The beatification.. er, beautification of Mary MacKillop
Superman
Shallow Mary makeover
*
Mother Mary MacKillop's appearance seems to have undergone a bit of a
change recently as we prepare for her to become the nation's first saint.
THE Catholic Church must think we are a shallow lot if it was deemed
necessary to airbrush Mary MacKillop to make her more appealing.
What does that say about our society that we went from beatifying her to
beautifying her because even the church has decided that truth doesn't
matter as much as marketing and mass appeal?
It's not enough that Mary MacKillop's generosity of heart and faith will
see her become Australia's first saint.
It's not enough that this humble Melbourne-born woman spent her life in
the service of the poor.
In a cruel world where - despite what the politically correct claim -
looks are everything, a frumpy elderly nun was never going to cut it as
a talent that was going to drag 'em into the pews.
I don't think Mary MacKillop would mind me saying that she was not
classically beautiful in the physical sense.
There are a handful of photographs of her, but clearly the church
decided none were appropriate for official merchandise.
So to help get the faithful to rally behind her cause for beatification,
Mary MacKillop got a make-over.
The Catholic Church transformed the woman whose face was more gritty
than graceful into something more commercially pleasing.
Mary MacKillop became a sweet-looking, rosy-cheeked girl.
The archivist of the Sisters of St Jospeh, Benedetta Bennett, said this
enhanced image of Mary MacKillop was the one most people wanted to buy.
Mary got a makeover because we would rather our saints looked, well,
saintly. We want them soft and sweet, not gritty and real.
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com
"We stopped the boats coming. The facts speak for themselves. People knew where we stood. We didn't try to be all things to all men. Look, our policy worked. There was no need to alter it" - John Howard
"Our journalists are finally noticing the elephant in the room. Rudd has given us grocery watch, fuel watch, a national dept our children will still be paying, an ETS scheme that will further bankrupt the nation without making an iota of difference to global warming. Rudd is all spin and no substance. Even worse, he expects to fool all people all the time." - media comment
"I don't care what you f__kers think!" - The Hon Kevin Rudd MP, Prime Minister of Australia
swa...@ozemail.com.au
Vatican
ignores the New Testament teachings about saints for Paul, writing to
the
Christians in the Mediterranean area, addressed them all as
'saints' (hageos).
In the New Jerusalem Bible (published 1985) the translators have
chosen to
used the phrase 'God's holy people' instead of 'saints' as was used
in
the Douay-Rheimes and Jerusalem Bible (1965). evidently realising that
as
the Bible was now available to many more people in the RC Church as it
was
taken from the Index of Forbidden Books in 1965 that sooner or later
someone
would realise that the word was not one to use of a nominated
group of Roman Catholic members,
I realised it at some time in the 1980's and had a letter published in
a local newspaper.
The fact is that the first Australian saints of the Christian faith
were Rev Richard
Johnson, the Church of England chaplain to the First Fleet (Apitl 1787
- Jan 1788)
to Australia and all those who were Christians among the others on
that epic
journey.
As for miracles Jesus said (John 14 : 12), He who believes on Me, the
works
that I do shall s/he do also; and GREATER WORKS than these shall s/he
do
because I go to My Father.
Mary McKillop did her work at a time when pubic school education was
developing
and changing in NSW especially with the 1880 Education Act.
The Vatican would not allow the RC schools to join in that programme
with
special Religious instruction given by the clergy of the Christian
denominations.
But as the Roman Catholic population increased with migration from
Europe
some Migration officers selected families with the largest number of
cbilldren.
(generally Roman Catholics)
resulting in a demand for state-aid to Private (including RC)
schools.
A walk-out of their own schools and a walk-in to Public schools was
held
at Goulburn Central School in 1962. I had been the Deputy Mistress
there
from early 1958 to late 1960. My calss was shown to have advanced
reading skills at an Education Week seminar, I had been exploring ways
to
improve word recognition skills, but when asked by two nuns from OLMC
how
I had gained the higher levels I didb't have time to explain as all
teachers were
called to lunch. and they moved away to gp with other RC nuns.
The R.C Church began to extend its Guild College from 1971 to train
lay teachers
and that became the Catholic University,
It is obvious that the RC hiersrchy is only interested in domination
over others,
and will do anything, even even to use moneys from its richest bank in
the world
in an endeavour to gain supremacy.
Gladys Swager.
duke
>On Dec 27, 4:47�pm, Superman wrote:
>> Shallow Mary makeover
>> http://tinyurl.com/ybbdfe9*
>It is sad that the Roman Catholic Church
>with its headquarters in the Vatican"
Your hatred is ruining you, gladys.
>ignores the New Testament teachings about saints for Paul, writing to
>the Christians in the Mediterranean area, addressed them all as
>'saints' (hageos).
Your problem is that you apply bible words only to your liking.
>The fact is that the first Australian saints of the Christian faith
>were Rev Richard Johnson, the Church of England chaplain to the First Fleet (Apitl 1787
>- Jan 1788)
Maybe he rejected the Word of God.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >On Dec 27, 4:47 pm, Superman wrote:
> >> Shallow Mary makeover
> >>http://tinyurl.com/ybbdfe9*
> >It is sad that the Roman Catholic Church
> >with its headquarters in the Vatican"
>
> Your hatred is ruining you, gladys.
>
have
been given in teh Rc Church is construed by you as 'hatred'.
You have a lot still to learn, Duke, but that can be said of all of
us.
You have not given me information that encourages me to accept
the teachings of those at the Vatican.
> >ignores the New Testament teachings about saints for Paul, writing to
> >the Christians in the Mediterranean area, addressed them all as
> >'saints' (hageos).
>
> Your problem is that you apply bible words only to your liking.
>
I am not the one at fault there. Those who translated teh Douay-Rheims
and
the New testament Bibles at the vatican used the word 'saints' for
the word. 'hageos'. Then the Bible translators at the Vatican must
explain
why they changed the meaning of 'hageos' to Gof;s holy people' when
they
did their revision that was published in 1985. I can only offer my
guess that
as they had organised the Jerusalem (1965) Bible to be sold in serial
form,
II bought the copies from a local newsagent in the early 1970's) that
the term
'saints' became an embarrassment as John Paul II beatified over 1000
persons
for sainthood and those came from many countries throughout the
world.
The Rc Church was 'on-a-roll' for many Papal visits throughout the
world
for quick media appearances to convert the masses without indicating
any
of the doctrines that are controversial between those of the RC Church
and
many Protestants.
> >The fact is that the first Australian saints of the Christian faith
> >were Rev Richard Johnson, the Church of England chaplain to the First Fleet (Apitl 1787
> >- Jan 1788)
>
> Maybe he rejected the Word of God.
>
You would have to read his sermons if copies of them have been kept
and
recorded in book form. My knowledge of him and his wife is that they
were
wonderful leaders to the growing population in Sydney after January 26
1788,
something that I was never taught in my history studies of Australia
at Primary
school, but which I have learnt from Internet articles.
]But the RC Church leaders in Australia have had, 'their noses out of
joint'
because a RC priest had not been included in the First Fleet. However,
the facts
of history are that the First Fleet only had a chaplain because of the
agitation of
the anti-slavery politician, William Wilberforce. The problem had been
what to send
on the five ships with over 1000 persons with provisions (some
purchased at ports
of call on the voyage) and building supplies to meet their needs on
arrival in Sydney. .
Gladys Swager
duke
>On Dec 28, 1:13�am, duke wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> >On Dec 27, 4:47�pm, Superman wrote:
>> >> Shallow Mary makeover
>> >>http://tinyurl.com/ybbdfe9*
>> >It is sad that the Roman Catholic Church
>> >with its headquarters in the Vatican"
>>
>> Your hatred is ruining you, gladys.
>Any information given that does not conform to the information you
>have been given in teh Rc Church is construed by you as 'hatred'.
No, I was talking about you, gladys.
>You have a lot still to learn, Duke, but that can be said of all of
>us. You have not given me information that encourages me to accept
>the teachings of those at the Vatican.
I can. It all comes from God.
>> >ignores the New Testament teachings about saints for Paul, writing to
>> >the Christians in the Mediterranean area, addressed them all as
>> >'saints' (hageos).
>> Your problem is that you apply bible words only to your liking.
>I am not the one at fault there.
Sure you are. You have openly shown time and again that the only meaning is the
one you choose to push. And you categorically reject using the rest of the
bible to guide you. It's your way or the highway.
>> >The fact is that the first Australian saints of the Christian faith
>> >were Rev Richard Johnson, the Church of England chaplain to the First Fleet (Apitl 1787
>> >- Jan 1788)
>>
>> Maybe he rejected the Word of God. �
>You would have to read his sermons if copies of them have been kept
>and recorded in book form.
So nobody knows, right? But a sermon(s) is not much. It's exemplary service
that counts, many times dying as a martyr for the faith.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >On Dec 28, 1:13 am, duke wrote:
> >> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >> >It is sad that the Roman Catholic Church
> >> >with its headquarters in the Vatican"
>
> >> Your hatred is ruining you, gladys.
So, any disagrement with ceertain teachings of the RC Church is
determined by you to be an expression of hatred. I have disagreed
with
the attitudes of some lay Roman Catholics and some teachings of the
RC Church for one reason and one reason only. They were wrong.
> >Any information given that does not conform to the information you
> >have been given in the RC Church is construed by you as 'hatred'.
>
> No, I was talking about you, gladys.
>
Who are you to be judge of my attitude in this matter?
You are just following the 'RC party line', but then that has been the
way
the RC Church had acted against any criticism through history.
I should be thanful that I am not living in the time sof the
Insquisition.
I wonder if Benedict XVI will bring it back as he inherited the
Inquistion
under a new name when he was a cardinal at the Vatican. But now it is
a 'carrot' that is being offered to bring about the return of persons
to Rome. .
> >You have a lot still to learn, Duke, but that can be said of all of
> >us. You have not given me information that encourages me to accept
> >the teachings of those at the Vatican.
>
> I can. It all comes from God.
>
You think you can, from the indoctrinations that you have.
Do you ever read Protestand Internet sites which give information on
what is
wrong with Rome in aspects of New Testament Christian teachings? .
> >> >ignores the New Testament teachings about saints for Paul, writing to
> >> >the Christians in the Mediterranean area, addressed them all as
> >> >'saints' (hageos).
> >> Your problem is that you apply bible words only to your liking.
> >I am not the one at fault there.
It is not a matter of 'applying words ,,, to my liking'. It is a
matter of what is
the truth and what is error. It is a matter of a church system that
wants to rule
other Christians according to its own teachings but not allowing the
teachings
full and open public debate.
> Sure you are. You have openly shown time and again that the only meaning is the
> one you choose to push. And you categorically reject using the rest of the
> bible to guide you. It's your way or the highway.
>
The Old Testament does not determine New Testament Christian theology
for Jesus Christ fulfilled the law. He was the perfect Lamb of God
slain before the
beginning of the world. The fact that the veil was ripped from top to
bottom was
God's declaration tha tthe law was superceded by the offering of Jesus
as the perfect
and final scrifice for sins. A new covenant had been instituted - teh
covenant of Grace
= God's mercy unmerited by us and given through our response of faith
in Jesus Christ.
We return in 2 Ephesians 8 - 9 and then to 1 Corinthians 3 : 11 - 15
as two references
the former for salvation not by our works and then for the reward in
Eternity for the works
of love done for Jesus Christ to bring others to him.
Where I live in all my younger years there was not a Roman Catholic
presence - I recall
my grandmother being terminally ill (near where I am now typing) but
did not know the
nursing sister caring for her was Roman Catholic. I have been told she
refused to wake
ny grandmother for the last rites and later the priest called her a
heathen at the door
of this house when my mother nformed him that she had been cremated.
(1934)
A priest came to the same door after I had sent information to the RC
Archbisop of Syney
after John Paul II had visited Sydney. Later St Vincents de paul
opened a shop locally,
a priest bcame promnent in local disturbing incidents AFTER a
Protestant-based programme
had started and a Roman Catholic person(s) went out to dominate a
Cimmunity programe -
and a Centre for Christian Unity was started in a room above shops
which when I
investigated was told its work was for teaching RC children in the
schools.
> >> >The fact is that the first Australian saints of the Christian faith
> >> >were Rev Richard Johnson, the Church of England chaplain to the First Fleet (Apitl 1787
> >> >- Jan 1788)
>
> >> Maybe he rejected the Word of God.
> >You would have to read his sermons if copies of them have been kept
> >and recorded in book form.
>
> So nobody knows, right? But a sermon(s) is not much. It's exemplary service
> that counts, many times dying as a martyr for the faith.
>
Jesus told His disciples to go into the world to 'TEACH ALL NATIONS,
BAPTISING THEM IN THE NAME OF TEH FATHER, AND OF THE SON
AND OF THE HOLY GHOST; TEACHING THEM TO OBSERVE
***ALL THINGS THAT I HAVE COMMANDED YOU***
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Dec 28, 9:56 am, duke wrote:
Something happened so that my posting was registered without my
clicking 'send'. That has never happened before and I am at a loss to
give an explanation.
> We return to Ephesians 8 - 9 and then to 1 Corinthians 3 : 11 - 15
Matthew 28 : 19
- 20
Therefore the teaching of God's plan of salvation is of more
importance to
the following of His will rather than martrydom. I have learnt that
the RC
Church has chosen to canonise (ie declare as a 'saint' members
who were was martryed. From the list of those beatified from the
1300's to the early
2000's by John Paul II a large number in groups of such persons has
swelled
the number beatified a-waiting canonisation. It does seem to me that
it has all
been a media stunt to gain public attention.
http://www.gcatholic.com/saints/jpii.blesseds01.htm
Protestants recognise that those martryed for their Protestant
understandings
of the scriptures are with the Lord waiting the resurrection from the
dead.
Gladys Swager
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Dec 28, 12:02 pm, swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> > On Dec 28, 9:56 am, duke wrote:
>
> > as two references
> > the former for salvation not by our works and then for the reward in
> > Eternity for the works
> > of love done for Jesus Christ to bring others to him.
>
> > > that counts, many times dying as a martyr for the faith.
>
> > Jesus told His disciples to go into the world to 'TEACH ALL NATIONS,
> > BAPTISING THEM IN THE NAME OF TEH FATHER, AND OF THE SON
> > AND OF THE HOLY GHOST; TEACHING THEM TO OBSERVE
> > ***ALL THINGS THAT I HAVE COMMANDED YOU***
> > Matthew 28 : 19 - 20
> Therefore the teaching of God's plan of salvation is of more
> importance to the following of His will rather than martrydom. I have learnt that
> the RC Church has chosen to canonise (ie declare as a 'saint' members
> who were was martryed. From the list of those beatified from the
> 1300's to the early 2000's by John Paul II a large number in groups of such
> persons has swelled the number beatified a-waiting canonisation.
> It does seem to me that it has all been a media stunt to gain public
> attention.
>http://www.gcatholic.com/saints/jpii.blesseds01.htm
>
> Protestants recognise that those martryed for their Protestant
> understandings of the scriptures are with the Lord waiting
> the resurrection from the dead.
Let us reconsider another important event from the 1950's.
The Billy Graham Crusades were sweeping the world.
as television was starting in the public domain.
I was given some training as a counsellor. We were told that
those who responded to the 'altar call' ie they had a desire to
commit their lives to Jesus Christ were to make their own
decision about denominational registration. Roman Catholics were
to be referred to their own church, Anglicans to their church,
and so on. Those who did not register a denomination made that
decision later. Whether all counsellors followed that instruction
I had and still.have no way of knowing.
1960 brought the Encyclical from the then Pope on the matter
of Ecumenicalism under the RC Church. Christians together,
but as far as Rome (the Vatican) was concerned together with
John Paul II when he came to Sydney in 1982 it was stated .
he said, "All ye wanderers from Rome. return."
I wonder if he made the same statement where ever he went.
to other countries especially where there was a Protestant majority.
However, he has been very badly informed, because the Protestants were
not 'wnderers from Rome', as such, they.chose to leave because of the
unBiblical teachings of the Church at Rome.
The incorrect teachings of the Popes from
1215 AD (Transubstantiation) and Purgatory (1439AD) together with
the sale of Indugences (1190AD) brought about Martin Luther's protest
in 1517AD.
I have come to think the public activity of the Vatican from 1960
and the Council (1962 - 1965) were deliberate moves to undermine
the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther's work due in 2017AD.
Again, "Protestants beware? Don't bite the 'poisoned apple"!!!!!
Gladys Swager
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Dec 28, 2:57 pm, swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> > On Dec 28, 12:02 pm, swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
It has just come to mind. I wonder if Mary Mckillop of the Nuns
working with her ever physically punished any children in the schools
she founded. The parishioners would have paid the expenses and
the construction would ahve been done by the builders.
She would probably have had the oversight of the ccontent of the
subjects
taught to the children, although the NSW Government - Education
Department
most likely would have had prepared courses of instruction.
From 1974 Education Psychologists were instructing teachers-in-
training
not to use Physical punishment on children. I was one of teh students
in
that first post-war group of students.
I wonder if Mary Mckillop used the threat of greater time in Purgatory
to manage misbehaving pupils.
I can now recall the morning when I first decided that if necessary
I would use physical punsment. I did not discuss that dicision with
other teachers. I had to teach with another teacher combining classes
for music. She would not use physical punishment. So when necessary
I had to control both classes as some children would not respond to
verbal encouragement to behave better.
At one time I used a verse from the Old Testament book of Proverbs
for the use of Physical punisment ...and it worked. The child's
behaviour improved greatly - with no more behaviour problems in class
or on the playground.
I was unaware that about thirty years later the media in Sydney
would
take up the issue of the physical punishment of children prompted
by the Psychologists.
> > > We return to Ephesians 8 - 9 and then to 1 Corinthians 3 : 11 - 15
> > > as two references
> > > the former for salvation not by our works and then for the reward in
> > > Eternity for the works
> > > of love done for Jesus Christ to bring others to him.
