ScottishJohn said:
What a hypocrite - he himself was involved in paramilitary activity. He just wants to stop nationalists taking power - which was what all his efforts went into in the 60s.
He has good reason to stop nationalists/ Republicans taking power. I'll illustrate with an example on your level. Do you think Tony Blair/ Gordon Brown wants the Conservatives in power?
So your whole critique of the BBC is that one of their reporters in a provincial office refuses (as is her personal right) to wear a poppy. What should the BBC do? Sack her? Not very reasonable. Its not quite the same thing as say - bigotry which probably would be a sacking offense.
You don't think I'm as narrow minded as that? I simply used that as one illustration. I stand by it too.
Dont presume to tell mw what I think - can you kindly point out where I have said any of this?
I could. But both you and I know what you said- that's good enough for me.
The difference is that on the mainland we do not have riots and clashes with police alongside extensive damage to public property several times a year and then not only defend it as part of our culture, but expect those on the mainland who pay taxes to foot the bill. Its not a case of greater than thou, it is a simple case of Northern Irish people wasting tax revenue.
What about the racial attacks that happen every other day in those slums, that are on the news every day? What about the violence that happens/ happened in Bradford at an extent that makes "us" look like amateurs? What about the fact that any time there's a major sporting event in a foriegn city, it's always the English that are getting on like a bunch of brainless halfwits all the time, with no respect for anyone?
There are hundreds of doctrine over which every little splintered and and massive worldwide denomination disagree. Baptism, communion, worship, etc etc etc. The key is that there is absolutely no need to go round insulting each other and denouncing each other as the anti christ. To do so is sinful. What about the stance on music in Free Presbyterian churches? I don't recall the passage in the bible that says praise him on the psalter and the psalter and the psalter - I think trumpet and harp were in there too - every church has its little foibles.
I know that God is not the author of confusion. There are no grey areas in the Bible. There is a right and a wrong way about everything. Music is not commanded in the New Testament. And as for the psalter- in short, we praise God with Psalms, Hymns and Spirital Songs. My friend has an excellent blog, and if I may quote him on this subject
"
Many people today who claim to hold to the Regulative Principle of Worship (ie: whatever is not commanded in worship is forbidden as taught throughout the Bible, and in the Westminster Confession of Faith) claim that they have a warrant for singing uninspired hymns from passages such as Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 in which we are commanded to sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs. These people however refuse to consider what Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, actually meant by these words. Of course, anyone who thinks that
they can decide how God is to be worshipped, rather than God Himself (ie those who dont hold to the Regulative Principle) really needs to sort out their ideas, because, in the words of John Knox:
All worshipping, honouring, or service invented by the brain of man in the religion of God, without His own express commandment, is Idolatry
Before we even start it should be noted that in Colossians we are instructed to Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly - not the words of any man. But what do psalms, hymns and spiritual songs actually mean. Below is what I feel to be indisputable proof that these 3 terms all refer to the 150 songs in the Book of Psalms. It comes from a book called The Worship of God by Malcolm H. Watts and David Silversides and is definitely worth reading. I dont think youll find the point argued better by anyone else. Over to Mr S:
We must not assume that the word hymn and song means what we mean by it today. When we talk about hymns or songs we generally mean something other than the inspired psalms - something written, perhaps, within the last 250 years. Modern usage, however, is not necessarily the same as the biblical usage. We must ask, what did the apostle Paul mean when, under the inspiration of the Spirit, he wrote psalms and hymns and spiritual songs?
In the New Testament we are told that at the Last Supper our Lord and his disciples sang an hymn or, more literally, hymned (Matt 26:30; Mk 14:26). Just about everyone concedes that this refers to the customary singing of the great Hallel Psalms, Psalm 113-118, which were normally sung at the Passover. So this particular singing of a hymn evidently refers to what we call a psalm, or psalms.
