Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 106

Thread: Why I Had To Apostatize

  1. #41
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    The New Testament Greek noun for "gospel" is euaggelion (yoo-ang-ghel'-ee-on); which means: a good message-- the contents of the message; viz: good news.

    Its complimentary action verb is euaggelizo (yoo-ang-ghel-id'-zo) which means: to announce a good message; viz: to announce good news; like this:

    †. Luke 2:8-12 . .And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. But the angel said to them, "Don't be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today, in the town of David, a savior has been born to you; he is Messiah, the Lord.

    Not every Christian religion has a gospel that qualifies as "good news of great joy". Several announce a version that is neither good nor joyful at all; but is actually bad news indeed because their message-- although adequately announcing the reality of Divine retribution --fails to tell of a guaranteed fail-safe, sin-proof, human nature-proof, Ten Commandments-proof, idiot-proof, God-proof, Devil-proof rescue from the wrath of God. Roman Catholicism, the very centerpiece and public image of Christianity, can't even guarantee safety for its own Popes.

    Friday, April 8, 2005; millions of Catholics around the world-- including Cardinals, Bishops, and Monsignors --prayed for Karol Wojtyla during his funeral. Let me point out something that should go without saying: if someone has already gone on to eternal life; is it really necessary to continue praying for them? Of course not. They'd be home free. The millions of Catholics left behind would the ones in need of prayer; not Mr. Wojtyla. But the sad reality is: no Catholic, not even a Pope, knows for sure where they're going when they cross over to the other side.

    If Popes are in danger of going to Hell, then what "great joy" does news like Rome's gospel have to offer rank and file pew warmers? None, no joy at all. So then, truly good news should be exciting and beneficial to everyone who hears it; regardless of whether they're sinners or saints, Jew or Gentile, male or female, adult or child, rich or poor, slave or free, smart or dumb, educated or ignorant, literate or illiterate.

    The angel of Luke 2:8-12 announced the birth of a savior. Webster's defines a "savior" as one who rescues. You've seen examples of rescuers-- firemen, cops, emergency medical teams, Coast Guard units, snow patrols, and mountain rescue teams. Rescuers typically save people who are facing imminent death and/or grave danger and utterly helpless to do anything about it.

    Of what real benefit would the savior of Luke 2:8-12 really be to anybody if he couldn't guarantee a fail-safe, sin-proof, human nature-proof, Ten Commandments-proof, idiot-proof, God-proof, Devil-proof rescue from the wrath of God? He'd be of no benefit to anybody. No; he'd be an incompetent ninny that nobody could rely on.

    But, if a savior were to be announced who guaranteed anybody who wants it, a completely free of charge, no strings attached, guaranteed fail-safe, sin-proof, human nature-proof, Ten Commandments-proof, idiot-proof, God-proof, Devil-proof rescue from the wrath of God, and full-time protection from future retribution; wouldn't that qualify as good news of great joy? I think you would have to agree with me that news like that would not only most certainly be good; but also cause for celebration, and for ecstatic happiness.

    ================================

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to WebersHome For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-26-2015)

  3. #42
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    Questions Rome Cannot Answer

    1• Where did your deceased Catholic relatives go when they died?

    2• Where will your of-age Catholic children go when they die?

    3• Where did the previous Catholic Pope go when he died?

    4• Where will Catholic you go when you die?

    Catholicism is a gamble. Nobody in the Church knows what to expect when they cross over to the other side. Theirs is a hope-so hope rather than a know-so hope; which is really not much different than a roll of the dice at Las Vegas.

    When I was a Catholic, I sincerely believed I had a better chance of going to heaven than non Catholics. But the reality is: chances are not sure things; no: a chance is a risk no matter how good the odds.

    ================================

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to WebersHome For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-26-2015)

  5. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    Roman Catholicism has created thousands of warped psyches and totally unnecessary guilt complexes by its attitude toward the male libido. and at the heart of it is the passage below.

