She seems shy. Oh, that's Gabrielle, she's actually pretty loud. Gabrielle is beautiful inside and out. She is a strong and wise woman who is always willing to help others in difficult circumstances. She shows empathy to others who face hardship. She has a strong mindset, but also very fiery and can finish what she starts. Gabrielle is a talented young lady who attracts many good looking guys. When she loves, she loves with her whole heart and is faithful.
An amazing girl! Very smart! A Gabrielle is always tough and strong! She is a good leader and always there for her friends. She is sometimes a bit rude. A Gabrielle will always keep you on the move! Gabrielle, Name , Leader. Hot girl summer She can speak french Larrie Add to Basket. Book Description Univ Pr of Amer. Condition: Very Good. Seller Inventory CS Book Description Univ Pr of Amer, Condition: Used: Good.
Home Shriver, Richard V. Published by University Press of America, Seller Rating:. Available From More Booksellers. About the Book. In other words, what others said about him. Other called Him the Christ because he fit the office of the Christ, which was described in the Old Testament. Simple example of Scriptural incompetency, however we Catholics are here to answer your questions, Randy, so we will continue to answer your questions as long as you do not attempt to show us up; remember, the trainee here is you, and we are the teachers.
Not you. Conspiracies do not last for entire millennia, if that is what you are suggesting. The stories line up because that is what is demonstrably true. The conspiracy only lasted until about CE, while they were trying in earnest to start a religion. At that time, charismatic messianic rabbis were all over that region. Is it in any way remarkable that a story survives that may be about one or several of them? No, not really, when there are people making a concerted effort to make that happen and continue its existence.
Ever wonder exactly why it is that so many centuries later, people are STILL trying so hard to uphold a religion built around a lowly, seemilngly insignificant Jewish man? Perhaps it is a major detail that you have yet to uncover. I myself am still uncovering all the facts; Catholicism cannot be learned within a few short years. If we want to discuss His actual divinity, that is another discussion entirely. I said Jesus fulfilled that role, I did not say that was the real, living and divine Messiah. If I were raised an Atheist, then it is possible that I would be in your same situation right now.
However, your mistake was to assume you could know it all, and subsequently you gave up too soon on Catholicism. Please, take the time to study the facts, rather than jump to conclusions. The story tells people they are special, that death is not final, that they will be reunited with loved ones after death, and all earthly injustices will be righted.
It satisfies lots of primal human psychological longings. This is another primal human psychological longing. It also allows for societal power structures that serve to perpetuate its own survival. But just contemplate on that for a moment, will ya? Of course, this is relying again more on faith rather than reason, which by now I figure is one of your biggest, if not the biggest, pet peaves.
However, I just want you to contemplate that reality. More than anything, I intend that as a rhetorical prompt, nothing else. No verbal response is needed. It simply informs, and allows interpretation at the viewers discretion. Not really. People are martyred for what you would consider false religions. Clearly, that cannot be a way to determine the veracity of the belief, though it can indicate the zeal of the belief. Like you said, it can indicate the zeal. In order to determine absolute validity, one must aquire complete knowledge of the subject matter.
Something which humans cannot physically achieve. So you realize you lost that discussion and instead choose to change the subject matter? Well played. Because I have seen, read, and learned sufficient to believe so. I am still learning even more, though. Even though I have sufficient evidence to show the more likeliness, I am far from having sufficient to prove with absolute certainty. That is a good thing. It means you are a much more reasonable person. All I can dissagree on is what it is you believe in; of course, I prefer you be a Catholic.
I can only encourage you to study, and not make the mistake of assuming anything when it comes to religion that involves ANY religion, not just Catholicism. Inculcated as a child? It was mentioned to me, so there was a very minor degree of exposure to it. My parents did a lousy job of actually teaching me, though. I really learned anything valuable when I became a teenager, which was when I began asking questions. Fortuneately, I was able to find the answers I needed. I would push back on my not being a Catholic being my choice. If I am not convinced something is true, is that voluntary?
Because you cannot push it into my thick head that you are 10 eet tall, then I freely choose to not believe you. I could believe you without fully understanding, but I personally choose to not believe. I gave you guidelines. Now you evaluate. Your inability, no. My belief, yes. If I presented definitive evidence that I was 10 feet tall, and let you measure me, you would be convinced, but it would not be your choice to be convinced. Likewise, if I presented no evidence, you would not choose to be unconvinced.
