Featured Post

Third World problems...we've got them.

It is going to get worse and it may never get better, kiddies. Just watch for the reaction to come... GOP Rep. Steve Scalise shot at co...

"Let no freedom be allowed to novelty, because it is not fitting that any addition should be made to antiquity. Let not the clear faith and belief of our forefathers be fouled by any muddy admixture." -- Pope Sixtus III

Saturday, March 11, 2017

Prods have been celebrating 500 years of Martin Luther rotting in Hell since last October. Who knew?

Here is a short history of the early years of the perverts, liars, psychopaths, madmen, and the power-mad - great sinners all - whose foolishness has led millions of souls to eternal perdition. The carnage continues to this very hour.

Please pray for the poor, benighted souls who believe their wills (they defiantly and ignorantly dare to call it "conscience") trump (Yep, you heard me.) God's Law and His Holy Will.



The Reformation: 500 years later - Our Sunday Visitor


Historians sometimes say the Protestant Reformation would have happened anyway, even if there had been no Martin Luther. Five hundred years later, it’s an open question whether that is so. But the historical fact is that the vast upheaval in Christianity that actually occurred bears the lasting imprint of this most unusual man.

At least partly in recognition of that, Pope Francis will travel to Lund, Sweden, on Oct. 31 for a Lutheran World Federation event launching the anniversary observance of what Luther began.


Thousands upon thousands of words have been devoted to Luther. He has been psychoanalyzed, praised to the skies and roundly condemned. Catholic historian Christopher Dawson’s description sums him up as well as any: “a man of titanic power and energy, who combined … the vernacular eloquence of the demagogue with the religious conviction of the prophet.”

One of his convictions, shared with many others, was that “in head and members” the Catholic Church of the early 16th century was badly in need of reform.

To an alarming extent, popes had adopted the interests and style of Italian princes and become embroiled in the game of secular politics and intrigue. The diocesan clergy numbered many good men but also many who were poorly educated and living in concubinage. And with few exceptions, laypeople were even more ignorant than their priests.

Worst of all perhaps were the bishops. Many held title to several sees but seldom or never visited any of them while drawing revenue from them all.

When Cardinal Charles Borromeo, later declared a saint, settled in Milan in 1565, it was the first time in a century its bishop had lived there.

On the other hand, the abuses undoubtedly existing in the Church in those days can be — and often are — exaggerated.

Efforts at reform had begun before the Reformation. These included the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1517), a gathering of limited but real achievement; a steady drumbeat of criticism by reform-minded intellectuals like Erasmus of Rotterdam; the emergence of new, deeply committed religious groups and movements; and — as historian Eamon Duffy of Cambridge University has shown in the case of rural England — the lively devotional life of many ordinary Catholics focused especially on the Eucharist and veneration of Mary and the saints.

In short, there was a complex mix of good and bad in the Church when Martin Luther arrived on the scene.


Luther’s theses

Martin Luther was born Nov. 10, 1483, in a small German town in what was then called Electoral Saxony. After a stern upbringing, he earned bachelor’s and master’s degrees in preparation for studying law.

But at the age of 22, having vowed to become a monk if he survived a violent electrical storm that had burst over his head as he rode in open country, he entered the Augustinian monastery in Erfurt. Remarkable to say, he was ordained a priest just two years later and only then undertook formal theological studies.



Pieces of Luther's Theses

According to tradition, on Oct. 31, 1517, Martin Luther, a 35-year-old Augustinian friar and professor of theology at the University of Wittenberg, Germany, nailed 95 theses to a church door in Wittenberg, thus announcing his willingness to uphold them in public debate with any and all comers. The abuse of indulgences was his special target. Five hundred years later, Luther’s action is observed as the beginning of the Protestant Reformation. Following is a sample of Luther’s 95 theses.

In 1513, Luther began teaching theology at the University of Wittenberg. There he was scandalized and infuriated by a patent abuse involving the sale of indulgences, or something close to it, so as to raise money to be divided between the local bishop and the pope — the latter in constant need of funds to build the new St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome.

The turning point came on the eve of All Saints Day in 1517 when, according to the traditional account, Luther nailed 95 theses to the door of a local church, thus inviting public theological dispute with whomever cared to debate him. Did this actually happen? Perhaps so. This was a common practice in academic circles at the time, rather like publishing an article in a scholarly journal these days. Whatever happened, its anniversary is celebrated annually as Reformation Day by Lutherans and other Protestants throughout the world.

The theses make instructive reading. Luther repeatedly and to good effect skewers the abuse of indulgences in sarcastic and often violent terms. He also does much more — and it foreshadows the break with Rome soon to comeGrowing divide.

The break was clear by the time of Luther’s “Open Letter to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation” less than three years later. Here, he declares the pope to be subject to the authority of a general council; strictly limits the remaining authority of the Holy See; teaches a doctrine of the priesthood of the faithful according to which laypeople are priests just as the ordained clergy are; argues that the Bible is the ultimate authority in the Church, and every Christian can interpret the meaning of Scripture for himself.

Those who teach otherwise, he says — notably including popes and their minions — are “the communion of Antichrist and of the devil.”

But not a few readers come away from such texts with a different impression. For Martin Luther, the true ultimate authority in matters of faith is neither a general council nor even the Bible, but Martin Luther himself.

