Millions of Muslims Devoted to Our Lady and Eager for Exorcism

AsiaNews ^ | 7/26/13 | Samir Khalil Samir

[Zionist Conspirator]

Agreed, again. The Protestant view of 'heaven' is the position of seating in the celestial football stadium.

It's much deeper than that. In Fundamentalist Protestantism "heaven" is a holding area for disembodied souls awaiting the resurrection of the body and the return to a material paradise earth--the way we were actually supposed to live in the first place. So far from being the "final purpose" of our existence and something even an unfallen Adam would experience, the whole thing is a contingency. And because paradise earth is man's natural state, no purgation is required to enter either it or the heavenly "holding area;" this would make as much sense as saying Adam would have had to be purified before he could have been created! Once one accepts J*sus' vicarious damnation in one's place, there's simply no where else to go.

Oddly enough, I spoke on this to the intermediate school relious education class last spring. With the priest and deacon both there. With their approval. Of course, our bishop and I have tangled in public on the Catholic faith and the diocesan establishment. On television (heh heh heh).

You're a brave man. I still have the four letters sent to me by the late Archbishop Whelan of Hartford, Connecticut during my written correspondence with him. He was most singularly unsympathetic.

I don't have a lot of time for FR due to a change in career and escalating responsibilities with five kids at home. If you wish to note what you consider to be posts that contain ideas contrary to the word of God, please let me know. I have no problem confronting Catholics and have done so many times on FR. However, I do it in private, not in the public forum, for the sake of onlookers' satisfaction.

Mark, I'm so sorry I bit your head off. I'm just so blasted rubbed raw by the more conservative Catholics here never saying anything and claiming to never notice anything, when I can find plenty of stuff easily. And of course you don't confront people publicly, though it might do some good to simply publicly post a contrary opinion without chewing anyone out. I've been dealing with something as well during the past four months; hopefully this will be through tomorrow.

Did you even read the article? It posed it as a possibility, while acknowledging that it was in no way a definite conclusion. You and I have known each other here for a long time. I don't post speculative stuff like this. I realize that people might and do not begrudge them this; however, claiming that this article is the Gospel Truth, assuming that I actually see it, would normally get me involved.

It always struck me as peculiarly strange that the "ancient unchangeable church" produces so much "speculation" such as this while Fundamentalist Protestantism does not. Where does this itch for novelty come from? No such article would ever appear in Sword of the Lord, for example. Why are "heretical" Fundamentalist Protestants satisfied with what G-d says while the church of billions of illiterate peasants simply cannot leave things alone without doubting and questioning everything? Is there any way you can explain this to me so that I can understand it? Is the need to prove "we're not like those awful people" so great?

I will defend the integrity of Deuteronomy as what God wanted Moses to know. I will consider Joshua down a notch. God did not dictate Joshua.

I am most astounded to read that statement from a Catholic, I admit.

I know that you are disappointed in the Church. We have had conversation before on this. Believe it or not, it does distress me.

Thank you, Mark. As hard as this may be to believe, I really appreciate that.

[Mad Dawg]

May God and y'all forgive me if I'm being a complete horse's butt.

The Founders and Framers were well informed, by Protestant tradition, classical learning, and alertness to what surrounded them..

I'm a Dominican. I fancy myself pretty good at philosophy and theology, though I am an amateur. Kolokotronis is no slouch at his tradition and his view of ultimate Truth. By the demanding standards of our avocations (once, when I thought myself an Episcopal priest, my profession) there are meaningful things we can say about the theological defects of the vision of the founders.

I do not think it a blanket, a total condemnation and rejection when Kolokotronis implies that we Dominicans are doing it ALL WRONG! I am pretty confident that he does not think I am rejecting him when I (entirely correctly, by the way) describe him as an Attic imbecile who couldn't put together a coherent theological system if a case of ouzo depended on it.

In other words, among us extremely old school Xtians, a profound respect for the thinking and acts of people with whom we disagree in no way excludes a protracted and vicious argument against some small part of it. If I were in Kolokotronis's league, I would throw down against him. That would in no way interfere with my reliance on him for spiritual advice and even wisdom.

In our tradition, it is important that God once moved an ass to speak truth. (YES, Kolokotronis, I'm talking about you.)