Gladys Swager- -
duke
<swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>On Dec 28, 9:56�am, duke wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> >On Dec 28, 1:13�am, duke �wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
>> >> >It is sad that the Roman Catholic Church
>> >> >with its headquarters in the Vatican"
>>
>> >> Your hatred is ruining you, gladys.
>
>So, any disagrement with ceertain teachings of the RC Church is
>determined by you to be an expression of hatred. I have disagreed
>with the attitudes of some lay Roman Catholics and some teachings of the
>RC Church for one reason and one reason only.
Gosh, gladys, that's EXACTLY what you're doing.
>They were wrong.
"They" were taught by Jesus Christ in 33AD. You were taught by protest_er lute
1600 years later.
>> >Any information given that does not conform to the information you
>> >have been given in the RC Church is construed by you as 'hatred'.
>> No, I was talking about you, gladys.
>Who are you to be judge of my attitude in this matter?
The same person you judge all the time.
>> >You have a lot still to learn, Duke, but that can be said of all of
>> >us. �You have not given me information that encourages me to accept
>> >the teachings of those at the Vatican.
>> I can. �It all comes from God.
>You think you can, from the indoctrinations that you have.
>Do you ever read Protestand Internet sites which give information on
>what is wrong with Rome in aspects of New Testament Christian teachings? .
No, I don't. They don't have a clue as to what the RCC is. And that's totally
reflected in what their proponent gladys shows from reading those sites.
The worst part is that the don't have a clue as to what Christ taught the
Apostles.
>> >> >ignores the New Testament teachings about saints for Paul, writing to
>> >> >the Christians in the Mediterranean area, addressed them all as
>> >> >'saints' (hageos).
>> >> Your problem is that you apply bible words only to your liking.
>> >I am not the one at fault there.
>It is not a matter of 'applying words ,,, to my liking'. It is a
>matter of what is the truth and what is error.
Truth is what Jesus taught the Apostles, not the A&E family of 1600AD.
>> Sure you are. �You have openly shown time and again that the only meaning is the
>> one you choose to push. � And you categorically reject using the rest of the
>> bible to guide you. �It's your way or the highway.
>The Old Testament does not determine New Testament Christian theology
>for Jesus Christ fulfilled the law.
Here's a major correction and reflection for you. The OT prefigures the NT, and
the NT is the fulfillment the OT prophecies. Now that's something you'll never
learn from lute or protest_er internet sites.
>He was the perfect Lamb of God slain before the beginning of the world.
?????
>The fact that the veil was ripped from top to bottom was God's declaration that
>the law was superceded by the offering of Jesus as the perfect and final scrifice for
> sins. A new covenant had been instituted - teh
>covenant of Grace = God's mercy unmerited by us and given through our response of faith
>in Jesus Christ.
The souls of the righteous souls when the veil tore were raised to LIFE. They
didnt' know Jesus.
>> >> >The fact is that the first Australian saints of the Christian faith
>> >> >were Rev Richard Johnson, the Church of England chaplain to the First Fleet (Apitl 1787
>> >> >- Jan 1788)
>> >> Maybe he rejected the Word of God. �
>> >You would have to read his sermons if copies of them have been kept
>> >and recorded in book form.
>> So nobody knows, right? �But a sermon(s) is not much. �It's exemplary service
>> that counts, many times dying as a martyr for the faith. � �
>Jesus told His disciples to go into the world to 'TEACH ALL NATIONS,
>BAPTISING THEM IN THE NAME OF TEH FATHER, AND OF THE SON
>AND OF THE HOLY GHOST; TEACHING THEM TO OBSERVE
>***ALL THINGS THAT I HAVE COMMANDED YOU***
And the canonized saints in heaven are there because they died in exemplary
service to God and man.
Unfortunately, you deny James 2:26.
duke
<swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>On Dec 28, 12:02�pm, swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> On Dec 28, 9:56�am, duke �wrote:
>
>Something happened so that my posting was registered without my
>clicking 'send'. That has never happened before and I am at a loss to
>give an explanation.
>Protestants recognise that those martryed for their Protestant
>understandings of the scriptures are with the Lord waiting the resurrection from the
>dead.
It's too bad that protest_ants don't listen to Jesus in his teachings.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >Protestants recognise that those martryed for their Protestant
> >understandings of the scriptures are with the Lord waiting the resurrection from the
> >dead.
>
> It's too bad that <Protestants> don't listen to Jesus in his teachings.
>
If I had had more of what you present as 'the wonderful Roman
Catholic'
life from the early years of my teaching profession I may have a
different
opinion than that which I have now.
Did Roman Catholic teachers chose to be ungracious so that I would
react in some way that they would then gossip about me out of school
times? However, they are now forgiven.
However, my understandings are not
just experiential;
What value is a religion of adherence to forms and traditions that
must be
regularly performed. and even then, whatever the errors in attitude
had been
there, in a period, shorter or longer it may have been, must be spent
in
a place that has been named Purgatory?
Did Jesus say, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only
begotten
Son that whosoever believes in Him, FOR A PERIOD AFTER DEATH S/HE
MUST SPEND TIME IN A PLACE OF TORTURE UNTIL PURIFIED,
(then and ony then) shall have everlasting life"???
Paul did write' 1 Corinthians 3 : 11 - 15
"For other foundation can no (wo)man lay, than is laid.***which is
Jesus Christ***
Now if any (wo)man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious
stones,
wood, hay, stubble "
(metaphorical words that stand for the quality of one's deeds) ..
"Every (wo)man's works shall be made manifest;
for the day will declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire,
the fire shall try every (wo)man's work of what sort it is.
(NB the (wo)man will not be tried by the fires of Purgatory.
it will be the deeds that the person has done after
salvation has been received at an age of understanding;
(I am remembering the eight year old (Roman Catholic) girl in my
study group at
(a Protestant) Christian camp who had an intense fear of
Purgatory.
That was in the 1950's) - about 55 years ago (and I am not
telling a lie)
What perversions of the Gospel truths the hierarchy of the RC
Church has
imposed on its members!!!. And it has been building up the
biggest bank
in the world (why?) to have World Youth Days of good feeling,
its school
children under strict instructions on its lay days to be on
their very best
behaviours on the streets of the host cities to give good
impressions.
I have seein unrolled before my eyes in the media and for my ears to
hear
the biggest con-job that any Church has perpetrated on the masses in
modern times in 2008 on the streests of Sydney. .
v14 If any (wo)man's work abide (because it was done in faith in
Jesus)
which (s)he has built thereupon, (s)he will receive a reward.
v15 If any man's work shall be burned (NB it is the work not the
person)
(s)he will suffer loss, but her/him(self) SHALL BE SAVED
YET SO AS BY FIRE. (AS A HOUSE BURNT TO THE GOUND
AND THE OWNERS ARE IN THE STREET WITH BLAMKETS OVER
THEM PROVIDED BY A NEIGHBOUR).
PRAISE THE LORD THAT I WAS SENT TO A PROTESTANT SUNDAY SCHOOL
AT THE AGE OF THREE YEARS, when my grandmother was dying of cancer
and
and the RC nursing sister caring for and refused to wake her for the
Last Rites
when the RC priest called and who later named her as 'heathen' because
she
had chosen cremation at a time when it was forbidden by the RC
hierarchy, but
about thirty years later that ruling had been quietly revoked. My
mother found
that out as she read newspaper funeral notices for Roman Catholic
persons
when I was nursing her when she was terminally ill.
I remember reading Psalm 23 to her on the evening before her death.
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
>On Dec 28, 12:02�pm, swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> On Dec 28, 9:56�am, duke �wrote:
>
>Something happened so that my posting was registered without my
>clicking 'send'. That has never happened before and I am at a loss to
>give an explanation.
Perhaps it was God messing with your head.
>Gladys Swager
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
duke
>On Dec 29, 11:08�pm, duke wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
>> >Protestants recognise that those martryed for their Protestant
>> >understandings of the scriptures are with the Lord waiting the resurrection from the
>> >dead.
>>
>> It's too bad that <Protestants> don't listen to Jesus in his teachings.
>If I had had more of what you present as 'the wonderful Roman
>Catholic life from the early years of my teaching profession I may have a
>different opinion than that which I have now.
You still have a chance.
>Did Roman Catholic teachers chose to be ungracious so that I would
>react in some way that they would then gossip about me out of school
>times? However, they are now forgiven.
Your problem, gladys, is that you carry hatred in your heart (no place for that
in heaven) because of some particular people (Catholics) you knew. And you let
it numb your mind and turn away from the Church that Christ founded.
>However, my understandings are not
>just experiential;
>What value is a religion of adherence to forms and traditions that
>must be regularly performed. and even then, whatever the errors in attitude
>had been there, in a period, shorter or longer it may have been, must be spent
>in a place that has been named Purgatory?
You can't find the word in scripture, but the purification is and is clearly
staring all the saved in the face, like it or not. It's the only way to get to
heaven from here.
>Did Jesus say, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only
>begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him, FOR A PERIOD AFTER DEATH S/HE
>MUST SPEND TIME IN A PLACE OF TORTURE UNTIL PURIFIED,
>(then and ony then) shall have everlasting life"???
Yes, yes he did.
>Paul did write' 1 Corinthians 3 : 11 - 15
>"For other foundation can no (wo)man lay, than is laid.***which is
>Jesus Christ*** Now if any (wo)man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious
>stones, wood, hay, stubble" (metaphorical words that stand for the quality of one's deeds) ..
There you go. Reject the teachings of Jesus and you have lead on your hands.
>"Every (wo)man's works shall be made manifest;
>for the day will declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire,
>the fire shall try every (wo)man's work of what sort it is.
That's what I've been trying to tell you.
My usual snippage of your crying about cremation is included. I've explained it
to you too many times in the past.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >On Dec 29, 11:08 pm, duke wrote:
> >> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
> >> >Protestants recognise that those martryed for their Protestant
> >> >understandings of the scriptures are with the Lord waiting the resurrection from the
> >> >dead.
>
> >> It's too bad that <Protestants> don't listen to Jesus in his teachings.
> >If I had had more of what you present as 'the wonderful Roman
> >Catholic life from the early years of my teaching profession I may have a
> >different opinion than that which I have now.
>
> You still have a chance.
>
that
took the L-turn, but has persisted in intense indictrinations of
chirdren
registered at birth in its required school systems that it is
extremely hard
for its members to come to other decisions.
> >Did Roman Catholic teachers choose to be ungracious so that I would
> >react in some way that they would then gossip about me out of school
> >times? However, they are now forgiven.
>
> Your problem, gladys, is that you carry hatred in your heart (no place for that
> in heaven) because of some particular people (Catholics) you knew.
It is not hatred on my part. It is a rational reasoning of the
circumstances.
God gides us within the circumstances of our lives.
'God has no voice but our voice' - is part of a short Christian poem
that
I can't recall in total just now. It is very true. It was as John
Wycliffe and
martin Luther with others spoke out against the incorrect teachings
that
had been imposed by the Popes in council with their cardinals that
corections began to be made. Unfortunately some later decisions have
gone too far. But there. also, indoctrinations in closed meetings
produce
closed minds. I believe that mainstream Protestantism is the closest
to Bibilal truths.
And you let it numb your mind and turn away from the Church that
Christ founded.
>
You believe that the Roman catholic Church is the church that Jesus
founded,
then there was no need to add teachings at various times from 310AD
to 1950AD.
There is no way that you can get round that. Why would the revelation
that Mary
was immaculate (conceived perfect) at her own birth be made inl 1854AD
and why would
the revelation that she was assumed into heaven only be proclaimed in
1950AD?
The first should have been stated by Luke in his narratives of the
conception
and birth of Jesus (Luke 1 : 26 - 56; Luke 2 : 1 - 20) and by Matthew
of the visit
of the wise men (Matthew 2 : 15);
and the second in in John's gospel or in Revelations as he was
the disciple who died in his old age and most likely after Mary had
died. .
> >However, my understandings are not just experiential;
> >What value is a religion of adherence to forms and traditions that
> >must be regularly performed. and even then, whatever the errors in attitude
> >had been there, in a period, shorter or longer it may have been, must be spent
> >in a place that has been named Purgatory?
>
> You can't find the word in scripture, but the purification is and is clearly
> staring all the saved in the face, like it or not. It's the only way to get to
> heaven from here.
>
> >Did Jesus say, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only
> >begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him, FOR A PERIOD AFTER DEATH S/HE
> >MUST SPEND TIME IN A PLACE OF TORTURE UNTIL PURIFIED,
> >(then and ony then) shall have everlasting life"???
>
Please give me the reference, book, chapter and verse where that is
so.
> >Paul did write' 1 Corinthians 3 : 11 - 15
> >"For other foundation can no (wo)man lay, than is laid.***which is
> >Jesus Christ*** Now if any (wo)man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious
> >stones, wood, hay, stubble" (metaphorical words that stand for the quality of one's deeds) ..
>
> There you go. Reject the teachings of Jesus and you have lead on your hands.
>
So Paul was not given a special revelation on the road to Damascus and
later as he
conferred with the first Christians?
So Paul wrote another gospel to what is given by Matthew, Mark, Luke
and John -
is that what you are saying? They never wrote about a place of agony
for those
departed this life.
> >"Every (wo)man's works shall be made manifest;
> >for the day will declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire,
> >the fire shall try every (wo)man's work of what sort it is.
>
> That's what I've been trying to tell you.
>
You are not reading plain English. It is not the person who will
endure the agony
of purgatory. That is not the teaching. You are not understanding
plain English.
'The fire shall try...the WORK of what sort it is.'
If what I am doing in these newsgroups is just for me to make me have
advanced
standing in heaven then I will be sadly disappointed when I arrive
there.
But if what I am doing in these newgroups is part of God's will for me
at this late
time in my life then I trust God, will say to me, 'Well done, good and
faithful servant'
But whatever is done, if it thas been done for the glory of God and
for the extension of
the kingdom of Jesus Christ on this earth, whether it be much, as some
of the preachers
and missionaries, or whether it appears to be little, God determines
its value, not on
outcomes but on the willingness, ablities and opportunites a person
has had in life.
> My usual snippage of your crying about cremation is included. I've explained it
> to you too many times in the past.
>
You do not like to be reminded that the Vatican has made decisions
and then has rescinded that at a later time. So much for Papal
infallibilbity.
Cremation was deemed to be heathenish, possibly because there was no
consideration of the local conditions that had made it acceptable in
places
such as India.
Has it been that in the post-World War II years that the Vatican has
realised
that it needed a very intensive Public relations campaign to counter
any
reference to Hitler's youth as a choir-boy in the Roman Catholic
Church?
And what of Mussolini's background - I haven't investigated him and
the
Italian people, There would have been those older persons who
begrudged
the treatment in the Treaty of Versailles after being with the Allies
in
World War I..
There was no public
outcry and protest against Mussolini taking Italy into the war on
Germany's
side. My readings to extend my personal knowledge of those years has
not
progressed as far as I would like to have done with more time at my
disposal. .
But to return to the present. It MUST be stated again. Mary McKillop
will NOT
be Australia's first saint, even if those in the RC church consider
her as such
That designation goes to Rev Richard Johnson, Church of England
chaplain
and the Christians who
were in the First Fleet to Australa from April 1787 to January 1788.
Australia was developed as a Christian Protestant nation in which
Christians
had to learn as they went along that conditions were so different from
England.
But nevertheless initiatives were taken to help Aborigines come into
modern
times and while some who were not Christian-in-practice did murder
and
disposess some Aborigines, there were many who helped Aborigines as
they
were able to do so in the context of their knowledge and resources. .
I would still like to know the beliefs of those who only presented the
negative
in the media presentations from about 1975. That is mainly for
Australians
who read this posting.
Gladys Swager
swa...@ozemail.com.au
teachers (of the Roman Catholic faith) in the Public school system
will use the information about Mary McKillop in the staffrooms and in
their own classrooms to implant the idea that the RC Church is
superior
to other Christian denominations or as they have been taught,
that it is the only true Christian church.
The NSW Minister for Education should make it very clear, both to
parents
and teachers that any such indoctrination will not be allowed in
Public Schools
either as discussion in class or amongst children on the playground.
I tis a topic for public discussion through the media, particulary
Talk Back Radio..
> cbilldren (generally Roman Catholics)
> resulting in a demand for state-aid to Private (including RC)
> schools.
> A walk-out of their own schools and a walk-in to Public schools was
> held at Goulburn Central School in 1962. I had been the Deputy Mistress
> there
> from early 1958 to late 1960. My class was shown to have advanced
> reading skills at an Education Week seminar, I had been exploring ways
> to improve word recognition skills, but when asked by two nuns from OLMC
> how
> I had gained the higher levels I didn't have time to explain as all
> teachers were
> called to lunch. and they moved away to gp with other RC nuns.
>
> The R.C Church began to extend its Guild College from 1971 to train
> lay teachers and that became the Catholic University,
>
> It is obvious that the RC hiersrchy is only interested in domination
> over others,
> and will do anything, even to use moneys from its richest bank in
duke
>On Dec 31, 4:46�am, duke wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> >On Dec 29, 11:08�pm, duke �wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>>
>> >> >Protestants recognise that those martryed for their Protestant
>> >> >understandings of the scriptures are with the Lord waiting the resurrection from the
>> >> >dead.
>>
>> >> It's too bad that <Protestants> don't listen to Jesus in his teachings.
>> >If I had had more of what you present as 'the wonderful Roman
>> >Catholic life from the early years of my teaching profession I may have a
>> >different opinion than that which I have now.
>> You still have a chance.
>No chance, brother, at all. The Roman Catholic Church was the one
>that took the L-turn,
Can't be. Jesus taught the Apostles and
1.St. Peter (32-67) who taught
2.St. Linus (67-76) who taught
3.St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88) who taught
4.St. Clement I (88-97) who taught
5.St. Evaristus (97-105) who taught
6.St. Alexander I (105-115) who taught
7.St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I who taught
8.St. Telesphorus (125-136) who taught
9.St. Hyginus (136-140) who taught
10.St. Pius I (140-155) who taught
.
