- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
27 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAs I understand, about a hundred thousand attended this and the overall opinion was positive. You perhaps are one of the few to accuse the Catholic Church and Pope of secularism -- on this point, the Catholic Church has no official position on evolution. It permits Catholics either option (daniel on this forum is quite opposed.)
i watched a video today of the Popes mass in Bellahouston park, Glasgow, the faithful waving and cheering. After listening to the comments of those who had travelled i could not help but feel that he was rather aloof and distant. His speech was concerning secularism and its effects on spirituality, which i thought was rather ironic considering the ...[text shortened]... rocessions that one sees in South America, perhaps it was the Scottish temperament, who can say?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
27 Sep 10
Originally posted by tacoandlettuceI don't think the Pope rejects the importance of self-sacrifice and martyrdom. He in fact beatified quite a number of martyrs in the early part of his pontificate. He probably just does not feel the need to risk death unnecessarily. It's also a good idea to keep papal conclaves to a minimum.
I would like to apologize if I was harsh on the Pope. I was just addressing that if he were following Christ's teachings he would be of awareness that his refuge ever is the Lord on High, and as martyrs live by, give their lives if this is what presents it's self. That they, as well as Jesus, are of self immolation, sacrifice of self for the benefit o ...[text shortened]... Follow me, the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE. Or let the dead (ignorant) bury their dead."...
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
27 Sep 10
Originally posted by galveston75Well, in the mind of Catholics, Jesus does receive that same welcome. When the Pope celebrated Mass and gave benediction, Catholics came for the real presence of Christ in the Communion. So, yes, in a manner of speaking.
Sorry been gone for a few days so not sure if this was asked but would Jesus get this same welcome as the Pope does on his visits to other countries or even in Rome?
27 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat does not address the issue, no where did it say diet with blood was bad for
because the illustration was given, if you were told by a doctor to abstain from alcohol, would you then have listen to inject it intravenously? would you respect his authority and his opinion or would you simply transgress it and establish your own thoughts on the matter? i also reject the premise that because in some respects it preserves life, fo ...[text shortened]... tensively shown the practice has also seriously injured and killed tens of thousands of persons.
you, it said to avoid it due to life is in the blood. You have not even touched my
question.
Kelly
27 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayactually yes it did, shall i repeat the scripture AGAIN?
That does not address the issue, no where did it say diet with blood was bad for
you, it said to avoid it due to life is in the blood. You have not even touched my
question.
Kelly
(Acts 15:28-29) . . .For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favoured adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”
the import of the words of course is, that abstaining from a diet of blood is healthy!
27 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThen why not abstain from your own blood robbie carrobie? You contort these scriptures such that it pertains to the delivery of blood via transfusion but fail to go so far as it's delivery via the consumption of food (whereby the body produces blood)
actually yes it did, shall i repeat the scripture AGAIN?
(Acts 15:28-29) . . .For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favoured adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. [b]If you carefully keep yourselves from ...[text shortened]... lth to you!”
the import of the words of course is, that abstaining from blood is healthy![/b]
27 Sep 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Agergi contort nothing! the fact remains that intravenously injecting anything is equally if not more harmful than eating it, try it with anything, if you live you will see that i am correct. Your approach while being novel oh illustrious Agers of a thousand Agers fails on the premise that my blood is not leaving the system it was designed for and passing to a foreign body, nor is it deemed worthy of a sacrificial use, and please do not attempt a pregnant women and a baby scenario, for it is still a part of her own body, indeed, until it is born.
Then why not abstain from your own blood robbie carrobie? You contort these scriptures such that it pertains to the delivery of blood via transfusion but fail to go so far as it's delivery via the consumption of food (whereby the body produces blood)
27 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KI like the word "claim." Actually if Jesus were to come back to earth as a human the same result would happen to him as the first. He would condemn the falseness of religions and again would tell his followers to "Preach the Good News of the Kingdom" like he did the first time. That would make religions like the Catholics very mad and would put him to death again for his exposing not only the Catholics but all other false religions.
I don't understand what you are saying. Catholics would claim to love Jesus more than the Pope.
As a whole most all religions do not follow Jesus's command to do that. Why not?
27 Sep 10
Originally posted by KellyJayYou can tell yourself that you've understood my points, but based on your responses it is evident that you didn't. Evidently this was also clear to CK as he went to the trouble of taking one of the points, breaking it down and presenting it very simple terms. Based on your responses to him, it's evident that you still don't understand the point. It is also clear that CK understood my point just fine since he was able to break it down. Bottom line: CK understood my point and you understood neither of us.
Or another possible reason, I understand your point and still reject it!
I get it that people who are attempting to push their view about BT on JW are
doing so because they think what they are saying is best, I agree with them on
the points; however, I've been stressing another point to you which you have
avoided. I'm not calling you names, not atta ...[text shortened]... n get what your saying and still
not agree with you, instead you attack me personally.
Kelly[/b]
You can tell yourself that I "attacked" you because you disagreed with me to make yourself feel better, but that's just your pride talking. You shouldn't allow pride to get in the way of your understanding your limitations. It is what it is.