(BTW, there are only two individual stars in that photo; all the rest of the objects are huge galaxies...)
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Centrism breeds hubris...
Posted on 07/02/2010 6:56:08 PM PDT by Desdemona
Today’s New York Times, with another front-page attack on Pope Benedict XVI, erases any possible doubt that America’s most influential newspaper has declared an editorial jihad against this pontificate. Abandoning any sense of editorial balance, journalistic integrity, or even elementary logic, the Times looses a 4,000-word barrage against the Pope: an indictment that is not supported even by the content of this appalling story. Apparently the editors are relying on sheer volume of words, and repetition of ugly details, to substitute for logical argumentation.
The thrust of the argument presented by the Times is that prior to his election as Pontiff, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger did not take decisive action to punish priests who abused children. Despite its exhaustive length, the story does not present a single new case to support that argument. The authors claim, at several points in their presentation, that as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Cardinal Ratzinger had the authority to take action. But then, again and again, they quote knowledgeable Church officials saying precisely the opposite.
The confusion over lines of authority at the Vatican was so acute, the Times reports, that in the year 2000 a group of bishops met in Rome to present their concerns. That meeting led eventually to the change in policy announced by Pope John Paul II the following year, giving the CDF sole authority over disciplinary action against priests involved in sexual abuse. By general consensus the 2001 policy represented an important step forward in the Vatican’s handling of the problem, and it was Cardinal Ratzinger who pressed for that policy change. How does that sequence of events justify criticism of the future Pope? It doesn’t. But the facts do not deter the Times.
The Times writers show their bias with their flippant observation that when he might have been fighting sexual abuse, during the 1980s and 1990s Cardinal Ratzinger was more prominent in his pursuit of doctrinal orthodoxy. But then, while until 2001 it was not clear which Vatican office was primarily responsible for sexual abuse, it was clear that the CDF was responsible for doctrinal orthodoxy. Cardinal Ratzinger’s primary focus was on his primary job.
After laying out the general argument against the Vatican’s inaction—and implying that Cardinal Ratzinger was responsible for that inaction, disregarding the ample evidence that other prelates stalled his efforts—the Times makes the simply astonishing argument that local diocesan bishops were more effective in their handling of sex-abuse problems. That argument is merely wrong; it is comically absurd.
During the 1980s and 1990s, as some bishops were complaining about the confusion at the Vatican, bishops in the US and Ireland, Germany and Austria, Canada and Italy were systematically covering up evidence of sexual abuse, and transferring predator-priests to new parish assignments to hide them from scrutiny. The revelations of the past decade have shown a gross dereliction of duty on the part of diocesan bishops. Indeed the ugly track record has shown that a number of diocesan bishops were themselves abusing children during those years.
So how does the Times have the temerity to suggest that the diocesan bishops needed to educate the Vatican on the proper handling of this issue? The lead witness for the Times story is Bishop Geoffrey Robinson: a former auxiliary of the Sydney, Australia archdiocese, who was hustled into premature retirement in 2004 at the age of 66 because his professed desire to change the teachings of the Catholic Church put him so clearly at odds with his fellow Australian bishops and with Catholic orthodoxy. This obscure Australian bishop, the main source of support for the absurd argument advanced by the Times, is the author of a book on Christianity that has been described as advancing “the most radical changes since Martin Luther started the 16th-century Reformation.” His work has drawn an extraordinary caution from the Australian episcopal conference, which warned that Robinson was at odds with Catholic teaching on “among other things, the nature of Tradition, the inspiration of the Holy Scripture, the infallibility of the Councils and the Pope, the authority of the Creeds, the nature of the ministerial priesthood and central elements of the Church’s moral teaching." Bishop Robinson is so extreme in his theological views that Cardinal Roger Mahony (who is not ordinarily known as a stickler for orthodoxy) barred him from speaking in the Los Angeles archdiocese in 2008. This, again, is the authority on which the Times hangs its argument against the Vatican.