The Old Testament uses three Hebrew words for the contents of the book of Psalms. These words are
mizmor,
tehillah and
shir, and they are generally, although not uniformly rendered in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint) by the words
psalmos (psalm),
humnos (hymn) and
ode (song). Remember, this Greek translation of the Old Testament was in constant use in the Greek-speaking synagogues and, wherever it was adequate, it was quoted by the apostles in their writings. It used the words psalms, hymns and songs when referring to what we would simply call the psalms.
Let us look at some of the uses of these terms in the book of Psalms. First of all, we should consider the titles of the psalms. In the Septuagint, psalmos is used in 67 titles, ode is used in 36, and humnos, although less frequent, is still used in 6 (as a translation of on Neginoth or upon Neginah). There are 12 psalms where psalmos and ode appear together and 2 where psalmos and humnos appear together. Psalm 76 has all 3 terms in the Greek version. In our English Bibles, the title reads, To the chief Musician on Neginoth (Greek Septuagint: humnois), a Psalm or Song of Asaph.
As well as being used in the titles, these words are also used in the psalms themselves. Psalm 65 has psalm and song in the title , but the first verse, Praise waiteth for thee, O God, in Sion in the Greek version is To thee, in Zion, O Lord, a hymn is befitting. Here the word praise (which refers to the Psalm) is rendered hymn. Similarly, in the Greek Septuagint, Psalm 100:4 reads, Enter into his gates with hymns and Psalm 137:3 reads, For there they that had taken us captive demanded us of words of a song; and those that carried us away demanded of us a hymn saying, Sing us one of the songs of Sion. How should we sing the Lords song in a strange land? (The words used are humnos and ode - hymn and song).
Psalm 22:22 reads as follows: I will declare they name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee. In the Septuagint, we have this translation: I will declare thy name to my brethren: in the midst of the church will I hymn unto thee. Now it so happens that this Septuagint rendering is quoted in Hebrews 2:12. There it is applied to Christ who shows salvation to his people and who promotes the worship of his redeemed Church. The original reference is to David singing psalms in the Old Testament congregation, but he clearly typified Christ in what he did; and the interesting thing is the singing of the psalms is described in Hebrews 2:12 as the singing of a hymn or as hymning.
So, we see that the words psalm, hymn and song are used in the titles of the psalms and also in the text of those psalms in order to describe the inspired composures within the book of Psalms.
Furthermore, these terms are used elsewhere as descriptions of the psalms. Psalm 72:20 reads, The prayers of David the son of Jesse are ended. That word prayers is rendered by the Septuagint, hymns - The hymns of David the son of Jesse are ended.
In the Greek rendering of 2 Chronicles 29:30 we read, They sang hymns to the Lord in the words of David and Asaph the seer.
One very interesting reference is 1 Chronicles 16:9: Sing unto him, sing psalms unto him, talk ye of all his wondrous works. This is the same, of course, as Psalm 105:2. However, in the Septuagint, the former reference is rendered hymns while the latter is rendered psalms. So the same Hebrew clause, when translated into the Greek, is in the one place rendered Sing hymns unto him and in the other place, Sing psalms unto him.
This may appear a rather detailed and laborious argument, but it has been necessary to proceed with it. Taking all the material together, we must conclude that there is no reason whatsoever to think that when the apostle Paul spoke of psalms and hymns and songs he was speaking of anything other than what we know more simply as the psalms (i.e. the compositions in our book of Psalms).
Dr. John Gill, the Baptist theologian, although not committed absolutely to exclusive psalmody, admits not only the sufficiency of the psalter but, with his great linguistic knowledge, acknowledges that the three terms all refer to the compositions in the book of psalms. He states: These three words, psalms, hymns, and songs, answer to
the titles of
Davids Psalms; and are, by the
Septuagint, rendered by the
Greek words the apostle uses. I shall not trouble you with observing to you how these three are distinguished by learned men, one from another, but only observe, what has been remarked by others before me; that whereas the apostle, in his exhortations to singing, directs to the titles of Davids psalms, it is highly reasonable to conclude, that it was his intention that we should sing them (
A Discourse on Singing of Psalms, 1734).
