Jump to content

Menu

Marylou

Registered
  • Posts

    2,066
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Marylou

  1. 1) Jesus said to him [sinful thief on the cross], "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with me in Paradise" Luke 23:43. That guy was 100% sure of where he was going; he didn't have to be dead first! Neither do we.

     

    2) Basing it on the imputed righteousness of Christ (a free gift). Living a life of holiness and good works now, not because I need to earn anything (I can't), but rather to show gratitude for what He has already done for me.

     

    3) "The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God." Romans 8:16

     

    4) "If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:9

     

    5) You're welcome :001_smile:

     

  2.  

     

    No, but the Duggars didn't have "fertility issues." They are getting past the age of child-bearing. It's a whole different ball of wax. Having 20 kids and then deciding to adopt when you don't release eggs anymore is way different from trying to have a regular family. I wanted to adopt, after having four bio kids. I still would adopt, if it came up as a possibility. But I don't have a TV show that's based on and titled by having a whole bunch of kids and planning to have more.

     

    A regular family?! Please. just. stop!

  3.  

     

    No. It's a guess. Given their ages and given that the last 3 or 4 or so were a "surprise" to her because she (I guess) sees signs of waning fertility and given that there hasn't been a pregnancy in a while, it's a guess. I'm guessing it's not highly likely that they will conceive and have another viable pregnancy. I could be wrong of course.

     

    It doesn't appear that they considered adoption 10 years ago, when fertility was in their favor.

     

     

    I agree; they may not have any more biological children.

     

    How do we know if in the privacy of their bedroom (where most folks talk away from the children) they didn't discuss/pray about adoption ten years ago?! And what if they DIDN'T. Maybe they didn't have the $$$ ten years ago to even think about adopting a child.

     

    I know you were just trying to make a point w/ the cat lady, but many parents who have adopted will find it disturbing to read it in an adoption thread. I'll just leave it at that.

  4. For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth. It was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

     

    Yeah, doesn't get much doomier and gloomier than that.

  5.  

    Is the Pope not the Vicar of Christ? Then let him satisfy justice and fulfill the responsibility that SHOULD go along with his power. How am I to ignore that failure? Why should the Pope be protected? If he had accepted responsibility, even to possible legal trial, then he would be doing nothing more than Christ did when He was arrested and tried by the Romans. Benedict would have done much to restore honor to the RCC by following Jesus' example, and suffering for the sake of the Church.

     

     

     

     

    Christ did not have a legal trial. It was a sham, held in the middle of the night with no two "witnesses" agreeing. Jesus was condemned to death because He claimed to be God, not because he broke any Roman law.

     

    Carry on :D

  6. Yes, my comments are definitely relevant to the conversation started by OP.

     

    Standing at the CVS pharmacy counter to pay for my Rx~ (child's eye level) "Do [it] ____________(fill with sexually explicit words) until he screams!" Really? I want to talk about sex at home on my terms, WHEN my child is ready. If I make my child stay in the car, that is risky (and wrong!) Have her stay up by the photo area (yeah, right!) There are even mags up there (not to mention, I always keep an eye on my children in public).

     

    This "in your face porn" is everywhere.

     

    Well, maybe not at Aldi's! And I am one of those moms who tells the manager if there is a store that sells the same thing I am buying in his store, but w/o the porn display, I'm going to patronize that store every week.

     

    Here's an inexpensive way to see if management knows the junk they're selling is indecent . . . Go to your local library and make color copies of just the front of Cosmo. Take them to the store manger and show them [pointing out and reading the "topics" aloud (if no children are present)]. I can guarantee you he will ask you to stop before you get to the 3rd one. And his/her face will be a little pinker than it was previously. Indecency is everywhere. Most people just don't care anymore.

  7. If sex is so wonderful, and it is, then why don't we all start doing it in the aisles of Target?

     

    snip~I think that imbuing the magazine covers with *extra* power focuses just as much, if not more on sex than the covers themselves.~snip What does that even mean?

     

    We don't have sex in the store aisles because there is such a thing as decent behavior which is determined usually by the setting and circumstances. There are many things we can do in private which are not appropriate to do in public. I'm not talking here about morally wrong actions such as murder. If I have sex with my husband on the kitchen floor when the children are away at camp~fine. If we do the same thing while having a dinner party for guests~not cool (or decent).

     

    http://www.americandecency.org/full_article.php?article_no=1716

  8.  

    You really think a blog by the teaching fellowship of R.C. Sproul is an impartial source? The people involved seem to want to talk people out of coming into communion with the Church. They have an agenda. It is not some great discussion with open sharing. As I said, I am finding nothing in any Catholic source on that. It is not in the CCC.

     

    No, I didn't say it was an impartial source! But I don't believe it is anti-Catholic. There is a difference.

     

    The guy who wrote it is discussing something that (I believe) should be important to Christians of every denomination.

     

    And to clarify, I didn't scour the internet for "semper idem" and then find the article. I saw it in print a few weeks ago and it made an impression on me. And since a thread was started on "Changes" in the RCC, I linked it to join in the discussion.

  9. In regard to the "semper idem", any Catholic who has lived through V2 can attest that "always the same" is a load of bunk. And the blog linked is an anti-Catholic blog. One of those "you are out of your mind if you want to convert to Catholicism" blogs. So, of course, it isn't going to be warm and fuzzy toward the church.

     

     

    No, it is not an anti-Catholic blog. I believe it's a "Let's discuss these crucial issues without name-calling"

     

    I will research the semper iden on my own~just haven't had time.

×
×
  • Create New...