Should Billy Graham's legacy be rescued?

Feb 13, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Q-Notes

President Barack Obama with Rev. Billy Graham at his house in Montreat, N.C., April 25, 2010.

Comments (Page 24)

Showing posts 461 - 480 of1,638
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#472
Mar 5, 2013
 
barry wrote:
<quoted text>no link.
but i did notice that you accept the catholic version of history, with your own spin of course while you reject the catholic version [as per your claim] of josephus's history. you truely are a puzzle.
You have better information as to the origins of the Genuine Bible™ you worship like a slave?

No?

We thought as much.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#473
Mar 5, 2013
 
barry wrote:
<quoted text>and many Christians chose to die rather than convert to catholicism.
So?

"Christian", "Catholic"--

-- they are all the same evil hate-cult as seen from the outside.

And christianity >>sprang<< from catholicism, you ignorant baboon.

So it is BEYOND stupid to even claim what you said-- they were ALREADY catholic, in the eyes of catholicism, silly!

There is no >>functional<< difference: they all worship the same false beliefs.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#474
Mar 5, 2013
 
barry wrote:
<quoted text>it was the churches and Bible believers who lead the opposition against slavery. without the churches slavery would have lasted a lot longer here in America.
Sure, sure-- they were busy IGNORING the parts of the bible which condoned slavery.

Like all good little hypocrites-- but it took a >>WAR<< before the majority jumped on that particular bandwagon.

And even then? Most of the Southern Genuine Christians™ followed the bible's teaching that slavery was "god's gift to those n****s"

All using the same book-- care to explain?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#475
Mar 5, 2013
 
barry wrote:
<quoted text>no link, show me a history of atrocities and sin as you described in the "independent baptist" movement. we clean our own houses.
No--no you do NOT.

You STILL worship the SAME BIBLE-- you know the one?

The one that teaches that slavery is "god's gift to those darkies"

That evil bible.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#476
Mar 5, 2013
 
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>/some churches..and some members of those churches.
many, many, many people used their religion to back up the slavery movement.(and why not? the christian/jewish/muslim god gave slavery a big thimbs up!)
Yep.

The Christian majority in the South, was pro-slavery well through the 1960's.
Lincoln

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#477
Mar 5, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep.
The Christian majority in the South, was pro-slavery well through the 1960's.
And your evidence is?

Which books have you read as evidence?

You seem to be all knowing :-)
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#478
Mar 5, 2013
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
It was not the Catholics behind the Salem witch trials.
<quoted text>
it was the church of england in one form or another. it certainly wasn't baptists of any stripe.
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#479
Mar 5, 2013
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
http://www.stopbaptistpredator s.org/index.htm
Looks like those houses aren't so clean.
<quoted text>
this is what you responded to;
barry wrote:
<quoted text> ..."show me a history of atrocities and sin as you described in the "independent baptist" movement. we clean our own houses.
what you are doing is generally called slander."

so let me explain once again. "independent baptists" are not "southern baptists".

you posted a link show the sins and atrocities of the sbc. that is why we are independent. their mess is not our problem.
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#480
Mar 5, 2013
 
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>/some churches..and some members of those churches.
many, many, many people used their religion to back up the slavery movement.(and why not? the christian/jewish/muslim god gave slavery a big thimbs up!)
so name a non Christian person who was against slavery in this country?
religion has been used for a lot of things. that doesn't mean it was used correctly.
lincoln felt that the civil war and its bllod shed was ultimately God's judgement on all of America for tolerating slavery and the abomination that it had become in our country.
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#481
Mar 5, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no functional difference-- you are all descended from the Genuine Catholic Church™ and Constantine's murderous startup of "christianity".
A crime for which ALL worshipers of the Genuine Bible™ are guilty by association.
http://bible-truth.org/BaptistHistory.html Baptists are not Protestants. The name Protestant was given to those who came out of Roman Catholicism during the Reformation which began in the 1500s. It originally applied in the 1700s to Lutherans in Germany, the Presbyterians in Switzerland, and Anglicans or Church of England. Later such groups as Congregationalists, Episcopalians and Methodists were added to the list... Though many people, including Webster, refer to Baptists as being Protestants, it is not historically correct to refer to them as such or to lump all non-Catholic denominations in one group and label them Protestant. Historically, Baptists were never a part of the Roman Catholic Church or the Protestant Reformation. They cannot be correctly called "protesters" or Protestants who left the Roman Church.

It is true that many who became Baptists left the ranks of apostate and doctrinally unsound Protestant churches. They left these churches because of their strong conviction that the Word of God should not be compromised. Some formed new churches and called themselves Baptists to make it clear that they believed and followed the New Testament. They used the name Baptists because they followed the New Testament teaching of immersion as the correct mode of baptism. A good example of this was reported by Benedict, in which an elder named Cornell, in the early 1800s, was establishing a former Protestant church on Baptist principles. He left for a short time on a trip to his farm and when he returned found the church had put in a new minister who baptized infants. He, along with the others in the church that rejected pedobaptism, left and formed a new congregation of Baptists on Pine Street, in Providence, RI.