The food in front of me is sour.
Beleive it or not, one can in fact deny a reality despite being shown plenty of cinvincing evidence. Including my grandfather. Of course, anecdotes will not convince you, however I put it out there as food for thought. Evidence can convince people, but not everyone. There still exist anomolies where people choose to not believe even when presented with convincing evidence.
I personally am not doing this to attempt to conviince Randy. I knew from the beginning that Randy will not convert because of me; I debate him to show my brethren in Christ how to defend the Holy Mother Church and to not let themselves be trampled underfoot when the Enemy attacks. Studies have been performed on the human brain to determine if there is a difference between hallucinations and alledged spiritual experiences, or ecstasies. The results showed that the brain does in fact react differently to both. They also remain assured that it was completely normal. People of other faiths see other figures in similar experiences.
But, only your preferred version is true. What a coincidence. And, they all say theirs is true, too. Never said my preferred version is true. In , an indigenous man from the fallen Aztec Empire had several visions of Tequatlazupe, the mother of the Aztec god Ometeotl. Therfore, she was the mother of Ometeotl. This Ometeotl is described as having two natures, in one single entity. The Judeo-Christian God is described as having two natures, Father and Son, with the third nature being the encompassing nature uniting the two. One single Holy Spirit, uniting the Father and Son.
Ometeotl was one divine Spirit, uniting two persons: Ometecuhtli and Omecihuatl. We do that only when the vision is in investigation, as God is not the only one who can appear in visions. Another example? Sound familiar? Roman Catholics do not ignore the visions and beliefs of other cultures unless they are shown to be false. Greco-Roman Mythology is usually ignored because the events are very similar to Christian beliefs, but they are depicted with evil Khaos, Nyx, Kronos, Tartarus, etc. Ouranos is shown as fallen, but He never truly fell. As to whether angels are demonstrably real, the debate is not as direct as you wish it to be.
Science cannot and will never be capable of demonstrating the angelic spirits are real, simply because science can only examine physical parameters, and neither angels nor demons are bound by physical, material substance. However, God can and has been studied through physical parameters, because of His human form which we know as Jesus.
Consecrated eucharists have been studied before, and it has been shown that despite they appear to the naked eye to be made of wheat, they are actually real human flesh and blood. Take the eucharistist miracle of Lanciano, for example, which occured in the 8th century. A consecrated eucharist was studied in and these were the findings: -The bread was actually real human flesh and the wine was real human blood. Another study was done in Israel, where scientists studied dried human blood that was brought in by an American man, who did not tell them it was actually consecrated wine used for Catholic Mass.
The scientists found that the blood was still alive, and presented only 23 chromosomes. All the scientists could determine was that the 24th chromosome was not of human origin. Protein levels were intact. Everything was intact, as though the blood had just been pulled from a human body merely seconds ago. What I intend with all of this is to provide only one way of showing how God can be shown to possibly exist not proven, merely shown possible. Logic can also be used, but only to a limited degree.
Now, assuming that God is not real which science shows is highly unlikely , there is then no such thing as angels. I say this because am aware that it has been done in many chunks, since one individual cannot possibly debunk the thousands of existent religions alone. If we alanlyze religions today, we see that most religions are really just offshoots of a parent religion, and so if we narrow them down that way we can finish much sooner.
Battle within their respective groups, and bring all victorious religions to the front against each other. Why these three? Well, Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy are virtually the same religion, there are simply minor differences in the method of celebrating Mass and the issue with Papal Supremacy that get in the way, but in terms of theology, they are perfectly identical.
Why Christianity and Judaism? What I am implying here is that Christianity is actually Judaism under a different name, and with the continuation of the religion after the Messiah came. Judaism is more or less asleep as of right now, with their preisthood virtually gone, as well as temples and worship. At the end of this long and migraine-inducing rant, what I mean to say that angels can be shown real, but not by the scientific means you desire, but rather by showing first God is real which at the moment you refuse to believe; I respect that decision , and then proceeding to demonstrate that Catholicism is the only flawless religion in existence.
When bound to belief in Catholicism, inevitably one believes in angels. The reality of an angel cannot be demonstarted by physical means, because it is not a physical being.
- Popular Posts!
