d taylor said:

-
​

If you read his short article, he compares the account of Zacchaeus to the Parable of the Lost Sheep

Luke has already prepared the reader for this understanding of the Lord’s words to Zacchaeus. In chapter 15 we find another of the Lord’s famous parables–the Parable of the Lost Sheep. He speaks of a man with 100 sheep. They are all sheep and all, therefore, represent believers. Ninety-nine of the sheep remain with the shepherd and experience the blessings of that communion. One, however, wanders away and experiences the danger and loss of such communion. But the shepherd, who clearly represents Christ, goes to find and save that lost sheep.

So Zacchaeus was a lost believer and a believer is a born again child of God. So like i originally wrote.

Zacchaeus was already a born again believer, he was just a lost born again believer.

Click to expand...

I read the article and it's actually geared toward Dr. Yates iteration of the Baptist belief of "Eternal Security", a position that I personally do not believe. It's one of those beliefs that I do not share with Dr. Yates. I didn't see where he actually used the phrase "lost born again believer" in those words, but I can see where you get the idea from his definition of lost and his explanation where he refers to Zacchaeus as both saved and lost, something akin to the Baptist description of a "back slidden" Christian. Personally, I believe one is either saved or lost. It's black and white. There's no in between and no ambiguity in Christ's teachings on the matter despite what some may intimate. I notice that Dr. Yates was honest about the fact that his opinion on the matter does not agree with most Bible commentaries. (and he's correct) That's one thing I admire about the man, he's pretty honest. As I noted before that doesn't mean I agree with everything he says. I was somewhat surprised at the actual theme of the article as I didn't recognize the inferences to Eternal Security in the portions that you quoted, otherwise I would have mentioned that I disagree.

Oompa Loompa said:

Yes.

Click to expand...

Ew.

That's gross

Oompa Loompa said:

It is my argument that women should not be humiliated for entertainment.

Click to expand...

I have never in my life heard the opposite. Are there people advocating for the opposite?

All Becomes New said:

Why do you assume the two are mutually exclusive? The rituals for the early priests of Judaism were thought to be VERY personal. They were dealing with other people, taking their animals, slaughtering them, and then burning them and eating them. They believed what they did was meaningful just as much as you do. Jesus was literally a Rabbi. He was a practicing Jew. He came to fulfill the Law... All those ceremonial things. The whole idea that it is just personal without ANY religion is to rob Jesus of His Jewishness.

Click to expand...

Well, I think the Jews were given that religion because they needed a religion and if God did not give them one they were already making one up, and theirs was defiling themselves.

Similarly. God did not intend for them to have a Human King, but that He would be their King and they'd live righteously, and any civil affairs would be taken care of by the Levite priests. But they wanted a King, so God gave them one.

I guess what I should be asking is does God desire all the religious rituals?
or does God simply acquiesce to a need we have developed since the fall, like He acquiesced to the Israelite's perceived need to have a king over them?
if the first, then.. that is where this internal struggle comes from, the question of why did God not demand religious ritual in the garden, but afterwards, it seems like its the primary reason He does anything. The question of why does God have a need or desire for such a.. sorry to say, vain thing as having ego stroked by others. It comes across as petty.
If the second.. I can understand, that He, the supreme, almighty creator, has no needs, much less a need that we do all this religious ritual for Him, like it does nothing for Him it's for us because WE have a need. That I can grasp.

Does God deserve all the fawning and worship? He's the only being who does.
However the desire of such a thing.. would be disappointing, and petty.

I don't know if I can quite get the concept out in words, the idea that He deserves something but if He desires it and makes it His primary motivation, it makes it all... less.

BobRyan said:

If you object to my NASB reading of Rom 13 - you are free to state why it is wrong.

so far you are not addressing a single point in this quote of Rom 13 and my comments.

Rom 13:

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.​

Now lets keep in mind that the Christians were living under the tyranny of Rome - one of the worst governments in human history.

Rome would kill Paul, kill Peter, kill Christ and persecute Christians. Domitian tried to kill the apostle John


AI says this about that issue

"The Pagan Roman Empire could be considered harsh and tyrannical at times, especially under certain emperors who were known for brutality and paranoia. While the empire also experienced periods of stability and good governance, figures like Nero, Domitian, and Caligula are remembered for their tyrannical reigns"​

So then - even in the case of one of the worst of governing empires - Rom 13 was penned.


indeed - I find that they do at times have novel interpretations.

no doubt many ideas exist and some even propose reasons why the straightforward reading of Rom 13 should not be accepted.

