Posted on 10/10/2007 5:13:02 PM PDT by Reaganesque
Thank you so very much for the ping and for the kind words! But I believe betty boop was the contributor in that wonderfully engaging sidebar discussion.
Cheers!
I am not aware that he is promising to go third party if any of the other guys win the nomination.
As far as Rudy is concerned, I’m with Dobson on that one. I will never ever cast a vote for that bully.
Paul already knew that the substance of his preaching to the Gentiles was correct. The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 was not to add to Paul’s message, but was like the Supreme Court validating a law.
The Christianity in Jerusalem was in fact Judaism with the message of the Cross and Christ’s Resurrection. From Acts chapters 1-10, the Apostles and the other believers still worshiped in the Jewish Temple, abstained from eating pork, practiced circumcision as a religious ritual or ordinance according to the law of Moses, observed the Old Testament statutes for the nation, etc., etc..
That Christ was forming a new Body of believing Jews and believing Gentiles in one, without distinction was still a mystery. The disciples in Jerusalem and Judea, yes, were still really Jews in their practice.
Is that contingent on there being a third party nominee whose policy on abortion is the same as Dobson’s? Would he back anyone just to spite Rudy?
The reader should be warned that I offer no help to anyone who is hesitating between two Christian "denominations." You will not learn from me whether you ought to become an Anglican, a Methodist, a Presbyterian, or a Roman Catholic. This omission is intentional (even in the list I have just given the order is alphabetical). There is no mystery about my own position. I am a very ordinary layman of the Church of England, not especially "high," nor especially "low," nor especially anything else. But in this book I am not trying to convert anyone to my own position. Ever since I became a Christian I have thought that the best, perhaps the only , service I could do for my unbelieving neighbours was to explain and defend the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians at all times. I had more than one reason for thinking this. In the first place, the questions which divided Christians from one another often involve points of high Theology or even of ecclesiastical history which ought never to be treated except by real experts. I should have been out of my depth in such waters: more in need of help myself than able to help others. And secondly, I think we must admit that the discussion of these disputed points has no tendency at all to bring an outsider into the Christian fold. So long as we write and talk abut them we are much more likely to deter him from entering any Christian communion than to draw him into our own.
Placemark for later.
I have seen many posts by mormons in which the Holy Ghost has been presented as a "burning in the bosom" that evidenced Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and "restored" the gospel and priesthood and the one and only "true" Christian church after it was taken from the earth for centuries.
I can't say I recall the term Holy Ghost being used by mormons in any other context.
I invited you to read this thread in hopes that you would comment on the above passage from C.S. Lewis. Do you care to respond?
Then you weren't looking very hard. And when you use the word Christian, are you not doing precisely what Mr. Lewis described above; using the word to praise one while putting down another?
One ought to pray for ‘the most abandoned souls’, most of whom have no one to pray for them. Then, when they get through that door, they’ll remember us — and God knows we need their prayers.
Now you’ve done it..........
Perhaps you should have made your "invitation" clear...such as, "I pinged you to this thread with the caveat that you respond only in the manner in which I dictate."
More censorship attempts by the mormon apologists...SHEESH!
You have a truly bizarre idea of what censorship is. You were allowed to say what you said, I pointed out it was off topic and asked if you would like to contribute to that civil conversation. And now, for that mistake, I apologize. I realize that was asking for something that is way beyond your abilities.
I have also said nothing about birth-control. I am not a woman nor even a married man, nor am I a priest. I did not think it my place to take a firm line about pains, dangers and expenses from which I am protected; having no pastoral office which obliged me to do so.
So... C. S. Lewis was pro-choice.
Whoda guessed it?
That is a bit of a leap to say he was pro-choice when what he stated was he was not in a position to teach others regarding that issue as if from god-ordained authority. Also, look at the state of the issue when he made that statement ... a woman could obtain a pregnancy termination in all fifty states prior to Roe in 1973. The campaign was to remove the wrongness in killing the alive unborn for expedience. I believe we can count on the fact that Lewis would oppose such evil if he were aware of it becoming so deeply entrenched because of withering opposition to the evil.
Nothing PERSONAL in that remark! Hey, just don't ping me and don't post to me...that will make us both happy.
If you can’t stand a little criticism, I suggest you stop criticizing others. People in glass houses and all...
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.