Posted on 11/04/2014 1:26:15 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o
Edited on 11/04/2014 6:38:00 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
I think it is more important to care what God says about it in His Book.
Let’s have a vote. All in favor, say “Aye!”...
Joel Osteen? What the heck!?! He's not even sure Jesus is the only way to Heaven!
Amen!
How about Billy Graham? Is he on the list?
Blind leading the blind if those are his choices.
I would like to present a little history behind the problem of the muslims and their unwillingness to dialogue, which should clarify what the Francis is doing right now.
About the time the West discovered Aristotle's Ethics and Politics in the twelfth century, Islam had reached it's peak. The top imams at the time decided that Islam would no longer use the elements of philosophy which had been their strong suit for 500 years. So in began their decline when they rejected all that they had been able to glean from the Greek philosophers. In other words they left the dialogue.
The West then took all that the Greek civilization had and entered into the Renaissance with rather amazing results. The West left the muslims in the dust.
So, when Pope Benedict spoke at Regensburg and got lambasted by the muslims, he was only trying to invite them back to the dialogue they dismissed in the 12th century.
It is important to dialogue. Each side benefits from knowing what they all have in common.
John Paul used to have similar meetings which were roundly criticized by conservatives. But, he did it for the very reason to open up dialogue with all groups, not because he wanted to move the Church to a different religion.
BUMP
Because of his age and poor health, it is my guess that he was not invited; if only to spare him having to decline because of his health. I believe that Pope Benedict XVI is in much better health that Rev. Graham.
I think that's why such men as Moore, Wright and Arnold are there. I'm quite confident they'll speak of what God says in His book.
Besides, God wrote two "books," so to speak: the Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature. He is the Author of both, and --- rightly interpreted --- they will not contradict each other. Therefore there are natural reasons why a traditional, observant Taoist, Hindu or Confucianist will agree with Jews and Christians in abhorring homosexual vice. They've been around long enough to have observed that it wreaks havoc with the family and undermines the foundations of human happiness.
As I understand it, the Muslims would have, by their own choice, little to contribute to such a symposium, since they do not believe that there is such a thing as "human nature" per se: something that we all have in common. (Nor, of course, do their recognize universal human rights.) They took a philosophical turn some 1,000 years ago to assert that the only things worth knowing are in the Koran. Sola Korana.
Publishers report that more foreign-language books are translated into Spanish every year, than have been translated into Arabic since the time of Muhammad.
They just, in point of principle, are not interested in listening to what other people think, desire, value, reject, or know by experience.
There may be individual Muslims who do not fit this pattern, but they are outliers. They are the ones whose heads ISIS wants on pikes.
Anglicans Michael Nazir-Ali and Nicholas Okoh are also solid on marriage, in contrast to the majority of revisionist Anglicans and Episcopalians.
I was thinking that myself. These are some solid picks.
I think there is something to be gained by this. In addition to accurately defining marriage and delineating its moral structure, it’s essential for Christians and well-intentioned leaders in other religions to find ways to “sell” marriage.
Societies do not work out well when natural families are not initiated, grown, and sustained, or “What’s this we have now?” An individual or group can be 100% right about marriage, straight down the line In God’s Will ... but cultures are going to crash anyway unless they can persuade others that this “marriage” thingie is good for them.
I wish them all a very productive meeting.
Are you saying that everybody should read the Bible, but nobody should write or speak about it?
Yeah, I do too.
Unity in front of the world in this critical issue is, well, critical!
No. That's not what his post says at all. I don't know how you would get that from his post unless you've consulted a Ouija board reading medium at a seance or are a mind reader.
Who cares a whit about what ANY mere man says about marriage!
The only question and answer that counts is this:
What does Almighty God and the Word of God have to say about marriage?
That is the ONLY answer that counts and that is the ONLY thing that should be taught and followed. Everything else is utter folly!
I thank God that He had mercy upon me, delivered me out of Roman Catholicism and saved my soul by grace alone, through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ alone; totally apart from works!
I sincerely pray that God would take the ongoing, doctrinally fallacious, statements being made by their "pope" and open the eyes of millions of Roman Catholics to the truth regarding the "pope" and their "church". I pray with all my heart that they may truly "see Jesus" and come to saving faith in Him and in Him alone before it is eternally too late.
You denigrated the idea of consulting with well-known Protestant leaders and thinkers, as though doing so is evidence of an insufficient interest in what the Bible says.
My question merely pointed that out.
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.