Free Republic

The NSA was listening to OBL’s HQ phone calls for three years before 9/11. They tracked two hijackers to the U.S.

The Boston bombers were warned about twice and had FBI surveillance.

Why do have to believe they need a police state to do a good job?

I’m done with this thread.

Sorry, but it is obvious to me that the one sure way not to go off topic is not to go off topic.

I have read it, that’s why I made my last post.

If you wish to turn the thread to protestant vs. Catholic vote, it's more on topic to look at that vote in bringing Hitler to power in 1932.

Elevation shows the Catholic/Protestant mix (higher = more Catholics) and colour shows Nazi vote share (more red = higher Nazi share of the vote).

So low and red would mean Protestant Nazi votes; high and green would be Catholic not-Nazi votes.

It’s part of the Mass Propers for Lent. One of the prayers for Good Friday.

Of course one may pray for atheists or offer special intentions for them at other times.

It would be a mischaracterization to say that Pope Francis believes in salvation by works or salvation without knowing Christ.

Jesus died and was raised for them as well. His redemptive embrace was for all, not just a chosen few.The choice to accept its reach is our own. The Holy Father was not teaching anything new. In fact, this hope that all who do not yet know God are not only capable of doing good - but will progress toward that knowledge of God by doing good - is ancient. The Church wants all men and women to be saved.

This is the same as the prayer on Good Friday:

Let us pray also for those who do not believe in Christ,that, enlightened by the Holy Spirit,they, too, may enter on the way of salvation. Almighty ever-living God,grant to those who do not confess Christ that, by walking before you with a sincere heart, they may find the truth and that we ourselves, being constant in mutual love and striving to understand more fully the mystery of your life, may be made more perfect witnesses to your love in the world. Through Christ our Lord.

I should have added that NSA listened in on conversations from the terrorist to the AQ command while they were in the US.

Better Question: Why didn’t they catch the 9/11 terrorists?

NSA was listening to bin Laden’s central command phone - for 3 years.
They tracked the known (to them) associates from Yemen to the US.
NSA monitored traffic and knew an attack was eminent.

Two of the terrorists stayed in a motel a couple of miles from NSA headquarters.

NSA had both the technological means and legal permission to stop them - and did not.

Why do they need more money, more tech and more legal authority?

BTW: NSA has had unfettered access to all communications data - phone, fax, internet - in the US for some time.

This is all in a documentary from NOVA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdPpdu8OGDQ

That is also Catholic theology.

Yep. The author is ignorant of this and even more ignorant in trying to spin it into Calvinist double predestination - which is *not* Catholic theology.

This reminds me of something C.S. Lewis wrote. Summarizing: Paganism was a pre-cursor to Christianity, our modernist culture lacks even this; and, it would be an improvement for it to become pagan as a step in the right and necessary direction.

“Abolition of Man” is a great book. If anyone hasn’t read it, really recommend it.

And yes, Lewis was an Anglican and most definitely not a Calvinist.

Thanks for the book references.

There are also quite a few of his talks and debates on YouTube.

Password security is quite weak.

I don’t biometrics to spot criminals, but in place of passwords to allow account access - you place your finger on a reader for example, and the reader recognizes you. The tech exists and isn’t expensive.

Password security needs to go, but biometrics/fingerprints or something similar will do.

This group does have a bit of a conflicting interest:

If the Church no longer supports the Boy Scouts this group disappears, it’s reason for existence gone.

I understand. I’m really trying to figure this out with you.

If Fundamentalist is something you feel is too easily denigrated, I can see that.

Biblicist is good except for the reasons I listed earlier mainly because it is usually taken to mean the same as Fundamentalist and would have the same problem.

Maybe Scriptural Christian? Or Bible Christian. I’ve seen “Bible Believing” used to describe churches and “non-Denominational.” Maybe one of these will work for you. I’m guessing you’re not a church “member” so maybe not.

It’s not my choice of course, but I still think “not Catholic” and non-Catholic” have the same drawbacks as “protestant” in that they refer to Catholicism when I think that’s what you wish to avoid.

FWIW.

I would say so. But the reason I suggested that name is:

-Fundamentalist is generally accepted to mean the same as “biblicist”
- Fundamentalist is more well known and understood than “biblicist”

This assumes that *you* mean the same thing by “biblicist” though; the same meaning that is usually understood.

If you mean only that “Bible is fundamental” then it’s really not the same meaning in general usage (which seems a bit odd to me.)

