Posted on 06/22/2006 7:36:40 AM PDT by Pyro7480
Thousand said they saw the Virgin Mary at Mother Cabrini shrine in Colorado as well. Big whoop.
Sure. Let's poll the audience.
God has his own reasons for denying all of us certainty with regard to His existence and nature. Those with faith ought not to feel superior.
Who hijacked this thread again with their smug superiority?
From what I'm reading I'm gonna have to say you.
Seems to me it was the group insisting that dying for one's faith was stupid. If you want to start a thread on the wonders of "I'm right, you're right", we won't intrude.
Group? Start a new one? Naw, this one is fine. Very amusing.
Those wouldn't be in the majority so if it turns out their point of view is closer to the truth it wouldn't matter anyway. Ask Robert Smith of Maryland whether the 1% of homosexuals (and their agenda) in the United States have impacted his life.
Don't know him. I'll have to take your word for it.
You have adopted the "either/or", position in the debate that so many dogmatists are fond of.
Dogma is absolute, not negotiable.
That's sad.
The fact that we exist in the universe is evidence of some kind of universal truth.
You can't prove that we exist.
Neither can you. I guess that makes you a relativist.
That was my point. You picked up on that. Very good.
All lying is forbidden by God. However the seriousness of such an action can be mitigated by certain circumstances such as fear.
No, all lying is not forbidden by God. Two Hebrew midwives, Shifrah and Puah, risked their lives by lying to the Pharaoh in order to save the newborn Israelite babies in Egypt (Exodus 1: 19-21)
Being fairly new here, I haven't a clue to your beliefs on Jesus, but if you would like to share them, go ahead.
I think a soldier fighting for defense of his country is the same thing. He is fighting for what he believes in and he is willing to lay his life on the line for those beliefs. I don't really see any difference between fighting for those beliefs and a Christian willing to lay down their life for theirs. Just my take on it.
Just because the two women lied in order to achieve a greater good doesn't mean that they got the a-okay from God. It just means that He will judge their actions in light of the mitigating circumstances.
You're right. God would have been much happier if a few thousand more babies were murdered.
Actually, their lies had nothing to do with sparing the lives of anyone save Moses.
Anyway, there are results of the gift of free will. And many people abuse it. I simply choose to avoid, as often as possible, making choices that break the laws of the Creator.
What is a country? Invisible lines on a map drawn by others that symbolize the boundaries of a patch of earth even birds disregard because it isn't 'real?'
We have different beliefs, as I have said before. I do not believe we have a calling.
I believe we are here to enjoy the life that God gave us.
I have not named or demeaned anyone's faith, I have just asked questions.
We each have our own opinions, and can believe anyone or anything we wish. I have merely asked questions, trying to find out why people do what they do.
While it was not the desired end, he knew it was the inevitable end. It appears that taking one's own life, whether directly or not, is relative to the situation.
People lie daily, I think lying to save a life, would be acceptable, don't you?
I tend to believe all that is written about Jesus, except the Trinity part, that He came back from the dead, was born of a virgin, and that He died for our sins.
The taking of a human life, is relative to the circumstance...self-defense, war, stuff like that - OK....abortion, murder - not OK
They all have the same result - a death
I have to leave now, for the weekend. Thank you all for the discussions. I may pick this up again monday.
Not true. You're obviously not famiar with Jewish tradition.
True, but it was not through his actions that he lost his life. He was not the proximate cause of his own death.
So, then, what you are saying is that if the article had been written 10 years later it would be invalid? wrong? in error? Or that because it was written 10 years prior to the very necessary consecration of Bishops its ok to read? But that if one is to read articles off the SSPX Angelus Website, one should make sure to only read articles prior to the consecration? Because the scholarship becomes deficient then?
Just what do the consecrations have to do with whether or not the article was written?
No, my entire comment was basically a disclaimer, because they're a lot of Catholics on here who are wary of the SSPX.
Or that because it was written 10 years prior to the very necessary consecration of Bishops its ok to read?
Of course, it's "ok" to read. In my opinion, most articles from SSPX publications should be given fair treatment, since most deal with historical information (for example, events or saints) or traditional Catholic devotions.
But that if one is to read articles off the SSPX Angelus Website, one should make sure to only read articles prior to the consecration? Because the scholarship becomes deficient then?
No, that is absurd.
Just what do the consecrations have to do with whether or not the article was written?
Again, as I mentioned above in this post, the comment was basically a disclaimer. In fact, I own the Angelus Press book that compiles the essays Malcolm Brennan wrote on the Martyrs of the English Reformation, among other books that I purchased from Angelus.
If I am to interpret your post correctly, it seems that you are being rather defensive about my comment. Why?
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.