- La Guerre: édition intégrale (Fiction Historique) (French Edition)!
- Halloween Tongue Twisters for Kids.
- Angels — Healing Powers!
- God’s Army: the Truth about Angels.
- Les mouches et lâne (Littérature Française) (French Edition).
- Gabriel | Supernatural Wiki | FANDOM powered by Wikia;
That is like attempting to charge an Apple device with a micro usb Android charger. Like I said, you have no way to demonstrate that your religious hullabaloo is any more real or true than any other. Not physically demonstrable, no. Like I said, a spiritual dimension is much more difficult to demonstrate than a physical one, because of the simple reality that they are two distinct dimensions. The attempt was yours, not mine. Please answer my question with your own example.
- Into The Heart Of The Dragon.
- How to Manifest Love Using the Law of Attraction - Gabriel Gonsalves?
- Diary of Samuel Pepys — Volume 66: June/July 1668?
How else will others learn? What compels you to come on a Catholic site and argue with all of these people? Seems to me you are pissing in the ocean and trying to measure the change in volume. You seem to be implying that they are either incapable of defending their beliefs or holding indefensible beliefs. After all, if they are right and capable, they should be able to convince others with sound arguments based on demonstrable reality. I think more of others than you seem to, and I need not apologize for nor defend that.
Indefensible beliefs commonly share an inability to be supported by scientific evidence. Of which only three belief systems do not fall into this category can be supported by scientific evidence : -Islam -Judeo-Catholicism -Atheism. Only two of these are supported from the base. Guess what? Atheism does not enter into those two. They are Islam and Judeo-Catholicism. Supporting this claim is too lengthy for this site, but I have plenty of evidence on my bookshelves to share with you on a later date.
Atheism is, in its most catholic sense, a disbelief in gods. It is not a declaration of the nonexistence of deities. When you begin with faulty premises, your conclusions will not be valid. So what you are saying is that, although you are not convinced that gods do exist, you also are not completely denying the possibility that they might exist? See, you could have worded that differently from the start, and I would have understood what you meant. Either prefers not to debate the matter, or takes a stance like your own.
Agnosticism refers to clains of knowledge. Atheism refers to belief claims.
About this product
They are not mutually exclusive. There are agnostic theists and agnostic atheists, gnostic theists and gnostic atheists. Could you please elaborate on the second half, though? Gnostic theists believe at least one god exists and claim to know at least one god exists.
The Gabriel Letters: Advice to a Young Angel
Gnostic atheists do not believe any gods exist, and claim to know no gods exist. Try to look at sin kind of like monetary debt: if you are incapable of paying all off, you may have the option of a friend being willing to pay the debts for you. That is what he wanted. I can hear you sputtering about free will. Do you think there is free will in Heaven? His sacrifice was not to appease Himself, but rather to appease us. You clearly misinterpret history, once again. Why should I have all the fun of tearing apart your personal version of Christian theology that bears no resemblance to any known version of Christianity?
You made that stuff up. You know it, I know it, and everyone else knows it. Why you felt compelled to do so is far more interesting than shredding your story. Therefore, if your intention is to continue to unknowingly look like a fool on this page, I highly recommend, for your own sake, to abandon this discussion. Over years of serious theological development and philosophical cannot be destroyed by religious skepticism that has only recently began to truly to unravel obviously, atheism has existed since as long ago as the 6th century BCE, but it has yet to be shown that it seriously began to develop until perhaps the Enlightenment, and religion itself can be shown to be several hundreds of years old.
So if it pleases you, then continue to mock the Holy Roman Catholic Church; you can have the satisfaction of doing so, and I can have the satisfaction of knowing that you inherently know very little about Catholicism. Sacrificial laws were devised by God to appease God. Come on. Just quit lying. I must stop entertaining your customized theology and your extension of it onto all of Roman Catholicism. Go learn your religion. Of course nature did not like the burning of fat, the burning of fat was not even the animal sacrifice itself.
Burning of fat? You appear to be unaware that understanding of Scripture develops over time, while the teachings themselves do not. You seem to believe doctrinal understanding is concrete forever, and that is not the case. Scripture is very much an allegory, and many meanings of Scripture are still being discovered to this day. Because doctrinal interpretation is always changing, almost daily, it is obvious that not everyone will be able to keep up with all of these updates.