265.John Paul II (1978-2005) who taught
266.Pope Benedict XVI.
>> Your problem, gladys, is that you carry hatred in your heart (no place for that
>> in heaven) because of some particular people (Catholics) you knew. �
>It is not hatred on my part. It is a rational reasoning of the
>circumstances.
Mind you. Hatred is never accepted in heaven.
>You believe that the Roman catholic Church is the church that Jesus
>founded,
It is - the Holy Mass, 7 sacraments, and the Papacy.
>> >Did Jesus say, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only
>> >begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him, FOR A PERIOD AFTER DEATH S/HE
>> >MUST SPEND TIME IN A PLACE OF TORTURE UNTIL PURIFIED,
>> >(then and ony then) shall have everlasting life"???
>Please give me the reference, book, chapter and verse where that is
>so.
Jesus said:
Revelation 21:27 (New International Version)
27Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful
or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.
>> >Paul did write' 1 Corinthians 3 : 11 - 15
>> >"For other foundation can no (wo)man lay, than is laid.***which is
>> >Jesus Christ*** Now if any (wo)man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious
>> >stones, wood, hay, stubble" (metaphorical words that stand for the quality of one's deeds) ..
>>
>> There you go. �Reject the teachings of Jesus and you have lead on your hands.
>So Paul was not given a special revelation on the road to Damascus and
>later as he conferred with the first Christians?
No, you are the one that selectively ignores other things revealed.
>So Paul wrote another gospel to what is given by Matthew, Mark, Luke
>and John -
>is that what you are saying? They never wrote about a place of agony
>for those
>departed this life.
I use purification, you are the one using agony.
>> >"Every (wo)man's works shall be made manifest;
>> >for the day will declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire,
>> >the fire shall try every (wo)man's work of what sort it is.
>> That's what I've been trying to tell you.
>You are not reading plain English. It is not the person who will
>endure the agony
>of purgatory. That is not the teaching. You are not understanding
>plain English.
>'The fire shall try...the WORK of what sort it is.'
Yeah, you and your deeds/lack thereof destroying your faith. James 2:26.
>If what I am doing in these newsgroups is just for me to make me have
>advanced standing in heaven then I will be sadly disappointed when I arrive
>there.
If. It's not your call. We are all faced with the stain of mortal sin on our
souls, which is any deadly sin committed from the age of youthful maturity and
which remains un confessed reflecting lack of belief in the methods Christ gave
us to cleanse our souls.
>> My usual snippage of your crying about cremation is included. �I've explained it
>> to you too many times in the past.
>You do not like to be reminded that the Vatican has made decisions
>and then has rescinded that at a later time.
You just can't remember my responses to that, can you?
>But to return to the present. It MUST be stated again. Mary McKillop
>will NOT be Australia's first saint
She WILL be the first Australian canonized saint.
duke
<swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>On Dec 27, 6:16�pm, swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> On Dec 27, 4:47�pm, Superman wrote:> Shallow Mary makeover
>> >http://tinyurl.com/ybbdfe9*
>Further to this discussion, I have just wondered to what extent that
>teachers (of the Roman Catholic faith) in the Public school system
>will use the information about Mary McKillop in the staffrooms and in
>their own classrooms to implant the idea that the RC Church is
>superior to other Christian denominations or as they have been taught,
>that it is the only true Christian church.
The Catholic Church does not say that. Protest_ants are our brother
Christians. And the Catholic Church DOES say that.
But, what the heck, you'll just forget I said that. You forget everything else.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
A Prayer at the start of the New Year.
O Lord, we ask you to mercifully receive the prayers of your people
who call on youl and grant that we may understand and know the things
we ought to do. and also that we may have grace and power
to faithfully fulfill them, through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen
>
> Revelation 21:27 (New International Version)
> 27Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful
> or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.
>
As far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our
transgressions (sins) from us.
> >> >Paul did write' 1 Corinthians 3 : 11 - 15
> >> >"For other foundation can no (wo)man lay, than is laid.***which is
> >> >Jesus Christ*** Now if any (wo)man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious
> >> >stones, wood, hay, stubble" (metaphorical words that stand for the quality of one's deeds) ..
>
> >> There you go. Reject the teachings of Jesus and you have lead on your hands.
> >So Paul was not given a special revelation on the road to Damascus and
> >later as he conferred with the first Christians?
>
So, in your judgement Paul was not a true apostle of Jesus Christ.
You rely on Peter, but Peter has little to say in the New Testament
record.
> No, you are the one that selectively ignores other things revealed.
>
> >So Paul wrote another gospel to what is given by Matthew, Mark, Luke
> >and John -
> >is that what you are saying? They never wrote about a place of agony
> >for those departed this life.
>
> I use purification, you are the one using agony.
>
You have a list of 'pat answers', but you do not have the truth.
I am not using agony. I am using faith in Jesus for the forgiveness of
sins
as given in the prayer Jesus taught us to pray.
You are the one who keeps on with an emphasis on Purgatory as a place
of purification after death, when Purgatory is never once mentioned in
the
New Testament scriptures. .
> >> >"Every (wo)man's works shall be made manifest;
> >> >for the day will declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire,
> >> >the fire shall try every (wo)man's work of what sort it is.
> >> That's what I've been trying to tell you.
> >You are not reading plain English. It is not the person who will
> >endure the agony
> >of purgatory. That is not the teaching. You are not understanding
> >plain English.
> >'The fire shall try...the WORK of what sort it is.'
>
> Yeah, you and your deeds/lack thereof destroying your faith. James 2:26.
>
James was writing to Christians who 'failed to show any difference
in their behaviour after becoming believers" Zondervan KJV Bible
James was encouraging them to reflect and to change.
> >If what I am doing in these newsgroups is just for me to make me have
> >advanced standing in heaven then I will be sadly disappointed when I arrive
> >there.
>
> If. It's not your call. We are all faced with the stain of mortal sin on our
> souls, which is any deadly sin committed from the age of youthful maturity and
> which remains un confessed reflecting lack of belief in the methods Christ gave
> us to cleanse our souls.
>
And you do not believe that Jesus is able to remove all our sins,
> >> My usual snippage of your crying about cremation is included. I've explained it
> >> to you too many times in the past.
> >You do not like to be reminded that the Vatican has made decisions
> >and then has rescinded that at a later time.
>
> You just can't remember my responses to that, can you?
>
There has been so much over the period that we have been posting
that it is true I don't remember all you have stated as I rejected
your comments as not being the truth. The about-face on cremation by
the RC Church did nothing to ease the pain that of those whose
relatives were told their loved ones were 'heathens'. It was an error
of
the Church hierarchy (in modern times) which you claim to be
'never in error'.
> >But to return to the present. It MUST be stated again. Mary McKillop
> >will NOT be Australia's first saint
>
> She WILL be the first Australian canonized saint.
>
She will be the first saint of the Roman Catholic Church, that will
give
the Benedict XV1 or whoever is Pope at that time the opportunity of
another Papal visit to Australia. It is all part of a plan of using
slick
media advertising to win Protestants back to the Church of Rome,
without any discussion of the theological differences that exist
between
the two branches of the Christian faith. In fact, it is just plain
trickery.
http://www.gotquestions.org/worship-of-saints-Mary.html.
Gladys Swager
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >On Dec 27, 6:16 pm, swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >> On Dec 27, 4:47 pm, Superman wrote:> Shallow Mary makeover
> >> >http://tinyurl.com/ybbdfe9*
> >Further to this discussion, I have just wondered to what extent that
> >teachers (of the Roman Catholic faith) in the Public school system
> >will use the information about Mary McKillop in the staffrooms and in
> >their own classrooms to implant the idea that the RC Church is
> >superior to other Christian denominations or as they have been taught,
> >that it is the only true Christian church.
>
> The Catholic Church does not say that. <Protestants> are our brother
> Christians. And the Catholic Church DOES say that.
>
But according to the RC Church Protestants are in error,
According to what you have posted to me
the RC Church has never made any mistakes, still doesn't have
mistakes,
> But, what the heck, you'll just forget I said that. You forget everything else.
>
Duke, I have learnt a lot as I have participated in these newsgroups.
For you, the problem is that I do not accept what you have told me
of the official teachings of the RC Church.
Why should I? And why should any one accept additional teachings
that were brought into that church from 310AD to 1950AD?
Gladys Swager
duke
>On Jan 1, 12:06�am, duke wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> >On Dec 31, 4:46�am, duke wrote:
>> > > Gladys wrote
>A Prayer at the start of the New Year.
>O Lord, we ask you to mercifully receive the prayers of your people
>who call on youl and grant that we may understand and know the things
>we ought to do. and also that we may have grace and power
>to faithfully fulfill them, through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen
That's good. But why would you need to ask God to be merciful when he is
already pouring out his love to us?
>> Revelation 21:27 (New International Version)
>> 27Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful
>> or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.
>Forgiven sins means that God has forgotten them. (Psalm 103 : 12)
>As far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our
>transgressions (sins) from us.
Yes.
John 20:20-23 (New International Version)
20After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were
overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending
you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them,
they are not forgiven."
>> >> >Paul did write' 1 Corinthians 3 : 11 - 15
>> >> >"For other foundation can no (wo)man lay, than is laid.***which is
>> >> >Jesus Christ*** Now if any (wo)man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious
>> >> >stones, wood, hay, stubble" (metaphorical words that stand for the quality of one's deeds) ..
>> >> There you go. �Reject the teachings of Jesus and you have lead on your hands.
>> >So Paul was not given a special revelation on the road to Damascus and
>> >later as he conferred with the first Christians?
>So, in your judgement Paul was not a true apostle of Jesus Christ.
>You rely on Peter, but Peter has little to say in the New Testament
>record.
I could counter with your rejecting the words of Jesus for the words of Paul.
They must mesh, along with the words of James and Peter and the gospel writers.
It must all mesh together, not one set of rules for this person and another set
for that person. That's been our conflict from day 1.
>> No, you are the one that selectively ignores other things revealed.
>> >So Paul wrote another gospel to what is given by Matthew, Mark, Luke
>> >and John -
>> >is that what you are saying? They never wrote about a place of agony
>> >for those departed this life.
>> I use purification, you are the one using agony.
>You have a list of 'pat answers', but you do not have the truth.
I don't have a list of "pat answers", gladys. It's all in the bible. It's hard
to find all the relevant comparisons if the bible is all you read. It's taken
million of manhours to pull it together. I use a lot of other books which bring
these things out.
>I am not using agony. I am using faith in Jesus for the forgiveness of
>sins as given in the prayer Jesus taught us to pray.
>You are the one who keeps on with an emphasis on Purgatory as a place
>of purification after death, when Purgatory is never once mentioned in
>the New Testament scriptures. .
And I keep telling you, as scripture says, that 1) we are all sinners, and 2) we
cannot stand before God with sin on our soul. The mistake you keep making is
failure to understand that confession (John 20:22-23) is our gift from Christ in
fulfillment of God's promise to send us his son (John 3:16). One goes with the
other.
Following in Christ's steps in service to God and man (Mat 25:31-46, Mat 7:21,
James 2:14-26) are also our gift form Christ in accordance with God's promise to
send us his son (John 3:16). These 4 all go together.
I can't make you do these things. I can only hope that you understand the
significance of these while you still have a chance.
>> >> >"Every (wo)man's works shall be made manifest;
>> >> >for the day will declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire,
>> >> >the fire shall try every (wo)man's work of what sort it is.
>> >> That's what I've been trying to tell you.
>> >You are not reading plain English. It is not the person who will
>> >endure the agony
>> >of purgatory. That is not the teaching. You are not understanding
>> >plain English.
>> >'The fire shall try...the WORK of what sort it is.'
>>
>> Yeah, you and your deeds/lack thereof destroying your faith. �James 2:26.
>James was writing to Christians who 'failed to show any difference
>in their behaviour after becoming believers" Zondervan KJV Bible
>James was encouraging them to reflect and to change.
James was writing to EVERYBODY to tell us that we must follow in the steps of
Christ in order to reflect our faith in him. It doesn't matter if you're left
handed or right handed. WE are called to service, or we have no faith in what
Christ told us.
>> >If what I am doing in these newsgroups is just for me to make me have
>> >advanced standing in heaven then I will be sadly disappointed when I arrive
>> >there.
>> If. �It's not your call. �We are all faced with the stain of mortal sin on our
>> souls, which is any deadly sin committed from the age of youthful maturity and
>> which remains un confessed reflecting lack of belief in the methods Christ gave
>> us to cleanse our souls.
>And you do not believe that Jesus is able to remove all our sins,
Exactly in accordance with his words throughout the NT scripture - confession,
service, prayer, love, etc.
And yes, including Ep 2:8-9. However, every scholar will advise you that the
works reference is in accordance the Levi rules, where Jews in accordance with
the old covenant, could earn their way into heaven by the number of laws they
kept. Paul was saying - not any more. Now it's love of one another as Jesus
loves us. John 13:34.
I can't make it any plainer to you. It's your life; do with it as you will.
>> >> My usual snippage of your crying about cremation is included. �I've explained it
>> >> to you too many times in the past.
>> >You do not like to be reminded that the Vatican has made decisions
>> >and then has rescinded that at a later time.
>> You just can't remember my responses to that, can you?
>There has been so much over the period that we have been posting
>that it is true I don't remember all you have stated as I rejected
>your comments as not being the truth.
Really!! Then allow me to do something I promised I wouldn't do, and that's
explain once again.
To wit: Christians thought for the longest time that cremation would prevent
the rising from the grave of our bodies to be reunited with our souls. It was
felt that it was a sin to do so for that stated reason. Finally, as the world
grew up and learned more, it became evident that it was time for the Church to
change it's doctrine on cremation. This cremation restriction was for the
benefit of the dead, not the Church. Now the Church feels perfectly confident
that it's quite proper to have our bodies cremated. In fact, one of my priests
just died and was cremated.
But it was to the stated belief that the Church was assisting your mother, not
hindering her in her wishes to be cremated.
> The about-face on cremation by
>the RC Church did nothing to ease the pain that of those whose
>relatives were told their loved ones were 'heathens'. It was an error
>of
>the Church hierarchy (in modern times) which you claim to be
>'never in error'.
No, you never heard me say the Church was never in error. And cremation is a
good example. It was a belief associated with helping your mother.
>> >But to return to the present. It MUST be stated again. Mary McKillop
>> >will NOT be Australia's first saint
>> She WILL be the first Australian canonized saint.
>She will be the first saint of the Roman Catholic Church, that will
>give the Benedict XV1 or whoever is Pope at that time the opportunity of
>another Papal visit to Australia.
He doesn't need MK to visit Australia.
> It is all part of a plan of using
>slick
>media advertising to win Protestants back to the Church of Rome,
What's sick is your hatred and ugly attitude toward the RCC.
>without any discussion of the theological differences that exist
>between
>the two branches of the Christian faith. In fact, it is just plain
>trickery.
>http://www.gotquestions.org/worship-of-saints-Mary.html.
See, you can't even understand that we don't worship Mary. And you think this
is a learned site. It one that's sucking you in on false information.
Have a happy New Year.
duke
>On Jan 1, 12:08�am, duke wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> >On Dec 27, 6:16�pm, swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> >> On Dec 27, 4:47�pm, Superman wrote:> Shallow Mary makeover
>> >> >http://tinyurl.com/ybbdfe9*
>
>> >Further to this discussion, I have just wondered to what extent that
>> >teachers (of the Roman Catholic faith) in the Public school system
>> >will use the information about Mary McKillop in the staffrooms and in
>> >their own classrooms to implant the idea that the RC Church is
>> >superior to other Christian denominations or as they have been taught,
>> >that it is the only true Christian church.
>>
>> The Catholic Church does not say that. � <Protestants> are our brother
>> Christians. �And the Catholic Church DOES say that.
>>
>But according to the RC Church Protestants are in error,
You are the ones that turned completely away from the teaching of Jesus 400
years ago, not us.
>According to what you have posted to me
>the RC Church has never made any mistakes, still doesn't have
>mistakes,
Never said that. But at the same time, you can find our RCC beliefs throughout
the NT. The only thing you believe in is Ep 2:8-9 to the exclusion of all else.
>> But, what the heck, you'll just forget I said that. �You forget everything else.
>Duke, I have learnt a lot as I have participated in these newsgroups.
>For you, the problem is that I do not accept what you have told me
>of the official teachings of the RC Church.
Of course not, because 1) you won't listen, and 2) you can't justify your
position.
>Why should I? And why should any one accept additional teachings
>that were brought into that church from 310AD to 1950AD?
>Gladys Swager
They weren't, but then again, you don't care for the truth.
bam
one but God. (only she can't make any prophecies)
BAM
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:7d0qj5tkhhbj12ne3...@4ax.com...
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> The only thing you believe in is Ep 2:8-9 to the exclusion of all else.
>
That is the start of the Christian faith. It states that
'by grace (God's mercy which is unmerited by us because of sin)
are we saved (through faith in Jesus Christ)
and that not of ourselves (any good deeds thatt we may do)
(emphasised by) ***IT IS THE GIFT OF GOD***
Not of works, lest anyone should boast."
Evidently that is not in your New Testament or if it is in it has
never been pointed out to you.
>
> >Why should I? And why should any one accept additional teachings
> >that were brought into that church from 310AD to 1950AD?
>
> They weren't, but then again, you don't care for the truth.
>
Just enter in search:
'Hereies and Traditions of the Roman Catholic Church'
Why were they proclaimed by various Popes from those given dates?
Why was it that the Immaculate Conception (Mary perfect from her own
conception) proclaimed in 1854?
And Papal Infallilibility in 1870?
And the Assumption of Mary proclaimed in 1950?