After fruitless efforts to reach agreement with him, Pope Leo X, condemning Luther’s key doctrines as “either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds,” excommunicated him in 1521.

Central to Luther’s thinking is his doctrine of justification — how God freely chooses to save fallen human beings from their sin. As Luther sees it, justification is altogether God’s work; human beings bring nothing to it but their state of sin and, if they are fortunate, their faith in Christ’s redeeming power. Good works do not count.

The sacraments are reduced to two in the new thinking — baptism and the Eucharist. Luther believed in the Real Presence, after a fashion, but Lutheranism rejected the sacrificial nature of the Mass, seeing it only as a ritual meal. The pope was condemned as Antichrist, as was any form of allegiance to him.

In the document declaring Luther excommunicated, Pope Leo expressed hope “that he will experience a change of heart,” but there was no chance of that happening as his movement grew. Many priests either went over to Lutheranism or quit the ministry. Monks and nuns in large numbers abandoned their monasteries and convents and many married, as did Luther, who in 1525 married a former nun.


More than a reform

A powerful and often remarkably coarse writer, Luther spread his new teachings in an outpouring of highly polemical texts. Vastly assisting him was the new technology of printing by which he broadcast his ideas to a growing audience of followers. A recent writer calls him “the world’s first mass-media figure.”

Still more helpful to Luther than the printing press were the protection and patronage of the powerful ruler of Saxony, Frederick III, and, in time, other German princes who took up the Lutheran cause as part of their political — and eventually military — campaign to throw off the authority of the Catholic emperor, Charles V.

The oft-told told story of this conflict is too complex to summarize here. Suffice it to say that Charles V was spread too thin and too distracted by the ominous military threat of Islam to the East. After 35 years of war, a treaty between the Protestant princes and the emperor signaled something very like a draw, with Germany divided between the Protestants of the north and the Catholics in the south.

Luther was long dead by then, having passed from the scene in 1546. Of the settlement of 1555, Dawson remarks that it was “often regarded as a triumph for German Protestantism.”

But Dawson notes: “Actually it was a defeat, no doubt of the traditional Catholic order in Church and State, but no less of Luther’s ideals of Christian Reformation. The cause that triumphed was that of the Revolution of the Princes.” The winner, in other words, was the military and political power of the newly rising nation-state.

The movement launched by Martin Luther first began to be called Protestant in 1529. By then it was clear to almost everyone that it envisaged far more than a “reform” of the Catholic Church. The object was the overthrow of Catholicism and its replacement with something new and radically different.


A new reformer


Other new religious groups and leaders had begun to appear by then — groups like the anarchic and disorganized body of zealots known as Anabaptists, and individuals like the theologically innovative Ulrich Zwingli of Switzerland, who died young in Catholic-Protestant fighting in 1531. (Upon learning of Zwingli’s death, Luther called it a “triumph” and thanked God for removing a rival from the scene.)

Meanwhile, the same potent intermingling of Protestant religious forces with political interests appeared repeatedly in places besides Germany. Nowhere was that more the case than it was in Switzerland, where the chief Protestant figure was John Calvin.

With Luther, Calvin was one of the two main figures of the Reformation, and the rise to prominence of a man who was a quarter-century younger than Luther signaled the second major phase of the Reformation.

Born in 1509 in northeastern France, Calvin studied law and classics. For reasons not entirely clear, he had quit the Catholic Church by 1534. In March 1536, he published the first version of a treatise that was to make him famous: the “Institutes of the Christian Religion.” The years that followed brought three more versions of the Institutes, with the massive final text of 1560 having grown to four times the length of the first.

To a great extent, Calvin followed Luther’s teaching, stressing things like the total corruption of human nature and predestination, together with the somewhat reassuring corollary that, once saved, a person cannot be lost. His special contribution lay in the area of ecclesiology — the structure, governance and authority of the Church. Dawson calls him “the great organizing genius of the Reformation.”


Rise of Calvinism


Calvin’s vision of society was deeply theocratic.

He writes that the duty of “princes and magistrates” is to “keep in true purity the public form of religion.” Needless to say, authority to determine the content of religion rested firmly in the hands of its ministers, whose power in turn came to them directly from the word of God as found in Scripture.

Calvin followed his theocratic prescription in his own life and career. He arrived in Geneva in 1536, remaining there — with some conflicts and interruptions — until his death in 1564 and becoming, in the words of Catholic historian Philip Hughes, a “kind of pope in the Reformation world.” The nature of the Calvinist regime is suggested by this from Hughes:

“Playing cards were forbidden, and dice, light songs, dancing; the taverns were closed. ... There were, of course, the five weekly sermons which all must attend. ... The fashion of dress, for men and for women, was regulated, and the women’s hairstyles also.”

And of course, any hint of the old religion — Catholicism, that is — was strictly forbidden, including the celebration of Mass and the use of Latin.

As Calvin’s reputation flourished and his teaching spread, religious groups and churches of Calvinist inspiration sprang up elsewhere. The Huguenots of France were Calvinists, as were the Presbyterians of Scotland and the Puritans of England, Scotland and Wales, and in due course the Puritans of New England as well. The pervasive influence of John Calvin led Catholic apologist Hilaire Belloc to conclude that “wherever the Protestant type of mind exists, it is Calvin at work.”


