Kansasdad

I think it is good that things are faithfully considered. After all he would not be a spiritual leader if he did not lead. God Bles, K.D.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF CHRISTIANS COULD AGREE. The next set of scriptures! The Greek word for these examples of

Personally I have taken a stand against it. I was faced with that very choice and I rejected it. It was never an option for my wife and I. We adopted a child instead, then God blessed us with a a child by natural birth. The Catholic Church has on many occasions condemned the practice, in very public ways. I wholeheartedly agree with their position. On what basis do you call me hypocritical. Do you think that I should personally bring a lawsuit. K.D. Good for you! Why do you think that I was talking to or about you specifically? Sorry, Your post followed my post and I didn't pay attention to the quotes. However, I am an anti-abortionist and you did generalize us all into one category. God Bless, K.D.

Even though Leonard, Eric H and Smalcald are not Catholic I think they have addressed the issue well. It is based on what Paul says, and so that the Priest has no other obligation beyond the Church and it's parishioners. Personally I have mixed thoughts on the issue, but I would agree it is not the "cause" of any of the scandles. Even though the Catholic Priest have received much more media coverage the actual percentage of Priest who are abusers is not higher than other groups. Just more publicized partially because of the complete shattering of trust. God Bless, Kansas Dad

Personally I have taken a stand against it. I was faced with that very choice and I rejected it. It was never an option for my wife and I. We adopted a child instead, then God blessed us with a a child by natural birth. The Catholic Church has on many occasions condemned the practice, in very public ways. I wholeheartedly agree with their position. On what basis do you call me hypocritical. Do you think that I should personally bring a lawsuit. K.D.

Actually that is not accurate to what the Catholic Church teaches. The Catholic Church teaches that the Pope is a man just as anyone other man is. He can and does make mistakes, and he sins. The only time infallibility is present is when the Holy Spirit is working through him. This only happens concerning faith and morals. Whether a Priest can marry is a church practice not a doctrine of faith, Thus it is not considered inspired by God. It does have biblical reasoning based on what Paul had to say about the subject. Paul does tell us it is preferable. Personally I think it is well worth considering, We desperately need more Priest and I think a Wife can help with accountability and support. God Bless, Kansas Dad

This aught to be interesting, but I doubt it will happen. God Bless, K.D.

Unfortunately I don't think you really read the verses in question or you could easily have seen the answer. For example, (1:44); we are also told that he was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother

Actually if you knew me a little better you would know that suggesting I am influenced by Jerry Fallwell or Pat Robertson is quite a statement. It is quite comical in fact. Now I do like James Dobson. Here is more to consider: At Conception When viewed without the lens of Aristotelian science, the biblical view of ensoulment becomes clear. In the Old Testament, the psalmist assumes the humanity of the unborn child at conception when he says, "Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me" (Ps. 51:5, NRSV). This indicates that the unborn child possesses a sinful, fallen nature at the time of conception (though it does not manifest in actual, personal sins until later; cf. Romans 9:11). Since sin is a spiritual phenomenon, the presence of a sinful nature indicates a spiritual nature and thus a soul, making the child a complete human being from conception. The humanity of the unborn at all stages of development is also indicated by the biblical terminology used to refer to unborn children. The Hebrew term yeled, which means "child, son, boy, offspring, youth," is used to refer to the unborn child, regardless of the stage of development. (Cf. Ex. 21:22, where the Hebrew says literally "her children come out" instead of "she has a miscarriage," as in some translations.) The same is true of the term ben, which means "son, child, youth" (cf. Gen. 25:22). From the biblical perspective, all children are children, whether born or not. The Jews neither had nor needed a specialized term for the unborn, whose humanity they saw clearly. Thus the Hebrew Scripture regularly refers to individuals existing in the womb ("I knew you in the womb," Jer. 1:5; cf. Job. 10:8