    †. Matt 5:27-28 . .Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

    Before we can even begin to apply what Christ said about adultery; we first have to categorize the "woman" about whom he spoke. Well; she's obviously somebody's wife because adultery is defined as voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife, or between a married woman and someone other than her husband. In other words; in order for a sexual incident to qualify as adultery, at least one of the participants has to be married.

    The koiné Greek word for "lust" is epithumeo (ep-ee-thoo-meh'-o) which means: to set the heart upon.

    Setting one's heart upon something is a whole lot different than merely liking something and wanting it. The one whose heart is set upon something is in the process of finding a way to get it; and as such comes under the ruling of covetousness; which reads:

    †. Ex 20:17 . .Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his burro, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.

    Coveting, per se, isn't a sin. Paul encouraged the Corinthian Christians to "covet earnestly" the best spiritual gifts (1Cor 12:31) and to covet prophesy (1Cor 14:39). To "covet earnestly" means you go after something with the full intention of possessing it.

    Ex 20:17 doesn't condemn erotic fantasies nor a healthy male libido, no, it condemns scheming to take something of your neighbor's instead of getting your own.

    †. Rom 13:14 . . But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof.

    The emphasis there is not upon human nature's unlawful desires, but rather, upon taking steps to fulfill them; which has the distinction of being the correct interpretation of Matt 5:27-28.

    So then, are Ex 20:17 and Matt 5:27-28 saying that I can't look across the street at my neighbor's Mercedes and drool over it, turning green with envy? Or that I can't gape at his buxom young wife, undressing her with my eyes, and having erotic fantasies about her? No, the kind of lust we're talking about here doesn't imply that at all. It implies my forming a plan in my head to get my hands on the neighbor's buxom young wife and his Mercedes instead of getting my own.

    Coming at this from the opposite direction: in the movie The Bridges Of Madison County, there's a precise moment when a married Francesca Johnson makes a definite decision to initiate an affair with free-lance photographer Robert Kincaid. Francesca was okay with Robert up till the moment of her decision; but from that moment on, Mrs. Johnson was an adulteress before she and Robert even slept together because it was in her heart to make it happen.

    Supposing a Catholic man sincerely believes it really and truly is adultery to look with lust at a woman. Well; too bad because if his conscience bothers him whenever he gazes with longing at a woman, then he is an adulterer.

    †. Rom 14:14 . . To him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

    †. Rom 14:23 . . If you do anything you believe is not right, you are sinning.

    Seeing as how adultery and covetousness are prohibited by the Ten Commandments, then both acts are mortal sins.

    That is indeed tragic because there are perfectly decent Catholic men at risk of eternal suffering for nothing more than a normal, healthy, male libido.

    ================================

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to WebersHome For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-26-2015)

  7. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    According to Rome, Christ was fully man: viz: 100% human. So then, if Christ was really and truly fully human, then he would have had a full male's feelings about women, and he would have had a full male's libido, and a full male's reproductive system; which includes all the organs, fluids, secretions, and hormones that all other full males have. And most importantly, Christ-- as a 100% human --would have had the psychology of a straight human male. Thus, Christ would have not only been fully able to reproduce; but no doubt would have liked to given the opportunity. In other words: Christ had just as many needs as the rest of us.

    I believe Christ was fully man too. So then, my belief forces me to accept that Christ, as a full-grown male in the prime of life, would have liked to get laid on occasion. Unfortunately, his mission in life precluded getting laid and/or starting a family of his own, so he had to endure a good number of years of sexual frustration during his tenure on earth before departing for the celestial regions.

    A man's libido peaks between the ages of 18 to 24, and then begins to taper off towards the end of his life. The tapering is gradual and hardly noticeable at first, but sometime in a man's thirties, his libido has wound down enough that he'll realize his interest in sleeping with girls is no longer as wild as it was at 18. Christ lived to be about 33, so although his libido had tapered off somewhat by then, he still had a pretty good supply of sex drive at his crucifixion.

    Is it unreasonable to assume that Christ, in the prime of life, thought about women and/or thought about what it would be like to be with a woman, or maybe even just a girlfriend? This is a tough question for rank and file pew warmers because of their guilt complexes associated with sex and the human body.