England breaks away


In England and in France, the Reformation in its origins was not a popular uprising but a wedge used by the monarchy to create a national church under its control.

The process was incomplete in France, where even the movement called “Gallicanism” stopped short of claiming to be a separate church. With the passing of time, however, it became near-total in England. It began with Henry VIII.



Excommunication

The movement launched by Martin Luther rapidly became a general revolt against the authority, doctrine and structure of the Catholic Church and enlisted the support of secular rulers. Having sought reconciliation with the German friar, Pope Leo X condemned Luther’s “pernicious errors” and declared him excommunicated from the Church.

The irony is that, since early in his reign, Henry had been a determined critic of Lutheranism. So much so that Pope Leo X bestowed on him the title the Defender of the Faith in recognition of his tract “A Defence of the Seven Sacraments,” a vigorous refutation of Luther published in 1521. Even after his break with Rome, Henry’s aim is described as being “to keep England Catholic without the pope.”

But the break with Rome was real and lasting. It had two principal causes: the King’s desire for a male heir, whom his marriage with Catherine of Aragon failed to produce, and his infatuation with a woman of the royal court named Anne Boleyn.

Henry’s campaign to win Pope Clement’s approval for an annulment of his marriage to Catherine — “the King’s divorce” it was called at the time — began in 1527.

In 1533, having set aside Catherine, Henry married Anne, with his hand-picked Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, obligingly holding the marriage to Catherine to be null. In the end, Pope Clement ruled against the king on the annulment question and declared him and his collaborators excommunicated.

Henry then had Parliament recognize him as Supreme Head of the Church in England and required his subjects to take an oath affirming recognition of him as such. Those who refused paid for it.
Among the victims of this bloody persecution: St. John Fisher, bishop of Rochester and the lone member of the English hierarchy to stand up against the king, and St. Thomas More, Henry’s former lord chancellor. The two martyrs were executed within a few days of each other in 1535. Their joint feast day is celebrated yearly on June 22.


Christendom’s modern era


Accompanying the executions was the suppression of convents and monasteries, together with the seizure of their property and its distribution to members of the nobility as a reward for supporting the king’s policies. The process was supervised by Thomas Cromwell, Henry’s chief minister and for years the most powerful man in England after him.

Alas for Cromwell, like many another royal favorites, he eventually fell from favor and was executed in 1540. Archbishop Cranmer, author of the Anglican Church’s much-loved and highly influential “Book of Common Prayer,” survived until 1556, when he was executed for treason during the brief Catholic restoration under Queen Mary.

As for Henry VIII, having “married” and dispatched five women after Catherine of Aragon, he died in 1547. By the end, Belloc writes, he was “something of a monster.”

Monster or not, though, he set British Christianity forever on a path that would end with an established Anglican Church and the Protestantization of the nation.

The process was definitively completed during the long reign (1558-1603) of the daughter of King Henry and Anne Boleyn, Queen Elizabeth I, and was largely directed by Elizabeth’s powerful chief minister William Cecil (Lord Burghley), known to history as “the author of Protestant England.”

By the early 17th century, the results of the upheaval begun by Martin Luther were visible all through Europe. The cultural unity of Christendom grounded in Catholic faith that had existed for a millennium lay shattered. New national states, sometimes Protestant, sometimes Catholic, had sprung up and put down roots.

The seeds of secularization were planted. A new age — the modern age — had begun.

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

Friday, March 10, 2017

Fyodor attempts the herculean task of sussing out what Hispanics want in their friendly neighborhood fireman.

Let's see...um...boy, this is a tough one for sure. Maybe a man who is brave enough to risk his life by running into a burning building to save a stranger who could very well be Hispanic?

No, that couldn't possibly be the answer.

How about a man strong enough to carry an unconscious Hispanic out of a burning building?

Nope, that's just crazy. I really must apologize for that last one. I don't know what I was thinking.

Hmmmm...

I've got it! Hispanics don't want any of that old timey fire fightin' jazz. They want someone who can speak Spanish! 




Lancaster City Fire seeks to diversify department to better serve the city - Fox43



LANCASTER, Pa. — The chief of the Lancaster City Fire Department says his department needs to better represent the people it serves.

Chief Tim Gregg says his department must be as diverse as the people of Lancaster.
“I think the detriment to not representing your community would be when everyone’s from the same background, they may tend to think alike, kind of a group think situation,” said Chief Gregg.

Lancaster City has almost 60,000 residents according to Census.gov, and Chief Gregg wants his firefighters to be from every walk of life – whether it’s having more women in the department, more veterans, or more cultures represented.

“People are more apt to provide a higher level of service. They’re able to communicate with the public better. They have more respect for the public,” he said.

Chief Gregg says having a diverse department also benefits the community.

“It shows respect for the community when at least you can try to communicate in non-emergency situations in their own language,” explained Chief Gregg.

He says firefighters like William Wakefield are great assets in the field because he can relate to the growing  Hispanic community.

“First of all, my mother is Latino. My father is white, and I was born in Puerto Rico,” said Wakefield.
Wakefield’s been with Lancaster City Fire for three years now. He joined after 9-11 because he wanted to help the community.

He says his Latino background helps relate the people he meets.

