Thank you for your continuous 'shedding of light' and the search for the truth.
Posted on 09/28/2001 1:15:53 PM PDT by malakhi
| "I have seen in the last week much ugly use of religion for chest thumping and blaming 'ragheads' and even blaming our decadence for the events of the last week. I would rather that we continue here, respectful of our unity in citizenship, in displaying how religion can be talked about without veering off into ugliness." (SoothingDave, 9/19/01) |
| Threads 1-50 | Threads 51-100 | Threads 101-150 |
But I am curious. Does the name "Lepanto" mean anything to you? Does the name of Don Juan of Austria have any responance in your soul? You should know them, because at that place, led by that man, the Catholic forces of Europe stopped the advance of Islam and made possible your freedom to practice the Christian faith.
Ping
"If I myself am not mistaken, I think Mormons believe that God physically impregnated Mary. I've asked Mormons before about this but have only gotten answers that were conflicting or vague."
David was the physical father of Jesus Christ. God took the seed from David when a virgin was called to warm him because of sickness. That seed was implanted in Mary. Jesus really was the son of David, imagine that?
If I want a scripture scholar you would be the last person I would ask. You haven't got a clue what Matthew 16:18 means so you ramble on like a vain philosopher. You have a bizarre understanding of scripture that you have to twist and turn to fit your needs. Its quite sad actually.
You are more dense that I thought. Read my response again and then try to give an adult answer.
Thank you for your continuous 'shedding of light' and the search for the truth.
Ain't life grand? Hows things? You mentioned that you had moved and are looking for work. I hope things work out for you. This is a terrible time to be looking with layoffs and cutbacks being quite the norm nowadays.
Nice post. Nobody on these threads ever changes their minds however, its a good forum to get info on both sides of whatever issues we are discussing at the time.
No no. War is one thing. War is not what you had going on by the time of the attacks on the Muslims in 1096. There was no war at that point. You wish to put everything in the light of an empire that was All Christian - not so. Nor was it all Catholic - not even close. Rome before the fall was growing in the number of it's subjects that followed the Christian God; but, Rome itself was Pagan still. Constantine was a Pagan that seems to have donned the banner of Jesus in order to salvage some tiny bit of a cruel empire that had abusively expanded and conquered much of the world to that time without mercy and for hundreds of years - unrelenting. Just because a few Christians come in in the latter days of that empire does not change the facts regarding Rome's past.
Those facts in mind, it puts the attacks upon the empire by the muslims in the early years in proper perspective. The empire was nose to nose with the Muslims - And the Muslims weren't stupid enough not to know they were next. They attacked and they stayed on the attack till they had beat back the agressor of hundreds of years. Were Christians killed in the process - yep. If the enemy that threatened them turned out to be made up largely of Christians, I wouldn't doubt that they may have utterly loathed Christians too. Once the threat was subdued and beaten back it all began to die down and settle to skirmishes launched by the 'Roman' side (in muslim minds) to break out again. The muslims put down the Roman aggression and protected their own territories.
Did they take territory from Rome? Yep, but it was never rightly Roman territory to begin with. Rome had forcibly dominated the majority of its empire - taking its vast parcels from others. Rome "Conquered" the holy lands - it didn't just walk up and say 'oh would you please, kind sirs, consider joining our empire?' The muslims may have conquered the holy lands; but, in doing so, they'd done no different than what Rome had done.
After hundreds of years pass. Greedy for expansion and rebuilding of the long defunct Roman Empire. The Romans once again take to the battle field. During the time of Constantine, the throne took on the appearance of Christianity. Constantine was a pagan like those before him. He lived a pagan life through right up till his death and was interred under pagan rites to make him a god. The popular myths were used to paint much of what he did as some sort of Holy movement. The Church, having mixed itself into the affairs of state ended up usurping as much power as it could gather to itself and looking for any way to build itself into the throne. Constantine was a first major step toward Catholic Imperialism. But it seems no one really believed the claims of the Church for 500 years. It had been pushing fraudulent claims and documents that weren't being bought (yes, parts of the decretals were in existance long before they began to be accepted in the mid 9th century). The Donation of Constantine was the first major lie to be bought.
