User Profile: LestWeForget


Member Since: March 02, 2012


123 To page: Go
  • September 12, 2014 at 8:25am

    “We asked respondents to the 2012 GSS who said they attended religious services at least once a year
    to tell us where they attend. The congregations named by these respondents
    constitute a new nationally representative sample of religious congregations in the United States.”

    This is their claim and it isn’t substantiated. 1500 people who attend worship services at least once per year may not be representative.

    I’d be interested to see what scientists say after reading this. There are no demographics reported, that I could see. I don’t see the respondents’ religious affiliations indicated. How many Methodists responded? How many Unitarians? How many Orthodox Jews? How many Catholics? Why were Korean-speakers left out? Were Muslims included? If each of these religious groups didn’t have a large enough sample size, these results mean nothing. Out of 1500 respondents with a weighted 52 (something around that) response rate, how can anyone take meaning from this?

    What is the point of this? Blaze, do you have a sciency person on staff? I’m surprised this made it through.

  • September 11, 2014 at 1:50pm

    That’s better advice than W.K.’s. Not new agey either.

  • [1] September 11, 2014 at 11:00am

    I understand that point to a certain extent, but this is not a person living in isolation from society, it’s a person who is in a relationship with this girl which means he no longer acts for only himself.

    At the funeral of a 600 pound mother of 3, the husband is asked: Why did you allow her to treat her body that way?

    Husband: I loved her, so I “let her be her.”

    Guest: Well now your children have no mother. (sarcastically adding,) But at least her feelings weren’t hurt and she never had to live life being asked to think of anyone but herself.

    Love isn’t a feeling. It intervenes to guide, help, lead, alert to a problem. The girlfriend’s loving concerns were wrongly invalidated by this dude who lied about the root and fruit of relationships, suggesting “True love remains silent.”

  • September 11, 2014 at 10:19am

    Making “feelings” the central focus of life is such a self-indulgent, new agist way to live. If Christians take a good look at this new age crap, they’ll see the evil behind it.

    Choosing things based on emotion is a terrible way to live. Believing in things based on emotions is a terrible guide for one’s life. That’s how progressives vote. See how well that goes? See the damage it does for the rest of us.

    “I feel entitled”
    “I feel offended”
    “I feel that my baby is a burden so I feel like being free from ‘it’.”
    “I feel that it is right to avoid engaging ISIL, they are just doing what they feel is right.”

    Feelings. No truth.

  • September 11, 2014 at 10:11am

    When prayer is about relaxation and the self rather than a conversation with God, it is not really “prayer.” It’s self-centered idolatry.

    This advice isn’t about loving a boyfriend, it’s advice about letting things be, letting people live in whatever state they claim to like. That is not love. To New Agers it’s all ego and all relative and there’s no “wrong” except for harshing someone’s mellow. Just like liberalism.

    You are characterizing this advice as something based on objective truth. New Agism has no objective truth.

  • September 11, 2014 at 8:35am

    Or is there an investment happening here?

    Not to be cynical but every other artist he promotes is LDS so members of his faith benefit. What is the gain with this guy?

    Responses (1) +
  • September 11, 2014 at 8:31am

    Glenn is trying hard to make this New Ager relevant.

    Should that tell us something? What does it tell us?

    Most of us still don’t know who he is but can see he has New Agism written all over him. Christians beware. People without a rudder will be blown about by any doctrine like the hot air that New Ager blows. They will fawn over such philosophy as wisdom, when it will be folly.

    Responses (2) +
  • September 9, 2014 at 7:47am

    I’ll attempt to unpack that.
    Sola and Solo Scriptura are not scriptural and so self-refuting.

    Denying that Christ established a teaching authority is a man-made Tradition with chaotic results. God is not a God of chaos and Jesus prayed for unity among his followers. 10 pastors in a room and none would agree, otherwise they’d be the same denomination. Scripture and Catholic Tradition (through Apostolic succession) are filled with exhortations to follow the oral teaching, the Traditions, the Apostles’ teachings passed on by direct succession, and no where would either point to self-interpretation and a “my-Bible-and-me” religion.
    2 Timothy 3 (start with 14, not 16 as Bible-only believers often do)
    2 Tim 2:2
    2 Thes 2:15
    Luke 10:16
    Matt 28:19 (Christ gives authority to teach, not hand out Bibles that aren’t going to be compiled by the Catholic Church for another 300+ years)
    Rom 10:7 (oral teaching, centuries before Bible canon determined)
    and more.

