Is the USA Now Under God's Judgement?

reply to post by DarthMuerte


Yeah appreciated it just gets a bit tiring reading the same old garbage by Americans who don't have a clue what they are talking about.

It sullies the memory of my family who actually fought in World War Two.

Point taken.

reply to post by blindlyzack


What if God is simply the name or namesake of the higher power who created human evolutionary direction(s).

Hence what if God or Gods are simply those who spliced our gene pool and created what we are today.

It really is nothing more than faith in ones higher power what ever that may be.

reply to post by geemony


And what if there is no higher power? Could you accept that?

Originally posted by GafferUK1981
reply to post by geemony

 

And what if there is no higher power? Could you accept that?

If there is no higher power, I lose nothing. If you are wrong, you lose everything.

Originally posted by adjensen

What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?(James 2:14 NKJV)

All the works in the world cannot save you from a single sin. You cannot 'work off' your debt that is owed:

For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:Not of works, lest any man should boast.

What your quote above is saying is that as a Christian, works are an outward sign of in inward changed heart. It is not saying that they are a requirement for salvation.

Its also funny to me that the RCC only considers works done on behalf of the RCC as works that count toward your salvation. In other words they use these quotes to control and extort the masses for their own benefit. This is exactly what sparked the protestant reformation. The RCC selling indulgences for the money to construct cathedrals, promising the forgiveness of sins and time off in purgatory...

As Martin Luther wrote in his 95 thesis:

82. As for instance: - Why does not the Pope deliver all souls at the same time out of Purgatory for the sake of most holy love and on account of the bitterest distress of those souls - this being the most imperative of all motives, - while he saves an infinite number of souls for the sake of that most miserable thing money, to be spent on St. Peter's Minster: - this being the very slightest of motives?

84. Again: - What is this new holiness of God and the Pope that, for money's sake, they permit the wicked and the enemy of God to save a pious soul, faithful to God, and yet will not save that pious and beloved soul without payment, out of love, and on account of its great distress?

Originally posted by adjensen
Yeah, not a big fan of this, myself, though it's not commonly used, as he is supposedly only infallible under very specific conditions and for very specific uses.

This was not always the case, and they only gave that up “grudgingly'. However the RCC still stands by all the previous Papal decrees preceding their current stance about “papal infallibility”. The Pope is still considered the “Vicar of Christ” or “Earthly representative of Christ”.

Originally posted by adjensen
Prayers of intercession are not the same thing as praying to God -- they are not worship, they are simply prayers asking for that saint to pray for you, the same way you might ask your mom or pastor to pray for you. And there is evidence that it was an early (pre-Nicene) practice.

Actually its an even older practice that is mentioned in the Old Testament multiple times:

1 Chronicles 10:13-14
Saul died because he was unfaithful to the LORD; he did not keep the word of the LORD and even consulted a medium for guidance, and did not inquire of the LORD. So the LORD put him to death and turned the kingdom over to David son of Jesse.

2 Chronicles 33:6
He [King Manasseh] sacrificed his sons in the fire in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, practiced sorcery, divination and witchcraft, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the eyes of the LORD, provoking him to anger.

Speaking, attempting to speak to, or receiving any type of intercession from the dead is expressly forbidden throughout the Bible, both Old and New testaments.

The Bible teaches that we do not need any additional intercessions, because we have the ultimate intercessor on our side already:

Who is he that comdemns? It is Christ that died, yes rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.-Romans 8:34

This has gone to the point that Mary has been elevated to the status of a goddess (not surprising considering the amount of goddess worship in the original Roman Empire), and is now the Co-Redemptrix in Christ's death on the cross.

Originally posted by adjensen
Well, "public" is bit of a misrepresentation, but:

Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective. (James 5:16 NIV)

I sort of misstated that myself, as even protestants give “public” confession. We just do not innumerate our sins directly to a priest. This is more of an issue with giving unnecessary control to someone that is not required for forgiveness or salvation. Look at the abuses that have occurred over the years relating to this practice, and how many people have faced abuse, a feeling of inferiority, or humiliation over it. It truly gives the priest power over you, and he is no longer just an equal human to yourself.