And even the Times story itself, a mess of contradictions, acknowledges:
Bishops had a variety of disciplinary tools at their disposal — including the power to remove accused priests from contact with children and to suspend them from ministry altogether — that they could use without the Vatican’s direct approval.
It is not clear, then, why the Vatican bears the bulk of the responsibility for the sex-abuse scandal. Still less clear is why the main focus of that responsibility should be Pope Benedict. On that score, too, the Times blatantly contradicts its own argument. Buried in the Times story—on the 3rd page in the print edition, in the 46th paragraph of the article—is a report on one Vatican official who stood out at that 2000 meeting in Rome, calling for more effective action on sexual abuse.
An exception to the prevailing attitude, several participants recalled, was Cardinal Ratzinger. He attended the sessions only intermittently and seldom spoke up. But in his only extended remarks, he made clear that he saw things differently from others in the Curia.
That testimony is seconded by a more reliable prelate, Archbishop Philip Wilson of Adelaide:
“The speech he gave was an analysis of the situation, the horrible nature of the crime, and that it had to be responded to promptly,” recalled Archbishop Wilson of Australia, who was at the meeting in 2000. “I felt, this guy gets it, he’s understanding the situation we’re facing. At long last, we’ll be able to move forward.”
The Times story, despite its flagrant bias and distortion, actually contains the evidence to dismiss the complaint. Unfortunately, the damage has already done before the truth comes out: that even a decade ago the future Pope Benedict was the solution, not part of the problem.
No, it's from a movie with Tom Hanks. When were you born?
You should read the gospel every now and then rather than arguing at FR.
Glory is to God in all good things, of course. But the anthropology of human depravity is a modern heresy.
What are you doing following arguments on FR? Don’t you have a current dispensation to discover? Actually that is also where you will find that gospel you’re searching for.
Perhaps for that reason, in Ephesians 2:10, in order to avoid any misunderstanding regarding free will, God did not dictate that verb to St. Paul, but rather used very simple, "had prepared":
αυτου γαρ εσμεν ποιημα κτισθεντες εν χριστω ιησου επι εργοις αγαθοις οις προητοιμασεν ο θεος ινα εν αυτοις περιπατησωμεν
This is the Liddell-Scott entry for the verb: ἑτοιμ-άζω
You are probably using those Protestant translations whose only purpose is to lie to the people about the Gospel. This is a bad habit, especially if you are going to argue from these mistranslations.
All that you say is true, but in the created world, man is the center and has dominion over it. Suggested reading, Gen. 1:28, John 3:16.
I corrected your quotation in 1,135, but now I made a mistake of responding to 1,116 another time, thinking that you posted the same thing again, and getting irritated by that. Sorry, my fault.
That’s o.k. I still like hearing from you! ;)
Still no megaphones.
“Sure seems that way, but that's not what is taught. Dr. E, your comments?”
Taught by whom?
“Sure sounds like God is waiting a man's table. Whatever man decides, God goes along. Strange theology. Dr. E, your opinion?”
“Oh? He got caught by surprise then? Didn't he? Dr. E?”
Nothing there in Scriptures says He was caught by surprise, but maybe you can point something out?
Your conclusion, not something taught by the Scriptures.
“Yes and no, it seems. Our perception is a deception. If we put too much faith in our perception we believe an illusion. It is a mistake. The earth is not what it looks like to us. On a molecular and cosmic scale, all our perceptions are false.”
Yes and No, it seems? Maybe that's a deception of your perception. What is too much faith? too little?
“The earth is not what it looks like to us. On a molecular and cosmic scale, all our perceptions are false.”
If all your perceptions are deception, how would you know?
“We can't possibly know for sure what is driving us.”
That's one of those untrustworthy perceptions. isn't it?
Or is it the Inner Freud?
“Because you haven't explained how the Almighty might accomplish his Plan as he wills is if he is too busy accommodating every oneles’ free will.