The Groundwork had been laid. by the beginning of the tenth century AD, the lies were built up and Catholic Temporal Power was yet to be thoroughly tested. Catholicism was putting down dissentors before; but, now with empire wide grasp and new temporal powers, it could do what it wished - crush anything that wasn't Catholic. The empire was threatened if the legitimacy of the religion of the ruling class could be threatened. Like the Bolsheviks, the Catholics put down the dissenting beliefs. By the time the inquisitions came in, it was excercising the same totalitarian authoritarianism that would be later shown by the Soviets and the Chinese. If you voice an opinion that differs from that of the state - you must be re-educated or silenced. Thus, American Republican-Democracy was modeled after early Rome - Not 'Holy Rome'.
So the Crusades began in 1096. If you wish to name drop, how about Kilij Arslan, Ibn Al-Qalanisi, Suleyman, Saledin .. How about qadi Abu Sa'ad al-Harawi who is documented in history as one of the only survivors of the First attack on Jerusalem? He tells the story in the muslim histories of the 40 day siege upon Jerusalem that included the anihilation of every living soul from his writings. He tells of the masacre of all muslims in the city, the masacre of jews who retreated to synagogue to pray - bolted into the synagogue, those who weren't cut down trying to escape were burned alive. The summer of 1099.
I've read Maalouf among others. I'm aware of the history of the crusades. What is not told in High School history books is the full truth. Perhaps because that would be viewed as 'Anti-Catholic'? I think perhaps some Highschool history books need to be updated with some reality in them.
At any rate. Your attempt to paint the crusades as part of a millinium long war is refuse. No state of war existed when Catholic troops assualted Jerusalem and wiped out every living thing that remained in the city which might be considered non-catholic. The events portrayed by al-Harawi show the slaughter of Muslims well after the city was sacked .. those not killed in the attacks were responsible to carry the bodies of the dead to be piled and burned. When they were no longer of use in cleaning the city, even the survivors were put to the sword and thrown on a brush pile.
While history has taught me to question old Catholic claims in ten, now eleven years of study of the religion, the Catholic versions have taught me to question everything I read - everything. My interest in truth derives from believing something I would read only to learn it wasn't quite true later. The more time I spend talking to you guys the more hardened I am on the notion of checking everything said. Everything. So I have Catholicism to thank for my study skills - I certainly didn't have anything comparable in my school days. And I could write a pretty devastating paper back then. Perhaps I should write a book LOL.
To his face? And make him change his ways?
Havoc answered this pretty well on post 33.
Theoretically, "tradition" is unchangeing. It has "always" been believed, it has "always" been taught.
In practice "tradition" is a dynamic instrument. As such, it is unreliable.
Whoa, boy. Let's examine what has lately transpired and see who's being dense here. I put forth a construct based upon what is known from the Bible, the one source I do fully trust. My construct is based upon the agreed upon dates. I thought Widely aggreed upon things were supposed to be worth something - afterall, that is the refrain we've heard for months. So, I use the agreed upon dates and build the construct from what is there. I then add suppositions and valid questions to the brew. Ok, nothing outrageous yet.
Now for your response in trying to sidestep the construct and paint the word Babylon to be a codeword for Rome because it suites your purposes to do so. You cut and pasted support for it from a Catholic tract. You relied upon scholarship (lol) of someone else who couldn't even get it right. You provided three citations that aren't even arguable. They provide zero support to your claim. Now if they had been written well in advance of 1 Peter, you might have something, in one instance, no one knows when it was written but it may have been written as late as 200AD. In one instance the work was written after Revelation which is considered to have been written in 96AD. I Peter was written around 65AD - 30 years prior. And one of your references had bearing on the jewish captivity from almost seven centuries before the fact and has no bearing on Rome - much less paint Rome with the word Babylon.
This passes for scholarship?! Tell me. Did you cut and paste those three references thinking it would make you look smarter because you know how to cite something? Are people to believe you because you give the appearance of knowing something - even though your response has nothing to do with your claim and your scholarship amounted to taking another's word for it without checking it out yourself! You guys have ripped us over the suggestion of such a thing, yet here you are caught dead in the act of it. And you call me dense. Are you the scholar? God gave me a brain - did you think I wouldn't check your sources?
