The New Christian Thread 4

[ScottTil]

Looks like Kirsten Powers has joined the Catholic Church!




Although, she's a democrat, I'm glad that she has decided to come home to Rome.

awesome!

3 kids baptized at todays mass, that was cool

[CalmWind]

I have a question.

If democracy, or a representative republic....... is such a great idea........ then why did God choose monarchies for Israel?

[Harbinger]

[img]http://i.imgur.com/OtTxqBL.jpg[img]

I have a question.

If democracy, or a representative republic....... is such a great idea........ then why did God choose monarchies for Israel?

...

[GreatOldOne]

I have a question.

If democracy, or a representative republic....... is such a great idea........ then why did God choose monarchies for Israel?

Oh man that's really funny.

[WarrNation]

I have a question.

If democracy, or a representative republic....... is such a great idea........ then why did God choose monarchies for Israel?

Probably to mirror the monarchy of heaven, since Israel is God's holy nation.

The LORD has established his throne in heaven, and his kingdom rules over all. Psalm 103:19

[TruKnight]

If democracy, or a representative republic....... is such a great idea........ then why did God choose monarchies for Israel?

because he intends to sit on the mercy throne of israel and rule the planet from there. gabriel promised that to mary (also promised to sarah) in fact, that he would sit on the throne of his father david. so in order for him to have a kingdom, he sets it up by type beforehand all through the scripture. any form of government that is ruled by men and not god is prolly a bad one tho. but in his absence we have to make the best of it, and that usually means not letting any one man have too much power.

[Indivdude]

I have a question.

If democracy, or a representative republic....... is such a great idea........ then why did God choose monarchies for Israel?

Francis looking like he's about to pull a gun.

"And say hello to my little friend."

[CalmWind]

Oh man that's really funny.

Francis looking like he's about to pull a gun.

"And say hello to my little friend."

[Swamp Dog]

I have a question.

If democracy, or a representative republic....... is such a great idea........ then why did God choose monarchies for Israel?

He didn't remember. He only reluctantly allowed them to have a king.

[CalmWind]

He didn't remember. He only reluctantly allowed them to have a king.

God knew he would give them a King all along. It was all planned from the very beginning.

What God rejected, and wanted to teach a lesson to Israel... was the kind of King that Israel was requesting......a King "like all the nations, like the gentiles have"... i.e. Saul...... instead of a king like David who is a servant of God.

So. i'm wondering. God always intended his people to be ruled by a King. God expected his people to fully trust him, and depend on him......

[4SetsOfKegels]

Is that a freemason hand signal?

[CalmWind]

Probably to mirror the monarchy of heaven, since Israel is God's holy nation.

The LORD has established his throne in heaven, and his kingdom rules over all. Psalm 103:19

because he intends to sit on the mercy throne of israel and rule the planet from there. gabriel promised that to mary (also promised to sarah) in fact, that he would sit on the throne of his father david. so in order for him to have a kingdom, he sets it up by type beforehand all through the scripture. any form of government that is ruled by men and not god is prolly a bad one tho. but in his absence we have to make the best of it, and that usually means not letting any one man have too much power.

Right.

So, then...... my question is.... why do we accept this 2015 brand of democracy in the united States, as correct? The USA was not founded on the sort of thinking that plagues us today.

The USA was founded as a republic, a democracy that was founded upon non-democratic foundations. These foundations came directly from religion (Christianity), and they were accepted and never democratically debated. We held these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal under God. That God gave us all of our rights, and no Man should take them away. Etc...

Where is the proof that a society that has to constantly argue these foundations, can succeed? Why is it OK to accept the idea that a democracy can succeed when you have to consistently argue whether or not Men should have XYZ freedom, or if the government has a right to torture people. There is no proof that a democratic society like this is good........ or even functional in the long term. Logically, it follows that this type of democratic society will allow for all of the world's degeneracy to spring forth. And as we see today, this is exactly what has happened.


Before the 1960's, this country had an ingrained common decency that was based on Christian dogmas, and was accepted by the people of the republic as true. This caused a harmonious and strong nation. So, although we did not have a King that was led by God......... the people itself were led by God. And, the government, though claims independence, reflected this because it consisted of these very people.

I don't think what we have now is good, or can last long term. The brand of democracy that has sprung up in America in the past 40-50 years, is problematic. We are no longer a democratic nation that has foundational dogmas that are taken to be true....... we now question and argue every single thing. I don't think this form of gov't is compatible with God anymore.

[CalmWind]

Is that a freemason hand signal?

[img]http://www.propheticexplorer.com/images/hidden_hand.jpimg]

Are you a member?

[WarrNation]

Right.

So, then...... my question is.... why do we accept this 2015 brand of democracy in the united States, as correct? The USA was not founded on the sort of thinking that plagues us today.

The USA was founded as a republic, a democracy that was founded upon non-democratic foundations. These foundations came directly from religion (Christianity), and they were accepted and never democratically debated. We held these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal under God. That God gave us all of our rights, and no Man should take them away. Etc...