Now someone may say, Why would the apostle use three different words to describe the Psalter? Allow me to ask, why does Scripture call the commands of God ordinances, statutes and judgments? Why are might works called miracles, signs and wonders? Why are petitions called prayers, supplications and intercessions? Why should the Scriptures not speak of the Psalter in terms of psalms, hymns and songs?
Before leaving this point, attention should be drawn to the
non-exclusiveness of each of these words. One composition can be a psalm and a hymn and a song, all at the same time. We have seen that from the title of Psalm 76. Also, in Psalm 72:20, we saw the psalms of David described as hymns and Psalm 65 refers to a psalm and a song. And the Psalter as a whole, of course, is called the Psalms of David. However, there is something more here. In Ephesians 5:19, where we read psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, we also read of making melody in your heart unto the Lord. Now that expression making melody is actually a rendering of the Greek verb psallo (from which we have the word psalm), so literally it is speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and
psalming in your heart unto the Lord. The only possible conclusion to draw is that the singing of psalms, hymns and spiritual songs is really nothing more nor less than psalming and that the three terms are not at all mutually exclusive of each other."
So your interpretation of Matthew 7 was wrong? Nothing to defend hatred and slander here.
My interpretation was never in doubt.
....QUOTE]
Depends if this fellow Christian is a true believer or not, don't forget the umpteen warnings in the New testament of false prophets and the warning of wolves in sheep clothing.
Am I in
[QUOUTE]Paisley started his own church. Not a good sign.
Really? Is that a fact?
If you can't be ordained in an existing church it is always for a very good reason. The four ministers who ordained him at a service in an independant church did not have eclesiastical authority from their own churches to ordain him. In the Presbyterian church for example, you have to do an undergraduate degree, then 3 more years on a bachelor of divinity degree then 18 months probation where you are attached to another church as an assistant to 'learn on the job'. Paisley by passed all this. Again not a good sign. His doctorate is a sham because it is an 'honorary' doctorate and was given to him by his good friend Bob Roberts in the US. He did not a stroke of work towards that academic qualification.
Wow, wow wow. Houl' yerr wisht.
There is no scripture about what makes a qualified minister. Elders, deacons; yes. But this whole minister malarkly is man made. Just because a man doesn't have a degree doesn't mean he's ineligible. Just look at some of the greatest preachers of all time. What degrees did they have. And the greatest of all, my namesake, I wouldn't wanted to be the man that interupted the wisdom flowing from him to ask whether or not he had a degree, or whether he was ordained correctly.
I notice you ignore his terrorist connections, and his anti civil rights activities.
What's your point here? that he's not perfect? I knew that. No one is.
If you go back to the 60s, to the beginning of our current set of troubles in Northern Ireland, you will find that they started over Protestants attempting to block reforms which would give catholic areas of Northern Ireland fair representation. A non violent civil rights movement had been growing in Ireland to campaign FOR political reform, one of their marches fell fowl of a banned Apprentice Boys march, which the apprentice boys wished to conduct anyway. Ian Paisley and his friends responded by setting into motion plans to disrupt the marches. Paisley set up the UPV which conducted a series of bombings pretending to be the IRA intending to cause a loyalist backlash. Thanks to Paisleys preaching there was a resurgence in UVF membership and an the 21st of May the UVF declared war on the IRA, which was at this point almost non existent. It was this campaign of violence and oppression against the catholics in Northern Ireland which ended O'Niells government and led to direct rule, and the violence we witnessed through the 60s 70s 80s and early 90s, it is also responsible for the scenes we see now. Ian Paisley and his doctrine of hate and oppression for those who hold different beliefs is at the centre of all of this. This is your 'Godly man'.
A delghtfully biased and one sided argument. Well done.
Didn't reaslise that before - can thank my dad for that info! 