And why should Pius XI have condemned Public Schools in 1930;.
but in NSW at Goulburn the Roman Catholic School teaching nuns and
brothers should have been allowed to participate in an Education Week
Seminar in August each year for the three years (1958 - 1960) that I
was
aware of, with amazement (it seemed by the gasps) of all teachers
present when the results of my class were given?-
The RC Guild College extended its teaching programme to lay persons
and then began the Catholic University,
In 1961 and in 1969 I was appointed to NSW State schools where
Principals
(one of whom, that I came to know of, was Roman Catholic)
had allowed manipulation of the Inspection system to give A-listing
one to himself and one to the Infants Mistress,)
In the second school a live bullet was placed outside my office and
erotic
literature was placed on my classroom table on two different
occasions
evidently to force me to leave so that a Roman Catholic could be
appointed
as Infants Mistress, possibly to blame me for any problem behaviours,
but
to give no credit for all I had achieved.
I had a dream on Melbourne Cup Day 1974 in which I have every reason
to
believe that God spoke to me. "Pass this test and I will use you"
But I have found that persons who are Roman Catholics have some sense
that whenever they can take advantage of, (steal) what Protestants do
they have God's forgiveness by just going to Confession with the RC
priest.
Gladys Swager
duke
>Don't bother Duke. Gladys is an Old Testament prophet - she reports to no
>one but God. (only she can't make any prophecies)
>
>BAM
Well, she is super hard-headed and close-minded, which is to her detriment. But
if we can't discuss, what can we do?
duke
>On Jan 1, 7:35�am, duke wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> The only thing you believe in is Ep 2:8-9 to the exclusion of all else.
>That is the start of the Christian faith. It states that
>'by grace (God's mercy which is unmerited by us because of sin)
>are we saved (through faith in Jesus Christ)
>and that not of ourselves (any good deeds thatt we may do)
>(emphasised by) ***IT IS THE GIFT OF GOD***
Including the Holy Mass, 7 sacraments, and the Papacy. But you don't get that.
>Not of works, lest anyone should boast."
>Evidently that is not in your New Testament or if it is in it has
>never been pointed out to you.
The Jews were the ones that boasted of the number of 639 Levi laws. Following
the laws was the way one earned his way into heaven. And you know the Jews,
they really enjoyed being pious and boastful.
>> >Why should I? And why should any one accept additional teachings
>> >that were brought into that church from 310AD to 1950AD?
>>
>> They weren't, but then again, you don't care for the truth.
>
>Just enter in search:
>'Hereies and Traditions of the Roman Catholic Church'
>Why were they proclaimed by various Popes from those given dates?
Why are they valid because some ignorant protester continues the lies?
>Why was it that the Immaculate Conception (Mary perfect from her own
>conception) proclaimed in 1854?
>And Papal Infallilibility in 1870?
>And the Assumption of Mary proclaimed in 1950?
Already answered over and over.
>And why should Pius XI have condemned Public Schools in 1930;.
Irrelevant.
>But I have found that persons who are Roman Catholics have some sense
>that whenever they can take advantage of, (steal) what Protestants do
>they have God's forgiveness by just going to Confession with the RC
>priest.
>Gladys Swager
Well, it is a gift of Christ on Easter Sunday evening. John 20:22-23. Do you
ever think about the abundance of sin stains on your soul for a lifetime as
you've apparently never been to confession?
Remember, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit will definitely keep one out of heaven.
And at the moment one dies, it's too late to change one's mind.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 "bam" wrote:
> >Don't bother Duke. Gladys is an Old Testament prophet - she reports to no
> >one but God. (only she can't make any prophecies)
>
I came into this newsgroup with one of my first postings (July 2002)
being
'Christianity in Modern Times'. I was and still am of the opinion that
this
newsgroup is for sharing ideas about the Chistian faith, but because
it is unmoderated other topics do come up for discussion.
> Well, she is super hard-headed and close-minded, which is to her detriment. But
> if we can't discuss, what can we do?
>
For both of you 'discuss' means 'we give our teachings and if 'she'
won't accept
then she is wrong.'
It is a matter of our indoctrinations, although, for myself, I have
gained more
information than was previously possible. That does not mean that when
you
both giive me information contrary to what I have given that I should
spontaneously accept that your understandings are the truth, the whole
truth and
nothing but he truth,
Roman Catholic Apologies
http://www.religioustolerance.org/popeapol1.htm
From that website, Duke, I can see why you claim that the RC Church
can never
be wrong in its statements of faith. The Pope always gives the truth.
(???)
With that teaching you can never investigate the faith that you have
been taught
perhaps from your youngest years.
However, when the Councils of the RC Church have made decisions in
the past
the Popes have been the ones to proclaim them publically either in
<St> Peter's Basillica or elsewhere and he must take the final
responsibility
for them
It seems to me that I could be right when I have stated, without any
proof,
that the 'Sorry' statements were initiatiated from the Vatican - and
here,
in Australia such was a denigration of the English who settled here
nearly
222 years ago - for one reason to pave the way for the World Youth
Days
and Mary McKillop's future canonisation. Take over Australia without
adequate discussion of the theological issues.
Hence my changing of the topic - for the Pope is as much a sinner as
every other person in this world.
Gladys Swager
duke
>On Jan 2, 12:36�am, duke wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 "bam" wrote:
>> >Don't bother Duke. Gladys is an Old Testament prophet - she reports to no
>> >one but God. (only she can't make any prophecies)
>I am not an Old Testament Prophet
>nor am I a New Testament Apostle.
Well, we knew that already.
>I came into this newsgroup with one of my first postings (July 2002)
>being 'Christianity in Modern Times'. I was and still am of the opinion that
>this newsgroup is for sharing ideas about the Chistian faith, but because
>it is unmoderated other topics do come up for discussion.
You also can't defend your beliefs when challenged.
>> Well, she is super hard-headed and close-minded, which is to her detriment. �But
>> if we can't discuss, what can we do?
>For both of you 'discuss' means 'we give our teachings and if 'she'
>won't accept then she is wrong.'
Meaning you're as hard headed and closed minded as any person I've ever run
across. No desire what so ever to listen or think about what others are saying.
>It is a matter of our indoctrinations, although, for myself, I have
>gained more information than was previously possible. That does not mean that when
>you both giive me information contrary to what I have given that I should
>spontaneously accept that your understandings are the truth, the whole
>truth and nothing but he truth,
Your problem, gladys, is that you can't challenge the scripture given to you.
Yet you reject the scripture.
>Roman Catholic Apologies
>http://www.religioustolerance.org/popeapol1.htm
>From that website, Duke, I can see why you claim that the RC Church
>can never be wrong in its statements of faith.
Yet I, duke, have never said such a thing. I've showed you endless scripture
for your consideration, all to no avail. You don't care; you don't listen.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >On Jan 2, 12:36 am, duke wrote:
> >> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 "bam" wrote:
>
> >I came into this newsgroup with one of my first postings (July 2002)
> >being 'Christianity in Modern Times'. I was and still am of the opinion that
> >this newsgroup is for sharing ideas about the Chistian faith, but because
> >it is unmoderated other topics do come up for discussion.
>
> You also can't defend your beliefs when challenged.
>
>
> >It is a matter of our indoctrinations, although, for myself, I have
> >gained more information than was previously possible. That does not mean that when
> >you both giive me information contrary to what I have given that I should
> >spontaneously accept that your understandings are the truth, the whole
> >truth and nothing but he truth,
>
> Your problem, gladys, is that you can't challenge the scripture given to you.
> Yet you reject the scripture.
And you have never anwered my quoting of Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9
For by grace are we saved and that not of ourselves; it is the GIFT of
God
NOT OF WORKS, lest anyone should boast
and 1 Corinthians 3 : 11 - 15 (Those verses had not been pointed out
to me
and I found them after diligent searching using Strong's Concodance)
> >Roman Catholic Apologies
> >http://www.religioustolerance.org/popeapol1.htm
> >From that website, Duke, I can see why you claim that the RC Church
> >can never be wrong in its statements of faith.
>
> Yet I, duke, have never said such a thing.
I didn't get that message from your posting.
> I've showed you endless scripture
> for your consideration, all to no avail. You don't care; you don't listen.
>
You have showed me some scriptures that when put together by you
support your position. The fact is that you don't take notice of the
scriptures I have given you. You misread James to mean that
Salvation comes from belief in Jesus PLUS good works and those
demanded
by the hierarchy of the RC Church, even to wear the scapular to ward
off
evil and I have read that it should be placed on a dead person to
protect as (s)he
goes into purgatory, But whether that is a regular RC practice I have
not confirmed.
But no Purgatory,
Belief in Jesus Christ gives Salvation. (Eternal Life) Ephesians 2 :
8 - 9
Good works or their lack determine level of reward in Eternity, 1
Cor. 3 : 11 - 15
Gladys Swager
duke
<swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>On Jan 2, 7:09�am, duke wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> >On Jan 2, 12:36�am, duke wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 "bam" wrote:
>>
>> >I came into this newsgroup with one of my first postings (July 2002)
>> >being 'Christianity in Modern Times'. I was and still am of the opinion that
>> >this newsgroup is for sharing ideas about the Chistian faith, but because
>> >it is unmoderated other topics do come up for discussion.
>> You also can't defend your beliefs when challenged. �
>I have defended and defended, but not to your satisfaction.
Youi haven't even scratched the surface, certainly not with the overabundance of
scripture available. You make wholesale effort to hide from as much as possible
that you don't want to agree with.
Your biggest problem is that you only read scripture as though is says only what
you want it to say, never ever showing support from other verses.
>> >It is a matter of our indoctrinations, although, for myself, I have
>> >gained more information than was previously possible. That does not mean that when
>> >you both giive me information contrary to what I have given that I should
>> >spontaneously accept that your understandings are the truth, the whole
>> >truth and nothing but he truth,
>> Your problem, gladys, is that you can't challenge the scripture given to you.
>> Yet you reject the scripture.
>And you have never anwered my quoting of Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9
>For by grace are we saved and that not of ourselves; it is the GIFT of
>God
>NOT OF WORKS, lest anyone should boast
Of course I have - over and over and over. You just can't remember, or don't
want to remember.
But just for you, I'll do it again:
1. The "works" referenced are the works that Jews used to attain salvation.
Paul was telling them that they no longer apply.
2. That does not reverse what Jesus said in Mat 25:31-46, and are the type of
deeds referenced in James 2:26.
3. Jesus is the only way to the Father. That is faith; that is fact. What is
not faith is that salvation is assured because one gives lip service to the
Jesus that one claims to have faith in.
>and 1 Corinthians 3 : 11 - 15 (Those verses had not been pointed out
>to me
>and I found them after diligent searching using Strong's Concodance)
>> >Roman Catholic Apologies
>> >http://www.religioustolerance.org/popeapol1.htm
>> >From that website, Duke, �I can see why you claim that the RC Church
>> >can never be wrong in its statements of faith.
>> Yet I, duke, have never said such a thing. �
>I didn't get that message from your posting.
>> I've showed you endless scripture
>> for your consideration, all to no avail. �You don't care; you don't listen. �
>You have showed me some scriptures that when put together by you
>support your position.
And what about the remote association that you used to justify your beliefs. The
greatest danger to protestants is thinking that one's sins are no longer sins
and thus failing to go to regular confession per Jesus's gift to us in John
20:22-23.
Now you have admitted that you have never been to confession, the gift of Jesus
in his absence. Sins against man can be forgiven, but dying with a moral sin on
one's souls will never be forgiven. Good luck on that one.
> The fact is that you don't take notice of the scriptures I have given you.
You misread Ep 2:8-9. And a misreading there is an invitation to hell.
> You misread James to mean that Salvation comes from belief in Jesus PLUS good works
those are the exact words - faith lacking service to God and man is a death
knell.
>But no Purgatory,
>Belief in Jesus Christ gives Salvation. (Eternal Life) Ephesians 2 :
>8 - 9
No, not if you fail to follow on Mat 25:31-46.
James 1:22 (New International Version)
22Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.
Barry OGrady
>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:01:50 -0800 (PST), "s...@ozemail.com.au"
><swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>>On Jan 1, 12:06�am, duke wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>>> >On Dec 31, 4:46�am, duke wrote:
>>> > > Gladys wrote
>
>>A Prayer at the start of the New Year.
>>O Lord, we ask you to mercifully receive the prayers of your people
>>who call on youl and grant that we may understand and know the things
>>we ought to do. and also that we may have grace and power
>>to faithfully fulfill them, through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen
>
>That's good. But why would you need to ask God to be merciful when he is
>already pouring out his love to us?
Probably because God's love feels to us like abuse.
>>> Revelation 21:27 (New International Version)
>>> 27Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful
>>> or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.
>
>>Forgiven sins means that God has forgotten them. (Psalm 103 : 12)
>>As far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our
>>transgressions (sins) from us.
>
>Yes.
You indicated that you blame God for all our troubles so God is not in a
position to forgive us.
>John 20:20-23 (New International Version)
>20After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were
>overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
>
> 21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending
>you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
>23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them,
>they are not forgiven."
So if we don't forgive God for his callousness and abuse God won't forgive
us for being the way he made us?
Barry
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >On Jan 2, 7:09 am, duke wrote:
> >And you have never anwered my quoting of Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9
> >For by grace are we saved and that not of ourselves; it is the GIFT of
> >God NOT OF WORKS, lest anyone should boast
>
> Of course I have - over and over and over. You just can't remember, or don't
> want to remember.
>
salvation.
> Paul was telling them that they no longer apply.
>
to instiutue a whole set of works in its religious ceremonies that
must be
observed.
If the occassion arises it is also alright to act wrongly
towards Protestants in the hope of covering their own misdeeds and of
making the Protestant responsible for the problems the misdeeds of
the Roman Catholics covered over????
And then it is also also right to take initiatives developed by
Protestants
and without any referral back to the Protestants to implement them
with
any improvements as their own in their entirity????
Duke, I have had a gut-full of your own magnification of your Roman
Catholic
Church as the only true church, The hierarchy at Rome added and added
to scripture.
It now has the audacity to present Mary McKillop as Australia's first
saint.
She is not even the first saint of the Roman Catholic Church in
Australia
because there have been many men and women in the Roman Catholic
Church who lived by rules of good actions towards others, but who did
not
have teaching roles as nuns and brothers.
All Christians are saints which I pointed out in a local newspaper in
this area
which the Roman Catholic Church seems to want to make 'Mary McKillop
Country'. It moved one of its schools after my newspaper letter had
been
published to a new site and renamed it Mary McKillop High School -
those datings have just occured to me as I am posting.
Mary McKillop was not involved in education in this area,
But Henry Parkes was in 1880. The Vatican would not allow the RC
schools
to come into those new education arrangements even though the NSW
Roman Catholic Church was agreeable.
Rome = Babylon is drunk with its own quest for power
Gladys Swager-
swa...@ozemail.com.au
:
Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9
For by grace are we saved and that not of ourselves; it is the GIFT of
God NOT OF WORKS, lest anyone should boast
>
wife and
the Christians who sailed with them from April 1787 to January 1788
to
Australia - now named one of the epic voyages of saling ship history..
There are descendents of those persons living in Australia today.
My forebears of the first and second of four generations in Australia
probably
came here from about 1850 - I have not researched that history, five
of them were
Roman Catholics and one was Chrurch of England. .
Perhaps it was because I had attened in Protestant denominations that
from somewhat early in my teaching career I was subjected to what
could be termed 'verbal abuse' in school staffrooms from teachers who
were
Roman Catholic and then to be appointed as Teaching Mistress to two
Infants Departments that had been given top A-listing by manipulated
Inspections. "Just see what you can do, now girl, in taming the
misbehaving
pupils - and if you use physical punishment we will set up a radio
programme
to denigrate you!" seems to have been the modis operandi
Yes. I am one of Australia's Christian saints. along with all
Christians,
despite at times, skew-whiff and/or tarnished haloes.
Protestants have placed Jesus Christ at the centre of our worship be
that
in the churches or the homes.
On New Year's Eve 1983 I typed my first Community newsletter and
continued to
do so until about 2000, (The Roman Catholic Church has seen an
opportunity to
dominate this area because of migration from Europe and Asia,)
Perhaps it was Extra Sensory Perception that gave me the sense that
should be done,
God can use ESP, as a means of informing some of us of actions we
should take.
They were distributed by Letter-box drop and for a time in
the context of a Talk=Back radio programme in which expressions of
antagonism
against such means being made. I am more convinced now of the
possibility of
the T-B_Radio host being Roman Catholic.
Persecution of some Christians - I believe that it can still happen
today,
especially when the RC Church wants to regain the supremacy it lost as
it
introduced teachings that were contrary to the New Testament.
But will the Church at Rome (the Vatican) recant? Let's wait and
see!
Gladys Swager
theo
wrote:
> Yes. I am one of Australia's Christian saints. along with all
> Christians,
> despite at times, skew-whiff and/or tarnished haloes.
So you think Mark T is a saint? Kevin Rudd? Malcolm Turnbull? Tony
Abbott?
Theo
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Jan 3, 9:26 am, swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
> > Yes. I am one of Australia's Christian saints. along with all
>
> So you think Mark T is a saint? Kevin Rudd? Malcolm Turnbull? Tony
> Abbott?
>
Mark T has has a lot of disappointments in his life.
I think I know something more about him than he probably thinks I
know.
I believe he is a person who thinks he knows all (or at least most) of
the
truth according to his version and those who do not agree with him
on some/all issues just haven't 'got it'!
Kenin Rudd - he thinks his party has made all the improvements.
perhaps he has been kept from the truth that his party caused the
increase
in behaviour problems in children in the post-war years and it was
Infant's
teachers (including 'Yours truly' who initiated the reforms.
Malcolm Turnball - I haven't formed an opinion on him.
Tony Abbot is speaking on Radio 2GB just now as I am typing this.
He sounds a thoughtful, sincere person who is trying to do a good job
I do not agree with some of his religious (RC) views.