Where is the proof that a society that has to constantly argue these foundations, can succeed? Why is it OK to accept the idea that a democracy can succeed when you have to consistently argue whether or not Men should have XYZ freedom, or if the government has a right to torture people. There is no proof that a democratic society like this is good........ or even functional in the long term. Logically, it follows that this type of democratic society will allow for all of the world's degeneracy to spring forth. And as we see today, this is exactly what has happened.


Before the 1960's, this country had an ingrained common decency that was based on Christian dogmas, and was accepted by the people of the republic as true. This caused a harmonious and strong nation. So, although we did not have a King that was led by God......... the people itself were led by God. And, the government, though claims independence, reflected this because it consisted of these very people.

I don't think what we have now is good, or can last long term. The brand of democracy that has sprung up in America in the past 40-50 years, is problematic. We are no longer a democratic nation that has foundational dogmas that are taken to be true....... we now question and argue every single thing. I don't think this form of gov't is compatible with God anymore.

All men are created equal under God?

Does this mean the founding fathers didn't consider black people to be human?


EDIT: Don't think the US was founded on Christian principles:

"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights."

[Swamp Dog]

God knew he would give them a King all along. It was all planned from the very beginning.

What God rejected, and wanted to teach a lesson to Israel... was the kind of King that Israel was requesting......a King "like all the nations, like the gentiles have"... i.e. Saul...... instead of a king like David who is a servant of God.

So. i'm wondering. God always intended his people to be ruled by a King. God expected his people to fully trust him, and depend on him......

But who was 1 Sammy 8: 7-9?

[4SetsOfKegels]

Are you a member?

No but I've seen the conspiracy pages about them : p and I have some questions about Francis but I cant judge as someone just putting their hand in their jacket doesn't say much. Just trying to be shrewd as a snake and as peaceful as a dove, as well as on the alert.

[Swamp Dog]

No but I've seen the conspiracy pages about them : p and I have some questions about Francis but I cant judge as someone just putting their hand in their jacket doesn't say much.

I put the secret handshake on a mason one time and he legit freaked out.

[CalmWind]

No but I've seen the conspiracy pages about them : p and I have some questions about Francis but I cant judge as someone just putting their hand in their jacket doesn't say much. Just trying to be shrewd as a snake and as peaceful as a dove, as well as on the alert.

Ah I see. I am of the same mindset, brother. Or, I should say, God has led me to be of the same mindset.

[TruKnight]

...

I think the institutions are more a reflection of the society. if you wish to lay blame about where it went wrong, you can lay it at the doors of the american church (any and all flavors of it) for not coming down like a ton of bricks on this when it was nacent, and raising up successive generations without strong biblical foundations. beginning with prayer in schools, then abortion and lately homo marriage, its nothing less than a satanic attack on the christian foundations this nation has rested on for centuries, and its been winning. frankly at this late stage, there is no way back short of national, public repentance, like the people of nineveh did in jonah, from the greatest to the least of us. if I were somehow made king of america, that would be my first royal act. but as things are going today, it kind of seems unlikely. =/

[MuscleXtreme]

Right.

So, then...... my question is.... why do we accept this 2015 brand of democracy in the united States, as correct? The USA was not founded on the sort of thinking that plagues us today.

The USA was founded as a republic, a democracy that was founded upon non-democratic foundations. These foundations came directly from religion (Christianity), and they were accepted and never democratically debated. We held these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal under God. That God gave us all of our rights, and no Man should take them away. Etc...

Where is the proof that a society that has to constantly argue these foundations, can succeed? Why is it OK to accept the idea that a democracy can succeed when you have to consistently argue whether or not Men should have XYZ freedom, or if the government has a right to torture people. There is no proof that a democratic society like this is good........ or even functional in the long term. Logically, it follows that this type of democratic society will allow for all of the world's degeneracy to spring forth. And as we see today, this is exactly what has happened.


Before the 1960's, this country had an ingrained common decency that was based on Christian dogmas, and was accepted by the people of the republic as true. This caused a harmonious and strong nation. So, although we did not have a King that was led by God......... the people itself were led by God. And, the government, though claims independence, reflected this because it consisted of these very people.

I don't think what we have now is good, or can last long term. The brand of democracy that has sprung up in America in the past 40-50 years, is problematic. We are no longer a democratic nation that has foundational dogmas that are taken to be true....... we now question and argue every single thing. I don't think this form of gov't is compatible with God anymore.

What are you talking about brother? We don't live in a democratic republic anymore. We live under a pseudo-aristocratic rule that incorporates judicial decrees - which also has been bought and paid for.

[4SetsOfKegels]

Ah I see. I am of the same mindset, brother. Or, I should say, God has led me to be of the same mindset.

Cool pic. Remember the armor of God, pick up that sword and that shield of faith : )

[CalmWind]

[ScottTil]

[lasher]

Anyone following the Vatican synod on the family shennanigans?

