Revelation 13:11 - USA - Last World Empire
- Thread starter herald
- Start date
Tell me about Lucifer? Why a Saint? And what does he have to do with the bible? If you are going to stand by his name, then you must declare who he is in comparison to Jesus.
In order to argue against who the bible is all about (Jesus) then you must know all about it in order to give a good argument against it.
A verse: Rev 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.
Peace>>>AJ:love9:
Although, I don't agree with Saint Lucifer and his particular way of putting things, I do think that bible is a book that should be open to criticism and debate. There are great number of...oddities...in the bible...and I can't say I know the bible all that well...but much of what I know I am very skeptical about.
What wonderful advice! I might suggest that you start doing so as soon as possible;-)There are a number of very good and reliable Bible sites online I could give you the URL's for to start studying the Bible if you're interested!
Can you substantiate these allegations?
A tempered conscience only, formed this way by the Holy Spirit. That leaves many who's conscience needs work first, THEN, choosing an appropriate worship comes next. A properly formed conscience can only lead to the true Church. If one isn't there, it is an indicator his conscience needs work. This statement is too broad and all encompassing to be taken seriously.
This statement is really evidence that he assumes all churches are institutions established by men. A Church established by God, evidence one that would be Apostolic, would need no support from civil power, in fact the errors made by the civil power would be an indicator of it's non-conformance to the dictates of God's Church. If every civil power were to rise up against God's Church, then that would be to no avail. If every person were to vanish on earth, God's Church would still exist. The Church dies when God says it does. Good Ole' Ben was good at what he did, but it would seem knowing when to leave it to those who's job it is to know, the ministers of the true Church, wasn't one of his strong points.
It would appear he lived up to his advice. His command to Sherman to raise, slaughter and to pillage every by now helpless Southern Village in their path showed he had free reign to do has he wished. Perish the thought that he should live up to Jesus's commands, for then by them he would learn that the essence of his ministry was mercy.
The contradiction is what separates us by the grace of God. If one Church is true, then the other cannot be if they differ in doctrine. We all wish the flock will one day return, but until then it is only a desire.
Not as implied yet to be made, but headed for realization of it's existance. The "Religion" replaced all others 2000 years ago and has been alive vibrant and healthy since then. The Church is there for everyone to see, and one day some will be held to account why they refused to benefit from it's fruits. The "Greatest Empire" is slowly detaching itself from submission to God, and is slowly making itself at par with God with it's decadence and devalueing of life. You reference scripture, but I see the symtoms differently. Sirach 10,5 directly places "the sovereignty of man in the hands of God, who imparts his majesty to the ruler". So there is no seperation of Church and State, has God would not have bonded us two entities into one bound to one common Godly law.
AndyF
Last edited:
Yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly that the bible should be open to criticism and debate. How else would we learn anything?
These oddities are there for debate, to investigate, study, accept or reject, but the key being that we do it in an attitude of love rather than by the letter of the law.
What I mean by that is that church organizations have their traditions, practices and beliefs that require their members to adhere to them, placing them under restraint.
Where Jesus releases us from them and gives us freedom to love.
There is a difference in these two words; want and have to. When we are free, we want, when we are under restraint, we have to.
Brother Sanctus, is Catholic and is restrained by the church to believe a certain prescribed way.
I, in the other hand am free "to want" rather than "have to" live and love without restraint.
What people do not understand, they fear, but when understanding comes, fear is cast away.
The bible is meant to be mauled over, debated, and earnestly prayed over, so that God who is the revealer of secrets opens of the windows of understanding and favors us with answers.
What mankind has done to the bible is to cloud it with their own views of what they think God is rather than what God is.
Jesus revealed God the Father to us in very simple terms, God is love and we should be like Him.
There, was that to hard to understand?
Peace>>>AJ:love9:
I tend to agree with that statement in that the conscience is the seed planted in every soul that breaks the womb. The conscience properly addressed will identify itself with the granter of it.
It is only through knowledge and understanding that this thing can come about.
God therefore reveals Himself through the workings of His Spirit which is identified as His Holy Spirit, while Jesus is the vehicle by which the Holy Spirit is established.
That is why He says “I am the way and the truth……”
Prior to Jesus’ coming, the Holy Spirit rested on but a few selected individuals like Moses, Abraham etc.
Peace>>>AJ:love9:
GrosZ was just trolling. He/she/it signs up, makes two posts that resurrect a justifiably dead thread that should have been left dead, then disappears. I suggest we just let it die again.
:lol:
ULYSSES S. GRANT, in the 1800s said, "Leave the matter of religious teaching to the family altar, the church and the private school, supported, entirely, by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separated."
Dexter: If US Grant was here, I'm sure he'd agree. Maybe even shoot it for us.
ULYSSES S. GRANT, in the 1800s said, "Leave the matter of religious teaching to the family altar, the church and the private school, supported, entirely, by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separated."
Dexter: If US Grant was here, I'm sure he'd agree. Maybe even shoot it for us.