Post-mill, Pre-mill, A-mill

[MichiGator2002]

I am still sort of baffled from the first time I went to a charismatic parish not knowing it was one, or even having heard of such. I actually was worried it wasn't an actual Catholic church and instead just had the word catholic in the name.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by 92gator

Concur. Frankly, I find it a bit disappointing when I find Catholic priests attempting to emmulate protestant ministers, and trying to compete with the cult of personality that drives protestantism. Unfortunately though, I undertand why they do it; but I think it's a weak response--selling short--rather than hammering Truth, and sticking to their guns.

I'm zoned for a contemporary parish--but I continue to attend an old-school Traditional parish--kind of grandfathered in--because I used to be zoned for it, and jst therefore continued to attend.

...and they're grateful to have me and my family--because the contemporary church is booming--much more so that the traditional one which I continue to attend.

Just out of curiosity, because I remember a thread you started in the religion forum that no longer exists. I specifically remember you were looking for a parish to call home I guess because of inner squabbling of parishioners. Have you always been in a more traditional, contemporary or both?

[sjparker]

I'm turning more into post-mil....I was dead set on historical premil about a year ago. The post mil view is the only one that has a optimistic outlook on the advancement of the Kingdom of God. The rest of the views (besides dream) IMO hold a low view of the power of the Gospel to actually have nations turn to Christ. Look at southern Sudan and ugunda as examples...they are Christian nations now when America is no longer. It is time to get to work until every tongue, tribe, language and NATION come to Christ!

[92gator]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

The Mass is weird. So is touching little boys. "Suffer the children to come unto me ...", so they can suffer, I guess.

Again, your veiled attacks betray greater Truth. The incidence of pedofilia is just as prevalent in protestant churches as in Cat. churches (possibly even greater, but FTSOA, I'll play it conservatively)--and actually less than the incidence of teachers sexually abusing students--yet the Cat. Church is slandered and targeted inordinately more than protestant churches (let alone schools).

I'll refrain from volunteering why I believe this is the way it is--for now, anyway. Suffice it to say, you're natrual inclination to 'go there', vis a vis the Cat. Church, is indicative of the disproportionate association of this issue, to Her.

[92gator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Just out of curiosity, because I remember a thread you started in the religion forum that no longer exists. I specifically remember you were looking for a parish to call home I guess because of inner squabbling of parishioners. Have you always been in a more traditional, contemporary or both?

I believe you've confused me with MB (Gatormb, that is). He left his presbytarian parish over 'squabbling', or something like that. I've been at the same parish since before I started posting on here--and the reason I didn't go to the contemporary parish for which I am zoned, is a combinaation of habit, and the fact that they need me more than the contemporary parish does. If I thought they needed me more at the contemporary parish for which I am zoned, I'd go there--and for that reason.

To paraprhrase a famous Catholic:

"ask not what your parish can do for you, but what you can do for your parish".

(yes, I know...cheesy...but hey, it's a message board).

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by 92gator

I believe you've confused me with MB (Gatormb, that is). He left his presbytarian parish over 'squabbling', or something like that. I've been at the same parish since before I started posting on here--and the reason I didn't go to the contemporary parish for which I am zoned, is a combinaation of habit, and the fact that they need me more than the contemporary parish does. If I thought they needed me more at the contemporary parish for which I am zoned, I'd go there--and for that reason.

To paraprhrase a famous Catholic:

"ask not what your parish can do for you, but what you can do for your parish".

(yes, I know...cheesy...but hey, it's a message board).

Ah yes, sorry about that 92
I love my parish which I attend most every day. I was married in there and both of my daughters have been baptized there, and will receive their other sacraments (at least communion and confirmation) there as well. I tend to find my inner peace when I am in that church during turbulent times.

[92gator]

^^no worries.