“I see them as I see myself,” said Wakefield.

Speaking of Spanish, I have a friend from Columbia who says only Columbians speak correct Spanish. He claims that even Spaniards speak an inferior version of the language. People flock to Columbia from all over the world to learn the King's Spanish!

Students in Lancaster City say they appreciate the fire department taking steps to better represent the community.

“I really appreciate this initiative. I think, you know, the firefighters are important in ensuring the safety of the community, and in that role, it’s important to show that everybody is important for that,” said Caroline Lawrence, a student at Franklin & Marshall.

Sweet Caroline, I hope you never find out the hard way that a big strong white or black firefighter is much preferable to a scrawny one who "looks like" you.

The chief says to keep up with Lancaster City’s changing population, ‘it’ll be a generational effort.’


TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

Please pray for the conversion of poor, ignorant Tony Thorne.

Willful ignorance, indeed. The man is to be pitied, as are all those millions like him.


 If this newsletter  was forwarded to you by a friend, and you would like to be added to our distribution list, all you have to do is go to  http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter and put your email address in the box at the top of the page.   Either way, it will take you about 10 seconds.

General Comments

Hey folks,
The Genesis and Evolution Conferencewas a huge success.  Speakers gave talks on Young Earth, Old Earth, and Evolutionary Creationism - from the scientific perspective one night and from a theological perspective the next night.  All the feedback I received from attendees was exceedingly positive.  I hope to have DVD's and CD's available within a couple of weeks.  Currently working on adding a DVD page to the website through which we will offer several different DVD's.  I'll let you know once everything is up and running...

Introduction

      Okay, continuing my dialogue with anti-Catholic Tony Thorne (see previous newsletters: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter).  This week I will be answering the responses he made to the first 5 of the 10 points that I made in last week's newsletter regarding chapter 3 of Romans.  I'm going to post each of my initial points, then his response to those points, and then my reply to him.  Next week I will address his responses to my other 5 points, and then give a little summary of the conversation and the points I was trying to make with it.   

Challenge/Response/Strategy


John Martignoni

Tony, oh how I disagree with thee, let me count the ways:
#1: You said in your response, “I believe what the verse [Romans 3:11] means in context...” Well, sorry, but I’m not interested in what you “believe” the verse means. Your “belief” could be wrong. What authority do you have to tell me what a passage of Scripture means that I should believe your interpretation? None. So, I believe your interpretation is wrong. We have already established that your interpretations of the Bible are not infallible, so will you admit that this interpretation of yours could be wrong? And, if it could be wrong, then why should I believe your interpretation vs. the very clear meaning of the passage as it is written?


Tony Thorne

     I'm sorry, I should have said I know what Romans 3:11 means, because the bible explains it clearly. Here, allow me to help you. Psalm 14:2–3, which pictures God searching in vain for even one heart that seeks Him: v.2 “The Lord looks down from heaven on all mankind to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. All have turned away, all have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.” This passage is quoted in Romans 3:10–12, which says, “As it is written: ‘There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God.’”

     Even our best efforts fall far short of the righteousness required by God for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, .as stated in (Romans 3:23). That’s why Scripture says that no one seeks God! We seek fulfillment. We seek pleasure. We seek escape from pain. But the pure motivation of seeking after God for Himself is a gift from God. We are not saved because we had the wisdom and insight to exercise our own faith and trust God. No one wakes up one day and, on his own, decides to seek God. That would be a salvation by our own works, and Scripture is clear: we are saved only by the grace and mercy of God (Titus 3:5; he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.

     Romans 11:6) says,. And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. We are saved when God touches our hearts and prompts us to use the faith He gives to receive His gift of salvation. But, Even with the knowledge of God’s existence everywhere, people naturally choose to “suppress the truth by their wickedness” Contextually, I found Romans 1:18-20 quite relevant to a narcissistic believer (like you john) who ever thought he had earned his way. Romans 1:18-20 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. When we speak of the Word of God, it is different from any other writings, both past and present. Other writings, no matter how religious, truthful, or filled with inspiring anecdotes are only the product of man not God. I allude to (2Pe 1:20-21). 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.


John Martignoni

       First of all, Tony, I notice that you did not answer my question: “What authority do you have to tell me what a passage of Scripture means that I should believe your interpretation?”  Since you didn’t answer, I will answer for you: NONE.  You have absolutely no authority to tell me, or anyone else for that matter, what this or any verse of Scripture means.  

       Secondly, I notice that you seemed to have changed your mind about being infallible when it comes to your interpretations of the Bible.  In an earlier response  you said that you are not infallible in your interpretation of Scripture; yet, here you pretty much state that you are infallible in your interpretation of Scripture - “I know what Romans 3:11 means.”  I call that being fallible in theory, but infallible in practice.  Do you wish to claim, Tony, that your interpretation of Romans 3:11 is indeed infallible?  

       Thirdly, you quote to me from Psalm 14, as if I had never heard of it, yet I have already quoted from it in an earlier response to you (see point #6 of my previous response).  What I find exceedingly interesting, though, Tony, is that you left out verse 1 of Psalm 14.  Why did you do that?  I’ll tell you why, because you are trying to prove that Romans 3:23 - which says that “all” have sinned and fall short of the glory of God - means absolutely all human beings.  So, you want Psalm 14, which is being quoted from in Romans 3, to reflect your absolutist interpretation.  You stated, “ Psalm 14:2–3, which pictures God searching in vain for even one heart that seeks Him.”  If God is searching “in vain” for even “one heart” that seeks Him, Tony, then why does Psalm 14 go on to talk about “My people” and the “generation of the righteous,” if there are none that are righteous?  And are God’s people those who say there is not God?