Originally posted by adjensen
Incorrect. Prayer for the dead was a Jewish tradition that predated Christianity, and is still done. And, again, there is clear evidence that it was an early Christian practice -- witness St. Augustine's request that people pray for his deceased mother in the Fifth Century

The Jews do not believe in the afterlife as Christians think of it, and many modern Jews that I have spoken with don't believe in an afterlife at all. Trying to equate a belief in “purgatory” based on Jewish tradition about Gehennom, which is their version of hell not purgatory BTW, is REALLY stretching things to their limit. Also these beliefs come from the Talmud, an EXTREAMLY anti-christian writing in itself, which is really only followed to any extent by conservative and orthodox Jews.

Originally posted by adjensen
A counter argument would be Protestant interpretation of scripture having the same weight as scripture, but to say that God no longer gives insight into his will is to deny the existence of the Holy Spirit.

I cannot speak for all protestants but my church holds to strict interpretation of the bible itself. Our only other document is our Catechism, which is a very small book (maybe 150 pages in old woodcut lettering), and has not changed since it was written in the 1500's.

Originally posted by adjensen

7) Papal decrees holding more weight then scripture.

I don't believe that is a true statement.

Its absolutly true.
You have to go to law school to understand the Bible in light of all the legaleeze that the Catholic Church has written to cover for all the unbiblical stuff that they have pulled over the years, yet still have to defend, because it was written under papal authority.

Luther started out as a lawyer, became a Catholic monk, read what was in the Bible compared to what the Church was actually doing, and set out to reform the Church, not to break from it. At the Diet of Womz, his answer should answer your question:

“Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason—I do not accept the authority of popes and councils because they have contradicted each other—my conscience is captive to the word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen.”

So what is being said here is that the Church was refusing to argue his writings on the grounds of the actual scripture, because they knew he was scripturally correct. Instead they were pushing the supremacy of Papal and Council Decree as superior to the scripture itself.

Originally posted by adjensen
Well, I'm not sure that anyone, apart from Peter, can make that statement. Neither you nor I has the foggiest notion what Peter would think of the church today, though I think that he would be happy to know that 1/3 of the world's population are followers of Christ.

The Pontifex Maximus was the head of the Pagan Roman Church, crucified Christ, and was putting Christians to death (including Peter himself), left and right. Do you honestly think that Peter would accept the same title?

Originally posted by adjensen
I'm not sure where you're getting your facts from, but they're completely wrong. The "Pope" is simply the title applied to the Bishop of Rome, and has been since the 11th Century, and the leadership of the church by the Bishop of Rome dates back to Ignatius in the First Century. Claiming that Nero was the Pope is beyond ridiculous and has absolutely no basis in history.

From History...

Pontifex Maximus
The Pontifex Maximus (Latin, literally: "greatest pontiff") was the high priest of the College of Pontiffs (Collegium Pontificum) in ancient Rome. This was the most important position in the ancient Roman religion, open only to patricians until 254 BC, when a plebeian first occupied this post. A distinctly religious office under the early Roman Republic, it gradually became politicized until, beginning with Augustus, it was subsumed into the Imperial office. Its last use with reference to the emperors is in inscriptions of Gratian[1] (reigned 375–383) who, however, then decided to omit the words "pontifex maximus" from his title.[2][3]
The word "pontifex" later became a term used for Christian bishops,[4] including the Bishop of Rome,[5] and the title of "Pontifex Maximus" was applied within the Roman Catholic Church to the Pope as its chief bishop. It is not included in the Pope's official titles,[6] but appears on buildings, monuments and coins of popes of Renaissance and modern times.