Two things, first, you keep saying that it means God murdered the innocent soul. No one ever said that the little child's soul died. There is a vast difference between the soul dieing and the body dieing. I don't think that God causes us to have a disease or have a miscarriage. Second you keep referring to scripture that says we receive the soul upon taking our first breath. Show me in context what verse says this. Here is some fact to consider: The Big Stem-Cell Breakthrough That you're not hearing about . . . by Wesley J. Smith 10/31/2006 12:12:00 PM [. . .] British scientists have created an artificial liver--from scratch--using stem cells. The research does offer tremendous hope for the alleviation of human suffering. But you probably didn't hear about this amazing achievement because the stem cells the scientists used to build a human liver did not come from embryos: They came from umbilical cord blood. This made their scientific achievement politically incorrect. A story that doesn't validate the stem-cell mantra that embryonic stem cells offer the "best hope" for future cures isn't worth much attention. Even the most important adult or umbilical cord blood stem-cell breakthroughs usually receive only minor, inside-the-paper coverage. This is the primary reason why so many people still don't know about the many advances being made on a continual basis in human research with ethical, adult and umbilical cord blood stem cells. HERE'S THE STORY: Two scientists from Newcastle University, Nico Forraz and Colin McGuckin, have built dime-sized human livers using stem cells found in umbilical cord blood. The livers are already sufficient for use in drug testing--perhaps in place of using some animals and humans as research subjects. The scientists believe that within five years, stem-cell generated liver tissue could be sufficiently perfected for use in treating human diseases caused by injury, disease, and alcohol abuse. Perhaps in 15 years, the technique could even be employed to manufacture whole human livers suitable for transplantation. Contrast this general media's shunning of this major story with its sensationalistic reporting several weeks ago of the bogus story that scientists had obtained embryonic stem cells without destroying embryos. That story, unlike the umbilical-cord-blood-stem-cells-into-liver breakthrough, got front-page play and major television coverage. It was deemed news because it was seen as undermining President Bush's stem-cell policy. Indeed, if this new breakthrough had been accomplished with embryonic stem cells instead of umbilical cord blood stem cells, the headlines would have been enormous. The second paragraph of the stories would have accused President Bush of holding up potentially life-saving cures. Notable scientists and bioethicists would have been touting the new dawn of regenerative medicine that was coming into being, despite Bush's resistance. Instead, we hear the sound of silence--thanks to the news blockade that doesn't care much about stem-cell breakthroughs unless they come from destroyed embryos. Show me one single legitimate doccumented breakthrough accomplished with embryotic stem cells. You can't, because every time they inject embryotic stem cells into human tissue it forms tumors, and yes again this is all doccumented you just have to look. God Bless, K.D.

God tells us in the Bible that he knows us in our Mothers Womb. That means that we have a soul in our mothers womb. The only way around this is to declare that you don't believe the Bible is the Word of God. My wife and I had a tuble pregenancy and the Baby died. I am sure his/her preciouse little soul is in good care by our almighty creator. By the Way, a Jews is just as lost as any other human that has not made Jesus their lord and master, so no it does not surprise me that they would hold the view you stated. And no, you are the one being deceived. Do some actual research, I have. Umbilical cord research is proving to have much much more potential the Embryonic. The facts are there you just have to actually look. God Bless, K.D.

I do not know about those 9 specifically, but the Dems did gain some ground, retained the Governorship and the Attorney Generals office. I do not like the way Kansas is headed but at least they are being a little more honest and representing themselves for what they really are. I have said for some time that we had Democrats who were running on the Republican ticket because it was the only way to get elected. Now that they saw the wind blowing in the Dems favor, they jump back to their real philosophy. Quite honestly I don't think most of the people even know it goes on. They just vote as the wind blows. eyes wide shut. K.D.