       No, Tony, you left out verse 1 on purpose because it tells us that God is not, in fact, talking about absolutely all men here.  Verse 1 says, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’  They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good.”  The “none” here, Tony, is referring to the fools who say there is no God, and not to absolutely all men.  And, in verse 4, God refers to them as “evildoers” who are opposed to God’s people.  So, “all," in this context, is not an absolute in terms of all mankind, as it is referring to those who say there is no God.  By leaving out verse 1, you have badly, and apparently deliberately, misconstrued the entire context of the passage. 

       And if you have misinterpreted the Old Testament passage that is quoted in a New Testament passage, then more than likely you have misinterpreted the New Testament passage as well - as you have.  Again, the context of Romans 3 is the Jews vs. the Greeks, or the Gentiles.  Verse 9 even asks, “Are Jews any better off?”  Verses 19-21 go on to talk about the Old Testament law and the works of the law, which is the foundation upon which many of the observant Jews thought they were not sinners, but that the Greeks were.  That is why Paul is essentially saying, in verses 10-18 and 22-23, “Jews, as a group,  are no better off than the Gentiles, as a group.  Both are under the power of sin.”  The context is not an absolute in regard to every single human having committed a personal sin.  

       In Matthew 3, Tony, it says that “all” of Judea and “all” of the areas around the Jordan river came out to see John the Baptist  and that they were baptized by him.  Does “all” here mean every single person in Judea and the areas around the Jordan were baptized by John the Baptist?  Yes or no?

       Now, a few last points here.  Regarding all of the Scripture verses you quote, Titus 3:5-7 (which is referring to Baptism, by the way), Rom 11:6, Rom 11:18-20 (not Romans 1), and 2 Peter 1:20-21...I agree with all of those verses.  As a Catholic, I agree with every single verse of the Bible.  I don't, however, necessarily agree with your admittedly fallible, man-made, non-authoritative private interpretations of those verses.  By the way, I hope you don't believe in once saved always saved (eternal security), because Romans 11:17-22 absolutely destroys that false doctrine.  And, regarding your belief in salvation by faith alone, "Wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?"

       Finally, you stated, " We are saved when God touches our hearts and prompts us to use the faith He gives to receive His gift of salvation."  Could you give me the Bible passage you quoted from for that?  Or was that from you? 

John Martignoni

#2: So, according to Tony Thorne, the word “seek” doesn’t really mean “seek”? And, instead of saying, “no one understands, no one seeks for God,” the English translation of Romans 3:11 should have said, “Man is unable to comprehend the truth of God or grasp his standard of righteousness.” Which means that the translators of the King James Bible, the New International Bible, the Revised Standard Version Bible, the Geneva Bible, the American Standard Version Bible, the Darby Bible, the Wycliffe Bible, and pretty much every other major Protestant English translation of the Bible gave us a translation of God’s Word that we can’t trust? After all, they all missed the translation that Tony Thorne came up with.

Tony Thorne

I have answered question 2 and question 3 with my response to question 1.

John Martignoni

Uhmm...no, you didn't.  You stated that the phrase, "No one seeks for God," means that man cannot understand the truth of God.  Well, if that is the case, why didn't the English translation just say that?  You want to know why?  Because that is not what it means.  If it did mean that, then why bother reading the Bible?  I mean, if the Bible contains the truth of God, but we can't understand the truth of God, then why bother reading the Bible?  Your interpretation is a nonsensical one.

Hee-hee. (Sorry.)


John Martignoni

#3: You stated, “ When you look up the greek word for seek, ( zetéo) you will find in its semantic range, the meaning, get to the bottom of.” So, one possible meaning of the Greek word, “zeteo,” which is translated “seek” in Romans 3:11, is “get to the bottom of.” Well, that’s all nice and everything, but there is a problem. Where does the Bible ever translate the Greek word, “zeteo,” as “get to the bottom of”? It’s one thing for that to be a “possible” meaning of the word - in its “semantic range” - but it’s another thing for the translators of the Bible to actually use that particular meaning of the word in their translations. And, in this case, they don’t! In the King James Bible (which is Protestant), the Greek word “zeteo” is translated as “seek” exactly 100 times. I can find no translation of the word as “get to the bottom of.” So, even though the word can possibly, in some instances, be translated “get to the bottom of,” (according to you) it is never translated that way in the Bible. So your point is completely and totally irrelevant, unless you believe all the English translators of the Bible to be wrong.


Tony Thorne

wrong, as I have explained in my answer to your first question.


John Martignoni

Uhmmm...once again...no, you didn't.  The phrase, "Get to the bottom of" (please note the quotation marks), nowhere appears in the Bible, at least, not that I can find.  Please give me the book, chapter, and verse where it is translated that way.  In other words, nowhere does the Bible translate the Greek word, "zeteo," as "get to the bottom of."  You state things that are flat out untrue, Tony. 