You say that God did not Plan for Adam to sin? So, then, God was wrong, because Adam went against his plan and sinned. Dr. E in your opinion did God plan for Adam to sin or did he just accept whatever Adam dished out?”
Being Almighty means being All mighty. and “You say that God did not Plan for Adam to sin? So, then, God was wrong, because Adam went against his plan and sinned.” is another of those many false conclusions. One doesn't follow the other.
“That's not an if they don't then God has to scrap his plan, but “if you don't then I will bring evil upon you until you change your mind and do as I want you to do!”
It was a choice presented to them and I cited it as such.
“He doesn't. Everything in the Bible seems to suggest that he wants his people to follow his will and not their will (perhaps because their will is an illusion), unless their will is the same as his will.”
Their will is an illusion but so long as it's the same as His, no problem???? Now THAT is strange theology!!!
(BTW, there are only two individual stars in that photo; all the rest of the objects are huge galaxies...)
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Centrism breeds hubris...
Meant to include you in #1170...
Just to be perfectly clear, Jesus did come to rescue me -- because I was (and am) a sinner -- and I have fully accepted His matchless act of Grace per John 3:16...
My name's not "Sagan", (he departed this ball of mud in 1996) but, lest you feel inclined to deal with me and my grand view of God's entire creation in like fashion, I suggest reading Romans 12:14 beforehand...
I guess real Christians. :)
First, Acts 2:36 says "let all of the house of Israel know for certain (i.e. believe, have faith), and then he says (2:37) "repent and ... be baptized."
So, clearly, faith comes before repentance. If you have no faith why repent?! And in order to have faith, one must receive the the Holy Spirit, i.e. be born "from above."
Therefore: faith first, repentance/(water) baptism second/third, in that order—baptism here being the external witness of repentance through faith (spiritual rebirth).
Sorry, you and I lose, since both of us erroneously cited Act 2:37 as the "rule". :)
And that is just a tiny, not even a postage stamp size, little spot in the sky.
Correct. That is just a glimpse through a tiny, "empty" spot where we are able to see between the "nearby" stars in our own mediocre galaxy. I have been told that the field of that image can be covered by the head of a pin -- held at arm's length.
And everywhere we are able to look, God's creation is just as crowded with immense, unimaginable wonders!
Well, that's the logical conclusion from your unscriptural claim that God did not plan for Adam to sin. What else was he doing?!? If God did not plan for Adam to sin, as you claim, and then Adam sinned, that was an unplanned surprise, wasn't it?
Maybe that's a deception of your perception
Unless you can demonstrate that you see the earth's curvature with you naked eye or the makeup of your tongue on a molecular level, the world as we see it from our observer position is a deception for you and me both. It's just that some of us realize it, while others don't.
If all your perceptions are deception, how would you know?
All human perceptions are deception from man's observer position. We can't see the curvature of the earth so from our POV we it's flat. You do too—if you are human. :)
Being Almighty means being All mighty
Okay, and your point is?
It was a choice presented to them and I cited it as such
It was a warning and a threat for them to get in step with his will. If I agree to something while my arm is being twisted that is hardly a free-will decision on my part
Their will is an illusion but so long as it's the same as His, no problem
Human will must be in harmony with God's will, lest you sin. So, the bottom line is: it's "not as I will, but as [God] will[s]."
That's one of those untrustworthy perceptions. isn't it? Or is it the Inner Freud?
Yes. No.
Whatever it is, iirc someone suggested that the visible universe is estimated to have more stars than there are grains of sand on all the beaches on earth, or roughly 200 billion billion, or 220. Unimaginable indeed.
By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. - Psalms 33:6
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. [There is] no speech nor language, [where] their voice is not heard. – Psalms 19:1-3
To God be the glory, not man, never man!
Wow, a 30,000 light-year wide radio wave! That's one third of the whole galaxy! And light travels at 186,000 miles/second.
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.