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

Originally posted by adjensen
On the contrary, they would not recognize many Protestant churches, which do not have the Eucharist, deny prayer for the dead, do not practice confession of sins and lack of many other traditions, as being Christian.

We do take communion, we do have confession (just we do not have to publicly innumerate our sins to a priest). As far as prayers FOR the dead are concerned, the Bible teaches that the soul is judged at the time of death, no amount of prayer is going to change where that soul is heading after death. Prayer TO the dead is forbidden in the Bible itself.

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

Is the USA Now Under God's Judgement?

God made the universe.

Pretty sure nations are a man-made thing.

So the answer is no.

There is only one race.

By the word of the LORD were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth. Psalm 33:6

Brahma, the first member of the Hindu trinity though much
less important than the other two, namely Vishnu and Mahesh, is manifested as
the active creator of this universe.

reply to post by zroth


God made the universe? Err don't think so.

The bible describes how god made the earth but we know without doubt to be incorrect.

How many errors do you need before you accept there is no god?

Originally posted by zroth

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

Is the USA Now Under God's Judgement?

God made the universe.

Pretty sure nations are a man-made thing.

So the answer is no.

There is only one race.

Maybe you should read what the Bible says about nations and God's judgement on them.
You might be surprised.

reply to post by GafferUK1981


Well, I would not have a choice would I, life would still go on. I have never needed anyone or thing to believe in except for my own decision making process. We take the good and the bad as they come.

In a perfect scenario, yes I would like to think there are higher forms of life and higher powers so to speak. But known or I should say what we have been told as being known (History of man), leaves a lot to ponder. We do know that human evolution took a huge jump in a very little time frame from early man to modern so called homo sapiens. Evolution IMHO had some help in whatever form it came in. Our own DNA has markers or strains (dormant) which we cant fully understand what they are.

reply to post by geemony


Fair enough I can see how that raises questions but they are questions that science will also answer.

Why do we have to get lazy and implement the god of the gaps?

One quick simple question for the OP at first before I make my actual post:

OP: Have you, at any point, ever taken any antibiotics or medicine of any kind?


( don't worry, my point is NOT about applying evolution science to medical science)

Originally posted by Daemonicon
One quick simple question for the OP at first before I make my actual post:

OP: Have you, at any point, ever taken any antibiotics or medicine of any kind?


( don't worry, my point is NOT about applying evolution science to medical science)

I was in the US Navy long before I became a Christian, so yes. A large variety of shots were administered just in boot camp. I haven't needed anything since then, but to answer the question I think you are getting to, I see no problem with using modern medicine. Aside from the thermisol and other contaminants that somehow make it into medicines. How that happens is another thread entirely. Just as I use a computer and a truck and other modern technology.

Originally posted by GafferUK1981
reply to post by zroth

 

God made the universe? Err don't think so.

The bible describes how god made the earth but we know without doubt to be incorrect.

How many errors do you need before you accept there is no god?

Oh, I get it. This is from the narrow perspective. No room for all the people of the world and their beliefs too.

Carry on then.

Originally posted by 1PLA1

Originally posted by zroth

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

Is the USA Now Under God's Judgement?

God made the universe.

Pretty sure nations are a man-made thing.

So the answer is no.

There is only one race.

Maybe you should read what the Bible says about nations and God's judgement on them.
You might be surprised.

Maybe you should read books by other people of faith too. Then you would have a global versus regional perspective.

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
If there is no higher power, I lose nothing. If you are wrong, you lose everything.

You could lose everything as well if Allah is god. You always seem to forget that.

Originally posted by 1PLA1
Maybe you should read what the Bible says about nations and God's judgement on them.
You might be surprised.

I'm still trying to figure out why you guys believe what the bible says.

Originally posted by Hydroman
You could lose everything as well if Allah is god. You always seem to forget that.

So be it. I have chosen my side.

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
So be it. I have chosen my side.

So be it. We should all get what we deserve. If we have done the crime, we do the time. That is the responsible thing to do.