No worries...I won't .... It is amazing how we want cures for all the diseases caused by our sinful behaviours.. and we will go to all lengths, even to the destruction of our own offspring, to heal us from it rather than to repent and ask God for our healing.... My child has a fatal disease; he's done NOTHING sinful to bring it on himself. I've got friends who've watched an 11 yr old, and two 4 yr olds die from lukemia. You think those poor babies deserved to get that? You know what, even adults who may have brought disease on themselves deserve a break if it's available. Nobody leads a perfect life (cept for maybe you tah); everybody makes mistakes and sometimes those mistakes harm ones body. If a cure is found those people should be able to get them too along with everybody else. There's nothing wrong with helping people when you can do it. People need to put a little more thought into what they say sometimes. I am sorry you are experiening such sorrows... but killing another child is not an excuse to save one.. If I have a choice to save a child at the sacrifice of another I would not choose to kill one... God will decide who lives and who dies in my life...... You're not sorry. You dare to compare my child to a microscopic embryo who has no brain, no organs, no limbs, and no womb to grown in. These are entirely petri-dish products; there's not even a pregnancy involved. The blueprint might be there but there's no person yet; they're being thrown away on a daily baisis and never know the difference . When I have my menstrual cycle my body disposes of an egg (which is biologically a living cell too); that is not murder of a child imo; what do you think? That is in the same category as these petrie dish zygotes as far as I'm concerned. If you think you'd watch one of your children or grandchildren die when using these left-over, thrown away embryos might save your precious kid's lives then you're very mistaken I believe. But you never know, some people let their kids die when there are treatments available now; I see it on the news from time to time. The fact is that just because you call a human life something else does not make it so. When a sperm and egg get together it becomes a living human being, just as precious as any other human being. Your eggs during your cycle are not human beings don't try to confuse the issue, and you completely refused to make yourself aware of the fact that with umbilical stem cells, embryonic stems cells are completely unnecessary, and actually less valuable. The availability of umbilical cord stems cells is vast and will provide more research material than could ever be used. So sorry, what you are proposing is totally and completely unwarranted and achieves nothing but money in someones pocket, and the destruction of life. Answer me this, why kill the embryo baby humans when you could use umbilical stem cells instead and get better results. CSLewis..... You are absolutely correct, we have created a horrific mess. K.D.

I disagree with you Kansas Dad but at least you're not a hypocrit. It's the ones who get invitro then preach against using the left-overs that really infuriate me. What you need to understand is that the very small child that these procedures kill are just as much a God given life as the adult, or larger Child in need of a cure. How can you kill one life to save another when the life being killed is totally innocent. Do the ends justify the means. Did you also know that umbilical cord stem cells have proven to be much more valuable and promising then embryonic stem cells. Why kill and innocent life when its not even necessary. It is about money, power and agenda's. It has nothing to do about actually finding a cure, that is the lie you are being told. Please really think about this. It is a horrific lie. God bless, Kansas Dad

This sickens me. How disgusting. And yes I agree invito fertilization is just as disgusting. My wife and I tried for 8 years to have a child. We went to a fertility Dr. Who happened to be a wonderful Christian Catholic. Invito fertilization was never a consideration. Missouri always surprises me, but unfortunately Kansas is getting just as bad. God protect us, Kansas Dad

If this is true, and we know of the scandals, and cover-up in the Republican party, and we also know many of the Republicans that lost were actually Dems in Republican clothing, like the one from Road Island, then the GOP needed a good cleaning. Some times we need to be pruned and we are going to feel this pruning. God Bless, Kansas Dad

modalism... hmm I must have missed that ism in my Power Vocab post Modalism Modalism is probably the most common theological error concerning the nature of God. It is a denial of the Trinity which states that God is a single person who, throughout biblical history, has revealed Himself in three modes, or forms. Thus, God is a single person who first manifested himself in the mode of the Father in Old Testament times. At the incarnation, the mode was the Son. After Jesus' ascension, the mode is the Holy Spirit. These modes are consecutive and never simultaneous. In other words, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit never all exist at the same time, only one after another. Modalism denies the distinctiveness of the three persons in the Trinity even though it retains the divinity of Christ. Present day groups that hold to forms of this error are the United Pentecostal and United Apostolic Churches. They deny the Trinity, teach that the name of God is Jesus, and require baptism for salvation. These modalist churches often accuse Trinitarians of teaching three gods. This is not what the Trinity is. The correct teaching of the Trinity is one God in three eternal coexistent persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Found this with MSN search K.D.

I participate in two different forums. One is very similar to this one but a little smaller. I find the conversations to be very similar. I also participate in a Catholic sight (oh what shock) There are actually several non-Catholics that post there. The atmosphere at the Catholic sight is very different. I rarely see name calling, judging and finger pointing. I have developed more "relationships" here and at the other protestant forum but I have also found both to be much, much more confrontational and at times down right ugly, Sorry the emperor has no cloths on. But there is definitely something here that is from God. God Bless, K.D.