What my Catholic brethren currently believe is by no means wrong, the knowledge is simply limited. A few hundred years ago, very few would have known about the things described in the article written above about angels. Now, suppose that I am wrong in my understanding of Levitical Law. If I am wrong, then I trust my God will in some way send someone to correct me of my errors.
I will not hesitate in retracting my statement; when that time comes, I will most certainly stand corrected. Until then, I stand by my interpretation of Levitical law.
You say that must go learn my religion? You are correct, and indeed I am still doing just that. That is another thing to keep in mind: no one ever, EVER, completely learns and understands the entirety of the Roman Catholic Christian religion in their mortal lifetime. So should I learn my religion? Yes, I should, and I promise that I will continue to do so for the rest of my life. Feel free to ask any more questions concerning our Faith, and I will gladly answer them, but please do not come to us attempting to teach us our own religion, which is a topic you clearly do not currently understand.
Thank you, and have a blessed day. You seem to be unaware of the fact that doctrinal interpretation develops over time, that many things that were not known 4, years ago are now known today for instance, the above article about angels. Keep in mind that this doctrinal development continues almost daily, so not everyone will be able to stay up-to-date. I will stand corrected, but until then I stand by my interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.
As to whether I should learn my own religion, you are correct, and I am doing just that. So please, if you have any further questions about Roman Catholicism and Judeo-Christianity as a whole, ask freely and I will gladly answer, but DO NOT come to us Roman Catholics attempting to authoritatively teach us OUR religion which you clearly and simply do not understand. Leave the teaching of Judeo-Christianity to those of us who actually know something about our religion, not those of you who are trying to pick at the Himalayas with a plastic spoon.
Again, you cannot claim to even remotely understand Catholicism if you have never been a Catholic in the first place, or even taken the time to look at this objectively. And no, secular is not neccessarily objective, if that is what you think. Your method of thinking is solely biased atheistic thought, which is no different than the biased Creationists that think that the Bible is everything and that the Earth was created in one week.
I restate what I have previously said: if your intention is to make yourself look like a fool in front of an entire community of believers, I kindly suggest you back off. For the sake of your own image. I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church and attended Catholic high school. If you had any real understanding of the Roman Catholic Church, you would not have left. Your upbringing and education means nothing in the long run. If not able to go more frequently, you at least the desire to -Attended Holy Adorartion of the Holy Eucharist, whenever possible. Otherwise, I will continue to tell you: you know nothing.
Again, stop picking the details that make you look good. Just read the list, and check off whether you met the requirements or not.
How to Manifest Soulmate Love
As I said elsewhere, I will not waste my time pursuing every ckckamamie idea anyone ever had that was based on logical fallacies. Come up with an argument that is valid from stem to stern AND that supports your ideas without being so trivial as to support anything else, and you will gave begun to have a coherent belief.
As I said elsewhere, you take the time to search; what seems to be stupid may turn out to be more than you think of it. No true Scotsman Argument from ignorance Circular reasoning Beggaring the question. These are the traditional bedrock of all religious belief. When you cite your reasons for belief, you should ask yourself how you might be falling into one or more of these logical fallacies. Take the list of qualifications to be Catholic that I have given you. Check them off.
Determine for yourself if you ever really were Catholic. Other qualifications do not matter as much, only these above. If you failed the test, stop trying to authoritatively teach an ideology you do not understand. If you would submit to a higher religious authority who corrected you when you taught something flase about their ideology, then that would be ok. But because you refuse to back down and stubbornly insist that you know more about Catholicism than Catholics do, THAT is what pisses people off.
That is just fine, whenever you mess up the astrophysicist will correct you, and you learn a little something. Same principle applies to Catholicism. If you can accept that, then everything is ok. If we provide logical fallacies as a defense, then suppose hypothetically what is being discussed is not a mistake. We can argue Atheism vs. Catholicism elsewhere, this is a Catholic community and therefore Catholic canon not defined by non-Catholics. Sound fair? How does St. Michael cast satan and ALL evil spirits fallen angels into hell?
There is no such thing as limited omnipotence, omniscience, or omnipresence. Good question Randy.
But considering the power of God, Angels are not of equal level, so I may say then, that they are omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, all in limited ways. Nothing can be all-powerful AND not all-powerful limits mean not all-powerful. Omnipresence means being everywhere. If there are limits to where something is, it cannot be everywhere. Obviously, this is a major grammatical error.
