Posted on 05/29/2019 12:37:41 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
May 27, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) Speaking with one of the best-known conservative Jews, Dennis Prager, at the PragerU summit last week, world-famous psychologist Jordan Peterson spoke of God and his views of faith. After speaking about his dislike for the question Do you believe in God? Peterson said, I think that Catholicism that's as sane as people can get.
Peterson has often been asked about his faith, if he believes in God, and he said the question has always troubled him. He promised a podcast on the matter since he has given his dislike for the question much thought.
He explained, Who would have the audacity to claim that they believed in God if they examined the way they lived? Who would dare say that?
To believe, in a Christian sense, he added, means that you live it out fully and that's an that's an unbearable task in some sense.
Then in one long drawn-out, rapid-fire thought, the type that has enthralled his millions of fans, he laid out extemporaneously the vision of a believer in God:
To be able to accept the structure of existence, the suffering that goes along with it and the disappointment and the betrayal, and to nonetheless act properly; to aim at the good with all your heart; to dispense with the malevolence and your desire for destruction and revenge and all of that; and to face things courageously and to tell the truth to speak the truth and to act it out, that's what it means to believe -- that's what it means -- it doesn't mean to state it, it means to act it out. And, unless you act it out you should be very careful about claiming it. And so, I've never been comfortable saying anything other than I try to act as if God exists because God only knows what you'd be if you truly believed.
See the full exchange of Peterson and Prager here.
I therefore admire those who have adopted an austere life, and who are fond of water, the medicine of temperance, and flee as far as possible from wine, shunning it as they would the danger of fire.
What a contrast: between the Eucharist, which he praises (and calls the Blood of Jesus and promises will lead us to eternal life if taken faithfully), and wine, which he calls us to flee from completely. Because, after the Consecration, Clement doesnt think that the Eucharist is wine! You cant abstain from wine and still receive the Eucharist, unless the Eucharist isnt wine.
Have you actually read the whole section??
Do you understand the context??
It's from CHAP. II.ON DRINKING.
I really don't think you want to use this as an example.
btw....IF Clement is as against wine/alcohol as you suggest...a LOT of Roman Catholics are in a world of hurt!
*******
Giving you a chance to honorably withdraw from the game.
Reading the selection you present, I can only point out what I said before: Clement returns often to his theme that the Eucharist is a both/and thing, not an either/or thing.
He sees it as symbol/mystery, matter/spirit, metaphor/reality, because it works on many levels at once.
You haven't dealt with the body of his work so that you would see that his method of argumentation is BOTH symbol and True Flesh; BOTH metaphor and Real Blood. Which is what we man by "sacramental."
So, with all due respect, if I have to choose between native-Greek speaking near-contemporaries who saw him as upholding the Orthodox/Catholic Faith, and -- well,you, ealgeone --- it's a safe bet they knew what he was saying, and you perhaps need to spend a few more years with the Greek.
Now I’m off to class, so see you tomorrow -— maybe!
Take care!
It's superficial.
Just like Catholics do with Scripture.
They who and where did you cherry pick that phrase from?
With all due respect, those churches have abandoned the Biblical doctrine of the Lord's Supper.
The writings of fallible men do not carry more weight than inspired Scripture.
You are aware your denomination removed him from martyrology in 1586?
Part of the problem with Clement and other writers in this time period and others is the influence of prevailing Greek thought.
This somewhat clouded their view of Christianity.
Reading the selection you present, I can only point out what I said before: Clement returns often to his theme that the Eucharist is a both/and thing, not an either/or thing. He sees it as symbol/mystery, matter/spirit, metaphor/reality, because it works on many levels at once.
Yet the early NT church in Scripture saw it as a remembrance.
Again, it was not a means of salvation as erroneously taught in Roman Catholicism, but a result of salvation as taught by Christianity.
There is a clear difference.
So, with all due respect, if I have to choose between native-Greek speaking near-contemporaries who saw him as upholding the Orthodox/Catholic Faith, and -- well,you, ealgeone --- it's a safe bet they knew what he was saying, and you perhaps need to spend a few more years with the Greek.