Sheesh. At least when I cite something, I bother to have read enough of it to know what it says. And I bother to see that they've backed it up with research of some kind. Are you looking in the mirror when you throw about your childish slurs? I thought it quite interesting that your tract gives dates for most everything else, I checked the dates given. And the majority date to after 200AD. If it was Common knowlege that Peter was in Rome, why is it that there is complete and utter silence on the matter until 130 years after Peter died - 130 years, in terms of anthropology/archeology, that means almost 7 generations - generations overlapping at 20 year intervals. You can check that, you'll find it to be the standard agreed upon and in use. And I invite anyone here to do so. So after nearly 7 generations, suddenly the whole planet seems to know something first hand that not a single soul seems to have put in writing anywhere for 130 years.
I know some of my family history from what was written down and otherwise printed in papers and catalogued in scrap books and diaries from a long time back. But I can tell you that stories shared from one generation to the next by those in the family who haven't read the actual family history bear little resemblance to the writings. The places are wrong, the dates are wrong and the relationships are wrong in the oral telling. All second hand information. The stories are mixed up and confused. And you want to tell me that in seven generations that people with no first hand knowledge and nothing in writing to check against got it right to the extent that it could be believed. That's reaching (and I'm being kind). This is something most Americans have practical examples of every day. Try asking someone what the weather is supposed to be like tomorrow. Heck for that matter, lets look at September 11. How long after flashes in Afghanistan was it appearing in conversation that the US had launched an attack on Afghanistan? Misreported information spread between a couple of people and next thing you know we're already on the ground and in the air at war with a country - it was fiction, but I saw it happen in my work place. I overheard people talking about it at dinner in the resteraunt. A few people and less than a day after the incident and the story has nothing to do with the truth. But, these must be special people who were able to cut through the garbage after 130 years and ascertain the truth though they all seemed to write it at the same time.. another curiosity. Is it possible they are drawing from each other for the sourcing? Who do they cite? What authority do they write from. How are they important over 100 years after the apostles - enough to tell us about their wereabouts 7 generations after they were all gone and no one else seemed to know to write it down. Why the sudden boom of information 7 generations later? How much of it came from forged letters? How much of it is the fiction of Eusebius (knowing that there are many references by Eusebius there that cannot be verified). It may look impressive to one who hasn't read and checked the stuff for content and veracity. Once you actually do that, it all starts crumbling pretty fast, as you've given us a fabulous example of yet again.
You may wish to read 39 and check his citations before sayin g that, or do you wish to associate yourself with that sort of 'scholarship'?
Given your ability to check sources, I hope you learn to think for yourself soon. I don't care if you take my word for it or not. You aren't supposed to. Yeah, you heard me right, you aren't supposed to. You are supposed to check every word yourself. It's in the Bible. I don't take it for granted that others won't check what I have to say about the Bible. I hope and pray that they do. And I've always encouraged people to check my words against the Bible. It's when they don't line up that they are to be rejected - not when you don't like what's said peg. You chose a grouping of citations because they appeared to support an argument you like. Turns out the truth couldn't be farther from the claim. When it's pointed out, you again attack the messenger...
I don't mind having people check what I say or cite. Doesn't bother me a whit, Peg. I expect it. It seems you don't expect people to check what you cite or say. If you did, you'd do the research and get it right. You just expect people to believe you based on what?
Don't be so sure. The RCC is careful to couch the definition on "infallible" in such confusing terms that there doesn't appear to be any approved list of "Infallible Pronouncements" throughout history.
If you are aware of any please direct me to it (them).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Your reference:
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Reply to the dubium Concerning the teaching contained in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.
This letter is meaningless. Cardinal Ratzinger can talk till the cows come home and it doesn't make any difference.
The First Vatican Council (1870) defined Papal Infallibility as follows: "...the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, is, by the divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that, therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, irreformable."1 Consequently, the Pope is only infallible when:
He speaks Ex Cathedra, i.e., as supreme teacher of the universal Church. He is not infallible in any other capacity;
When he defines a doctrine absolutely and finally;
When he treats of faith or morals;
When he clearly shows his intention of binding the universal Church.
