Search results

Except for the fact that "a Catholic priest", or even "the Pope", is no more than a mere man who has been hired by the organization to parrot the "Party Line." Contrary to Catholic hopes, none of them is "authorized" to interpret the Scriptures, any more than any other well-studied human being...

There is no doubt that politicians of either stripe would condone the murder of babies, old people, disabled people, or anyone if it would further their party's platform. It just happens to be Democrats upholding it at the moment.

I assume you are just hoping to be "cute" with that, but I really do believe the proponents of each denomination should be the ones to do any instructing about their own denominations.

Remember, we are not looking at a "religious studies" class... but rather, a class teaching about the Bible in use in Christendom today.

Is it the cloistered "Church's" job to repeat and repeat again, the basic Gospel to the already initiated? Or is it to encourage and further educate those same Christians, who then go outside and preach the Gospel? When I attended college, I would have felt cheated if the Professors taught...

Ok, we are, of course, getting all of the standard "You can't do it because..." replies. But, who is going to act differently than our negatively stupid and stubborn Congress, and attempt to present a workable answer? (*FriendOf* tried with the "History" approach, but we need more.)

Tool, even though you wouldn't quote it, I just told you why I voted for President Trump.

I had to drive through Chicago one Winter about 22 years ago. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why anyone lives up there.

Middle Florida, on the West coast.

It's cold here. Going down to the low 60's tonight,

I voted for Trump for, one, exactly what he has done for our economy... and two, to hopefully delay the selling out of America by Liberals.

You have to read someone who will tell you what that means to you?

I think LC is right. The studies never said you forget everything past the first 20 minutes. In a 45 minute sermon you might have really zeroed-in on something at the beginning, something around the middle, and then, perhaps an interesting point or two near the end.

Well, to me, "useful for teaching" does not necessarily imply 'learning rules and regulations.' I happened to learn a lot from several of the stories in Genesis, including the conversation Eve and the serpent had.

Can we take some time — each of us — and tell here, just what "useful for teaching" actually means to us individually, when it comes to knowing that was said about the Scriptures?

That's a reasonable point. It reminds me of something I say often: If you cannot read a Scripture, take it into yourself, and repeat it later to someone in your own (completely different) words, then it is possible that you never really understood the Scripture in the first place.

Yes, that is pretty much all Jesus was telling them.

Ya know, just for kicks, go back and check out how many, many times that foolish doctrine has led seemingly rational people to actually publicly predict the end of the world.

Read it again. Jesus never said "the great tribulation." That is our invention. He said "there will be great tribulation (a lot of trouble going on) in those days." And there WAS a lot of trouble that was going on going on in those days that He was warning those people about.

You've read most of the posts here. Can you imagine the distorted and confused mess that would come out of some of the mouths here if you, instead, had to audibly listen to them struggling to read aloud? Some people can't even write a legible sentence, let alone read aloud competently. Give me...