Ouch! The truth hurts, but it shall set ye free. If, that is, ye recognize the truth that is right in front of you.


John Martignoni

#4: To use your logic, when you look up the Greek word for “all,” (pas), you will find in its semantic range the meaning, “all manner of.” Which means, Romans 3:23 does not really mean “all” as in every single person, it means “all manner of.” So, I could translate Romans 3:23, using your logic, as “For all manner have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” In context, Paul is talking about Jew vs. Greek - “Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all; for I have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin,” (Romans 3:9). When Paul uses the word “all” here, he is not talking about individuals, he is showing that Jews - as a group - are no better than the Greeks when it comes to sin. So it seems my interpretation is in line at this point. Which means, the word “all” does not necessarily refer to Mary as having sinned. And, the Bible actually translates the word “pas” in this manner - 11 times! Versus translating the word “zeteo” as “get to the bottom of,” 0 times!


Tony Thorne

Yes, it really means All! Nice try though. Sorry Mary.


John Martignoni

Well, that's a particularly brilliant come back, now isn't it?  I suppose the proper response should be, "No it doesn't!"  Here's the thing, Tony, you want to be able to take some obscure definition of a Greek word - a definition that is nowhere used in the Bible for that word - and apply it to your fallible interpretation so as to fit your pre-determined doctrines.  But, if I want to take a less obscure definition of a different Greek word - a definition which is actually used several places in the Bible - and apply it to my interpretation of the Bible, then you reject it.  Why?  Because it doesn't fit your fallible interpretation and your pre-determined doctrine.  You are very inconsistent, Tony.  So, again, I have to ask, what authority do you have to tell me I'm wrong and that you are right?  And, are you infallible in saying your interpretation is right and mine is wrong?


John is a very patient man. I admire him for that, among many other things.


John Martignoni

#5: Yes, the Bible tells us to seek God. So what? I never said it didn’t. That is irrelevant to the point being made. The Bible says to seek God, but it also says no one is seeking God. The Bible tells us not to sin, yet it also says people sin. And, according to your interpretation of Romans 3:23, it tells us every single person who has ever lived (Jesus as the lone exception) has sinned. So your point here is, again, absolutely irrelevant.


Tony Thorne
funny I love how you try to shrug off your stupidity so casually by lying and dismissing the fact that I was right, Because I am right!!
publish that in your news letter!


John Martignoni

I am very happy to publish your remarks in my newsletter, Tony.  If you think I am somehow afraid to let people read what you have to say, nothing could be further from the truth.  Truth doesn't fear error, Tony...error fears truth.  Besides, I think everyone should be given the opportunity to show their true colors, as Cyndi Lauper would say...

Zing! Whacked over the head by a Cyndi Lauper reference.


Closing Comments

        I didn't put in any "Strategy" comments this week, as I will save those for my closing of this "dialogue" next week.  I seriously doubt Tony will have any reply to my comments, as he has sent me a message saying, "Good-bye."  That was, of course, after saying that I was a "narcistic [sic] puke" who needed to be taken out into an alley and taught some respect.  But, even if he were to respond, I won't be answering him.  This conversation has served its purpose and I need to move on to greener pastures, as it were.

       I hope all of you have a great week!


Donations

The Bible Christian Society is a non-profit organization that relies solely on your support to bring the truths of the Catholic Faith to tens of thousands of people throughout the U.S. and all around the world each year.  If you would like to help us do what we do, you can donate online at: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/donations, or send a check to: Bible Christian Society, PO Box 424, Pleasant Grove, AL  35127 .  Anything you can do is greatly appreciated!


TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

Hey, kiddies! "Bae" is Danish for excrement.

Language is an interesting thing, no? Darn Tower of Babel...

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

Thursday, March 09, 2017

Evil and immoral Supreme Court decisions never die. We have to kill them.



Judge's family apologizes 160 years after Dred Scott | Fox News


A family member of the chief justice who presided over the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision has apologized to the family of the slave who tried to sue for his freedom.

On Monday, the 160-year anniversary of the decision, Charles Taney IV of Greenwich, Connecticut, stood a few feet from a statue of his great-great-grand-uncle Roger Brooke Taney outside the Maryland State House and apologized for the decision, in which Roger Taney wrote that African-Americans could not have rights of their own and were inferior to white people. Roger Taney lived in Maryland.

He apologized on behalf of his family, to the Scott family and to all African-Americans, for the "terrible injustice of the Dred Scott decision."

Lynne Jackson of St. Louis, the great-great-granddaughter of Dred Scott, accepted the apology for her family and "all African-Americans who have the love of God in their heart so that healing can begin." She hopes the apology can lead to a greater reconciliation.

"It's an open door for us to say if the Scotts and the Taneys can reconcile," Jackson said. "If you look at relationships in our nation, these are supposed to be the two who are really supposed to hate each other. But it's not about hatred; it's about understanding, and then relationship-building and trust."

Jackson said she had looked forward to a meeting of the two families ever since she created The Dred Scott Heritage Foundation a decade ago. She and Taney met for the first time last year, brought together by the production of a one-act fictional play written by Charles Taney's daughter, Kate Billingsley. "A Man of His Time," tells the story of a Taney descendant meeting a Scott descendant.

