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 |
I agree. It is sad that people need to be told to spend an hour or so in worship. But what are ya gonna do? People need to be told a lot of things that are, in the end, good for them.
Of course, God enjoys voluntary worship. The obligation is a bare bones mimimum, and many Catholics worship every day, without being obliged. Consider the obligation like a warning. Just as you consider fruit to naturally come from being saved, one would expect a sincere Catholic to worship at least weekly. If you do not meet this "obligation," your sincereity as a Christian is in doubt.
SD
Do you find even the remotest suggestion in Scripture that Joseph was not married prior to Mary?
Does Scripture absolutely rule out this possibilty? Is all that is true in Scripture?
SD
I would look at it as being supportive and respectful of your wife's faith. And vice versa. Now what about the kids? Did you get married in the Catholic Church? Will the kids be brought up Catholic?
SD
Sorry, I didn't realize that there was a belief that Mary's hymen was intact also. Is this a doctrine that has a sciptural basis? Of course I am aware of the specifics of virginity, sex, and childbirth. My point was that in an ancient society, if a woman didn't have her hymen intact, it was a pretty safe bet that the society of the time deemed her not to be a virgin.
2. That Joseph was married before and had kids from a previous marriage. Again, in order to support the idea of perpetual virginity, an entire family history of Joseph that exists nowhere but in a belief has to be read into scripture.
Does Scripture tell you Joseph was not a widower? Does it tell you he was? Neither. Then accepting the idea is not contrary to Scripture. And the belief is ancient. And it is not read into Scripture, except for those who think Scripture is everything.
Using this criteria one must give credence to any doctrine, no matter how silly it might be. The bible doesn't say Paul wasn't a homosexual, so Paul could be a homosexual. The bible doesn't say that Jesus didn't visit America, so he could have gone to America. The bible doesn't say that the earth didn't have 3 inch purple people running around in the world, so it could have.
3. That greek lacks a way to express "half-brother" or "cousin" and that the original writers of scripture were not expressing themselves exactly as they wanted.
It is the Hebrew that lacks this wording. The Greek was expressing the idea that the Hebrews put forward. The original writers may not have thought that 1800 years later people would start to use their texts to deconstruct the stories that were passed down as true.
I don't know Hebrew, but I have a hard time believing that nobody knew whether you were talking about full brothers, half-brothers, cousins or anyhing else in Hebrew. Didn't JHavard have an example of the description of a cousin?
Is the pope a catholic?
What type of fundamentalist list do you want, liberal, ultra liberal, conservative, dogmatic, or Jesus hates fags dot.com type?
BigMack
"… Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?Pretty close, eh? Do you think, reading what Jesus said here, that God may grant your family eternal life?
He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
For some reason I always thought others put that label on us and not ourselves.
Seriously, Fundamentalists get their name from a series of works (I think from the late 19th century) called "The Fundamentals". Which boiled down essential doctrine into just five (I think) points that you must accept in order to be a Christian. They wrote at great length defending those five items as the core of Christian faith. For somebody (who types so fast) with all the documentation for the history of the Baptist faith, i would have thought that you could just list them. It's amazing to me how many people consider themselves fundamentalists without even knowing what those fundamentals are.
I don't believe that there is any official teaching on the subject. But there is a pious belief that Mary gave birth Jesus without any labor pains and without violating her hymen. As I said this is a belief that is not required, but not exactly discouraged either.
Using this criteria one must give credence to any doctrine, no matter how silly it might be. The bible doesn't say Paul wasn't a homosexual, so Paul could be a homosexual. The bible doesn't say that Jesus didn't visit America, so he could have gone to America. The bible doesn't say that the earth didn't have 3 inch purple people running around in the world, so it could have.
No. You don't have to give "creedence" to any crazy belief that comes down the pike. What you have to do is give them consideration. You can't just say "well, the Bible doesn't say this, so it can't be true." Sorry. You can't. If the Bible clearly says otherwise, you can dismiss things as contrary to Scripture. But if the Bible is silent, you must at least give an idea the once over.
Bottom line. The idea that Joseph was a widower is not contradicted by Scripture and is thusly plausible.
I don't know Hebrew, but I have a hard time believing that nobody knew whether you were talking about full brothers, half-brothers, cousins or anyhing else in Hebrew. Didn't JHavard have an example of the description of a cousin?
Really? You can't imagine an extended family clan with women dying in childbirth, etc. and lots of cousins around and half brothers, etc.? I can. There is a Greek passage which uses the greek word for cousin. But that doesn't mean that other books were not taking the Hebrew word "Brother" and rendering it in Greek in an overly literal way.
SD
It's like that cross between a Jehovah's Witness and a Unitarian - you get someone who knocks on your door for no apparent reason. :-)
SD
LOL. I've got to write that one down.
Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (Matthew 22:37–40)
Do you want to come to God on that kind of basis? Are you prepared to tell God today that you do love Him, love Him every moment of the day and have loved Him with all your mind, your heart and your soul, that you have never loved or put anything ahead of Him? Are you prepared to say to God that you do love your neighbor as yourself? Unless you are, my friend, stay away from the Ten Commandments as a means of salvation. They do not save you. They will condemn you.
“Weighed in the balances and found wanting” was the experience of a king in Daniel’s day. And today, when the Ten Commandments are put on one side of the balances and you or I step on the other, we will fall short. We will have been found wanting, my friend. The Law reveals who God is, and it reveals how far man and God are apart.
BigMack
Its a hate thing they all try to label us with, just pick your label and watch out for the "rocks" :)
BigMack
Its a hate thing they all try to label us with
Um, guys, it is your label. The books, mentioned above by IMRight started the whole movement. The books about "The Fundamentals."
SD
Its gone well beyond that now. You could even be labeled a fundy by some.
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.