But even so - you have not addressed a single point raise by that quote of Rom 13.

Click to expand...

As stated, entire books are written on Romans 13. I offered you that material from multiple authors who have addressed everything you have stated and much more. I will write an article on this in the future. But it will be sub par compared to those authors i mentioned.

BPPLEE said:

Court Docs Reveal Ex-Husband of MS-13 Member's Wife Fears for His Children’s Lives — Warned Authorities She’s Dating a “Gang Member” | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft

Newly unearthed court documents reveal that the ex-husband of a "U.S. citizen," now married to a deported illegal immigrant linked to the notorious MS-13 gang, warned in 2018 that his children’s lives were at risk. Yet despite mounting evidence tying Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the brutal criminal...

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Court Docs Reveal Ex-Husband of MS-13 Member’s Wife Fears for His Children’s Lives — Warned Authorities She’s Dating a “Gang Member”​

Click to expand...

Ultimately irrelevant - he still is entitled to due process.

Court Docs Reveal Ex-Husband of MS-13 Member’s Wife Fears for His Children’s Lives — Warned Authorities She’s Dating a “Gang Member”​

fhansen said:

If God demanded perfection first, there'd be no need of grace, no need for Christ's sacrifice. And where would you draw the line BTW, unless you believe that there are perfectly sinless pastors out there somewhere?

Click to expand...

That is abusive.

Sabertooth said:

Ahab was only forgiven of the sin he acknowledged.
That does not grant us the right to hold a grudge, however.

"Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men.
If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men.
Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written,

'Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,' says the Lord.​

Therefore

If your enemy is hungry, feed him;​

If he is thirsty, give him a drink;​

For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head.​

Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." Romans 12:17-21 NKJV

Click to expand...

Well it does say that but that also does not specifically say forgive them even if they're unrepentant.

so I guess again I have to ask, are we expected to forgive what God won't?

Godsunworthyservant said:

Good man. Roger, over and out!

Click to expand...

Others have mentioned the person who buried Jesus was rich and was saved. You reject this as well based on a technicality.

Jamdoc said:

I do too, but I want to relate personally, not through ritual.

Click to expand...

Why do you assume the two are mutually exclusive? The rituals for the early priests of Judaism were thought to be VERY personal. They were dealing with other people, taking their animals, slaughtering them, and then burning them and eating them. They believed what they did was meaningful just as much as you do. Jesus was literally a Rabbi. He was a practicing Jew. He came to fulfill the Law... All those ceremonial things. The whole idea that it is just personal without ANY religion is to rob Jesus of His Jewishness.

peaceful-forest said:

For awhile, I feel like I don't belong.

Click to expand...

I just feel like I am losing myself, and I can't stop it.

Vambram said:

This is one of my most favorite songs from AVB.

Click to expand...

Me too. Got to see 'em perform it, oh... about '89!

Why doesn't the textbook tell us that Marx participated in Satanism?

(AI search) Marx indeed believed that there was a phenomenon of money worship in capitalist society and criticized capitalism for its essential feature of money. In capitalist society, money has become an existence with twisted magic. It led to the abdication of all objects of worship, including gods, and established the position of money as the "primary value", making the concepts of "everything for money" and "money fetishism" widely prevalent. Marx, in his works such as "On the Jewish Question," examined the issue of Jewish liberation in relation to political and human liberation, revealing the social roots of religion and deeply criticizing the phenomenon of capitalist worship of money and the hypocrisy of human rights in capitalist society.

Ahab was only forgiven of the sin he acknowledged.
That does not grant us the right to hold a grudge, however.

"Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men.
If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men.
Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written,
Therefore
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." Romans 12:17-21 NKJV

Godsunworthyservant said:

That doesn't surprise me. That also sounds very much like something he would say. What's your point?

Click to expand...

If you read his short article, he compares the account of Zacchaeus to the Parable of the Lost Sheep

Luke has already prepared the reader for this understanding of the Lord’s words to Zacchaeus. In chapter 15 we find another of the Lord’s famous parables–the Parable of the Lost Sheep. He speaks of a man with 100 sheep. They are all sheep and all, therefore, represent believers. Ninety-nine of the sheep remain with the shepherd and experience the blessings of that communion. One, however, wanders away and experiences the danger and loss of such communion. But the shepherd, who clearly represents Christ, goes to find and save that lost sheep.

So Zacchaeus was a lost believer and a believer is a born again child of God. So like i originally wrote.