However, if you *don’t* mean biblical literalism, then Fundamentalist would not be a good name - because fundamentalism and literalism are taken as the same in meaning.

I think fundamentalist has the same meaning. Perhaps “Fundamentalist Christian” would be both accurate and easily understood by others.

I try to let people determine what they wish to be called relative to this kind of stuff.

I just thought “not Catholic” didn’t really help much since it still is in relation to and opposition to Catholic, as is “protestant.” Both seem to describe a confession that is defined by or rooted in opposition to... not much difference.

What denominational name do you wish to be called?

Has to I think.

I sympathize with your frustration in not being able to determine one's own appellation.

I am not a protestant .. I am not a Catholic.

It seems to me to be problematic to describe a faith in terms of what it is not.

I realize we're not there yet, and it doesn't help as regards the article of this thread, but maybe one day it will just be "Christians."

Is the preferred response to just let them post whatever and whenever and nobody should ever offer a rebuttal?

I'm beginning to think that would be a marked improvement.

The sad reality is that Christians of all church backrounds cannot get past past issues at a time when Christians around the world are suffering for their faith in Christ.

Yes.

Sometimes I think this is the internet equivalent of the Thirty Years War.

Amen

Perhaps longer than ten years ago. Some may remember. I believe it was well over 20,000 posts.

It gets old eventually.

I’ve seen them come and go. Very few remain, and those not so much active, mostly responding occasionally to newcomers - until they too are pretty much done.

It’s not like this is new ground.

Nah. SOS.

There was the “Never Ending Thread.” Broke the database. About a decade ago I think.

It’s really all been done and said - several times over - on FR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Protestantism

Been there, done that..

Three years and 7,614 posts ago..

{^_^}

>>>” keeps that non-Christians going to heaven stuff to himself...”

I think that’s a bit of a mis-quote.

Sure it’s questionable. I can see the Church analogous to a tree.. from which other branches split off from the catholic or universal. Those branches being denominated as different than.

I think that’s a non sequitur. Catholic isn’t a denomination.

There is no there there in this article.

Correct. Along with an ignorance of Church teaching on socialism, private property, subsidiarity...

Some article posters don't let truth get in their way.

The Old Drum memorial, named for the killed dog who the case was about - outside the courthouse where the trial took place.

Conservatives: People are basically bad. .. If people were generally nice we wouldn’t need mountains of laws, thousands of courts...

I've heard this dichotomy a lot recently and thought before it was the opposite.

Conservatives believe man is basically good and the role of government is further and allow him/her to exercise his innate nature to do what is right. Whereas liberals believe man to be naturally evil and requiring of a strong government to control him/her.

I agree that man's instincts are often evil, but that the moral and religious man emerges with universal values - even if any single individual is unable to follow them.

In this context I think of the founders belief that freedom and the republic depend on moral citizens and no amount of laws can overcome an immoral electorate.

You’re not a Jew, and if you already know, why bother with a sign?

Why even bother with baptism then?

Then there’s Mo’s school lunch program:

“Let’s Starve!”

I think it will be made illegal - unless the gov can crack it.

"Regarding the debate about faith and works: It's like asking which blade in a pair of scissors is most important."
 - C.S. Lewis.

>>”If any teacher had been carrying in a gun free zone they would have been fired.”

S/he could become employed again. The fool(s) would still be dead.

"His parents had to lock him in his room each night and place locks on his windows that would set off an alarm if he tried to open them during the night. If he had to go to the bathroom he would have to bang on the door until someone let him out."

Amen. And, speaking for myself, Pope Francis is calling to do just that.

Exactly. Capitalism is not intrinsically bad. Christians are called to use it, and all we do, for good in service to God.

I agree with your reasoning.

Whatever the cause de jour, the Church is in the way. Free love, contraception, abortion, homosexuality, same sex marriage...

To remain truly in the Church is to stand apart from this culture and to oppose it and to be quite unpopular. Some aren’t willing to do this.

I don’t think this applies much to the US except as those who wish to work but are “in this situation because of these, economic, social, political attitudes and so on.” High unemployment is partly a result of political decisions.

And I don’t think it applies to the US in terms of wages, obviously.

It seems Pope Francis is primarily to other audiences than us; except as our social and political decisions result in the loss of jobs.

Well, this will be interesting. I think Pope Francis could even turn the invitation down. Not the invite to Jerusalem, but the peace broker role.

If he accepts both, it will be interesting to see how he approaches it.