In respect of all politicians I have come to realise that they pick up
ideas
from many sources and, to treat them graciously, I have to say they
do not have the time to find the originators, ....
but would they want to if they had the time.
The problem with religious teachings is the indoctrinations from very
young years.
I am also involved in that, but from the wider reading
I am doing now I believe that mainstream Protestantism is closer
to the New Testament teachings.
What is required is discussions between the various denominations
in an effort to bring about a consensus about the Christian faith -
but I know that can be difficult - these newsgroups demonstrate that.
Gladys Swager
**Rowland Croucher**
Hi Theo
There are two meanings in Christian theology for 'saint': 1. All who
profess to belong to Christ (how successfully they follow Christ is
another question), and 2. In Catholic and Orthodox and Anglican etc.
hagiography, those saints - small s - who actually do try to follow
Christ with all their heart, mind etc. And yet, and yet... you have
Bernard of Clairvaux, who can write beautiful hymns of praise to Jesus,
and on the same day bless Crusaders off to slaughter Moslems...
--
Shalom/Salaam/Pax! Rowland Croucher
Justice for Dawn Rowan - http://dawnrowansaga.blogspot.com/
Chris Bell
> theo wrote:
>> On Jan 3, 9:26 am, "s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes. I am one of Australia's Christian saints. along with all
>>> Christians,
>>> despite at times, skew-whiff and/or tarnished haloes.
>>
>> So you think Mark T is a saint? Kevin Rudd? Malcolm Turnbull? Tony
>> Abbott?
>>
>> Theo
>
> Hi Theo
>
> There are two meanings in Christian theology for 'saint': 1. All who
> profess to belong to Christ (how successfully they follow Christ is
> another question), and 2. In Catholic and Orthodox and Anglican etc.
> hagiography, those saints - small s - who actually do try to follow
> Christ with all their heart, mind etc. And yet, and yet... you have
> Bernard of Clairvaux, who can write beautiful hymns of praise to Jesus,
> and on the same day bless Crusaders off to slaughter Moslems...
>
an army killing Muslims in Afghanistan.
Life is full of contradictions.
Chris
swa...@ozemail.com.au
<rccroucher@contactemailonwebsite> wrote:
> theo wrote:
> > On Jan 3, 9:26 am, "s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Yes. I am one of Australia's Christian saints. along with all
> >> Christians,
> >> despite at times, skew-whiff and/or tarnished haloes.
>
> profess to belong to Christ (how successfully they follow Christ is
> another question), and 2. In Catholic and Orthodox and Anglican etc.
> hagiography, those saints - small s - who actually do try to follow
> Christ with all their heart, mind etc. And yet, and yet... you have
> Bernard of Clairvaux, who can write beautiful hymns of praise to Jesus,
> and on the same day bless Crusaders off to slaughter Moslems...
>
scriptures
The Crusades happened because of the Moslem advances through
Palestine and into South-eastern Europe. The first was sanctioned by
the Pope
at that time, the other three Crusades were independently organised,
even one by children, all of whom died in the attempt if I remember
my
reading of it correctly.
The Christians did not remember Matthew 5 : 44
Muhammed evidently didn't learn of it from the Nestorian Christaians
in Mecca
from whom he learnt other aspects of the Christian faith. .
Gladys Swager
duke
<rccroucher@contactemailonwebsite> wrote:
>theo wrote:
>> On Jan 3, 9:26 am, "s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes. I am one of Australia's Christian saints. along with all
>>> Christians,
>>> despite at times, skew-whiff and/or tarnished haloes.
>>
>> So you think Mark T is a saint? Kevin Rudd? Malcolm Turnbull? Tony
>> Abbott?
>>
>> Theo
>
>Hi Theo
>There are two meanings in Christian theology for 'saint': 1. All who
>profess to belong to Christ (how successfully they follow Christ is
>another question), and
>2. In Catholic and Orthodox and Anglican etc.
>hagiography, those saints - small s - who actually do try to follow
>Christ with all their heart, mind etc. And yet, and yet... you have
>Bernard of Clairvaux, who can write beautiful hymns of praise to Jesus,
>and on the same day bless Crusaders off to slaughter Moslems...
Slaughter muslims??? He blessed the Christians going off to war to stop the
muslim hoards from overrunning the Holy Land and then on into Europe.
duke
obummer is a muslim lover, not a Christian.
duke
>On Jan 3, 9:20�pm, **Rowland Croucher**
><rccroucher@contactemailonwebsite> wrote:
>> theo wrote:
>> > On Jan 3, 9:26 am, "s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> Yes. I am one of Australia's Christian saints. along with all
>> >> Christians,
>> >> despite at times, skew-whiff and/or tarnished haloes.
>>
>> There are two meanings in Christian theology for 'saint': 1. All who
>> profess to belong to Christ (how successfully they follow Christ is
>> another question), and 2. In Catholic and Orthodox and Anglican etc.
>> hagiography, those saints - small s - who actually do try to follow
>> Christ with all their heart, mind etc. And yet, and yet... you have
>> Bernard of Clairvaux, who can write beautiful hymns of praise to Jesus,
>> and on the same day bless Crusaders off to slaughter Moslems...
>>
>No 2 is not the meaning for 'saints' in the New Testamant
>scriptures
That's right - it's for exemplary service to God and man. Many gave their lives
for the Church. And yes, it is a capital "S" for Saint.
duke
wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:33:13 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:01:50 -0800 (PST), "s...@ozemail.com.au"
>><swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>On Jan 1, 12:06�am, duke wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>>>> >On Dec 31, 4:46�am, duke wrote:
>>>> > > Gladys wrote
>>
>>>A Prayer at the start of the New Year.
>>>O Lord, we ask you to mercifully receive the prayers of your people
>>>who call on youl and grant that we may understand and know the things
>>>we ought to do. and also that we may have grace and power
>>>to faithfully fulfill them, through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen
>>
>>That's good. But why would you need to ask God to be merciful when he is
>>already pouring out his love to us?
>
>Probably because God's love feels to us like abuse.
Not to me. You have a weird condition.
>>>> Revelation 21:27 (New International Version)
>>>> 27Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful
>>>> or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.
>>>Forgiven sins means that God has forgotten them. (Psalm 103 : 12)
>>>As far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our
>>>transgressions (sins) from us.
>>Yes.
>You indicated that you blame God for all our troubles so God is not in a
>position to forgive us.
Nope, never did that.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >On Jan 3, 9:20 pm, **Rowland Croucher** wrote:
> >> theo wrote:
> >> > On Jan 3, 9:26 am, "s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au>
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> >> Yes. I am one of Australia's Christian saints. along with all
> >> >> Christians,
> >> >> despite at times, skew-whiff and/or tarnished haloes.
>
> >> There are two meanings in Christian theology for 'saint': 1. All who
> >> profess to belong to Christ (how successfully they follow Christ is
> >> another question), and 2. In Catholic and Orthodox and Anglican etc.
> >> hagiography, those saints - small s - who actually do try to follow
> >> Christ with all their heart, mind etc. And yet, and yet... you have
> >> Bernard of Clairvaux, who can write beautiful hymns of praise to Jesus,
> >> and on the same day bless Crusaders off to slaughter Moslems...
>
> >No 2 is not the meaning for 'saints' in the New Testamant
> >scriptures
>
> That's right - it's for exemplary service to God and man. Many gave their lives
> for the Church. And yes, it is a capital "S" for Saint.
>
is.
THE CHURCH is all those who have put their faith in Jesus Christ for
salvation,
All Christians are God's saints. Good's saints are all those who have
accepted
God's salvation. That also means the little old lady who cleans the
church,
The old man who helps a neighbour as his means of showing concern and
his love for Jesus. The teenager who talks to his friend about his
love for Jesus.
And many, many more.
Mary McKillop has been chosen by the RC Church as a media
extravaganza
when the Pope has to come and go through a serive of canonisation, to
make
it seem that the RC Church has exemplary persons that the other
churches
(denominations) do not have. Like WYD08 it is done at great expense,
some from the Vatican (richest in the world) Bank, some out of the
Public Purse
(possibly) NSW again.
From 1984 to about 2000 I published a Christian/Educational
Community
Newsletter in this area - a Talk-Back radio station aired complaints
about
such an activity - seemed specifically against my effort - wonder if
the host
was RC (???). Was able to have a Vacation Adventure Time organised by
local Protestant churches (and paid for by me) with children referred
to their
own nominated churches - no 'cradle snatching' - But not the RC Church
-
it is so arrogant - it thinks it is the only true denomination -
it claims authority from 33 AD even thou many of its decrees and
proclamations
come from 310AD to 1950AD and are not in the New Testament
scriptures.
The RC Church claims superiority in children's education but a
Principal of
a NSW Primary School - RC - organised an Education Week seminar
in Goulburn from sometime before 958 to possibly sometime after 1960.
My class presented Reading Word Recognition Skills that amazed
teachers
present, but as I had not given my method a name and in fact had too
little
time to explain to two nuns standing near by, I guess, it was thought
I
would not share. It took another 35 years before it was stated the
'Phonics
was the way to go!' in Reading instruction. When I did a study of the
spelling
variations for the English vowels and talked about it with lectuers
from
Macquaries University in 1975 I was told that study had been done
there
with a computer programme. It was in 1995 that a public announcement
was
made and in 1998 one Uniting Church began a tutoring programme with
an input from that University. I had shown a local school increased
performance
in one boy that amazed the teachers. So! SO!
Gladys Swager
bam
"Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pogtj5t1ni3ji0nja...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:33:13 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:01:50 -0800 (PST), "s...@ozemail.com.au"
>><swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>On Jan 1, 12:06 am, duke wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>>>> >On Dec 31, 4:46 am, duke wrote:
>>>> > > Gladys wrote
> So if we don't forgive God for his callousness and abuse God won't forgive
> us for being the way he made us?
Do you practice what you preach? If some guy kills your father, rapes your
mother and testifies in court that he saw you do it, would you tell him to
go in peace? That he couldn't help it because God made him that way?
BAM
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Jan 4, 1:51 am, duke wrote:
> > On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> > >On Jan 3, 9:20 pm, **Rowland Croucher** wrote:
> > >Yes. I am one of Australia's Christian saints. along with all
> > > Christians, despite at times, skew-whiff and/or tarnished haloes.
>
> > >> There are two meanings in Christian theology for 'saint': 1. All who
> > >> profess to belong to Christ (how successfully they follow Christ is
> > >> another question), and 2. In Catholic and Orthodox and Anglican etc.
> > >> hagiography, those saints - small s - who actually do try to follow
> > >> Christ with all their heart, mind etc. And yet, and yet... you have
> > >> Bernard of Clairvaux, who can write beautiful hymns of praise to Jesus,
> > >> and on the same day bless Crusaders off to slaughter Moslems...
>
> > >No 2 is not the meaning for 'saints' in the New Testamant
> > >scriptures
>
> > That's right - it's for exemplary service to God and man.
> > Many gave their lives for the Church. And yes, it is a capital "S" for Saint.
>
And there were others who because of circumstances their efforts/works
of love
went relatively unnoticed. There is one thing for sure, at the Last
Judgement
God will not judge as humans judge and someone/ones that were not
publically
canonised may have the higher recommendations by God.
> THE CHURCH IS NOT solely the Roman Catholic Church as you state it
> is.
> THE CHURCH is all those who have put their faith in Jesus Christ for
> salvation,
> All Christians are God's saints. God's saints are all those who have
> accepted
> God's salvation. That also means the little old lady who cleans the
> church,
> The old man who helps a neighbour as his means of showing concern and
> his love for Jesus. The teenager who talks to his friend about his
> love for Jesus.
> And many, many more.
>
> Mary McKillop has been chosen by the RC Church as a media
> extravaganza
> when the Pope has to come and go through a service of canonisation, to
> make it seem that the RC Church has an exemplary person of greater
> value than the other churches. What a clever ploy to gain media coverage,
> ike WYD08 it is done at great expense,
> some from the Vatican (richest in the world) Bank, some out of the
> Public Purse (possibly) NSW again.
>
> From 1984 to about 2000 I published a Christian/Educational
> Community Newsletter in this area
This area was used for the start of the travel of the cross for WYD08
A school was moved westward and renamed the Mary McKillop High
School in the late 1980's ot sometime during the 1990's.
This area, as far as churches were concerned was Protestant, but an
influx of European and Asian migrants have changed that.
I wonder how many of those migrants really had an opportunity to
determine
the type of Christianity they wanted to follow.
> a Talk-Back radio station aired complaints about
> such an activity - seemed specifically against my effort - wonder if
> the host was RC (???).
> Was able to have a Vacation Adventure Time organised by
> local Protestant churches (and paid for by me) with children referred
> to their own nominated churches - no 'cradle snatching' -
> But not the RC Church
> -
> it is so arrogant - it thinks it is the only true denomination -
> it claims authority from 33 AD even though many of its decrees and
> proclamations come from 310AD to 1950AD
> and are not in the New Testament scriptures.
>
> The RC Church claims superiority in children's education but a
> Principal of a NSW Primary School - RC - organised an Education Week seminar
> in Goulburn from sometime before 1958 to possibly sometime after 1960.
> My class presented Reading Word Recognition Skills that amazed
> teachers present, but as I had not given my method a name and in fact had too
> little time to explain to two nuns standing near by, I guess, it was thought
> I would not share. It took another 35 years before it was stated the
> 'Phonics was the way to go!' in Reading instruction. When I did a study of the
> spelling variations for the English vowels and talked about it with lectuers
> from Macquarie University in 1975 I was told that study had been done
> there with a computer programme. It was in 1995 that a public announcement
> was made and in 1998 one Uniting Church began a tutoring programme with
> an input from that University. I had shown a local school increased
> performance in one boy that amazed the teachers. So! SO!
I hope all corrections have been made.
Gladys Swager
duke
>On Jan 4, 1:51�am, duke wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> >On Jan 3, 9:20 pm, **Rowland Croucher** wrote:
>> >> theo wrote:
>> >> > On Jan 3, 9:26 am, "s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au>
>> >> > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Yes. I am one of Australia's Christian saints. along with all
>> >> >> Christians,
>> >> >> despite at times, skew-whiff and/or tarnished haloes.
>>
>> >> There are two meanings in Christian theology for 'saint': 1. All who
>> >> profess to belong to Christ (how successfully they follow Christ is
>> >> another question), and 2. In Catholic and Orthodox and Anglican etc.
>> >> hagiography, those saints - small s - who actually do try to follow
>> >> Christ with all their heart, mind etc. And yet, and yet... you have
>> >> Bernard of Clairvaux, who can write beautiful hymns of praise to Jesus,
>> >> and on the same day bless Crusaders off to slaughter Moslems...
>>
>> >No 2 �is not the meaning for 'saints' in the New Testamant
>> >scriptures
>>
>> That's right - it's for exemplary service to God and man. �Many gave their lives
>> for the Church. �And yes, it is a capital "S" for Saint.
>THE CHURCH IS NOT solely the Roman Catholic Church as you state it
>is.
Yet your boys rejected the teachings of Christ as you do.
>THE CHURCH is all those who have put their faith in Jesus Christ for
>salvation,
But not what he said to do.
>All Christians are God's saints. Good's saints are all those who have
>accepted God's salvation. That also means the little old lady who cleans the
>church
Right, there are no bad saints. Many, many are invited, but few are chosen -
they reject God's teachings.
duke
>> > That's right - it's for exemplary service to God and man. �
>> > Many gave their lives for the Church. �And yes, it is a capital "S" for Saint.
>And there were others who because of circumstances their efforts/works
>of love went relatively unnoticed.
God does.
> There is one thing for sure, at the Last Judgement
>God will not judge as humans judge and someone/ones that were not
>publically canonised may have the higher recommendations by God.
Remember, many are invited but few are chosen, because many won't listen to God
in his teachings.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
teachings of the
RC Church. I never heard any Protestant clergyman criticise RC
teachings.
What their personal views were not expressed on that topic.
I can see that your problem is that you are not willing to be informed
about
how and when the teachings of your church took the turn away from
the New Testament scriptures and the problems that were created by
that.
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
>"Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:pogtj5t1ni3ji0nja...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:33:13 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:01:50 -0800 (PST), "s...@ozemail.com.au"
>>><swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Jan 1, 12:06 am, duke wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>>>>> >On Dec 31, 4:46 am, duke wrote:
>>>>> > > Gladys wrote
>
>> So if we don't forgive God for his callousness and abuse God won't forgive
>> us for being the way he made us?
>
>Do you practice what you preach?
What do I preach?
>If some guy kills your father, rapes your
>mother and testifies in court that he saw you do it, would you tell him to
>go in peace?
The bible says we should do that, but if we do we are seen as weak to
be exploited.
>That he couldn't help it because God made him that way?
I don't believe in God, but I do understand some people have mental issues.
I take it you do believe God made them that way.
Do you believe that if we don't forgive God for his callousness and abuse God
won't forgive us for being the way he made us?
>BAM
Barry OGrady
>On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 09:56:03 +1100, Barry OGrady <god_fre...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:33:13 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:01:50 -0800 (PST), "s...@ozemail.com.au"
>>><swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Jan 1, 12:06�am, duke wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>>>>> >On Dec 31, 4:46�am, duke wrote:
>>>>> > > Gladys wrote
>>>
>>>>A Prayer at the start of the New Year.
>>>>O Lord, we ask you to mercifully receive the prayers of your people
>>>>who call on youl and grant that we may understand and know the things
>>>>we ought to do. and also that we may have grace and power
>>>>to faithfully fulfill them, through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen
>>>
>>>That's good. But why would you need to ask God to be merciful when he is
>>>already pouring out his love to us?
>>
>>Probably because God's love feels to us like abuse.
>
>Not to me. You have a weird condition.
Life is a weird condition. I take it you don't have a life.
>>>>> Revelation 21:27 (New International Version)
>>>>> 27Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful
>>>>> or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.
