Posted on 06/07/2017 8:38:21 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Thanks. You made the right call for best category, and I missed noticing right away.
I may get back to those with the hurt feelings, later. Or may not. A few individuals around here can be quite toxic. They don't like it when served their own poisons right back to point of origin.
Since Melania is a Catholic, she sees everything as I described it.
Your anti-Catholic bile is irrelevant to the situation—because Melania is a Catholic.
And you know this -- how? You are capable of reading her mind, are you? And: They way you described it? Like it's that simple, and the comparison you made is actually valid, then applicable to how to best pray? Not even close. That fails in each step of the process gone through in order to justify unjustifiable religious practices.
Your personal opinion of myself is what is the more entirely irrelevant.
Meanwhile, "Mary" is not divine. Correct? Answer that question, or else I'll be free to assume you may think otherwise.
Also, in my initial comment on this thread, I mentioned Jesus having taught his disciples how to pray.
It is written, attributed to Himself having said;
Nowhere in that is "Mary", or anyone else other than the One True God included, regarding to whom prayer is to be directed.
If you have any problem with that, that's your own problem (not mine) and is where the real & genuine "bile" around this issue resides, while my own criticisms were not initially "anti-Catholic", as they were anti-Marianist, and anti-anythingist that is contrary to monotheism ---whenever the issue is regarding 'how to' more properly pray.
Argue with Jesus about it -- figuratively speaking, you already are, so tell Him more directly to His face. Not the "baby Jesus" (oft depicted in 'Catholic' art, if himself not still hanging upon a cross) but tell the One who has returned back to where He was before. Yeah, that One. Tell it to him. Tell HIM he's wrong (and you are right).
Let us know how that works out for you...
Does that include all the conditions you attributed to Donald Trump, AND herself regarding their present marriage?
Would that not indicate she was "not" legitimately married -- in HER OWN eyes?
You would know that -- how? Perhaps she does not cotton to Roman Catholic canon law all that much, in this particular area.
Perhaps you could start a movement, call it the "Sow Doubt and Confusion in Melania's mind regarding her marriage" movement. Write letters. Start a blog. Tell the Diocese and Arch-Diocese she's abiding in, that she's living in sin, so thus should not be allowed to partake of communion until she repents to your own, and the RCC's own satisfaction. Those satisfactions are one and the same? Since you are 'Catholic' and all...
Hey, that last you had alleged worked when applied to the lovely Melania Trump. Shouldn't it work when applied to the person who asserted that "she sees everything as you described it"?
“Times are tough, all over. Tough enough “Mary” cannot save anyone...”
She saved Baby Jesus in the flight to Egypt, no?
And we can always think of her request at the Wedding of Cana as saving the newly married couple great embarrassment.
Her work continued as she attended to him at the cross (John 19:25). As the first Christian, she kept cooperating with grace by being present at the founding of the Church at Pentecost (Acts 1:14). She persists in this role as our Mother in heaven today (Rev. 12:17).
Nothing particularly against the earthly mother of the incarnate Messiah, Mary of the Bible, yet it was not specifically to herself that the Lord sent prophetic dream to remove the child (and Mary too, though not stipulated, we may safely enough assume) from reach of Herod, then later to return, even yet again it seems (possibly a third dream, although could have been among the second prophetic dream) to go "into parts of Galilee".
Those messages were sent to Joseph, and the text indicates that it was Joseph who "took the young child and his mother" to Egypt, out of reach of Herod. Matthew 2:13-23
Wine at Jewish weddings in Christ's era signified several things at once, with more than mere traces of those meanings existing unto this day.
The toasts made by the guests; L' Chaim, "to life".
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2987145/jewish/Why-Do-Jews-Toast-LChaimTo-Life.htm
with weddings among the prosperous, in 'good times' extended for many days, the guests accepting the newlywed couple into their respective families and community.
The wine signified too, sanctification. The wedding itself also reflecting union (rather than abandonment) of God with mankind, God with Israel, the promise of things yet to be, all of that as part of the uniting of what God had created in His own image; man, and woman, the children (nation) of Israel. L'Chaim, to life, to their life, to our (the guest's) lives, all of us together, under God.
http://www.reformjudaism.org/jewish-rituals-wedding-day
When Mary remarked as observation; "they have no wine", as I understand it, Christ's response was much towards those aspects of Jewish religious traditions, and His own self as Groom of those whom God would call to be Bride of Christ.
It was towards those things, and His promises to Israel --- I believe was reason that the Spirit moved within Himself -- and Mary (I assume) noticed, and was perhaps led of the Spirit to say what she is attributed in NT Scripture to saying to the servants immediately after. I'm under the impression that she was likely as not taken by surprise by Jesus's response, yet it does seem that she knew something significant "was up" (as could be said in American vernacular) when Jesus responded. I rather doubt she was intending to coax performance of a miracle out of her first-born son, yet had sensed there was move of the Spirit (for lack of a better term).
Does any of this make sense, to you? Can you see what I'm saying here? The miracle at Cana was about God's own relationship to descendants of Abraham, descendants of those who He had delivered out of bondage to return to the Promised Land.
His words in John 6, at verse that came to be numbered 63; (NKJV);
Can you see the beauty? His words, His life and ministry, His sacrifice -- His later resurrection from death sealing forever the words given to Abram and to Moses --the Promise, and the Law -- all of that revealing His nature, Jesus on the cross saying "It is Finished" having utterly commended his soul unto his true father, the Creator of the Heavens, and the earth. It is a terrible beauty, a frightening realization of just how deadly sin really is, and that He (God Himself even, in the person of His only Begotten Son) paid the ultimate price, His life willingly laid down, ransom for many.
Sin "kills" God? It surely did once. That is part of the lesson, part of the Gospel. Do not be my enemy -- stop being my enemy -- He says to us. It hurts Him too, when we are. In ending, and in yet still continuing results (down through generations even) --- sin is destructive and hurts everyone, most of all, ourselves, both individually, and collectively.
Choose life (Himself), and live, in effect He said to them (and to ourselves in this day and age too?) while they were yet in the Wilderness. Deuteronomy 30:15-20
https://utmost.org/it-is-finished/ from Oswald Chambers
and from "gotquestions.org"
I’m not talking about the civil law. I’m talking about reality.
In reality, Trump has never been married, because a pre-nup invalidates a marriage.
I was talking about the civil law - which is reality as well as the laws of the Church.
Lots of things are “reality.” Like cancer.
Right. I’m too stupid to know that we have civil laws regarding marriage.
I realize now that that’s what you’ve been trying to tell me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.