Zacchaeus was already a born again believer, he was just a lost born again believer.

essentialsaltes said:

Even Hannity's scraping the bottom of the barrel:

View attachment 364202

Click to expand...

They forgot renaming the Gulf of Mexico............

Tor0 said:

It doesn't help that he says he knows other women weren't for him.

Click to expand...

I am curious why this "doesn't help". But you are welcome not to explain this.

My experience is that certain women can be very upset to hear about my past women. But others can be ready to share with me about past women, and minister understanding to me.

Each person is different; so I shouldn't assume about you.

I personally understand that it can be good that I give attention to whatsoever my lady friend is talking about and doing. Or else . . . she might disappear into some gossip group or to some other guy who will give her a listening ear. And - - as much as I know about her, I can use for caring for her, possibly, if she is sick or disabled, and simply to keep her company, and so I can give her medical care providers reliable feedback about how she is doing.

If it has to do with her, be interested > Jesus knows every thing and He is interested in you in everything, right? This is included in how Jesus loves us.

So, I want to know about her past men, so I can have insight into how she has developed and how I can help her to grow in Jesus and in the real world. But welcome her to share with various people, since Jesus wants us to love everyone. And help her to love them, practically.

But yes I see how I have not shown maybe so much interest in her female friends of the past. So, may be I need to pray about this.

I would say you two need to spend time together with mature Christian couples and single older people who can share their experience and example with you.

mourningdove~ said:

I so very much agree.

I have to say, I really don't understand the dismay so often shown towards those who prefer the TLM.
Not from you personally; I'm speaking in broad generalities here.

When the N.O was introduced, suddenly the TLM was no longer the norm. And the change was sudden.

Many either made the adjustment to the N.O. or left the Church.
For many the departure was gradual, but many did leave.

All these years, those that stayed have continued in the way of the N.O.
They have no choice, if they want to remain a practicing Catholic and don't have access to the TLM.

So, the 'adjusting' that's been done has been on the part of those who prefer the TLM.
Not those who prefer the N.O.

I jumped into this thread because of comments being made about TLM people thinking they are 'special'.
I jumped in to say that that just isn't true of many of us.

What many TLM worshippers are, is sad.
We lost something very special, very traditional Catholic, and we are sad about it.
It is not 'pathological' to miss something that was once loved, to sometimes talk about it, to long to see it again.
(We do this all the time, about loved ones who have died, favorite places, etc.)

I do realize this isn't an easy subject to discuss in this forum. Most here prefer the N.O. And I respect that.
And that is why I recently voted for the Traditional forum to be reopened, so as to avoid any potential divisiveness here.

Perhaps if the new pope lifts TLM restrictions, and more posters appear with interest in the TLM, there will be the vote needed to support reopening the Traditional forum, where Traditional subjects can be discussed without potentially resulting in divisiveness.

Click to expand...

If L:atin helps one pray better, fosters a mood or disposition, then Great. I prefer N.O. because I celebrate it with other people,
But I prefer Divine Office in Latin because I pray it alone and feel more connected to the centuries.

But back to Francis. His concern was that the Latin Mass was "being used in an ideological way" in reaction to modernity, hostile to Vatican II as well as N.O. At least that is my understanding.

The issue of is it about God or about us is a both/and answer. Above all God desires a worship characterized by love, kindness and justice. God is both transcendent and immanent. A "My liturgy is more sacred than your liturgy" attitude is the antithesis of the celebration.

So, was Francis right about the ideology? Maybe for some. Who knows how many. For others maybe nostalgia. I don't thing there is anything wrong with that as long as we are clear about it.

d taylor said:

-
​

He titled his written article Saving the Lost

Click to expand...

That doesn't surprise me. That also sounds very much like something he would say. What's your point?

chevyontheriver said:

The Donatists did not accept the validity of baptism done at the hands of repentant priests who had apostasized in a persecution. Apostasy is terrible, but these people repented and were restored to ministry. Not good enough for the Donatists.

The reason it even matters is that otherwise there is no way to trust if your baptism is valid, or your confession, or your marriage, or your ordination. Because maybe the minister of those sacraments was a secret scoundrel. How do you know? In fact, given the sorry state of humanity, it might be probable that the one who provided those sacraments to you is enough of a scoundrel that you cannot trust them. The Donatist solution fails.

Click to expand...

Which is why the Catholic church teaches that even sacraments ministered by a priest in mortal sin are valid.