    However, God created men with a desire to mate and to reproduce with women. Rome feel it's okay for normal men to have those desires; but not okay for Christ to have them; and yet, they forever bleat that he's fully man. No, truth be, in Rome's mind, Christ wasn't really fully man at all; no, he was a divine hybrid who hasn't a clue what it's like to be fully man.

    †. Heb 2:17-18 . . Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to aid those who are being tempted.

    What does that verse say to you? Well, as a red-blooded man who didn't get laid till he was 36, that verse tells me that Christ went through some rough nights all alone on his bed.

    †. Heb 5:7-8 . . Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; though he were a son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered

    Now I'm back to Matt 5:27-28. My question is: Was Christ a hypocrite? I mean, if Rome is rock-steady convinced that a man's erotic feelings and thoughts about women are adultery, then how would a prime-of-life, 100% fully functioning, fully human, fully straight man like Christ evade the condemnation of his own words?

    Rome's interpretation of Matt 5:27-28 is as unrealistic as it is impractical. If their interpretation were to be correct; it would actually put Christ in grave danger of eternal suffering for breaking the sixth and tenth commandments; unless of course he underwent surgery to become a eunuch; which is not all that far-fetched really.

    †. Matt 19:12 . . There be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake.

    Whether nor not Christ was a eunuch I don't know, but it's certainly a possibility; especially when taken into consideration with Isaiah's prediction that Christ would leave behind no posterity.

    †. Isa 53:8 . . And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living

    ================================

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to WebersHome For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-26-2015)

  9. #45
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    Q: In the Gospel of Matthew Jesus said: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church." (Matt. 16:18) What is the meaning of that verse?

    A: Below is a revision of Christ's statement. Watch for the change.

    "Thou art Peter, and upon you I will build my church."

    Here's another revision. Again; watch for the change.

    "Thou art a rock, and upon it I will build my church."

    The rock about which Christ spoke is a special kind of rock modified by the word "this". In other words: the focus in Christ's statement shifts from the apostle to something else entirely: viz: to a suitable anchorage upon which a temple can be constructed; which is not ordinary rock, but rather, bedrock.

    The great skyscrapers in New York City's lower Manhattan are anchored in a huge underground mass of dense material called schist. It's some pretty tough stuff and not easily cut by tunneling machines for aqueducts and subway trains. Manhattan's schist can be likened to the rock about which Christ spoke in the Sermon on the Mount.

    †. Matt 7:24-26 . . Everyone who hears these words of mine, and acts upon them, may be compared to a wise man, who built his house upon the rock. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded upon the rock.

    The Greek word for "rock" in that passage is petra (pet'-ra) which is the very same word for "rock" in Matt 16:18.

    Petra rock can also be an entire mountain of stone like Gibraltar, or Mt. Palomar in California. Palomar was chosen to site the Hale telescope because underneath it's coating of earth, Palomar is just one huge hunk of solid granite.

    Another good example of petra rock is the ancient rock-hewn city of Petra in the country of Jordan. Major portions of the city are carved right into stone cliffs and mountainsides

    Christ is clearly identified as petra rock.

    †. 1Cor 10:1-4 . .For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual petra that accompanied them, and that petra was Christ.

    Nowhere in the New Testament is Peter even once identified as petra rock.

    There are very convincing arguments supporting both sides of this issue: the one side insists that Peter is the bedrock of Christ's church, and the other is that Christ is the bedrock of his church. I would highly recommend erring on the high side with Christ rather than erring on the low side with Peter and thereby relegating Christ to a position of less importance than the apostles in his own church.

    Q: The Latin words Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam (You are Peter (the rock) and on this rock I shall build my church) are carved in marble above the main altar in Ste. Peters. Why can't we just let it go at that?

    A: We can't go with Rome on that because Christ's church is built upon his crucifixion for the sins of the whole world, and his subsequent resurrection for our justification. Had it been Peter who was crucified for the sins of the whole world, and then raised from the dead for our justification; I'd go with him instead of Christ, but as everyone knows; that's not how it went down.

    Here; let me show you just how stupid we'd look were we to go with Rome's interpretation of Matt 16:18.