Infallibility has nothing to do with the personal actions of Popes, their disciplinary decisions or even unofficial comments or personal opinions expressed by them, even on faith and morals. It should also be noted that papal infallibility is a charism that is personal to the Pope only and cannot be communicated, transferred or delegated to any other individual, tribunal or congregation. Even doctrinal decisions issued by Roman congregations and approved by the Pope cannot be considered infallible.
Only decisions issued by the Pope himself in his name and which satisfy all four of the above conditions are infallible.
www.lumenverum.com/apologetics/pope.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------
Have all the above conditions been met or is there wiggle room for the "lawyers" to use at some time in the future?
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis Apostolic Letter on Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone May 22, 1994
by His Holiness Pope John Paul II
... Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful. Invoking an abundance of divine assistance upon you, venerable Brothers, and upon all the faithful, I impart my Apostolic Blessing.
From the Vatican, on 22 May, the Solemnity of Pentecost, in the year 1994, the sixteenth of my Pontificate. Joannes Paulus Pp. II ======================================================
Does the Pope really declare this as an "infallible" teaching?
How you been? And I hope you've had breakfast if you're going to participate, you'll need the energy. Rofl.
LOL, the following takes the cake: No no. War is one thing. War is not what you had going on by the time of the attacks on the Muslims in 1096.
That would be news to the rulers of the Byzantine Emperor, whose daughter Anna offers us a great and insightful view of the first Crusade. Constantinople itself was under threat from the Seljuk Turks at that time. And of course, you are ignoring the war in Spain where Christians were fighting to regain their country from the Moors.
You wish to put everything in the light of an empire that was All Christian - not so. Kiddo, the majority people in the Near East--even in lands ruled by the Muslims--was Christian. The Muslims constituted an elite class. Nor was it all Catholic - not even close. Rome before the fall was growing in the number of it's subjects that followed the Christian God; but, Rome itself was Pagan still. Constantine was a Pagan that seems to have donned the banner of Jesus in order to salvage some tiny bit of a cruel empire that had abusively expanded and conquered much of the world to that time without mercy and for hundreds of years - unrelenting. Just because a few Christians come in in the latter days of that empire does not change the facts regarding Rome's past.
What on God green earth has this to do with the Crusades or even Islam? Constantine died 300 years before the Arab Conquest.
Those facts in mind, it puts the attacks upon the empire by the muslims in the early years in proper perspective. The empire was nose to nose with the Muslims - And the Muslims weren't stupid enough not to know they were next.
These "facts" show that you haven't bothered to read anything.
They attacked and they stayed on the attack till they had beat back the agressor of hundreds of years.
The Muslims were Arabs, and until they were united under Mohammed, they were a threat to no one nor was their land worth taking.The unification of the Arab nation, BTW, involved the suppressed of Christian Arab tribes. The Arabs were successful largely because the Romans and Persians had beat each other to a frazzle over two generations, and the CHRISTIANS IN BOTH EMPIRE WERE DIVIDED BETWEEN ORTHODOX, NESTORIANS, AND MONOPHYSITES. Some Christians--like Luther in a later time-- even welcomed the Muslims as deliverers from Orthodox rule. They didn't understand any more about Islam than you do.
Amusing, no. That came from an ex-Jesuit who knew very well what the jesuit charter was. I think his exact verbage included "The civil surveillance of society" - upon which he elaborated. It's got to be funny of it's an ex-Catholic. Must be a conspiracy because it's a disgruntled ex.. Like Jim Garrison who posited the question 'why is it that a woman on the stand giving eyewitness testimony has to have bad eyesight cause she's a hooker?' I have no reason to question the veracity of an ex-jesuit given what is known about the Catholic Church in the past and in the present. So are you positing that he's wrong because he's a prostitute on the stand? LOL. Or are you going to authoritatively dump all the information on the table so we can see for ourselves. Maybe you'll just poke fun a bit because you can't respond to it in an intelligent fashion?
At any rate. I think it qualifies as a "yeah, whatever".
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.