Cardinal Pell: �no possibility� of liberals getting their way on Communion for divorced and remarried

Cardinal George Pell, Prefect of the Vatican�s Secretariat for the Economy, has just issued a statement saying there is �no possibility� that the �minority� of Synod Fathers who favour allowing divorced and remarried people to receive Communion will get their way at the chaotic Synod on the Family.

His spokesman said: �There is strong agreement in the Synod on most points but obviously there is some disagreement because minority elements want to change the Church�s teachings on the proper dispositions necessary for the reception of communion.

�Obviously there is no possibility of change on this doctrine.�

The cardinal confirmed the existence (but not the accuracy) of a letter to Pope Francis, leaked today, reportedly signed by himself and very senior cardinals. In the text as published by the controversial conservative journalist Sandro Magister, the cardinals suggest that the synod rules have been altered to take power away from the Synod Fathers and hand it to the commission drafting the final report.

They also allegedly warn Francis that bending the rules on the reception of Holy Communion could lead to the sort of factional collapse that has all but destroyed some Protestant denominations.

But is Magister reliable? Four of the 13 cardinals said to have signed the letter today denied that they did so, though without elaboration and in some cases after a mysterious delay.

Here is what Cardinal Pell�s spokesman says on the matter:

�A private letter should remain private but it seems that there are errors in both the content and the list of signatories.

�The Cardinal is aware that concerns remain among many of the Synod Fathers about the composition of the drafting committee of the final relatio and about the process by which it will be presented to the Synod fathers and voted upon.�

Meanwhile, Cardinal Napier of Durban this afternoon confirmed that he signed a letter to the Pope � but also disputes its contents as reported by Magister.

Napier, speaking to Crux, said he signed a letter �specifically about the 10-member commission preparing the final document� � i.e., addressing the conservatives� concern that the commission, which includes Cardinal Baldisseri and Archbishop Forte, architects of last year�s fiasco, will not accurately reflect the discussions of the Synod Fathers.

The Crux interview shows that Cardinal Napier has grave doubts about this synod. He�s worried about the �uncertainty� surrounding the �shaping� of the document � and, in a devastating off-the-cuff comment, says �at this stage, it�s too hard to tell� whether the final result has already been determined.

In-article-subs-banner-blue
In other words, Napier fears that the synod has been rigged � for how else can you describe �determining the result� of a report long before the synod discussions are over?

This has been a day of embarrassing chaos at the Vatican. But, at the end of it, Pope Francis is still facing a crisis. Cardinal Napier and Cardinal Robert Sarah, the two most influential African cardinals, apparently do not trust the workings of the synod. Sarah, who is now Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, has not denied signing the Magister letter.

Nor has Cardinal Gerhard M�ller, who occupies the even more senior position of Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Meanwhile, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York and by no means a hardline conservative like his fellow American Cardinal Raymond Burke, has also failed to deny that he signed it. Instead, he issued a statement today arguing that it is �faithful� Catholics who obey the rules governing sexual behaviour who feel that they have become the minority in the Church.

Pope Francis, having allowed his officials to stack the cards against the conservative majority in the synod, now finds the cards stacked against him. The growing suspicion that the outcome of the proceedings has been predetermined has drawn together a coalition of orthodox Catholics who disagree on questions of liturgy and politics. If Francis ignores their wishes, as he has the power to do so next year when he responds to the synod, a Catholic civil war will begin in earnest.

http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/201...and-remarried/

[confuoco]

No. Post Tenebras Lux.

[Athanasius90]

Do any of you brahs (+1 brahette) have any good guides to learning to read in Latin relatively quickly? Only read at some level of proficiency, not speak fluently of course.

I've realized that much of classical Christian literature and philosophy (medieval in particular) is mostly in Latin. Aquinas is the only thinker I'm aware of who has had his entire corpus translated into English. I feel there are vast oceans of richness I'm missing out on. Suarez, Scotus, Buridan etc.

[Ehsaun]

Do any of you brahs (+1 brahette) have any good guides to learning to read in Latin relatively quickly? Only read at some level of proficiency, not speak fluently of course.

I've realized that much of classical Christian literature and philosophy (medieval in particular) is mostly in Latin. Aquinas is the only thinker I'm aware of who has had his entire corpus translated into English. I feel there are vast oceans of richness I'm missing out on. Suarez, Scotus, Buridan etc.

Get Wheelock's Latin

I'm taking latin in college atm and its really easy to pick up. The language makes alot of sense logically.

[TranceNRG]

Hello lady and gentleman,

May one of you elaborate on the relationship between Jonah and Jesus?
Before I ask my next question, I should make sure I understand this connection properly.

Thank you

[Swamp Dog]

Hello lady and gentleman,

May one of you elaborate on the relationship between Jonah and Jesus?
Before I ask my next question, I should make sure I understand this connection properly.

Thank you

I know of no relationship. Jesus references him when he speaks of His burial (Matt 12: 40).

[lasher]

^ I see a lot of typology at play, if youre into typology