But CMI says that it is a corruption of Latin missa, meaning sent.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Serious about Christmas
- Thread starter church mouse guy
- Start date
But CMI says that it is a corruption of Latin missa, meaning sent.
Whatever they say, it is called an unbloody sacrifice, offering Christ again. You must be aware of that? But the bible says Christ was offered once for all. Therefore it is blasphemy and a dangerous deceit.
The suffix "mas" is not the word mass, contrary to what the RCC claims. Some RCC scholarship is good and some is pure propaganda. Under Pope Francis, a Peronist (a very derogatory term), the RCC is highly suspect and abusive and unwilling to compensate abuse victims or defrock abusive clergy.
unprofitable
Active Member
Bro Mouse,
If you want to classify things into two camps, then I believe in a more recent creation. It seems that I see a lot of atheist screaming there is no God in the debates. This almost immediately polarizes me into the "young earth" camp even though I am new to some of the arguments. Kent Hovid has some interesting points, but I have not been led to examine the examples he used in his presentation at this point. His failure to "render unto Caesar" has given the enemy cause to blaspheme and in doing so has hurt his witness with some.
I vaguely remember being taught in high school by my biology teacher that in the middle ages? that some thought that if you threw some dirty clothes in the corner, came back later and found a rat's nest that the rats came from the dirty clothes and not something rats naturally do.. I think he said the process was called spontaneous generation. I guess this would have been my first exposure to the "theory" of evolution.
The Father says in Gen 1:26, "Let us make man in our image and after our likeness (in unity): and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl and over the cattle and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.". This would require man to have a particular physical form and degree of intelligence in order to achieve this likeness and dominion. This in itself is a reason to believe in intelligent design. It would also require that he become a living soul. (Gen 2:7) We must reject their philosophy because in refusing to believe that God is real they also reject the concept that man is a living soul. How can you debate someone given that? Could we ask them did the soul of man evolve during the same process as his so called physical evolution? Those things that come by faith are meaningless to atheists. If we try to combine evolution with intelligent design, man and creation become a crap shoot. Man is created with a specific design, nothing left to chance. To see the diversity of creation is mind blowing. How can man and woman, in their physical similarities have such specific difference in physical design to achieve a common purpose? "Male and female created He them." This is repeated through God's creation and is possible only through God's direct control, will, and purpose.
Before retiring recently, I spent over 40 years in the health care field. The study of the human body with its redundant systems is in direct contradiction to man reaching his current physical form and intelligence were by mere chance. Medicine, like so man other sciences, is a study of tangents. What was once considered unshakeable may now be considered heresy. We see this throughout history. Our practice was at ground zero when Perdue pharma introduced the drug Oxycontin. At that time, Perdue said Oxycontin would revolutionize pain treatment giving better pain management and less likelihood of dependency. Much of the so called "scientific" studies and information that they used to promote the drug turned out to be false and twisted I will not go into this story about which many books have been written. My point is that the thing proclaimed to be the savior became the scourge which we now experience. I consider this the same with the teaching of evolution. God forbid we try to mix it with the word of God.
If you want to classify things into two camps, then I believe in a more recent creation. It seems that I see a lot of atheist screaming there is no God in the debates. This almost immediately polarizes me into the "young earth" camp even though I am new to some of the arguments. Kent Hovid has some interesting points, but I have not been led to examine the examples he used in his presentation at this point. His failure to "render unto Caesar" has given the enemy cause to blaspheme and in doing so has hurt his witness with some.
I vaguely remember being taught in high school by my biology teacher that in the middle ages? that some thought that if you threw some dirty clothes in the corner, came back later and found a rat's nest that the rats came from the dirty clothes and not something rats naturally do.. I think he said the process was called spontaneous generation. I guess this would have been my first exposure to the "theory" of evolution.
The Father says in Gen 1:26, "Let us make man in our image and after our likeness (in unity): and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl and over the cattle and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.". This would require man to have a particular physical form and degree of intelligence in order to achieve this likeness and dominion. This in itself is a reason to believe in intelligent design. It would also require that he become a living soul. (Gen 2:7) We must reject their philosophy because in refusing to believe that God is real they also reject the concept that man is a living soul. How can you debate someone given that? Could we ask them did the soul of man evolve during the same process as his so called physical evolution? Those things that come by faith are meaningless to atheists. If we try to combine evolution with intelligent design, man and creation become a crap shoot. Man is created with a specific design, nothing left to chance. To see the diversity of creation is mind blowing. How can man and woman, in their physical similarities have such specific difference in physical design to achieve a common purpose? "Male and female created He them." This is repeated through God's creation and is possible only through God's direct control, will, and purpose.
Before retiring recently, I spent over 40 years in the health care field. The study of the human body with its redundant systems is in direct contradiction to man reaching his current physical form and intelligence were by mere chance. Medicine, like so man other sciences, is a study of tangents. What was once considered unshakeable may now be considered heresy. We see this throughout history. Our practice was at ground zero when Perdue pharma introduced the drug Oxycontin. At that time, Perdue said Oxycontin would revolutionize pain treatment giving better pain management and less likelihood of dependency. Much of the so called "scientific" studies and information that they used to promote the drug turned out to be false and twisted I will not go into this story about which many books have been written. My point is that the thing proclaimed to be the savior became the scourge which we now experience. I consider this the same with the teaching of evolution. God forbid we try to mix it with the word of God.
Kent Hovind was broken by the federal prison system over money that he did not have and records he should have kept. The government destroyed him for nothing. His work is carried on by his son Eric Hovind who produced the recent Genesis movie, parts of which are shown for free at the Creation Museum in Kentucky.
The Enlightenment reached back into Greek and Hindu thought and dusted off evolution and millions and millions of years. We are just now repairing the foundations of the church with the help of the Holy Spirit. The university professors who snipe at the truth day and night are funded by the federal government which squanders billions on education.
unprofitable
Active Member
Thanks for the background on Hovind and perspective on the "Enlightement" Christ said in Luke 11:35, "Take heed therefore that the light (enlightenment) that be in thee be not darkness."
Well, his son said all that somewhere but I don't know where. The feds put him in northern prisons and moved him around all the time knowing that the family was in Florida and broke.
The feds did the same thing to US Army Gen. Flynn. The ran up his legal fees and cost him every penny he had, even causing him to lose his home. His crime? He recounted from memory his work for the White House but the dirty FBI had wiretaps and knew in advance. When the General became confused about some minor detail, the dirty FBI charged him with perjury. It is the FBI that is criminal.
Do you remember The Caine Mutiny? It was about a war hero busted by yellow underlings. That is what they did to Gen. Flynn. The government knew that Kent Hovind had given all the money to people helping him and that it wasn't much anyway and there just was no paperwork but the government wanted a pound of flesh.
Last edited:
unprofitable
Active Member
I watched the some creationist lectures on Youtube from Hovind and others. I was astounded by the the comments of people at the bottom of the page. The thing that seemed to be consistent was their outright hate for the idea that there is a creative force in the person God. Some seemed to get as much enjoyment from blaspheming the Father as they did attacking the evidence given to them. The influence of Satan on their ideology is very evident and the scriptures declare he is the father of the lie.
I think that evolution and deep time are a vested interest because they get so much federal money for education. They don"t have to work--just wrote fantasy papers about imaginary events in science.