I think it likely, that you miss the concept of name altogether. STOP! IN THE NAME OF THE LAW! Is that talking about a personal name? Or is that about authority? Or, is it perhaps on the person's behalf. If you do something in my name, it implies a sort of power of attorney. The Greek for name in that verse is "onoma". NT:3686 onoma (on'-om-ah); from a presumed derivative of the base of NT:1097 (compare NT:3685); a "name" (literally or figuratively) [authority, character]: (New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright

guess what.......I can post now but only if I use firefox. When I use IE it still kicked off the internet. Microsoft K.D.

God bless you, bro. To avoid an anti Roman Catholic attitude is difficult, No it is not, you just have to take personal responsibility for what you write. You made a choice to ignore my request. Hey it is a free country you can do as you please. However I would request that you take it to a different thread, and I would also request that other posters not respond to this kind of post. Thank you to the other poster for your dialogue, I know that Floatingaxe and Man have very strong opinions about the Catholic church, but they have managed to engage in the discussion without heading down that same old road. GeorgiaBlueGirl, thank you for being a part of this forum! Now back on subject please. Kansas Dad Sorry to have offended you bro, it was not my intent. My testimony is that I too was a part of that system and I now believe their teachings are contrary to Scripture A Christian's responsibility is to stand by the WORD, not by any alternate teachings What is written is to encourage any reader to search the Scriptures and ensure what they are believing is in line with what GOD says alone There is no animosity or negativity held toward you or any other person, so, please forgive me in offending you, but I will always stand by what I believe, whether you or any other person agrees with it or likes it If it's not in the Bible it is not of GOD I was not personally offended, I have just seen how negative such discussions as your post was headed that accomplished nothing. I had a sincere question and did not want it to get so negative. You raise the very same issues I have seen raised over and over again. There is a thread called ask a Catholic that address those issues in a non-confrontationals way. I would reccomend you look at that thread and post a reply there, or start a new thread. I realize that people come to the forum at different times and subjects that have been posted several times are often never seen by new posters. Unfortunately it is the nature of a forum. God Bless, Kansas Dad

For some reason every time I click on the King James thread my browser closes, but here is some history on the Latin Vulgate Bible, The Vulgate Bible is an early 5th century version of the Bible in Latin partly revised and partly translated by Jerome on the orders of Pope Damasus I in 382. It takes its name from the phrase versio vulgata, i.e., "the translation made public", and was written in a common 4th century style of literary Latin in conscious distinction to the more elegant Ciceronian Latin. The Vulgate was designed to be a definitive and officially promulgated translation of the Bible, improving upon several divergent translations then in use. It was the first, and for many centuries the only, Christian Bible with an Old Testament translated directly from the Hebrew rather than from the Greek Septuagint. In 405 A.D., Jerome completed the protocanonical books of the Old Testament from the Hebrew, and the deuterocanonical books of Tobias and Judith from the Aramaic. The remainder of the version and the psalter were translated from the Greek. As noted in many post, no original manuscripts exist today. All versions of the Bible are translations. The Latin Vulgate is the only one that is documented to be a direct translation from the original Hebrew and Aramaic. If some one can move this to the other thread that would be fine............but then I don't think I can read any responses. Do any of the Mods know why when I click on the King James link my browser closes, but I can clink on any other threads. Thanks, K.D.

That part is puzzling to me, .......Why? God Bless, K.D.

Good point. Actually as I was contemplating this question, I was more interested in the actual words of ( in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,) as apposed to the hand motion in the sign of the cross. But I am finding the conversation about the sign of the cross interesting as well. A Baptist friend of mine made a comment that it is important to end our prayers in the name of Jesus. Ok I have no problem with that. The other day during our prayer group another Catholic man (yep there are two of us now) concluded with a prayer and ended the prayer with "in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" I sensed a tension among the group, nothing stated just a sense. Now you know the motivation for the question. Why would those words create tension among a group of Christian men? God bless, K.D. The words themselves should create no tension. It is the baggage that some people associate with them that will cause the tension. It is the same thing with raising hands, or singing modern choruses, or old hymns. All of them can produce negative reactions in people. That is what is so ironic about the whole thing. The very thing that is supposed to get us focusing on God (worship), gets us focusing on ourselves and others. Satan is smarter than we think sometimes So what do you think are some of the tricks that satan uses that are succesful in getting Christians so hung up that scripture becomes points of division?