Taney and Jackson were invited to participate in a "talk-back" session with the audience after the performance. They have since begun working together, with Taney, a consultant for nonprofit organizations, helping Jackson's group develop a strategic mission.

"A Taney bringing an apology to a Scott is like 'bringing a Band-Aid to an amputation,'" Taney quoted his daughter as saying.

"An apology is not enough," he said. "But it is necessary."


TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005

My beloved brothers and sisters, you are murdering yourselves!

I came to Carthage, where I found myself in the midst of a hissing cauldron of lusts. I had not yet fallen in love, but I was in love with the idea of it, and this feeling that something was missing made me despise myself for not being more anxious to satisfy the need. I began to look around for some object for my love, since I badly wanted to love something.

 — St. Augustine, Confessions



All pink emphasis below is mine - F.G.


[PDF] (GLMA) Guidelines for Care of Lesbian, Gay ... - UCF Safe Zone




Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA) Guidelines for Care of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Patients

The GLMA is a national organization committed to ensuring  equality in health care for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals and health care professionals. GLMA achieves its goals by using  medical expertise in professional education, public policy work, patient education and referrals, and the promotion of research. 

www.glma.org   




Chapter 1: Creating a Welcoming Clinical Environment for LGBT Patients


Background

o While having the same basic health needs as the general population, LGBT populations experience health disparities and barriers related to sexual orientation and/or gender identity or expression.

o Fear of homophobia in a physician’s office can keep LGBT individuals from seeking treatment or from revealing information that may be pertinent to their health.

  o Developing rapport and trust is crucial


Definitions

ƒ LGBT: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender/Transsexual ƒ Transgender – an individual who identifies as a gender other than their anatomic gender, this does not imply sexual orientation. ƒ

Transsexual – a person who desires to change/ is in the process of changing/ or has changed their gender from their assigned gender. ƒ Emphasize that the patient-provider discussion is confidential 

Specific Health Concerns

o Depression, stress and anxiety are more prevalent in LGBT individuals due to phobias, harassment, discrimination and isolation. ƒ

This causes an increased incidence of suicide in the LGBT community.


     Right here.

     Please consider the following point, for it is inspired by nothing but love for you:

     This document just declared that the "increased incidence of suicide in the LGBT community" is caused by "phobias, harassment, discrimination and isolation". Please read all the other pink highlighted sentences in this post and add them together. Then seriously consider if this higher rate of suicide is truly the fault of others.



Be sure to screen patients for depression and other mental health issues. ƒ

Explore the social support network of patients—one’s level of identification with community strongly correlates with decreased risk for STDs and improved mental health

o Increased stress levels can translate into increase in tobacco, alcohol or drug use.

  o Ask all patients about intimate partner violence (IPV)

o Be knowledgeable about safer sex practices as they relate to LGBT individuals, also be able to answer questions about STD transmission rates which differ based on various sexual practices.

o Do not assume lesbian patients have never had male sexual partners, are not at risk for STDs or do not have children. Do not make similar assumptions for other LGBT individuals.  In short, do not make assumptions about past, current, and future sexual behavior.

o The CDC recommends that men who have sex with men be vaccinated against hepatitis A and B and receive yearly syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia and HIV screening.  ƒ In addition gay and bisexual men may be at increased risk for anal cancer which is associated with HPV infection.

o Not all transsexual individuals have the means to undergo gender reassignment, an expensive process. 

ƒ Ask about hormone use, which has been prescribed or obtained on the black market. ƒ Ask about procedures that may have been completed as part of gender transformation.


o Use respectful language—listen to your patients and how they describe their own sexual orientation, partners, and relationships o Circulate these guidelines to all administrative, nursing, clinical staff...

NEVER fall for the fascist lie that you are a helpless victim. NEVER. You are a child of God, created in His image with free will. YOU control your destiny. YOU decide how you live and how you die.

I know this is terrifying. It is much easier to blame anybody [everybody!] for your problems. THIS is what fascists of all stripes, both left and right, exploit:. WEAKNESS! Yes, freedom and responsibility are scary, but they are preferable to SLAVERY.

YOU WERE BORN TO BE FREE. DARE TO LIVE THAT WAY!


Keep a truly open mind and notice the pervasive victim frame of reference at the link below. Is this you? Are these your friends and loved ones?

From www.shareourtomorrow.org/:

LGBT Hopes, Ideas & Fears - What's next for the LGBT community?


You Spoke.
We Listened.

Explore the insights from nearly 15,000 hopes, fears and ideas for the future shared by LGBTQ people across the country.



What about the following matter-of-factly presented horrific facts from Boulder, CO?



Open Door Fund






The Community Foundation’s Open Door Fund enhances the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer/questioning (LGBTQ) people in Boulder County.
From seniors to youth, our LGBTQ community faces persistent challenges. For example,

LGBTQ older adults are less likely than heterosexual elders to have children to look after them as they age – and they’re more likely to live alone.

And according to our TRENDS Report,

LGBTQ high schoolers report higher rates of dating violence, including sexual assault, than their straight peers.

In addition, LGBTQ youth are bullied to a much greater degree (30%) than heterosexual teens (17%), and are significantly more likely to contemplate and attempt suicide.