>
>>>>Forgiven sins means that God has forgotten them. (Psalm 103 : 12)
>>>>As far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our
>>>>transgressions (sins) from us.
>
>>>Yes.
>
>>You indicated that you blame God for all our troubles so God is not in a
>>position to forgive us.
>
>Nope, never did that.
You surely did. You say whatever you think sounds good at the time without
considering that it might contradict something you said before, or show
God in a very poor light.
Regardless, God is not in a moral position to forgive us any more than
abusive priests can forgive their victims.
bam
The first half of your question has a planted axiom - thus, is unanswerable.
You then proceed with a non sequitur, ie, two mutually exclusive
hypotheticals.
All God would have to do to defeat your argument is to show you a saint.
Even I can figure that one out.
BAM
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> "Barry OGrady" wrote >
> > On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 "bam" wrote:
> >>"Barry OGrady" wrote .
> >>> So if we don't forgive God for his callousness and abuse God won't
> >>> forgive us for being the way he made us?
>
> >>Do you practice what you preach?
>
> > What do I preach?
>
> >>If some guy kills your father, rapes your
> >>mother and testifies in court that he saw you do it, would you tell him to
> >>go in peace?
>
> > The bible says we should do that, but if we do we are seen as weak to
> > be exploited.
>
> >>That he couldn't help it because God made him that way?
>
> > I don't believe in God, but I do understand some people have mental
> > issues.
>
And the important issue is what causes those 'mental issues' -
emotions and attitudes developed within environmental contexts
or neurological impairment due brain damage or disease or
bio-chemical imblances in the blood supply to the brain?
As far as I know not all the causes have been found by the researchers
into those conditions.
>
> > Do you believe that if we don't forgive God for his callousness and abuse
> > God won't forgive us for being the way he made us?
>
It wasn't God's callousness, but as yet you don't seem to able to
comprehend that information.
God made the first humans perfect.
Since parents provide the
environment in which a child is conceived and develops and then lives
its life in the a world that had been created by other humans, except
in
respect of natural occurrences, in some instances the parents can be
responsilble for some problems in their children.
Better not to procreate when there is a high chance of disablement.
God will forgive all sins except the sin against the Holy Spirit - and
that sin
involves refusing God's invitation to you to accept His own begotten
Son,
Jesus Christ, as your Saviour.
> The first half of your question has a planted axiom - thus, is unanswerable.
> You then proceed with a non sequitur, ie, two mutually exclusive
> hypotheticals.
>
I can see you have had training in debating techniques and analysis
of
language utterances. Some of us do not understand your language.
> All God would have to do to defeat your argument is to show you a saint.
> Even I can figure that one out.
>
And who do you propose that saint should be?
Gladys Swager
theo
> "Barry OGrady" <god_free_jo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > Do you believe that if we don't forgive God for his callousness and abuse
> > God
> > won't forgive us for being the way he made us?
>
> The first half of your question has a planted axiom - thus, is unanswerable.
> You then proceed with a non sequitur, ie, two mutually exclusive
> hypotheticals.
>
> All God would have to do to defeat your argument is to show you a saint.
> Even I can figure that one out.
I'm sure Barry would be happy to accept defeat of his argument if God
merely showed Himself.
Theo
bam
"s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote
> All God would have to do to defeat your argument is to show you a saint.
> Even I can figure that one out.
>
>And who do you propose that saint should be?
>Gladys Swager
Shutup.
I didn't give you permission to address me.
BAM
bam
"theo" <theo...@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
news:c59e89b6-d86c-4a18...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Yes yes, that's what you all want. You won't give up anything without
absolute proof - that's how selfish and greedy you are. But when God shows
Himself, it won't be in order to entertain your doubts. It will be over - in
a big way. And perhaps you'll have a moment to reflect upon what a little
punk you were.
BAM
duke
>> >THE CHURCH is all those who have put their faith in Jesus Christ for
>> >salvation,
>> But not what he said to do.
>> >All Christians are God's saints. Good's saints are all those who have
>> >accepted God's salvation. That also means the little old lady who cleans the
>> >church
>> Right, there are no bad saints. �Many, many are invited, but few are chosen -
>> they reject God's teachings.
>Protestant leaders - Christian ministers and Pastors reject certain
>teachings of the RC Church.
It just so happens those words come from Jesus Christ.
>I never heard any Protestant clergyman criticise RC
>teachings. What their personal views were not expressed on that topic.
The internet sites you turn to are all lies for starters.
>I can see that your problem is that you are not willing to be informed
>about how and when the teachings of your church took the turn away from
>the New Testament scriptures and the problems that were created by
>that.
And no protest_ant will ever be able to how that because it is the protest_ants
that reject scripture where it reveals the words of Christ repeated by the RCC.
>
>Gladys Swager
duke
wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 09:39:38 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 09:56:03 +1100, Barry OGrady <god_fre...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:33:13 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:01:50 -0800 (PST), "s...@ozemail.com.au"
>>>><swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Jan 1, 12:06�am, duke wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>>>>>> >On Dec 31, 4:46�am, duke wrote:
>>>>>> > > Gladys wrote
>>>>
>>>>>A Prayer at the start of the New Year.
>>>>>O Lord, we ask you to mercifully receive the prayers of your people
>>>>>who call on youl and grant that we may understand and know the things
>>>>>we ought to do. and also that we may have grace and power
>>>>>to faithfully fulfill them, through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen
>>>>
>>>>That's good. But why would you need to ask God to be merciful when he is
>>>>already pouring out his love to us?
>>>
>>>Probably because God's love feels to us like abuse.
>>
>>Not to me. You have a weird condition.
>
>Life is a weird condition. I take it you don't have a life.
I have a wonderful life.
>>>You indicated that you blame God for all our troubles so God is not in a
>>>position to forgive us.
>>Nope, never did that.
>You surely did.
Nope.
>You say whatever you think sounds good at the time without
>considering that it might contradict something you said before, or show
>God in a very poor light.
>
>Regardless, God is not in a moral position to forgive us any more than
>abusive priests can forgive their victims.
God is infinite love. If you end up in hell, you end up there because you
volunteered for it.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >> >THE CHURCH is all those who have put their faith in Jesus Christ for
> >> >salvation,
> >> But not what he said to do.
> >> >accepted God's salvation. That also means the little old lady who cleans the
> >> Right, there are no bad saints. Many, many are invited, but few are chosen -
> >> they reject God's teachings.
Saints are 'saved by grace, through faith, and that not of
themselves.
it is the gift of God'.
> >Protestant leaders - Christian ministers and Pastors reject certain
> >teachings of the RC Church.
>
> It just so happens those words come from Jesus Christ.
>
The Protestants reject the words and rulings of the RC Church
THAT DID NOT COME FROM JESUS.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >I never heard any Protestant clergyman criticise RC
> >teachings. What their personal views were not expressed on that topic.
>
> The internet sites you turn to are all lies for starters.
>
You do not know that because you do not know ALL the Internet sites
that I access. You are really saying that the RC sites I access are
LIES.
> >I can see that your problem is that you are not willing to be informed
> >about how and when the teachings of your church took the turn away from
> >the New Testament scriptures and the problems that were created by
> >that.
>
The probelms began in the RC Church as additions were made to
NEW TESTAMENT teachings.
> And no Protestant will ever be able to show that because it is the Protestants
> that reject scripture where it reveals the words of Christ repeated by the RCC.
>
And the RC Church has to show me the words - Purgatory, Indulgences,
Transubstantiation, Mary remains a virgin, was immaculate, was assumed
into
heaven, Scapulars and Rosary beads, celibacy for priests,
saints as persons named by teh RC Church so only its members (now
dead)
can have that title in front of their given names.
Duke, it is obvious that there have been priests in hierarchial ranks
working
out their regulations as they were protected behind the walled mini-
city of
the Vatican to enforce their understandings on the unsuspecting
members.
and building up the richest bank in the world to pay for their public
appearances
at WYDays and canonisation programmes - over 1400 persons waiting in
the wings
for those ceremonies. And for paying for public announcements of their
charitable
programmes. What a programme of deceit!!!!
I have had experience of 'What you Protestants initiate we will use
whatever means
to say "We can do better!", as we come along later.
Do Roman Catholics ever give Protestants any praise for Protestant
initiatives?
Gladys Swager
theo
> "theo" <theodo...@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
> > All God would have to do to defeat your argument is to show you a saint.
> > Even I can figure that one out.
> >I'm sure Barry would be happy to accept defeat of his argument if God
> >merely showed Himself.
>
> Yes yes, that's what you all want. You won't give up anything without
> absolute proof - that's how selfish and greedy you are. But when God shows
> Himself, it won't be in order to entertain your doubts. It will be over - in
> a big way. And perhaps you'll have a moment to reflect upon what a little
> punk you were.
So God won't give any evidence that He exists except to turn up at the
end and codemn His beloved creations to hell for eternity?
Theo
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >Protestant leaders - Christian ministers and Pastors reject certain
> >teachings of the RC Church.
>
> It just so happens those words come from Jesus Christ.
>
Jesus did not use the term 'Protestants' - it does describe those who
rejected the Pope;s teachings on Indulgences to gain an earlier
release
from Purgatory. They Protested. and it was the RC's aho stated that,
anfd teh term stuck!,
> >I never heard any Protestant clergyman criticise RC
> >teachings. What their personal views were not expressed on that topic.
>
> The internet sites you turn to are all lies for starters.
>
I turn to some Roman Catholic websites occasionally.
So they are telling me lies and more lies???. .
> >I can see that your problem is that you are not willing to be informed
> >about how and when the teachings of your church took the turn away from
> >the New Testament scriptures and the problems that were created by
> >that.
>
> And no Protestant will ever be able to show that because it is the Protestants
> that reject scripture where it reveals the words of Christ repeated by the RCC.
>
Give me incidences when Protestants rejected scriptures.
Give me Book, Chapter and verse (BCV) where it states that Mary was
perfected in her (immaculate) conception. No telling me why you think
that
the RC Church states that BUT give me the actual reference.
Why did Mary say
(Luke 1 : 47) "My spirit has rejoiced in God MY SAVIOUR.
Only sinners need a saviour. So she was not immaculate,
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
>
>"theo" <theo...@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
>news:c59e89b6-d86c-4a18...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>On Jan 5, 10:48 am, "bam" <blahblahb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> "Barry OGrady" <god_free_jo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>> > Do you believe that if we don't forgive God for his callousness and
>> > abuse God won't forgive us for being the way he made us?
>>
>> The first half of your question has a planted axiom - thus, is
>> unanswerable.
>> You then proceed with a non sequitur, ie, two mutually exclusive
>> hypotheticals.
>>
>> All God would have to do to defeat your argument is to show you a saint.
>> Even I can figure that one out.
>
>>I'm sure Barry would be happy to accept defeat of his argument if God
>>merely showed Himself.
>
>Yes yes, that's what you all want.
You'd think God would know and respect that.
>You won't give up anything without
>absolute proof - that's how selfish and greedy you are.
That's enough of that! Sure, God is a complete failure as a creator and
carer but you don't need to rub it in.
>But when God shows
>Himself, it won't be in order to entertain your doubts. It will be over - in
>a big way. And perhaps you'll have a moment to reflect upon what a little
>punk you were.
Its amusing to see someone so aggressive over their completely wrong
and stupid beliefs.
You are proof of no intelligent designer.
Barry OGrady
Thanks for that. Would you like to try answering the question?
It has been said that unless we forgive others God won't forgive us.
Hence my question;
Do you believe that if we don't forgive God for his callousness and abuse
God won't forgive us for being the way he made us?
>All God would have to do to defeat your argument is to show you a saint.
>Even I can figure that one out.
That's beyond me. If God showed me anything I would become a believer,
but my opinion of God would not change.
duke
>On Jan 6, 4:34�am, duke wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> >> >THE CHURCH is all those who have put their faith in Jesus Christ for
>> >> >salvation,
>> >> But not what he said to do.
>> >> >All Christians are God's saints. God's saints are all those who have
>> >> >accepted God's salvation. That also means the little old lady who cleans the
>> >> >church is also a saint.
>> >> Right, there are no bad saints. �Many, many are invited, but few are chosen -
>> >> they reject God's teachings.
>Saints are 'saved by grace, through faith, and that not of
>themselves. it is the gift of God'.
Matthew 16:24-25 (New International Version)
24Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must
deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 25For whoever wants to save
his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it.
You keep demanding that you have nothing to do.
>> >Protestant leaders - Christian ministers and Pastors reject certain
>> >teachings of the RC Church.
>> It just so happens those words come from Jesus Christ.
>The Protestants reject the words and rulings of the RC Church
>THAT DID NOT COME FROM JESUS.
You make whole sale rejection of the gospels.
>> >I never heard any Protestant clergyman criticise RC
>> >teachings. �What their personal views were not expressed on that topic.
>> The internet sites you turn to are all lies for starters.
>You do not know that because you do not know ALL the Internet sites
>that I access. You are really saying that the RC sites I access are
>LIES.
As a Catholic, the protest_ant sites flat out lie. Their demonstrated ignorance
is overwhelming. And you turn to these sites. I've told you many times - if
you want to know about the RCC, go to a Catholic site, not a dumb protest_er
site.
>> >I can see that your problem is that you are not willing to be informed
>> >about how and when the teachings of your church took the turn away from
>> >the New Testament scriptures and the problems that were created by
>> >that.
>The probelms began in the RC Church as additions were made to
>NEW TESTAMENT teachings.
There are no additions to the NT and you can't and never have been able to show
any. But you do reflect wholesale rejection of NT teachings.
>> And no Protestant will ever be able to show that because it is the Protestants
>> that reject scripture where it reveals the words of Christ repeated by the RCC.
>And the RC Church has to show me the words - Purgatory, Indulgences,
>Transubstantiation, Mary remains a virgin, was immaculate, was assumed
>into
>heaven, Scapulars and Rosary beads, celibacy for priests,
>saints as persons named by teh RC Church so only its members (now
>dead)
>can have that title in front of their given names.
I showed you the words in scripture.
duke
>On Jan 6, 4:34�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
>> >Protestant leaders - Christian ministers and Pastors reject certain
>> >teachings of the RC Church.
>>
>> It just so happens those words come from Jesus Christ.
>>
>Jesus did not use the term 'Protestants'
They didn't come along for 1600 years.
>- it does describe those who
>rejected the Pope;s teachings on Indulgences to gain an earlier
>release
>from Purgatory. They Protested. and it was the RC's aho stated that,
>anfd teh term stuck!,
It came from those desiring to reject the teachings of Jesus by those that
wanted to play God for themselves. Think A&E.
>> >I never heard any Protestant clergyman criticise RC
>> >teachings. �What their personal views were not expressed on that topic.
>> The internet sites you turn to are all lies for starters.
>I turn to some Roman Catholic websites occasionally.
>So they are telling me lies and more lies???. .
If you want truth about the RCC, turn to RC sites. If you want dumb lies about
the RCC, turn to protest_er sites.
>> >I can see that your problem is that you are not willing to be informed
>> >about how and when the teachings of your church took the turn away from
>> >the New Testament scriptures and the problems that were created by
>> >that.
>>
>> And no Protestant will ever be able to show that because it is the Protestants
>> that reject scripture where it reveals the words of Christ repeated by the RCC.
>Give me incidences when Protestants rejected scriptures.
The Holy Mass, 7 sacraments and the teaching authority called the Papacy.
>Give me Book, Chapter and verse (BCV) where it states that Mary was
>perfected in her (immaculate) conception.
Not written down. The new Christians believed it.
> No telling me why you think
>that the RC Church states that BUT give me the actual reference.
>Why did Mary say
>(Luke 1 : 47) "My spirit has rejoiced in God MY SAVIOUR.
How would she know otherwise?
>Only sinners need a saviour. So she was not immaculate,
How would she know otherwise?
theo
wrote:
> On Jan 6, 4:34 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> > And no Protestant will ever be able to show that because it is the Protestants
> > that reject scripture where it reveals the words of Christ repeated by the RCC.
>
> Give me incidences when Protestants rejected scriptures.
The seven books of the apocrypha for starters. Interestingly Luther
included them but the Protestants later rejected them outright.
Looking forward to your response. :-)
Theo
swa...@ozemail.com.au
Protestants, I have read, reject the Apocrypha because there are no
cross references to it in the New Testament scriptures.
That would particularly apply to prayers for the dead, Purgatory and
Indulgences.
As I read the New Testament the basics are Ephsians 2 : 8 - 9
For by grace are we saved through faith, and that not of ourselves.
it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest anyone should boast.
And then go on in good works as I am able to do them
believing that God, through Jesus Christ will lead me as
I go on into the future for the number of years He has planned for me
to live on this earth. 1 Cor. 3 : 11 - 15
Gladys Swager
theo
wrote:
> > > Give me incidences when Protestants rejected scriptures.
>
> > The seven books of the apocrypha for starters. Interestingly Luther
> > included them but the Protestants later rejected them outright.
> > Looking forward to your response. :-)
>
> I read the Apocrypha a long time ago. I was not impressed with it.
> Protestants, I have read, reject the Apocrypha because there are no
> cross references to it in the New Testament scriptures.
Gladys, you asked for incidences where Protestants rejected
scriptures. I gave you seven whole books that were accepted by Luther
but not by modern Protestants. It matters not whether you were
impressed by them. You rejected scriptures. QED.
Theo
swa...@ozemail.com.au
accepted
them does not of necessity qualify them as sacred scripture.
M.Luther did not correct all the errors of the RC Church prior to his
time.
He was a man of his time as many others have been and still are.
I have been told in one newsgroup that Luther did not object to
Indulgences
as such but that the money from them would be returned to Rome for
the rebuilding of St Peter's Cathedral, and not being left in Germany
for what
Church leaders could do with it there. I haven't checked that
information.
However, Purgatory and Indulgences should not have been part of the
Church's
teaching as they are not in New Testament teachings.