However, one would have to read Scripture or listen to, if one happens to be illiterate or lacking access to written Scripture to understand what we mean by this. Because they are the good guys, they will never mess up anyways. Would you do anything to stop a child from being raped if you knew when and where it was happening and had the power to do so? Would I? Most definintely. Picture an angel, right now. Okay, you saw two wings and a halo, right?
Psalm , Now, too often we think of angels, who are heavenly bodies, in earthly, bodily terms. Dominions, Virtues, and Powers govern the universe in its totality. You can read more about them in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, You can read more about each: St. Michael Prayer St.
Think about it: Angels came to Sodom and warned Lot Genesis An angel stopped Abraham before he killed his son, Isaac Genesis An angel appeared to Moses out of the midst of the burning bush Exodus An angel called Gideon to form an army Judges 6. An angel brought miraculous news to the soon to be mother of Samson Judges An angel, St. Michael, and his army are waging war for your soul Revelation Amen Take a minute now to thank God for the gift of your guardian angel and invite that angel to pray with you. What are your thoughts? Have you ever experienced the presence of your guardian angel, or any other angel, in your life?
If so, in what way? I was living a life of sin and it had me on a path of destruction for my own self and seeing now. Paula Pike. Wayne Jaeschke. Maureen Green. Christo Chiramukhathu. Our first priority is praising and praying to God, not to angels. It God who sends angels to us. Solange bach. Jason Vincent. Seraphim Cherubim Thrones Dominions Virtues Powers Principalities Archangels Angels And for mfrunyan…you had better get your act together for Judgment Day is coming…on this day…you will have to answer for anything you have said or done that was bad…to God!
Blessings to All, Sherri. Blessings, Sherri. Drink your poison water. Give it to your kids.
Introduction to How to Manifest Love
Perfectly legal. Holocaust was 1. America 1. Bert Clayton. Sophie Fernandes. Georgeta Antonela Bucur. Emmanuel Cortes. Nicole Dunndurham. I will never doubt or question. Doubting is for pussies. No pussies. Moon Fire. Randy Wanat. Clueless Gearhead. Ignore previous comment about change in profile name. Ah, yes…no true Scotsman. Look it up. Google still works. Yes, I am aware that Google still works, thank you. No, I get it. Totally not a No True Scotsman. Pardon me, I have to stop my eyes rolling.
Which just so happens to agree with you. Tripling down. But, you still have neglected to demonstrate that it is actually true. You have asserted it. In the mean time, I can give you this: Jesus is demonstrably alive. Every sect supposes that they have the exclusive correct interpretation. If you are human, absolutely. Re the last post. I forgot to say that I had spilled the water all over the table. God is great, and this is a true story! Monica Peterson Benninghoff. Would you permit children to be raped if it was in your power to prevent it? Are women equal to men according to God in the Bible?
Which is why men are worth twice as much as women. Twice the value, but totally equal. Leviticus Yes, and thank you for pointing that out. That said, this is how I would put it: Randy, you are behaving in a hypocritical manner by condemning pedophiles, rapists, and other sexual offenders while still defending the crime of homosexual activity and relationships.
The Gabriel Letters: Advice to a Young Angel - Richard V. Shriver - Google книги
Very well stated. Jose Samilin. Corinne M. I attempted to do a google search for a list for you, but failed… I do not have any internet where I am currently staying. Michelle Jones. If your experience was caused by a brain condition, would that change your beliefs? Yes, many alledged visions do occur also as a result of false testimony. We will not deny that.
Prove a true testimony versus a false testimony without resorting to circular reasoning. Good luck with that. So, yeah… Do you see why this is not compelling in any way to someone not already believing this stuff? Randy, Thank you, per your suggestion I did do a little searching, and found something i was not looking for.
I do not fault you for that. John Nicholoft. Whoa, back up a bit, there. Who ever said God controls demons? So, God actively permits evil, and that is somehow better. Do you hear yourself? What part of that have you not yet understood? Mark Samoylo. Now, the real issue is, why do you believe? Is there any belief that one would be unable to hold based on faith? A few passages just because… Luke Luke John Acts 1 Corinthians 12, 13 Ephesians 1 John 1 Corinthians , Romans , , 25, 28,