I miss that old forum...had some great exchanges over there.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by 92gator

Again, your veiled attacks betray greater Truth. The incidence of pedofilia is just as prominent in protestant churches as in Cat. churches (possibly even greater, but FTSOA, I'll play it conservatively)--and actually less than the incidence of teachers sexually abusing students--yet the Cat. Church is slandered and targeted inordinately more than protestant churches (let alone schools).

I'll refrain from volunteering why I believe this is the way it is--for now, anyway. Suffice it to say, you're natrual inclination to 'go there', vis a vis the Cat. Church, is indicative of the disproportionate association of this issue, to Her.

Not really, I just threw the 'priesting' in (and now throw in the top-level cover-up) to tweak a weird cult. The weirder thing is the cult.

[Dreamliner]

BTW, either Jesus was a preterist or was simply mistaken about the timing of his return. The really odd thing about preterists is that they are willing to give Jesus the benefit of the doubt. I guess you could make a case for their being the true believers.

[92gator]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

Not really, I just threw the 'priesting' in (and now throw in the top-level cover-up) to tweak a weird cult. The weirder thing is the cult.

^^^yes. Proudly wierd.

That's why Christians were slaughtered by the bus load in the early days. The wierdness, primarily had to do with the whole cannibalism thing. That's why no one who wasn't baptized was allowed to attend the *liturgy of the Eucharist*. All were welcome for the *liturgy of the Word* part--the 'protestant part'--but all unbaptized were excluded for the Eucharist. That's also why little was written about it expressly. A thorough, objective historical anaylsis clearly shows that manufacturing the Eucharist as a doctrine, would be stupid--it was given to them (the Apostles), and passed on from them, down the line. John 6:66shows how counter-productive this doctrine is, to a fledgling community--yet, it also serves to keep the pretenders out, and only the True Believers, in.

It is what it is...because that's what was given to the Apostles, by Yeshua. Not some doctrine of convenience contrived by some remote ppl. way down the line, hundreds of years later.

It started out 'wierd'; and so we remain proudly so. Christ's Kingdom is not of this world; and so His Church should be 'wierd' to the outside world.

Protestantism seeks to compromise the wierdness, in order to make it more palatable to 'the world'--man's world, that is.

As for your point about 'covering up'--yes, that was a grave sin, properly laid at the foot of teh Cat. Church. She's imperfect--begun by sinners, comprised of sinners, for sinners.

That's Christianity.

Doesn't mean She isn't the One to whom The Faith was entrusted, anymore than St. Peter denying Yeshua 3x, meant he wasnt the one to whom Yeshua enstrusted the "keys to the kingdom', or declared the "rock upon which He would build His Church".

[92gator]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

BTW, either Jesus was a preterist or was simply mistaken about the timing of his return. The really odd thing about preterists is that they are willing to give Jesus the benefit of the doubt. I guess you could make a case for their being the true believers.

Actually, the thing about preterists--like all protestants--is their willingness to prefer their own interpretation of the Bible, to the Faith that was actually given to the Apostles, who in turn passed it on to their successors, on down the line.

The Church doesn't teach what it teaches because it's in the Bible; it's in the Bible, because that's what the Church always taught.

Long before there was a thing called "the Bible', there was the thing known as the Catholic Church.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by 92gator

^^^yes. Proudly wierd.

That's why Christians were slaughtered by the bus load in the early days. The wierdness, primarily had to do with the whole cannibalism thing. That's why no one who wasn't baptized was allowed to attend the *liturgy of the Eucharist*. All were welcome for the *liturgy of the Word* part--the 'protestant part'--but all unbaptized were excluded for the Eucharist. That's also why little was written about it expressly. A thorough, objective historical anaylsis clearly shows that manufacturing the Eucharist as a doctrine, would be stupid--it was given to them (the Apostles), and passed on from them, down the line. John 6:66shows how counter-productive this doctrine is, to a fledgling community--yet, it also serves to keep the pretenders out, and only the True Believers, in.

It is what it is...because that's what was given to the Apostles, by Yeshua. Not some doctrine of convenience contrived by some remote ppl. way down the line, hundreds of years later.