In response, the Open Door Fund, a permanent endowment of the Community Foundation, aims to support the strengths and needs of the LGBTQ population throughout the county in three ways: by building community, by facilitating collaboration and dialogue between our LGBTQ community and the county, and through fundraising and grantmaking.

"Fundraising and grantmaking". Yep, people always look to those sorts of things in order to save their lives.

YOU WERE BORN TO BE FREE. DARE TO LIVE THAT WAY!

YOU ARE LOVED BY LOVE HIMSELF. DO YOU DARE TO REALLY LOVE?

Part 1: SEX IS DEATH. (Stories for boys) is here.
Part 2: SEX IS DEATH. (Distaff death) is here.
Part 3: SEX IS DEATH. (Joyously dispensing death) is here.
Part 4: SEX IS DEATH. (Sex is depression) is here.

Part 5: SEX IS DEATH. (When self-pleasuring becomes self-destruction) is here.
Part 6: SEX IS DEATH. (Sex is theft) is
here.
Part 7: SEX IS DEATH. (A review of Bareback Mountain) is
here.
Part 8: SEX IS DEATH. (What is the ultimate penalty?) is
here.
Part 9: SEX IS DEATH. (Haven from reality) is
here.
Part 10: SEX IS DEATH. (Sin-redemption-reasons-reason) is
here.
Part 11: SEX IS DEATH. (Mommy loves you) is
here.
Part 12: SEX IS DEATH. (George Gilder offers a clue) is
here.
Part 13: SEX IS DEATH. (Post-killem depression) is
here.
Part 14: SEX IS DEATH. (Whither womanhood) is
here.
Part 15: SEX IS DEATH. (Saving psychology 1) is
here.
Part 16: SEX IS DEATH. (Saving psychology 2) is
here.
Part 17: SEX IS DEATH. (Fear of the boomers) is
here.
Part 18: SEX IS DEATH. (The battle continues apace) is
here.
Part 19: SEX IS DEATH. (Hot for teacher) is
here.
Part 20: SEX IS DEATH. (Kids do the darndest things) is
here.
Part 21: SEX IS DEATH. (Defects) is
here.
Part 22: SEX IS DEATH. (Privates' privacy) is
here.
Part 23: SEX IS DEATH. (National Condom Week) is
here.
Part 24: SEX IS DEATH. (Wegenics) is
here.
Part 25: SEX IS DEATH. (White wedding) is
here.
Part 26: SEX IS DEATH. (Literally) is
here.
Part 27: SEX IS DEATH. (Can't get me no satisfaction) is
here.
Part 28: SEX IS DEATH. (Wrestle with mania) is
here.
Part 29: SEX IS DEATH. (Press one for death/Presione uno para la muerte) is
here.
Part 30: SEX IS DEATH. (Raunch culture) is
here.
Part 31: SEX IS DEATH. (Gimme some of that sweet zombie lovin') is
here.
Part 32: SEX IS DEATH. (The devil made me eat my baby) is
here.
Part 33: SEX IS DEATH. (Mind control = womb control) is
here.
Part 34: SEX IS DEATH. (The expense of playing with yourself) is
here.
Part 35: SEX IS DEATH. (You can't always get what you want) is
here.
Part 36: SEX IS DEATH. (Whom does a master serve?) is
here.
Part 37: SEX IS DEATH. (Shootin' 5 for 8) is
here.

Part 38: SEX IS DEATH. (Being a never-wed mom of four and an illegal alien is no picnic either) is here.



TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

"A Day Without Communist Women" brings joy, beauty, and light to a beleagured America. Viagra stock plummets.

Yes, kiddies, for twenty-four glorious hours grotesque left-fascist caricatures of women vacated our schools, shops, and offices in a silly attempt to demonstrate their "power". All men rejoiced, singing and dancing and high-fiving their brethren. Real women came out of hiding for they were temporarily unafraid of being accused of heresy. And last but certainly not least, non-drug aided erections flourished...

Then the sun set and the harpies returned to vex us again.



'Day Without a Woman' leaves parents scrambling for childcare - CNN ...

www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/us/day-without-woman-2017-schools/

'Day Without a Woman' strike puts some parents in a bind amid school closures. ... A woman chants at the Women's March on Washington. ... But many are complaining that "A Day Without a Woman" will leave many women in a bind.




'A Day Without Women': Who are the women who won't be marching ...

www.foxnews.com/.../day-without-women-who-are-women-who-wont-be-marching.ht...


Like millions of other American women, A Day Without Women will be a day like any other. I will rise, exercise, and shower. I will happily see to ...




'Day Without Women' Was A Bit Of A Bust. Here Were Its Worst Misfires

thefederalist.com/2017/03/09/day-without-womens-worst-misfires/



Wednesday, March 08, 2017

THE METAPHOR ALERT FOR THE PREVIOUS POST HAS BEEN LIFTED. MOVE ALONG, THERE'S NOTHING TO SEE HERE.

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

About Me

My photo
First of all, the word is SEX, not GENDER. If you are ever tempted to use the word GENDER, don't. The word is SEX! SEX! SEX! SEX! For example: "My sex is male." is correct. "My gender is male." means nothing. Look it up. What kind of sick neo-Puritan nonsense is this? Idiot left-fascists, get your blood-soaked paws off the English language. Hence I am choosing "male" under protest.

Labels

Blog Archive