And with all due respect, if I have to choose between inspired Scripture, which does not error nor contradict itself, over fallible men whose writings were not considered part of the NT canon and do contradict themselves, I know who I'm sticking with.
Yes we do. I guess dreaming up Limericks, beats looking at all the false doctrines that are being pushed by some here on the thread.
You reached checkmate long ago. The poster is just moving around ‘kingless’ pieces thinking she is teaching you from her vast enlightened state. She is clueless, bro, and wants to stay that way so she never doubts her ‘important’ position as teacher in catholiciism. Pride does strange things to those who are perishing.
Not wanting to go around with mussed hair, please educate me on how I can do it right for next time. Thanks!
LOL, ha, not really...
But look, this can so easily descend, or has already descended into futility, to the level of:
"I'm right because I believe the Bible.."Well, it hasn't quite come to that, yet, but you can see how it's trending."No way, my bamboozled brother, because *I'm* the one who believea the Bible..."
"You can't be serious, silly sister, you're clearly Scripturally substandard.."
You're wrong, and its as clear as the nose on your Biblically illiterate face..."
"You're proud as a pit-hag!"
"You're a scabrous limb of Satan!"
"You're a &$%$^&#@..."
I just came in from class, and I'm going to bed. Let's get off the Jordan Peterson thread, because nobody has even alluded to the original topic for the past 750 replies. God bless you, and have a good night.
LOL, ha, not really...
Yet, not believed in the early church as espoused in Roman Catholicism some 1200 or so years later.
I just came in from class, and I'm going to bed. Let's get off the Jordan Peterson thread, because nobody has even alluded to the original topic for the past 750 replies. God bless you, and have a good night.
I'm good with that.
It's always good to know when to withdraw from the game when you're in checkmate.
Maybe what is cut and dried is that the RESULT of the once-for-all sacrifice is what the altar in heaven represents. So, rather than the sacrifice being eternally offered by the eternal high priest, it is the benefit of it for all time for all those who are redeemed by it that is eternal. Scripture clearly teaches when Jesus offered His blood upon the mercy seat in heaven and it was accepted, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on High. He is a completely different Priest so His sacrifice is different, also:
I certainly haven't withdrawn in view of having been "checkmated", as you think.
You've fallen into the hands (or pages) of people who don't know much about Catholicism. I do feel sorry that you've somehow gotten stuck where you are.
However, no hard feelings. If we continue in each other's prayers, I am satisfied that the Good Shepherd knows how to handle His contentious, bleating, head-butting lambs.
I have quoted extensively from Roman Catholic sources in this discussion.
In fact, the majority of my sources have either been Roman Catholic or Scripture. Granted, Scripture is the only inspired source.
Transubstantiation was dogmatized in 1215. No?
You have been shown Scripture, in context, on this issue which is in contradiction of "tradition".
I have even resorted to "tradition" and shown where some writers call the bread and wine symbols.
You have been unable to show a writer who says the bread and wine are in fact changed into His flesh and blood.
You have been shown not one, but two, RC priests who say Christ is brought back down from Heaven to be offered up again and again and again as the victim....one of which you flippantly dismissed.
I have offered scholarly works showing the early church denied the charge of cannibalism, that is eating flesh and drinking blood, against them. Why would they deny this? Because it was not true.
The clear teaching of Scripture, which is the only inspired set of writings we agree upon, at least in the NT, are the only writings of antiquity that can make that claim.
Every Christian teaching can be pointed to in Scripture. Roman Catholicism, by using RC documents, cannot make that statement. And please, don't make me post them again.
I leave the discussion with this.
He said "do this in remembrance of Me."
The Lord's Supper is not a means of salvation, but a result of salvation.
I bid you a good evening.
+1
You do know this poster is tone deaf to certain frequencies?
We can pray it is received by the intended audience, but probably more for the casual reader of these threads.
You can believe this if you wish.
I do not.
Just WHO are the Dead In Christ?
1 Thessalonians 4:16
Now I know where the Mormons get it from...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melchizedek_priesthood_(Latter_Day_Saints)
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.