    John 3:14-15 . . Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so Peter must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.

    John 3:17-19 . . For God did not send Peter into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in Peter is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in Peter's name.

    John 5:24 . . I assure you: those who listen to Peter's message, and believe in God who sent him, have eternal life. They will never be condemned for their sins, but they have already passed from death into life.

    John 6:53-58 . . I tell you the truth, unless you eat Peter's flesh and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats Peter's flesh and drinks his blood has eternal life, and Peter will raise him up at the last day. For Peter's flesh is real food and his blood is real drink. Whoever eats Peter's flesh and drinks his blood remains in him, and Peter in him. Just as the living Father sent Peter and he lives because of the Father, so the one who feeds on Peter will live because of him. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.

    1Cor 3:10-12 . . By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is the apostle Peter.

    ================================

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to WebersHome For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-26-2015)

  11. #46
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    Webster's defines "penance" as an act of self-abasement, mortification, or devotion performed to show sorrow or repentance for sin.

    Extreme forms of penance include things like malnutrition, hermitage, celibacy, walking around with a pebble in your shoe, privation, self flagellation, and the wearing of garter belts studded with metal spikes; viz: in Rome's mind; pain and suffering = holiness and purification.

    Those things may seem logical to a humanistic sense of piety; but actually Christ's believing followers can get by just fine without self-abasement, mortification, and devotion performed to show sorrow and/or repentance for sin.

    †. 1John 1:9 . . If we confess our sins, He is faithful, and just, and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

    According to the above; the only requirement for absolution is admission of guilt, and God is guaranteed to forgive and purify; and He won't do it arbitrarily, no, He will do it justly; which simply means that God doesn't sweep sins under the rug. That's because the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23) and those wages have to be paid before God can let people off.

    †. 1John 2:2 . . And he himself is the propitiation for our sins

    Webster's defines propitiation as: pacify, appease, assuage, conciliate, mollify, placate, sweeten. In other words, Christ's crucifixion adequately satisfies Rom 6:23's demand for its pound of flesh.

    †. Isa 53:4-6 . . Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

    The practice of penance insinuates that Christ's crucifixion is inadequate for paying the wages of sin. In other words: penance says that Christ's crucifixion makes it possible to obtain absolution, but by itself insufficient to procure it.

    ================================

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to WebersHome For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-26-2015)

  13. #47
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    Not all Christians are permitted to grasp the Complexities of the Divinity. Only specially selected individuals are given that privilege and the rest are left to a superficial overview because The Son is the custodian of that kind of knowledge and it can be found out from no one else.

    †. Matt 11:27 . .No one really knows The Son except The Father, and no one really knows The Father except The Son and those to whom The Son chooses to reveal him.

    Do you currently possess eternal life? I ask you that because according to the lord and master of New Testament Christianity, nobody can begin to understand the Complexities of the Divinity until they are first in possession of eternal life.

    †. John 17:2-4 . .You have given him authority over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as You have given him. And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

    Christians trying to get a handle on the Complexities of the Divinity sans eternal life are like blind men, in a dark room, looking for a black cat that isn't there. That's what it's like to sort out the Godhead without eternal life-- it's just not there for them. The obvious conclusion is that since the average pew warmer does not have eternal life, then they are spending Sunday after Sunday in church and getting no closer to understanding the complexities of the Divinity than they were the day they first entered catechism as a child.

    The complexities of Jesus Christ, and those of his Father, are well guarded sacred secrets that are revealed only to selected individuals of Christ's own personal choosing. So that no matter what a person's IQ, those secrets can't be discovered by deep thought, nor by catechism, nor by lectures; no, they can only be understood via inspiration on a person to person basis.

    You see, even if professing Catholics were to hear, and/or study, the most exacting, the most detailed, the clearest, the simplest, and the easiest to understand explanation of the complexities of The Godhead, they wouldn't accept it; no, not even from a trusted source because nobody can accept the explanation sans The Son; and to obtain The Son, human beings must first obtain eternal life.