The Protestant churches which followed the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church practiced infant baptism, sprinkling instead of immersion and they baptized people into their church who had not made a public profession of faith in Jesus Christ.... there were many other matters that caused true believers to separate themselves from these unscriptural churches.

In recorded church history there is not one incident of a Baptist church being founded out of Roman Catholicism. Protestants, for centuries, saw the Baptists as their "enemies" and murdered them by the thousands in the name of Protestantism. It is surely an affront to any historically informed Baptist identify to himself by the name of a group that has so hated and persecuted Baptists down throughout history. It is revealing that the reason the Protestants hated the Baptists was because the Baptists would not compromise God's word or accept the Protestant false teachings and traditions.

There have always existed congregations, from the time of Christ, that were not a part of the Roman Church. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church can only historically trace its history back to 313 AD, when the Roman Emperor Constantine made Christianity a legal religion. In 395 AD, Emperor Constantine "Christianized" Rome and made the worship of idols punishable by death. By 400 AD, the Emperor Theodosius had declared Christianity the only state religion of the Roman Empire. There was no Roman Catholic Church prior to that time in history.

there were groups of Christians who were never a part of the "Christianization" of the Roman Empire. These New Testament believers rejected every attempt to include them with the other churches that compromised and accepted the Roman government's money, rule and authority. Over the years the growth of so many false and idolatrous practices caused some within the Catholic Church, such as Martin Luther, to rebel and to try to "reform" the Roman Church.
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#482
Mar 5, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
You have better information as to the origins of the Genuine Bible™ you worship like a slave?
No?
We thought as much.
the Bible existed long before the cc canonized it. they just simply approved what was already being used with their own extra books added and canonized later in the 1500's.
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#483
Mar 5, 2013
 
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
So?
"Christian", "Catholic"--
-- they are all the same evil hate-cult as seen from the outside.
And christianity >>sprang<< from catholicism, you ignorant baboon.
So it is BEYOND stupid to even claim what you said-- they were ALREADY catholic, in the eyes of catholicism, silly!
There is no >>functional<< difference: they all worship the same false beliefs.
your view of history is colored by your experience with and hatred of the cc.
some Christians rejected rom's power grab from the very beginning.
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#484
Mar 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure, sure-- they were busy IGNORING the parts of the bible which condoned slavery.
Like all good little hypocrites-- but it took a >>WAR<< before the majority jumped on that particular bandwagon.
And even then? Most of the Southern Genuine Christians™ followed the bible's teaching that slavery was "god's gift to those n****s"
All using the same book-- care to explain?
no, they didn't ignore those "parts of the bible which condoned slavery". they recognized that what was happening here in our great country had no resemblance to what was condoned in the Bible.
in the end God sorted it out when we as a nation could not accept and do what was right. it was very costly to us.
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#485
Mar 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
No--no you do NOT.
You STILL worship the SAME BIBLE-- you know the one?
The one that teaches that slavery is "god's gift to those darkies"
That evil bible.
you're sad.
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#486
Mar 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep.
The Christian majority in the South, was pro-slavery well through the 1960's.
sadly you might be right. however were they really Christians or just religion hiding behind a label?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#487
Mar 5, 2013
 
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so name a non Christian person who was against slavery in this country?
religion has been used for a lot of things. that doesn't mean it was used correctly.
lincoln felt that the civil war and its bllod shed was ultimately God's judgement on all of America for tolerating slavery and the abomination that it had become in our country.
people weren't free to promulgate their non-belief back then.

easier to list those christians that supported it. the writer of the hymn "amazing grace" comes to mind. i can't believe people still sing that song knowing what we do about him. eh, i guess religious people don't mind that much, go figure.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#488
Mar 5, 2013
 
...don't even get my started on why people weren't free to state their non-beleif in public...more fun news about the christians!!!

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#489
Mar 5, 2013
 
barry wrote:
<quoted text>your view of history is colored by your experience with and hatred of the cc.
some Christians rejected rom's power grab from the very beginning.
the Cathars sure did, ask them about how that worked....oops!
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#490
Mar 5, 2013
 
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>people weren't free to promulgate their non-belief back then.
easier to list those christians that supported it. the writer of the hymn "amazing grace" comes to mind. i can't believe people still sing that song knowing what we do about him. eh, i guess religious people don't mind that much, go figure.
and what is your point about john newton? what do you know about him?

easier to list the Christians that supported abolition than non-Christians because we can't think of any can we?
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#491
Mar 5, 2013
 
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>the Cathars sure did, ask them about how that worked....oops!
my point exactly. there is a history of different groups who shared a basic common doctrine who never were a part of rome. they suffered and many died but would not bow or bend the knee to rome.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 461 - 480 of1,638
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••