Gladys Swager.
bam
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 07:58:38 -0500, "bam" <blahbl...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"theo" <theo...@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
>>news:c59e89b6-d86c-4a18...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>>On Jan 5, 10:48 am, "bam" <blahblahb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> "Barry OGrady" <god_free_jo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> > Do you believe that if we don't forgive God for his callousness and
>>> > abuse God won't forgive us for being the way he made us?
>>>
>>> The first half of your question has a planted axiom - thus, is
>>> unanswerable.
>>> You then proceed with a non sequitur, ie, two mutually exclusive
>>> hypotheticals.
>>>
>>> All God would have to do to defeat your argument is to show you a saint.
>>> Even I can figure that one out.
>>
>>>I'm sure Barry would be happy to accept defeat of his argument if God
>>>merely showed Himself.
>>
>>Yes yes, that's what you all want.
>
> You'd think God would know and respect that.
One would think you would obey He who is all good and all knowing.
>
>>You won't give up anything without
>>absolute proof - that's how selfish and greedy you are.
>
> That's enough of that! Sure, God is a complete failure as a creator and
> carer but you don't need to rub it in.
Er, you mean the God whose existence you deny............
>
>>But when God shows
>>Himself, it won't be in order to entertain your doubts. It will be over -
>>in
>>a big way. And perhaps you'll have a moment to reflect upon what a little
>>punk you were.
>
> Its amusing to see someone so aggressive over their completely wrong
> and stupid beliefs.
> You are proof of no intelligent designer.
Happy to entertain.
BAM
bam
"Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> Do you believe that if we don't forgive God for his callousness and
>>> abuse
>>> God won't forgive us for being the way he made us?
>>
>>The first half of your question has a planted axiom - thus, is
>>unanswerable.
>>You then proceed with a non sequitur, ie, two mutually exclusive
>>hypotheticals.
>
> Thanks for that. Would you like to try answering the question?
It's impossible to answer. It's like saying, "Should I forgive you for
punching me even though you're not sorry?" My answer would be, "I haven't
punched you."
God will forgive you when you feel the need to exist with a clean heart and
discover you're unable to on your own, and ask Him for His help. No one said
getting to Heaven would be easy. But you like to take the attitude that God
created a defective human because you don't hold the home run record, or
you're not the fastest man alive, so what's the sense of trying anything.
> It has been said that unless we forgive others God won't forgive us.
> Hence my question;
> Do you believe that if we don't forgive God for his callousness and abuse
> God won't forgive us for being the way he made us?
>
>>All God would have to do to defeat your argument is to show you a saint.
>>Even I can figure that one out.
>
> That's beyond me. If God showed me anything I would become a believer,
> but my opinion of God would not change.
To your first statement, bravo! Who wouldn't?
To your second, you have no idea how you would react. I think you would
confess your insolence and bullheadedness.
BAM
bam
Correct. I don't need any more evidence than a blade of grass. But you,
being a punk, think you have an excuse for your immorality because God
hasn't personally introduced Himself.
BAM
duke
>On Jan 7, 10:47�am, theo wrote:
>> On Jan 6, 4:04�pm, swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> > On Jan 6, 4:34�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> > > And no Protestant will ever be able to show that because it is the Protestants
>> > > that reject scripture where it reveals the words of Christ repeated by the RCC.
>>
>> > Give me incidences when Protestants rejected scriptures.
>>
>> The seven books of the apocrypha for starters. Interestingly Luther
>> included them but the Protestants later rejected them outright.
>> Looking forward to your response. :-)
>I read the Apocrypha a long time ago. I was not impressed with it.
I'm not surprised that you aren't impressed with inspired scripture. But I do
understand as you pick 2 or 3 statements you like and claim that says all.
>Protestants, I have read, reject the Apocrypha because there are no
>cross references to it in the New Testament scriptures.
No, because the Jews initially rejected it as OT canon because the books were
written in Greece. Does the word "Apocrypha" sound Jewish or Greek?
>That would particularly apply to prayers for the dead, Purgatory and
>Indulgences.
That's the real reason protest_ers hide from it.
>As I read the New Testament the basics are Ephsians 2 : 8 - 9
Jesus told you that you're wrong.
duke
>However, Purgatory and Indulgences should not have been part of the
>Church's
>teaching as they are not in New Testament teachings.
Purification is the only way the huge majority of Christians will see God. Be
careful what you wish for, gladys.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 "s...@ozemail.com.au" wrote
>
> >However, Purgatory and Indulgences should not have been part of the
> >Church's teaching as they are not in New Testament teachings.
>
> Purification is the only way the huge majority of Christians will see God. Be
> careful what you wish for, gladys.
>
Jesus Christ is not able to save those to uttmost who come to Him.
seeing He ever lives to make intercession for them. Hebrews 7 : 25
The RC church puts men in the place of God and His word to us,
(has changed the meaning of 'hageos' in the New Jerusalem Bible
(1985) .
- interesting I have just realised that coincided with the start of
World
Youth Days and possibly canonisation ceremonies (one large one in
China (but I would need to check the dates)
(the RC Church needs to go back about 600 years
to collect about 1400 persons for those canonisation ceremonies.)
in its attempts
to convince the non-Christian to believe that it is the true
Christian church.
All are theatrical performances
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
>On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 19:20:55 -0800 (PST), "s...@ozemail.com.au"
>
>>However, Purgatory and Indulgences should not have been part of the
>>Church's
>>teaching as they are not in New Testament teachings.
>
>Purification is the only way the huge majority of Christians will see God.
Why doesn't God purify us all now?
>Be careful what you wish for, gladys.
Surely God knows what we want even if we don't ask properly.
>The Dukester, American-American
Barry OGrady
>On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 09:46:09 +1100, Barry OGrady <god_fre...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 09:39:38 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 09:56:03 +1100, Barry OGrady <god_fre...@yahoo.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:33:13 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:01:50 -0800 (PST), "s...@ozemail.com.au"
>>>>><swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Jan 1, 12:06�am, duke wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>>>>>>> >On Dec 31, 4:46�am, duke wrote:
>>>>>>> > > Gladys wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>A Prayer at the start of the New Year.
>>>>>>O Lord, we ask you to mercifully receive the prayers of your people
>>>>>>who call on youl and grant that we may understand and know the things
>>>>>>we ought to do. and also that we may have grace and power
>>>>>>to faithfully fulfill them, through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen
>>>>>
>>>>>That's good. But why would you need to ask God to be merciful when he is
>>>>>already pouring out his love to us?
>>>>
>>>>Probably because God's love feels to us like abuse.
>>>
>>>Not to me. You have a weird condition.
>>
>>Life is a weird condition. I take it you don't have a life.
>
>I have a wonderful life.
Are you aware of people who don't have a wonderful life?
>>>>You indicated that you blame God for all our troubles so God is not in a
>>>>position to forgive us.
>
>>>Nope, never did that.
>
>>You surely did.
>
>Nope.
>
>>You say whatever you think sounds good at the time without
>>considering that it might contradict something you said before, or show
>>God in a very poor light.
>>
>>Regardless, God is not in a moral position to forgive us any more than
>>abusive priests can forgive their victims.
>
>God is infinite love.
What does that mean to us?
>If you end up in hell, you end up there because you volunteered for it.
Nobody would volunteer if they were properly informed or if there was no hell.
Barry OGrady
>"Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>>>> Do you believe that if we don't forgive God for his callousness and
>>>> abuse
>>>> God won't forgive us for being the way he made us?
>>>
>>>The first half of your question has a planted axiom - thus, is
>>>unanswerable.
>>>You then proceed with a non sequitur, ie, two mutually exclusive
>>>hypotheticals.
>>
>> Thanks for that. Would you like to try answering the question?
>
>It's impossible to answer. It's like saying, "Should I forgive you for
>punching me even though you're not sorry?" My answer would be, "I haven't
>punched you."
I don't see the connection. I'm responding to the idea that God won't forgive
us unless we forgive others.
>God will forgive you when you feel the need to exist with a clean heart and
>discover you're unable to on your own, and ask Him for His help.
What would God forgive me for?
>No one said getting to Heaven would be easy.
It would be easy if there was a good God who was willing to accept
responsibility for the effects of his creating.
>But you like to take the attitude that God
>created a defective human because you don't hold the home run record, or
>you're not the fastest man alive, so what's the sense of trying anything.
It appears I've given you the wrong impression. The problem with creation
is the vast amount of suffering when there should be none.
>> It has been said that unless we forgive others God won't forgive us.
>> Hence my question;
>> Do you believe that if we don't forgive God for his callousness and abuse
>> God won't forgive us for being the way he made us?
>>
>>>All God would have to do to defeat your argument is to show you a saint.
>>>Even I can figure that one out.
>>
>> That's beyond me. If God showed me anything I would become a believer,
>> but my opinion of God would not change.
>
>To your first statement, bravo! Who wouldn't?
Of course, but it appears God would rather persecute us.
>To your second, you have no idea how you would react. I think you would
>confess your insolence and bullheadedness.
Out of fear perhaps, but if God was good he would listen to me while
I informed him of our problems and how only he can fix his mistakes.
Barry OGrady
Bam thinks God made everyone immoral and evil so he could feel needed.
Barry OGrady
>"Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:55h8k55bsanteqc86...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 07:58:38 -0500, "bam" <blahbl...@bellsouth.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"theo" <theo...@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
>>>news:c59e89b6-d86c-4a18...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>>>On Jan 5, 10:48 am, "bam" <blahblahb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>> "Barry OGrady" <god_free_jo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>> > Do you believe that if we don't forgive God for his callousness and
>>>> > abuse God won't forgive us for being the way he made us?
>>>>
>>>> The first half of your question has a planted axiom - thus, is
>>>> unanswerable.
>>>> You then proceed with a non sequitur, ie, two mutually exclusive
>>>> hypotheticals.
>>>>
>>>> All God would have to do to defeat your argument is to show you a saint.
>>>> Even I can figure that one out.
>>>
>>>>I'm sure Barry would be happy to accept defeat of his argument if God
>>>>merely showed Himself.
>>>
>>>Yes yes, that's what you all want.
>>
>> You'd think God would know and respect that.
>
>One would think you would obey He who is all good and all knowing.
Perhaps, but there are no such.
If God was good he should know and respect our wishes.
>>>You won't give up anything without
>>>absolute proof - that's how selfish and greedy you are.
>>
>> That's enough of that! Sure, God is a complete failure as a creator and
>> carer but you don't need to rub it in.
>
>Er, you mean the God whose existence you deny............
I acknowledge the lack of any God.
You who believe should be praising God for the good things in creation.
>>>But when God shows
>>>Himself, it won't be in order to entertain your doubts. It will be over
>>>in a big way. And perhaps you'll have a moment to reflect upon what a little
>>>punk you were.
>>
>> Its amusing to see someone so aggressive over their completely wrong
>> and stupid beliefs.
>> You are proof of no intelligent designer.
>
>Happy to entertain.
Good.
duke
>On Jan 8, 12:40�am, duke wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 "s...@ozemail.com.au" wrote
>>
>> >However, Purgatory and Indulgences should not have been part of the
>> >Church's teaching as they are not in New Testament teachings.
>>
>> Purification is the only way the huge majority of Christians will see God. �Be
>> careful what you wish for, gladys.
>So you reject Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9 and 1 Corinthians 3 : 11 - 15.
>Jesus Christ is not able to save those to uttmost who come to Him.
>seeing He ever lives to make intercession for them. Hebrews 7 : 25
No, you're the one that rejects the need of purification promised for the saved
in Ep 2:8-9.
duke
wrote:
>On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 07:40:53 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 19:20:55 -0800 (PST), "s...@ozemail.com.au"
>>
>>>However, Purgatory and Indulgences should not have been part of the
>>>Church's
>>>teaching as they are not in New Testament teachings.
>>
>>Purification is the only way the huge majority of Christians will see God.
>
>Why doesn't God purify us all now?
That's only for the saved, not the damned.
>>Be careful what you wish for, gladys.
>Surely God knows what we want even if we don't ask properly.
Yep.
duke
wrote:
A fairly high percentage of the world's population.
>>God is infinite love.
>What does that mean to us?
If you don't understand.....................oh, well, you already said you
don't.
>>If you end up in hell, you end up there because you volunteered for it.
>Nobody would volunteer if they were properly informed or if there was no hell.
We got the message. What's your problem? Are you playing God?
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >On Jan 8, 12:40 am, duke wrote:
> >> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 "s...@ozemail.com.au" wrote
>
> >> >However, Purgatory and Indulgences should not have been part of the
> >> >Church's teaching as they are not in New Testament teachings.
>
> >> Purification is the only way the huge majority of Christians will see God. Be
> >> careful what you wish for, gladys.
And in small minority? How will they see God? You mean those
martyed or their faith? You mean those canonised by your church? .
I can't recall any New Testament scriptures giving that teaching.
> >So you reject Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9 and 1 Corinthians 3 : 11 - 15.
> >Jesus Christ is not able to save those to uttmost who come to Him.
> >seeing He ever lives to make intercession for them. Hebrews 7 : 25
>
> No, you're the one that rejects the need of purification promised for the saved
> in Ep 2:8-9.
>
For by grace (God's unmerited mercy to us even though we are sinners)
are we saved = are given salvation
through faith (in Jesus Christ - his death nd resurrection for us)
and that not of ourselves (not any thing that we do)
***it is the gift of God*** (a gift IS a gift IS a gift ....)
NOT OF WORKS (not by any good deeds that we may do)
lest anyone should boast (ie I am more worthy than you becaue
of .....)
Your theology is wrong, Duke. I trust that one day you will come to
realise that.
Gladys Swager.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 Barry OGrady wrote:
> >On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 duke wrote:
> >>On Tue, 05 Jan 2010, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
> >>God is infinite love.
> >What does that mean to us?
>
> >Nobody would volunteer if they were properly informed or if there was no hell.
>
the latter not even named in the Bible.
I do not believe that people 'volunteer' for hell.
Barry, has been given the information by which he can avoid Hell,
but he has developed and argumentative frame of mind, and
evidently gains some satisfaction out of putting some others .
into the position of spending their time going over and over again
the
information by which he can avoid that place.
I do not think that not understanding the information given him is his
problem.
> We got the message. What's your problem? Are you playing God?
>
My problem at the present time in respect of the proposed canonisation
of Mary McKillop (who was, at one time, excommunicated from the RC
Church, I have found from one website), is why there should be a
period
of time between beatification and canonisation.
Evidnetly a life of service gave the credentials for beatification.
But pending canonisation due to two miracles - and why only two??
how can it be assumed that the mircles are from God in response
to MMcK's intercessory prayers supposedly in heaven or by the prayers
of those interested in her canonisation.
The first depends on what we think/been taught of what happens after
death.
The second involved mental activity and could occur from
ESP (Extra Sensory Perceptions) of atmospheric vibes that pass
between
people as they use their thinking processes.
Could it be that God uses positive ESP to bring about beneficial
outcomes
or can it be said, that persons in the RC Church, understanding the
ESP
process have made use of it for their own ends.
I have stated that I was in St Andrews Sydney Cathedral Healing
Ministry.
At that time in the late 1960's and early 1970's it was an innovative
programme.
I was told by three clergy of the church that the Ministry was
illegitimate and further that I should resign from the church if I
wasn't healed.
It may have been that they had not considered what the second part of
John 14 : 12 meant
ie that Jesus told hIs disciples they would do greater things
than He had done ***because He was going to His Father***
As I had to attend for further medical assessments and treatments
I did reign from the Church. As I did not have further contact with
the
three clergy I even wonder if they realised that they needed to be
positive
and with others prayed for me. Mine was not a miraculous (spontaneous)
cure but was worked out through the successive years during which
time
1. I did not have to have any specialist treatments
2, I was able to come to a level of healing (better than previously)
through the many activities in my home and community .
Out of that, and in the realisation that as we think we do send out
atmospheric vibes from our brains (as God has given us through His
creation)
that the miracles said to have come from prayers to Mary McKillop
have come from the atmospheric vibes of many mental concentrations
directed to the issue. I hope I have made myself clear as I am
finding
this matter not an easy one to express,
Gladys Swager
bam
To the contrary - God made man perfect. Man rebelled. Simple disobedience.
Just as Lot's wife turned to see the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah after
being told not to. Of course, you would claim that God forced her to turn
around.
BAM
bam
"Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>One would think you would obey He who is all good and all knowing.
>
> Perhaps, but there are no such.
How would you know that? No one knows that. Don't judge others by your
behavior.
> If God was good he should know and respect our wishes.
Goes both ways..........
>>Er, you mean the God whose existence you deny............
>
> I acknowledge the lack of any God.
You spend a lot of time denying this God you don't believe in...........
> You who believe should be praising God for the good things in creation.
But of course I do.
BAM
bam
"Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>It's impossible to answer. It's like saying, "Should I forgive you for
>>punching me even though you're not sorry?" My answer would be, "I haven't
>>punched you."
>
> I don't see the connection. I'm responding to the idea that God won't
> forgive
> us unless we forgive others.
Yes, that's correct. But why do you constantly disobey God with impunity?
>>God will forgive you when you feel the need to exist with a clean heart
>>and
>>discover you're unable to on your own, and ask Him for His help.
>
> What would God forgive me for?
For not trying to be perfect.
>
>>No one said getting to Heaven would be easy.
>
> It would be easy if there was a good God who was willing to accept
> responsibility for the effects of his creating.
Your presumptions are laughable. The saints disagree with you.
>
>>But you like to take the attitude that God
>>created a defective human because you don't hold the home run record, or
>>you're not the fastest man alive, so what's the sense of trying anything.
>
> It appears I've given you the wrong impression. The problem with creation
> is the vast amount of suffering when there should be none.
And that's the way it was in the beginning. But man said, "I shall not
serve. My will be done."
>>To your first statement, bravo! Who wouldn't?
>
> Of course, but it appears God would rather persecute us.
It appears that you want the best of both worlds. Disobey and get a reward
for it.