    Christians who aren't in current possession of eternal life can study the Bible all they want to and still not accept who and what Jesus is really all about. In point of fact, it's typical of those kinds of Christians to adamantly oppose the possibility of living Christians possessing eternal life right now in this life; thus self-locking themselves into perpetual ignorance.

    According to God's testimony as an expert witness; professing Christians who don't have eternal life don't have His son; viz: they are Christless Christians.

    †. 1John 5:9-12 . .We accept human testimony; but God's testimony carries more weight because it's the testimony of God, which He has given about His son. Everyone who believes in God's son has this testimony in his heart. Everyone who does not believe God insinuates that He's a liar, because he hasn't believed the testimony God has given about His son. And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His son. He who has The Son has this life; he who does not have this life, does not have God's son.

    If someone were to die this evening as a Roman Catholic before first obtaining eternal life from God's son, then they will leave this life without Christ, and go into eternity a total stranger to The Only True God; and hear these dreadful words:

    I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoer! (Matt 7:23)

    ================================

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to WebersHome For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-26-2015)

  15. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    Rome sometimes compares itself to Noah's Ark. But If Rome were truly a model of the Ark; then not one single Catholic would ever be in the slightest danger of hell and eternal suffering because nobody aboard the Ark perished in the Flood.

    And not only that, but were the Church a true model of the Ark, then nobody would be able to apostatize. The reason being that after all were safely aboard in preparation for the Flood, God sealed the hatch.

    †. Gen 7:16 . .Those that entered were male and female, and of all species they came, as God had commanded Noah. Then Yhvh shut him in.

    The Hebrew word for "shut" actually means to shut up; like as when a corral gate is closed to pen livestock and/or the door of a jail cell is locked to confine a convict. In other words, Noah was locked inside the ark by a door that could be opened only from the outside.

    That's interesting. It means that once the ark's door was sealed, Noah became a prisoner; and were he, or anybody else inside, to change their mind about going, it was too late. In other words: God alone controlled access and egress, viz: were someone aboard to change their mind and want off the Ark; they couldn't.

    †. Rev 3:7 . . And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens

    Ring a bell?

    †. John 10:26-29 . . My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow me; and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.

    It's sometimes alleged that Christ's sheep are strong enough to overpower God and snatch themselves out of both Christ's and his Father's hands; but I should think that the words "no one" would preclude that possibility.

    In addition, were the sheep able to escape; it would reflect very poorly on Christ's competence as a shepherd. Well; in my estimation, shepherds that let their sheep escape are careless-- they're not good shepherds at all; they're just average shepherds; viz: no better than most.

    ================================

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to WebersHome For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-26-2015)

  17. #49
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    12,225
    Thanked: 4649
    But he can let them go.

    Romans 11:19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in."
    20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear.
    21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare thee either.
    22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in His goodness. Otherwise thou also will be cut off.

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Colonel For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-26-2015)

  19. #50
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    440
    Thanked: 188
    Blog Entries
    270

    Post

    -
    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel View Post
    But he can let them go.

    Romans 11:19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in."
    20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear.
    21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare thee either.
    22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in His goodness. Otherwise thou also will be cut off.
    It's tragic that no one has ever taught you how to properly apply those passages because even if Christ were to cull a head of his sheep from the herd, they would still survive the wrath of God.

    †. John 5:24 . . I assure you: those who listen to my message, and believe in God who sent me; have eternal life. They will never be condemned for their sins, but they have already passed from death into life.

    †. John 10:27-28 . . My sheep recognize my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish.

    Webster's defines "never" as: not ever, at no time, not in any degree, not under any condition.

    In addition: seeing as how Christ's sheep all have eternal life, and seeing as how eternal life is impervious to death, then Christ's sheep are impervious to the wages of sin.

    †. Rom 6:23 . .The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

    Christ gave his life for his own not when they were good little sheep, but when they were black little sheep.

    †. Rom 5:6-11 . . For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

    . . . Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.

    ====================================

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to WebersHome For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-26-2015)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Stop worrying about expensive repair bills costs with an extended warranty for your Saturn. Many vehicle repairs can cost thousands of dollars in unexpected expense, now may be the time to consider an extended service plan for your vehicle.