So we feel free to highlight the errors of the founders and framers AS we also revere them.

Some Protestants don't get this. Their loss.

:-)

[Mad Dawg]

Free Republic needs a "like" button.

Well said, IMHO.

[Cronos]

Even Judas appears in the Koran, but ...get this...Judas is portrayed as a last-minute substitute for Jesus on the cross, a

This is taken from the Gospel of Basilides which was a fraudulent gospel written in the 300s

[Cronos]

In Fundamentalist Protestantism "heaven" is a holding area

Come on -- one can mock the differing beliefs of the afterlife. the Torah doesn't comment on it. Only post the Exile do we see the beginning emerge in Ezekiel

[Cronos]

Why are xx satisfied with what G-d says while the church of billions of illiterate peasants simply cannot leave things alone without doubting and questioning everything?

That's not true. Each interprets what G-d says in a different way. Let's leave aside the old argument about myriad interpretations for a while and just to this point you make -- doubting and questioning everything is why we no longer have animal sacrifices in a synagogue -- or why we know (unlike what our secular foes toss at us) that the OT's injunct against killing the Canaanites is not comparable to Islam's jihad.

[Cronos]

while the church of billions of illiterate peasants simply cannot leave things alone without doubting and questioning everything?

well we illiterate rednecks are that way only :-P

[left that other site]

Indeed. The whole thing is plagiarized from beginning to end.

[Cronos]

We have Muhammed's own words in various books, that do not support this

That's what I thought, but on re-looking at these, we don't really have his own words but Hadiths that date at least a century after his death

[Cronos]

Perhaps early Christianity was misinterpreted by the Bedouins (who are a very small percent of the inhabitants of the Middle East and none that I know of in Iran (Persian, not Arab)).

perhaps, but the "Christians" that were there in the Nejd were those who were chased out of the Roman Empire which was orthodox or miaphysite (Coptic, Syriac, Armenian) and the Persian which was Assyrian

these included groups as vague as Gnostics or Nazoreans (who believed that Jesus was the child of the Father with Sophia (the Holy Spirit) as the Mother) or the Gospel of Basilides or even Arians.

Add that to pre-pagan Islamic beliefs and Zoroastrianism and add in the Jewish laws and transfer the chosen people's right to the Arabs and you have a potent mix.

[Cronos]

According to a mystical tradition, the Torah was written by G-d "974 generations before the Creation" in "letters of black fire on a scroll of white fire." This is the prototype Torah Scroll, of which the one Moses wrote down was a reproduction.

So it was the guidelines for what happened AFTER????

[ronnietherocket3]

And I will tell you something else: I'm sick and tired of "conservative" Catholics like yourself claiming to believe in "dictation" and yet never uttering one peep of protest when your co-religionists blatantly deny or laugh at the notion that the story of the Flood might actually be true.

My apologies in my response to your question on another thread:

You do realize the events described in Genesis 1-11 are in Scripture, right? Also, by denying the possibility of the events of Genesis 1-11, you are denying G-d's absolute power over all Creation.

I see three explanations for the apparent contradictions between the Big Bang Theory and Evolution and the events of Genesis 1 and 2:

• The Bible is wrong
• The Bible is correct but one should take care with a literal reading.
• The Bible is correct, but G-d deliberately planted evidence to test our Faith.

I deny the first is true; I believe the second; third I admit is possible, but do not believe it; there might be other explanations. Previously, when asked to explain the beginning of Genesis, it was by atheists and have never stated the third possibility. The problem with Catholics on the beginning of Genesis is that Catholicism is very rational. This has both positive effects (modern science and engineering) and negative effects (absolute denial that Genesis 1-11 happened as written). This is an out growth of the Galileo Affair.

The so-called "Rite of the Chrstian Initiation of Adults" teaches practically nothing. This is true of teaching of Catholicism in general. I went to a Catholic High School and learned very little about Catholicism. The inability to teach Catholicism well is reflected in the design of Catholic parishes vs. Orthodox shuls. In Catholic parishes, the church itself is designed well and looks beautiful, but little consideration is given to the library, if you can find it. Even if you go in, there is not necessarily a way to ask an authority figure questions Orthodox shuls give consideration to the library and do not hide it. In addition, the Talmud lists opinions that may conflict with the correct opinion, whereas the Catechism just lists the authoritative view. This explains a comment I made being contradicted by Humani Generis (I think?)

