Skip to comments.The Neverending Story (The New Christian Chronicles)
Posted on 10/15/2001 6:54:40 AM PDT by malakhi
|Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams|
Hey, that other one wasn't even close to 65536 yet!
I know. But I wanted to get rid of the thread numbers, since they are no longer relevant. Also I wanted to get working on the archive, and include a link on this thread.
I, Hopefulpilgrim, wrote: If one takes this statement ("This is My body") literally, one would have to take all other metaphors He employed literally also.
SoothingDave wrote: You have simply started with a fallacy. We use our judgment to determine what is literal and what is figurative. You are saying that we are not allowed to discern, we must accept everything as literal or everything as figurative. I suppose this includes the stories about the Resurrection as well.
First of all, you are right---the way in which I worded it DID make the statement fallacious. Let me try it again: If one takes this statement ("This is My body") literally, other OBVIOUS metaphors could also be taken literally, such as "I am the Vine; you are the branches." (Well, I'm not sure how much better that is, but I hope you understand my gist.)
Thank you for recognizing the fallacy, when pointed out. Now, on we go. This amended statement of yours hinges on the word "obvious." To you, Jesus at the Last Supper is obviously speaking metaphorically. Not so to me. That was kind of my entire point -- discerning which things to take literally and which figuratively and which both and neither is the task of making sense of Scripture. It's what we are discussing here.
Second, I thought y'all couldn't use common discernment when reading the scriptures.
Says who? We are certainly free to use any of the intellectual tools Our Lord gave us. What we should not do is use our own reading to develop heretical doctrine.
You also wrote: ...in order to puzzle out what he meant when he used metaphors like "I and the Father are one" and "He who has seen me has seen the Father"
Why do you call these metaphors? I see these as statements of fact.
That's my point. What I may see as metaphors, you see as strightforward fact. And vice versa. (In this case I am playing devil's advocate, but I have seen confused folks read those statments metaphorically.)
Morning. How 'bout them Steelers, huh? And Packers. Even the Jets. (We won't mention the Broncos today.)
Final thread? I doubt it. According to dignan3, the first 99 threads included 18,854 posts. At this point we are probably close to 31,000. If we continue at this rate, we'll need a new thread by the end of December 2002. (Of course I might start one sooner than that. We'll have to see how unwieldy it gets as we rack up thousands of replies). I would be curious to see what would happen if we pushed the 65536 limit!
There's a punchline in there somewhere, but I can't make it out...
I think it's in the notion of the paranoia of the illiterate. When literacy is thrust upon them they continue in their mistrust/resentment of what they have been "told" is true and almost by necessity will gravitate to a contrary opinion from what has been officially "revealed" to them. Even if this revelation is true, mind you.
The Packers played a good game against the Ravens. Glad we could help you out in your division! The Steelers are surprising people. At Tampa Bay will be a real test. I see Cincy got back on the winning track, too. Will Detroit win a game this season? (I mean besides the game against the Packers in Detroit--the Packers always lose there).
I was disappointed to see that the Cardinals lost. But the Diamondbacks' pitching has been stellar. The series with Atlanta should be interesting. And two Game Five's in the AL today...what a great time of year for a sports fan!
I'll be watching the Dallas-Washington game tonight on MNF. Will we see a 0-0 tie?
Thank you, what a great read, and way to start a day. JH
From a Skins fan :-(
Well, let's see now, Catholicism had been an oppressor in Europe for a long long time. Catholics coming to this country were not going to be allowed to lord themselves over the people in the new world the way they had in the old.
LOL. How you do this day in and day out is a mystery to me. Where to even begin? We could mention that the history of Europe after the Reformation is one of states loyal to either "side" doing their best to stamp out heresy. That you see the history of Europe as one of only bloody hand on the Catholic side is typical.
We could also mention the folks coming here for "Religious freedom" were fleeing the Protestant Anglicans. But you can wave your hand and call the Anglicans essentially "Catholic" and wash your hands of the deal.
And when it comes to exclusion, the Catholic Church has excluded itself. It was the Catholic Church that couldn't abide core christian teachings in the schools so Catholicism excluded itself from the school system and teaches their own form of history, and its religion. So let's us just get it strait and paint the backdrop that existed.
Can we decide what it is we are after here? Are you on about religious freedom in one breath, and in the next chastising the Catholics for not liking having Protestantism taught to their children in "Public" schools?
No religion was going to be given preferrence in this country in the early days no matter what anyone believed in particular because this country was trying to escape authoritarianism under the guise of the combination of Church and state epitomized in England.
Congratulations, you are ignorant about early American history, as well as European. Many of the colonies had established religions, all Protestant except for Maryland. The Federal gov't, for sure, was prohibited from playing favorites, but the states were not.
It had first been the King/Queen and Catholic oppression; but, when the Catholics meddled too far, it became the Monarch plus Church of England. And Church of England was (is) baaaad news too! Were catholics excluded? Yes, by catholics. Were Catholics oppressed? Nope; but, they were kept from pulling the same crap in America they'd done in Europe up to a point. Ya'll just got your nose bent out of shape because on US soil you got the same treatment everyone else got - you're just another religion.
Here's where you wash your hands and say the C of E is "Catholic" and baaaaaad news. Were the Catholics oppressed? "Nope" you say. I guess all of those "Irish need not apply" signs and the anti-Catholicism of the KKK are don't count? Al Smith? "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion"? Any of this ring a bell?
You are assuming that when Christ said "upon this rock I will build my church...(etc.)"
1) that rock means Peter (which I have no problem with)
2) that Peter as the rock means Peter is the Pope
3) that church = RCC
4) that Peter was only to be over the RCC and not all Christians
5) that the gates of hell will not prevail against it means no error whatsoever in doctrine for the RCC (which you haven't even established is the church spoken of in the passage)
That's for starters. I know that you believe what you are saying. But you're assuming that your (the RCC) interpretation of the verse is true. It's fine to have beliefs and it's good to hold to them staunchly. However, to pretend that it is the only possible interpretation is fanciful. To simply state something with conviction is not a proof.
You all realize that Baltimore got to the Super Bowl last year using the "Steeler plan." Get a stingy defense, muddle out a few field goals on offense in the first half, count on an interception return to give you some breathing room, finally score a TD on offense late to seal it, then ride out the clock.
It ain't purty, but we could win 9 or 10 doing it.
IMRight, meet al_c, Cowboys fan. Perhaps you two can commiserate.
But the Steelers are missing the secret Ravens ingredient: Trent Dilfer. Look what he did for Seattle yesterday. Dilfer may win ugly, but he wins. Wonder if the Ravens will regret letting him go?
I agree, and if I had been one of the early fathers sitting down for the first time to discuss centering our whole doctrinal base on MT 16:18, I think I would have said, alright fellows, we need more then this one scripture, since it can be translated several ways, we need at least one or two more scripture to back this up.
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.