It started out 'wierd'; and so we remain proudly so. Christ's Kingdom is not of this world; and so His Church should be 'wierd' to the outside world.

Protestantism seeks to compromise the wierdness, in order to make it more palatable to 'the world'--man's world, that is.

As for your point about 'covering up'--yes, that was a grave sin, properly laid at the foot of teh Cat. Church. She's imperfect--begun by sinners, comprised of sinners, for sinners.

That's Christianity.

Doesn't mean She isn't the One to whom The Faith was entrusted, anymore than St. Peter denying Yeshua 3x, meant he wasnt the one to whom Yeshua enstrusted the "keys to the kingdom', or declared the "rock upon which He would build His Church".

Ah, well. The RCC kicked some of its own ass too. I suppose Karma's a bitch.

[ArtVandelay]

Jesus is like Santa and the Easter Bunny...

People just don't have the courage to tell you because its big business and unlike Santa and the Easter Bunny, that business needs you to believe...

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by ArtVandelay

Jesus is like Santa and the Easter Bunny...

People just don't have the courage to tell you because its big business and unlike Santa and the Easter Bunny, that business needs you to believe...

Pretty respectful post, does this come along with your liberal inclusiveness and tolerance?

[MichiGator2002]

I don't recall Jesus speaking in quantitative terms about His return. Quite the opposite, He couldn't have been more circumspect. I do distinctly remember getting a sense of His return being much more for the better than the ravaged and wartorn and fallen world we have lived in for the entire time since He showed up the first time. I can't think of anything more depressing than the thought that this, here and now, is the best He could do or apparently all He came, died, and rose to offer us.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by 92gator

Actually, the thing about preterists--like all protestants--is their willingness to prefer their own interpretation of the Bible, to the Faith that was actually given to the Apostles, who in turn passed it on to their successors, on down the line.

The Church doesn't teach what it teaches because it's in the Bible; it's in the Bible, because that's what the Church always taught.

Long before there was a thing called "the Bible', there was the thing known as the Catholic Church.

The 'faith that was given to the Apostles' had the Apostles in the same boat with Jesus. That is to say that either they were wrong about the timing of Jesus' return or we are wrong about the nature of Jesus' return.

Quiz: how do you interpret Isaiah 19:1ff ?

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

I don't recall Jesus speaking in quantitative terms about His return. Quite the opposite, He couldn't have been more circumspect. I do distinctly remember getting a sense of His return being much more for the better than the ravaged and wartorn and fallen world we have lived in for the entire time since He showed up the first time. I can't think of anything more depressing than the thought that this, here and now, is the best He could do or apparently all He came, died, and rose to offer us.

That is because Jesus himself does not even know but only the father himself knows. He will tell his son when it's time.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

I don't recall Jesus speaking in quantitative terms about His return. Quite the opposite, He couldn't have been more circumspect. I do distinctly remember getting a sense of His return being much more for the better than the ravaged and wartorn and fallen world we have lived in for the entire time since He showed up the first time. I can't think of anything more depressing than the thought that this, here and now, is the best He could do or apparently all He came, died, and rose to offer us.

That you've missed such a prominent, arguably central strain of his teaching is instructive. And you're probably the type who can read, say, Matthew 16:27-28 and project "some of you standing here will not taste death" interminable thousands of years into the future.

Not that I don't admire the creativity and flexibility.

[ArtVandelay]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Pretty respectful post, does this come along with your liberal inclusiveness and tolerance?

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

That is because Jesus himself does not even know but only the father himself knows. He will tell his son when it's time.

So you can spout what I consider non-sense and it's okay, but if I have an opinion that you don't agree with, then I am disrespectful and a liberal?

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by ArtVandelay

So you can spout what I consider non-sense and it's okay, but if I have an opinion that you don't agree with, then I am disrespectful and a liberal?

I love your tolerance...right on brother