>
>>To your second, you have no idea how you would react. I think you would
>>confess your insolence and bullheadedness.
>
> Out of fear perhaps, but if God was good he would listen to me while
> I informed him of our problems and how only he can fix his mistakes.
Then God would show you the sacrifice His Son made out of love and you would
feel ashamed of your petty complaints.
BAM
theo
> To the contrary - God made man perfect. Man rebelled. Simple disobedience.
> Just as Lot's wife turned to see the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah after
> being told not to. Of course, you would claim that God forced her to turn
> around.
If something is "perfect" it will not fail. If something fails as it
was expected to do, then it was designed to fail. Ergo, the failure is
the responsibility of the designer/maker.
God set Lot's wife a task He knew she was going to fail, and then
punished her for it. He is at fault for setting a task He knew she
would fail. Lot's wife performed as expected. Performance as expected
is not failure, it is design.
Theo
duke
>On Jan 9, 12:00�am, duke wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> >On Jan 8, 12:40�am, duke �wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 �"s...@ozemail.com.au" wrote
>>
>> >> >However, Purgatory and Indulgences should not have been part of the
>> >> >Church's teaching as they are not in New Testament teachings.
>>
>> >> Purification is the only way the huge majority of Christians will see God. �Be
>> >> careful what you wish for, gladys.
>And in small minority? How will they see God? You mean those
>martyed or their faith?
Via purification.
> You mean those canonised by your church?
A few thousand only.
>I can't recall any New Testament scriptures giving that teaching.
I'm not surprised. The Holy Spirit is teacher.
>> >So you reject Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9 and 1 Corinthians 3 : 11 - 15.
>> >Jesus Christ is not able to save those to uttmost who come to Him.
>> >seeing He ever lives to make intercession for them. Hebrews 7 : 25
>> No, you're the one that rejects the need of purification promised for the saved
>> in Ep 2:8-9.
>Your theology is wrong, Duke. I trust that one day you will come to
>realise that.
>Gladys Swager.
The Roman Catholic Church disagrees with you and lute, gladys.
duke
>On Jan 9, 12:25�am, duke wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 Barry OGrady wrote:
>> >On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 duke wrote:
>> >>On Tue, 05 Jan 2010, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>
>> >>God is infinite love.
>> >What does that mean to us?
>>
>> >>If you end up in hell, you end up there because you volunteered for it.
>> >Nobody would volunteer if they were properly informed or if there was no hell.
>>
>There is no need for anyone to end up in hell, even Purgatory -
>the latter not even named in the Bible.
It's well defined in scripture.
>I do not believe that people 'volunteer' for hell.
Sure they do - when they decided for themselves to play God and determine right
v wrong for themselves. Sorta like rejecting scripture.
>Barry, has been given the information by which he can avoid Hell,
Well, are you playing God? God said he's decide that at the moment we die.
>I do not think that not understanding the information given him is his
>problem.
<MK silliness snipped>
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >On Jan 9, 12:25 am, duke wrote:
> >> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 Barry OGrady wrote:
> >> >On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 duke wrote:
> >> >>God is infinite love.
> >> >What does that mean to us?
>
Then how can God send those who have placed their faith in Him through
Jesus Christ still be sent to purgatory after this life?
I am just wondering if Mary McKillop was sent to Purgatory and if so,
how long
did she have to stay there, according to the tenets of the RC Church.
Or did she escape that as she was to be declared a saint contrary to
New Testament teaching that all Christians are saints, but now,
according
to the given translation in the RC New Jerusalem Bible (1985) 'hageos'
has
been retranslated as 'God's holy people'.
> >> >>If you end up in hell, you end up there because you volunteered for it.
> >> >Nobody would volunteer if they were properly informed or if there was no hell.
>
Many people have not had the opportunity to hear of God's method of
salvation because it has been kept within the four walls of the
churches.
There is a need for all church leaders to come to a consensus about
what
salvation means and how to obtain it.
A local church should be for all Christians and may I suggest without
the domination of overseas authorities as the one authority should be
the Bible. The Vatican lost the plot of what is meant to be
'Christian'
at various times from 310AD and it has not regained it as it still is
of
the opinion that its practices and interpretations are Biblical.
> >There is no need for anyone to end up in hell, even Purgatory -
> >the latter not even named in the Bible.
>
> It's well defined in scripture.
>
How can Purgatory be 'well-defined in Scripture' when the word is not
even used once in scripture? On both logic and faith you are miles
off course.
> >I do not believe that people 'volunteer' for hell.
how can you say that people 'volunteer' for hell when they have not
heard
the gospel of Jesus Christ because Christian leaders have kept the
information
within the walls of their churches. The fact is those who door-knock
and
preach on the front step of houses - inside if they can obtain an
invitation -
can very convincingly 'prove' they have the truth by referring to
texts in
isolation from the rest of the Bible. ,
> Sure they do - when they decided for themselves to play God and determine right
> v wrong for themselves. Sorta like rejecting scripture.
>
And you declare that the RC Church is the only one that has
all the truth(!!!???)
>
> Well, are you playing God? God said he'll decide that at the moment we die.
>
Paul didn't think that the moment he died that he would then be told
whether he had received the salvation that Jesus came to give.
He said, By grace, are we saved, through faith and that not of
ourselves.
it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest anyone should boast.
Epesians 2 : 8 - 9
> >I do not think that not understanding the information given him is his
> >problem.
>
Barry, is in this newsgroup, as you are, Duke, and as I am, and that
is to
present what each one of us has come to be our understandings of
the Christian faith to be, for or against. .
You want unity on what the Vatican teaches.
I would like unity on what the New Testament teaches.
And, whether you like this or not - the fact is the two are not the
same.
Gladys Swager
duke
>On Jan 10, 2:37�am, duke wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> >On Jan 9, 12:25�am, duke �wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 Barry OGrady �wrote:
>> >> >On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 duke wrote:
>
>> >> >>God is infinite love.
>> >> >What does that mean to us?
>Then how can God send those who have placed their faith in Him through
>Jesus Christ still be sent to purgatory after this life?
The same way I've been telling you - thru lip service rather than action thru
love.
>I am just wondering if Mary McKillop was sent to Purgatory and if so,
>how long did she have to stay there, according to the tenets of the RC Church.
The RCC doesn't decide. God does.
>Or did she escape that as she was to be declared a saint contrary to
>New Testament teaching that all Christians are saints, but now,
>according to the given translation in the RC New Jerusalem Bible (1985) 'hageos'
>has been retranslated as 'God's holy people'.
Your problem is that you reject the teachings and counsel of the Holy Spirit.
>> >> >>If you end up in hell, you end up there because you volunteered for it.
>> >> >Nobody would volunteer if they were properly informed or if there was no hell.
>Many people have not had the opportunity to hear of God's method of
>salvation because it has been kept within the four walls of the
>churches.
You don't have "to know of" to act out of love.
>There is a need for all church leaders to come to a consensus about
>what salvation means and how to obtain it.
Jesus made it clear - follow him in service to God and man.
>> >There is no need for anyone to end up in hell, even Purgatory -
>> >the latter not even named in the Bible.
>> It's well defined in scripture.
>How can Purgatory be 'well-defined in Scripture' when the word is not
>even used once in scripture? On both logic and faith you are miles
>off course.
Neither is Trinity, rapture, or altar call.
>> >I do not believe that people 'volunteer' for hell.
>how can you say that people 'volunteer' for hell when they have not
>heard the gospel of Jesus Christ
The ones that volunteer are the ones that heard the word of God but rejected it.
Jesus gave his Church the Characteristics of the Holy Mass, 7 sacraments, and
the teaching authority of the Papacy which is why I'm Roman Catholic.
>> Sure they do - when they decided for themselves to play God and determine right
>> v wrong for themselves. �Sorta like rejecting scripture.
>And you declare that the RC Church is the only one that has
>all the truth(!!!???)
The only one that has ALL the characteristics of the Holy Mass, 7 sacraments and
the teaching authority of the Papacy.
>> Well, are you playing God? �God said he'll decide that at the moment we die.
>Paul didn't think that the moment he died that he would then be told
>whether he had received the salvation that Jesus came to give.
Paul told you that personally.
>He said, By grace, are we saved, through faith and that not of
>ourselves.
Right, the Jews thought that's exactly how they got to heaven - by the number of
levi laws they kept.
The Christian knows that the love of God results in acts of love by us to God
and mankind, and thus our faith is reflected in our deeds.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >On Jan 10, 2:37 am, duke wrote:
> >> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> The RCC doesn't decide. God does.
>
> >Or did she escape that as she was to be declared a saint contrary to
> >New Testament teaching that all Christians are saints, but now,
> >according to the given translation in the RC New Jerusalem Bible (1985) 'hageos'
> >has been retranslated as 'God's holy people'.
>
> Your problem is that you reject the teachings and counsel of the Holy Spirit.
>
And the Holy Spirit guides us through the teachings of the Bible,
mainly
the New Testament. The Roman catholic Church added practices and
interpretations
that finally brought rejections from some of its own priests.
>
> >There is a need for all church leaders to come to a consensus about
> >what salvation means and how to obtain it.
And tha tincludes all Christians whatever their empoyment or status
may be.
> Jesus made it clear - follow him in service to God and man.
>
> >> >There is no need for anyone to end up in hell, even Purgatory -
> >> >the latter not even named in the Bible.
> >> It's well defined in scripture.
> >How can Purgatory be 'well-defined in Scripture' when the word is not
> >even used once in scripture? On both logic and faith you are miles
> >off course.
>
> Neither is Trinity, rapture, or altar call.
>
The concept of Purgatory is not there either.
.
> >Paul didn't think that the moment he died that he would then be told
> >whether he had received the salvation that Jesus came to give.
> >He said, By grace, are we saved, through faith and that not of
> >ourselves.
>
> Right, the Jews thought that's exactly how they got to heaven - by the number of
> levi laws they kept.
>
> The Christian knows that the love of God results in acts of love by us to God
> and mankind, and thus our faith is reflected in our deeds.
>
However, faith conmes first. And the teaching is that we are saved
through faith
in Jesus Christ. and there will be a reward for our deeds of love.
However do check 1 Corinthians 3 : 15?
Gladys Swager
duke
>On Jan 11, 2:07�am, duke wrote:
>> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> >On Jan 10, 2:37�am, duke wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
>> The RCC doesn't decide. �God does.
>>
>> >Or did she escape that as she was to be declared a saint contrary to
>> >New Testament teaching that all Christians are saints, but now,
>> >according to the given translation in the RC New Jerusalem Bible (1985) 'hageos'
>> >has been retranslated as 'God's holy people'.
>>
>> Your problem is that you reject the teachings and counsel of the Holy Spirit.
>And the Holy Spirit guides us through the teachings of the Bible,
>mainly
>the New Testament. The Roman catholic Church added practices and
>interpretations
>that finally brought rejections from some of its own priests.
Nope, no changes. And you still can't show any. Some day you're going to have
to stand up and explain your malarkey you spout.
>> Neither is Trinity, rapture, or altar call.
>The concept of Purgatory is not there either.
The actions of purgatory are well found in scripture. I'm not surprised you
won't look.
>> >Paul didn't think that the moment he died that he would then be told
>> >whether he had received the salvation that Jesus came to give.
>> >He said, By grace, are we saved, through faith and that not of
>> >ourselves.
>>
>> Right, the Jews thought that's exactly how they got to heaven - by the number of
>> levi laws they kept.
>> The Christian knows that the love of God results in acts of love by us to God
>> and mankind, and thus our faith is reflected in our deeds.
>However, faith conmes first.
And you can't explain how the souls of all those that died in the friendship of
God but before Jesus died on the cross were raised to new life.
> And the teaching is that we are saved
>through faith
Those Jews, Muslims, atheists, hindus, etc never heard of Jesus.
>in Jesus Christ. and there will be a reward for our deeds of love.
>However do check 1 Corinthians 3 : 15?
>Gladys Swager
Waitng, gladys.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >On Jan 11, 2:07 am, duke wrote:
> >> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >> >On Jan 10, 2:37 am, duke wrote:
> >> The RCC doesn't decide. God does.
>
> >> >Or did she escape that as she was to be declared a saint contrary to
> >> >New Testament teaching that all Christians are saints, but now,
> >> >according to the given translation in the RC New Jerusalem Bible (1985) 'hageos'
> >> >has been retranslated as 'God's holy people'.
>
> >> Your problem is that you reject the teachings and counsel of the Holy Spirit.
> >And the Holy Spirit guides us through the teachings of the Bible,
> >mainly the New Testament. The Roman Catholic Church added practices and
> >interpretations that finally brought rejections from some of its own priests.
>
> >> >Paul didn't think that the moment he died that he would then be told
> >> >whether he had received the salvation that Jesus came to give.
> >> >He said, By grace, are we saved, through faith and that not of
> >> >ourselves.
>
> >> Right, the Jews thought that's exactly how they got to heaven - by the number of
> >> levi laws they kept.
> >> The Christian knows that the love of God results in acts of love by us to God
> >> and mankind, and thus our faith is reflected in our deeds.
> >However, faith comes first.
>
> And you can't explain how the souls of all those that died in the friendship of
> God but before Jesus died on the cross were raised to new life.
>
That is for God to decide. It doesn't matter taht I don't know now.
The Bible states they are 'sleeping' h dead in Christ shal rise
first and then
we, who are left will rise to meet Him in the air. (1 Thessalonians
4 : 16 - 17)
> > And the teaching is that we are saved
> >through faith
>
> Those Jews, Muslims, atheists, hindus, etc never heard of Jesus.
>
Whose fault is that?
> >in Jesus Christ. and there will be a reward for our deeds of love.
> >However do check 1 Corinthians 3 : 15?
> Waitng, gladys.
>
For what?
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
>On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 23:07:16 +1100, Barry OGrady <god_fre...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 07:40:53 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 19:20:55 -0800 (PST), "s...@ozemail.com.au"
>>>
>>>>However, Purgatory and Indulgences should not have been part of the
>>>>Church's
>>>>teaching as they are not in New Testament teachings.
>>>
>>>Purification is the only way the huge majority of Christians will see God.
>>
>>Why doesn't God purify us all now?
>
>That's only for the saved, not the damned.
Yet if God was to purify us before he judged us we could all go to heaven.
>>>Be careful what you wish for, gladys.
>>Surely God knows what we want even if we don't ask properly.
>
>Yep.
>
>The Dukester, American-American
Barry
Barry OGrady
In that case rebellion must be part of being perfect.
>Simple disobedience.
Was there no other option than for God to downgrade all of us?
>Just as Lot's wife turned to see the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah after
>being told not to. Of course, you would claim that God forced her to turn
>around.
Presumably God could have prevented it or not reacted when she did.
Barry OGrady
Does that not bother you?
>>>God is infinite love.
>>What does that mean to us?
>
>If you don't understand.....................oh, well, you already said you
>don't.
Yes, so what does it mean to us?
>>>If you end up in hell, you end up there because you volunteered for it.
>>Nobody would volunteer if they were properly informed or if there was no hell.
>
>We got the message. What's your problem?
I was hoping you could tell me.
>Are you playing God?
I lack that ability.
Barry OGrady
>"Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>
>>>It's impossible to answer. It's like saying, "Should I forgive you for
>>>punching me even though you're not sorry?" My answer would be, "I haven't
>>>punched you."
>>
>> I don't see the connection. I'm responding to the idea that God won't
>> forgive us unless we forgive others.
>
>
>Yes, that's correct. But why do you constantly disobey God with impunity?
We must defy God in order to live. When we trusted God our lifespan was
around 30 years, and God has not communicated his wishes to me.
>>>God will forgive you when you feel the need to exist with a clean heart
>>>and
>>>discover you're unable to on your own, and ask Him for His help.
>>
>> What would God forgive me for?
>
>For not trying to be perfect.
It is not God's will I be perfect.
>>>No one said getting to Heaven would be easy.
>>
>> It would be easy if there was a good God who was willing to accept
>> responsibility for the effects of his creating.
>
>Your presumptions are laughable.
Why?
>The saints disagree with you.
The saints are laughable.
>>>But you like to take the attitude that God
>>>created a defective human because you don't hold the home run record, or
>>>you're not the fastest man alive, so what's the sense of trying anything.
>>
>> It appears I've given you the wrong impression. The problem with creation
>> is the vast amount of suffering when there should be none.
>
>And that's the way it was in the beginning.
God showed us how it could be if he cared about us.
>But man said, "I shall not serve. My will be done."
And God forgave man because he knows man can only be as he made them,
and God made the necessary changes so that man would be acceptable to him,
right?
To suggest otherwise is an offence to God.
>>>To your first statement, bravo! Who wouldn't?
>>
>> Of course, but it appears God would rather persecute us.
>
>It appears that you want the best of both worlds. Disobey and get a reward
>for it.
All things are possible for God, and a good God would want everything to
be good for us.
>>>To your second, you have no idea how you would react. I think you would
>>>confess your insolence and bullheadedness.
>>
>> Out of fear perhaps, but if God was good he would listen to me while
>> I informed him of our problems and how only he can fix his mistakes.
>
>Then God would show you the sacrifice His Son made out of love and you would
>feel ashamed of your petty complaints.
Hopefully God would feel ashamed at his lack of empathy and would consult
with us as to how to correct it.
Barry OGrady
>"Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>>>One would think you would obey He who is all good and all knowing.
>>
>> Perhaps, but there are no such.
>
>How would you know that? No one knows that. Don't judge others by your
>behavior.
>
>
>> If God was good he should know and respect our wishes.
>
>Goes both ways..........
And it would, if God knew and respected our wishes.
>>>Er, you mean the God whose existence you deny............
>>
>> I acknowledge the lack of any God.
>
>You spend a lot of time denying this God you don't believe in...........
I acknowledge the lack of any God.
>> You who believe should be praising God for the good things in creation.
>
>But of course I do.
You should probably avoid being critical of the way he created.