[zippy2006]

Originally Posted by Seydlitz77

...but does that mean He can don't that?

I would never say God can don't it.

Essential means true and immutable; primary. So the particular Jewish sacrifice was not essential, but the idea grounding it is.

[Cruciform]

Originally Posted by Livelystone

You have your head in the sand and have no more knowledge about the truth then your priest do.

The same could just as easily be said about you, friend.

Healing is done through prayers said in faith and your faith is what you believe. Simply said for you if you believe in the truth your faith will be great but if you do not believe in the truth you will be of little faith and will see very little IN the way of miracles. Because the Catholic Church has very little truth outside of who Jesus Christ was and what he did, they see very little if ever anything in the way of miracles.

Really, you can save your breath. As I said: been there, done that. I simply no longer buy into "faith healing" as a legitimate Christian doctrine. I left that all that behind over twenty years ago.

Go Irish

Amen, and amen!


By the way, you may find this and this interesting, if not helpful. God bless.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

[Seydlitz77]

Originally Posted by zippy2006

I would never say God can don't it.

Essential means true and immutable; primary. So the particular Jewish sacrifice was not essential, but the idea grounding it is.

So we agree that God can't change the grounding but He can change the practice and procedure.

[DavisBJ]

Seyd, you lived up to (down to?) what I expected of you by acting as if the questions about your founding prophet’s philandering didn’t exist. Silence can be one of the most effective lies you can tell.

Originally Posted by Seydlitz77

From the time of our second Prophet Brigham Young until 1978, those of African descent could not hold the priesthood.

As to the Mormon Church institutionalizing racism as regards the Mormon priesthood, from the time of Brigham Young and for nearly the next century and a half, how do you explain that? Was it actually God’s will, or did God simply not care enough to guide His Prophet in that matter?

[freelight]

Originally Posted by Seydlitz77

Here's a quote that made me think.

"This isn't trivial. Although the Catholic church exists to further God's will on earth, the criteria set out by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith make it impossible for the church to accept God's will as being anything other than what they already believe. So while in theory entirely subservient to God's will, God's will actually turns out to be subservient to that of the church."

Such is the quandary of an institution that assumes doctrinal authority of an already established base of 'tradition' and 'dogma', while in 'theory' accepting progressive revelation and guidance from the Spirit, but sacrificing that to the worship of dogma, tradition and ritual. Of course one can maintain a 'balancing act', but such is the challenge of an organized church-state with the demands of truth and modern innovations. In any case, the RCC manages to morph with the times, holding its dogma but adapting just enough to meet the needs of the age, - it will always be so as long as the institution holds its place in the social fabric (this goes for all religious organizations or spiritual communities).

The Urantia Papers cover issues with organized religious structures and ongoing revelation quiet well Here.

Are we truly subservient to God's will ready to accept any direction He has for us and our faith trusting that He would never lead us astray or have we set limits to what He can and can't say?

If one surrenders truly to God, then total obedience and cooperation to that divine leading would naturally follow.

As far as one giving his allegiance to a religious cult-ure, tradition or sect, he would have to deal with his acceptance of that community's rule of faith or doctrine, and his own personal divine guidance, whether those agree or differ in whatever aspect. It would boil down to the individuals own intellectual honesty, conscience and divine leading whether he continues loyal to any 'cult' or 'tradition' or charts his own path outside that 'structure'. Those of us who are more liberal and eclectic can stay within certain traditional schools, yet also synthesize other traditions being more 'inclusive' or 'mutable'.

Truth itself is universal, although its forms and 'translations' may vary by 'interpretation'.



pj

[freelight]

Originally Posted by Livelystone

The same proof of truth is required of you that is required of everybody else that simply says by your fruit you shall be known.

Unless you have divine proof that is provable only through a divine presence working through you witnesed with signs and wonders the same as Jesus and the Apostles did, you're just one more opinion with nothing to back it up!

Dont forget, there are 'charasmatic' catholics with reports of 'miracles' and 'healings', also healing phenomena with many saints and mystics. Faith would appear to have less limits that we normally ascribe, if we would but exercise such.... enabling more 'miracles' to take place, but only certain religious communities allow for the miraculous or give free reign to the gifts of the Spirit.



pj

[freelight]

Originally Posted by Caino

Revelations great and small are ongoing.

And naturally so, since all things progress in the arena of religious culture either by the natural course of 'evolution' or the augmented grant of 'revelation'...uplifting mankind when such 'downloads' are necessary or ready to be made available.


pj