If Catholics believe the scriptures are "dictated," then why are the vast majority of Catholic bibles edited with higher critical commentary that accepts the documentary hypothesis and labels Genesis as a mixture of Babylonian and Canaanite mythology? Why is that?

This probably relates to the Galileo Affair where a strict literal reading of certain passages of the Bible can be contradicted by science. That Babylonian and Canaanite Mythology could contain truth is affirmed by Catholic Teaching that the H*ly Sp*rit is the author of Tr-th in other religions. It is affirmed by Judaism's view that G-d sent prophets to other nations as well. By the Nicene Creed, we believe the the H*ly Sp*rit spoke through the prophets.

Oh really? Well, here is an article posted by a co-religionist of yours and written by another which insists that G-d did not "really" command the extermination of the Canaanites (men, women, children, and animals) because that would be mean, and since He is bound by "natural law," G-d can't do anything "mean," so therefore the books of both Deuteronomy and Joshua are in error in claiming doing so was G-d's will. Do you care to make a comment? Do you care to defend the integrity of the books of Deuteronomy and Joshua on that thread?

G-d is not bound by natural law. The issue here is that Catholicism believes that G-d loved us so much that he sent his S*n to die for our sins. These passages appear to contradict this; genocide is a serious problem; and one could interpret these passages as an affirmation that G-d will tell someone to kill someone. However, we see that the Canaanites, amongst others, were going to lead the Jews astray from G-d and to worship idols. This would defile the land of Israel, which G-d gave to the Jews. It would also defile the Jews and cause them to be thrown into Hell. The Jews were the people that would be the light of G-d until the M*ssiah comes.

I specifically investigated the Catholic doctrine of inspiration and read that dictation was heretical, as was its counterpart on the left, "mere assistance."

I think the problem here is that we have multiple Gospels that have differing points of view but no direct explanation of the difference. There is an encyclical, Providentissimus Deus, that would appear to support dictation of the whole bible: Tanakh, Deuterocanon, and NT.

[MarkBsnr]

We have Muhammed's own words in various books, that do not support this

That's what I thought, but on re-looking at these, we don't really have his own words but Hadiths that date at least a century after his death

We have reason to believe that he actually dictated/wrote? the Koran.

[MarkBsnr]

perhaps, but the "Christians" that were there in the Nejd were those who were chased out of the Roman Empire which was orthodox or miaphysite (Coptic, Syriac, Armenian) and the Persian which was Assyrian these included groups as vague as Gnostics or Nazoreans (who believed that Jesus was the child of the Father with Sophia (the Holy Spirit) as the Mother) or the Gospel of Basilides or even Arians. Add that to pre-pagan Islamic beliefs and Zoroastrianism and add in the Jewish laws and transfer the chosen people's right to the Arabs and you have a potent mix.

True, but again, Persians are not Arabs, to cut a fine point. And it took Muhammed and a fine band of brigands to take advantage of it.

[Cronos]

True, persians are different, but their influence was felt deep into Arabia. Oman for instance had an irani colony. And Zoroastrian is ancient, so its influences would be felt among semitics

[Cronos]

Yet there are no korans written prior to caliph uthman

[MarkBsnr]

True, persians are different, but their influence was felt deep into Arabia. Oman for instance had an irani colony. And Zoroastrian is ancient, so its influences would be felt among semitics

Quite correct. But you want a scimitar to the throat, just call an Iranian an Arab.

[MarkBsnr]

According to various traditions, Muhammed had individual writings dictated to his secretaries, or wrote some of them himself. Uthman gathered the information (and added whatever he did).

[Cronos]

yet there is no proof of this — very surprising when you consider that the Arabs were the conquerors and conquerors generally would write “Oh, i won this land thanks to the Prophet....”

[MarkBsnr]

Like many of our own traditions, the participants never thought of writing it down. In the Muslim case, they simply cut the heads off people who scoffed or didn’t believe in their (sometimes) fairy stories.