm/; from Greek: καθαρός, katharos, pure)[1] was a name given to a Christian religious movement with dualistic and gnostic elements that appeared in the Languedoc region of France and other parts of Europe in the 11th century and flourished in the 12th and 13th centuries. The movement was extinguished in the early decades of the thirteenth century by the Albigensian Crusade, when the Cathars were persecuted and massacred and the Inquisition was set up to finish the job.