    Jesus said the gates of hell wouldn’t prevail against the Church he established. (Matt 16:18). That doesn’t mean the Church wouldn’t face scandals, challenges, and schisms, but that the Truth would be preserved because the Holy Spirit protects the Church and Jesus is with the Church until the end of days.

    Question. What is the pillar and foundation of Truth?

  • September 9, 2014 at 7:18am

    Say it, I appreciate you quoting the Bible in this case. I do find it odd and suspect that you refer to Bible Games and then play a bit of one.

    You quote Ephesians 2 verse 4,
    then verse 5,
    verse 6
    verse 7
    verse 8
    verse 9
    but mysteriously leave off the end of the section which is verse 10.

    10For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them.

    It doesn’t under cut your point about God’s Grace saving, so next time lay it all out – it’s God’s Word and therefore nothing to censor or selectively quote.

    In God’s Love,

  • [1] September 8, 2014 at 7:26pm

    if someone taught you only a priest could talk to God for you, that wasn’t a real Catholic, that was a liar.

  • [3] September 8, 2014 at 6:36pm

    @Faithful friend,
    What is wrong with 1FreeVoice’s “Christ example”?

    The wine he made was better than the first round that’d been served. Jesus couldn’t be accused of being a drunkard if he drank only grape juice. Luke 7:34.

  • [7] September 8, 2014 at 6:10pm

    I don’t understand the part about “allowing” transgender and gays to come to church. Are there “churches” that don’t? Serious question.

    I can’t imagine a Christian church saying someone who desires to hear the Word would be turned away. Do denominations exist that do that?

    Responses (5) +
  • [6] September 4, 2014 at 3:41pm

    We have enough New Agers with microphones and stages. No thanks. Some Truth would be more rational.

  • September 4, 2014 at 3:38pm

    Do you run around your neighborhood passing out alot of Nothing?

    Preach that belief in Nothing! Preach it. The ruder the better.

  • September 4, 2014 at 3:35pm

    I feel a small amount of sinful human pride for not knowing who this WK person is.

  • [1] September 3, 2014 at 10:17pm

    The moment of transubstantiation occurs during the consecration. The Bishop or priest [who has valid orders traced back to the Apostles] says the words of Institution and by the power of the Holy Spirit the bread becomes the body of Christ.

    The accidents stay the same so it appears & tastes like bread. The substance changes so it operates as body, blood, soul, divinity. The Blessed Sacrament is consecrated prior to consuming and remains consecrated thereafter, and extra hosts are kept locked in a Tabernacle, not thrown away like mere bread.

    The cannibalism charge goes back to at least the 2nd C. Those who deny the Catholic Church (inclusive of Eastern Orthodox) have the Real Presence in the Eucharist probably don’t know that type of history. For how could a mere symbol be thought “cannibalistic” in ancient times?

    A knowledgeable Catholic would add that the cannibalism charge in fact goes back to the Bread of Life discourse in John 6 in which disciples of Jesus left after He assured them, for a 5th time, that he meant what he said: They must gnaw on his flesh if they wanted to have eternal life. Such a thing was forbidden by their Jewish faith; and it sounded repugnant. They said “this teaching is difficult, who can accept it?” It remains a difficult teaching of His, for millions.

    If you have other questions:

  • [1] September 3, 2014 at 7:35pm

    more Patristic comments on the Eucharist:

  • [1] September 3, 2014 at 7:33pm

    Justin Martyr, so-called due to his martyrdom, a few decades later:

    Excerpt from First Apology


    “And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”

    Baptism required
    Is regenerative
    Eucharist is body and blood of Jesus, no symbol.

  • September 3, 2014 at 7:21pm

    big error, part of those comments were for disabledcovetern. I deeply apologize and regret there isn’t an edit feature.

  • [1] September 3, 2014 at 7:16pm

    Plenty of good Christians tattoo Scripture verses on their arms or backs. This is probably the same thing. Plenty of Christians enjoy carrying around Bibles. This person wrote down key verses because who could afford a handwritten copy of the Bible then?

    I agree it’s bunk, but not for the same reason. You believe it’s bunk because it’s unChristian. I believe their imputation of meaning to this artifact is just terrible scholarship.

    P.S. It’s inane to say Catholics pray to statues. It’s like saying people pray to the backs of their eyeballs, the backs of heads in church, or to the carpet.
    To Saints, yes. Members of the same Body of Christ, just glorified, unlike that pal at church we ask to pray for us. Remember reading about a cloud of witnesses? If anyone thinks saints and angels can’t see us and don’t offer prayers before God, they haven’t read Scripture. If anyone thinks saints are dead, they don’t yet understand eternal life. Does that help?

    All intended in peace.

    Responses (1) +
123 To page: Go