Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
That depends: lattice-top or cobbler style?
I’m getting old, but I still care, and I started working out at a gym. Of course, to maintain equilibrium, for every pound I loose, I get to eat pie.
LOL! That’ll work.
It really doesn’t matter. In fact, it doesn’t even have to be apple. Banana cream, chocolate, Key Lime, you name it :>)
thanks for your reply.
that’s the way I’d look at it if I were a Calvinist and a parent.
Of course I think it’s tougher for Calvinists, for my too often stated reasons; but, I should add that some of my cradle-Catholic friends have some pretty sad memories as well.
I think we’d all be better sticking to: “Jesus loves me, this I know...”
... for the Bible tells me so.”
I use the puppets to sing that with the little ones.
That’s very cute. And all the little ones need.
So, if everything we have is what God gave us, as the Protestants interpret, what about afflictions, poverty, sickness, etc?
It seems to me that in the Gospel of John there's a story of a blind man and Jesus said he was that way so that God's glory could be shown in the man through Jesus' miraculous ministry. Therefore, one would think that Jesus was objecting to the notion that the man was blind because of his parents' sin.
John 9 1 As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" 3 "Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.
There is no doubt that Jesus is saying that God brought this about in order to achieve a purpose. BUT...the blindness did not happen because the man or his parents sinned.
Of course afflictions, poverty, and sickness come to us from God. The bible is fairly clear on that.
Jesus, is, of course, the prime example of afflictions and holy poverty.
The holy prophets and martyrs are all evidence of the same.
Regarding sickness, it is clear that God struck Gehazi and also Naaman with sickness....directly and with purpose.
Then, of course, there is the issue again of God's foreknowledge about this world that God created. He KNEW ahead of the final act of creation about every person who would ever die, become impoverished, have a broken heart, become brutalized in any way, yet He created anyway.
He considered the accomplishment of His end purpose to outweigh all that anguish. Some might disagree with Him, but, neither are they God.
The God as perceived by the Jews in the OT does. In the NT, God heals the sick. What a difference! In fact, healing involves driving out evil spirits. And Christ says that He couldn't possibly be the devil because, by healing the sick, that would make Satan divided. Obviously, God and Satan are not both the cause of illness in the NT. In the OT, that's a different story: Satan works for God, and angles do all the killing in the name of God. It's like night and day.
Don't what? Answer you? That's what I intend on doing, after this.
I am capable of defending my position. Perhaps not to your astoundingly high standards, but just the same, they are acceptable to me and I choose to be a Catholic, regardless of your acceptance of the position.
My response to you had nothing to do with "being able to defend my position", but putting up with your attitude. Considering you have already decided that the Catholic Church is false and nothing I say will likely change that opinion, it is a waste of my time answering someone who begins the conversation as you did.
Regards
God clearly diseased Herod with worms.
"Acts 12: 21 On the appointed day Herod, wearing his royal robes, sat on his throne and delivered a public address to the people. 22 They shouted, "This is the voice of a god, not of a man." 23 Immediately, because Herod did not give praise to God, an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died.
My memory of the verses you cite says that they involved the casting out of demons. Therefore, Satan would not cast out Satan. A house divided cannot stand.
In the Revelation, God uses the bowl (vial) judgments, and those include disease.
..."vicarious atonement, was first stated by St. Anselm in Why God Became Human (1197-98): only human beings can rightfully repay the debt which was incurred through their willful disobedience to God, although only God can make the infinite satisfaction necessary to repay it; therefore God must send the God-man, Jesus Christ, to satisfy both these conditions. Anselm's doctrine, slightly altered or elaborated, has become part of Roman Catholic theology and of that of many Protestant churches." www.encyclopedia.com
Mark, why did God become human? To whom was a debt owed? God or the devil?
I wasn't aware there were other "apple pie" comments on the thread!
“Which central beliefs has the EO promulgated better than the RCC? (And does Ratzinger know about this?)”
The Orthodox have much better held onto the order of the Mass; the orientation of the priest and the demeanour of the celebration of Mass; we Latins have made it more casual, bringing more laity into what should be the desmaine of the ordained, for example.
And yes, Pope Benedict XVI knows about all this; it is one of the reasons for returning to the Tridentine Mass, Eckleburg.
Our beliefs in original sin and hell are aligned.
Then it must be the beliefs of you and Kosta that aren't aligned, since Kosta said (please correct me if I'm wrong, Kosta) that he does not believe in the Scriptural definition of hell nor original sin.
Maybe Kosta could define for us again his understanding of hell and original sin so we can see if it lines up with the RCC.
I appreciate the help.
It is true that St. Anselm had an effect on how we look at original sin, but we still view original sin as original sin; we have not cut a new suit out of the old cloth.
The Catholic Encyclopedia says: Original sin is the privation of sanctifying grace in consequence of the sin of Adam. This solution, which is that of St. Thomas, goes back to St. Anselm and even to the traditions of the early Church, as we see by the declaration of the Second Council of Orange (A.D. 529): one man has transmitted to the whole human race not only the death of the body, which is the punishment of sin, but even sin itself, which is the death of the soul [Denz., n. 175 (145)]. As death is the privation of the principle of life, the death of the soul is the privation of sanctifying grace which according to all theologians is the principle of supernatural life. Therefore, if original sin is “the death of the soul”, it is the privation of sanctifying grace.
According to StJohnDC.org: The sin committed by our progenitors in paradise, with all its consequences, passed and passes from them to all their posterity. What the first people became after the Fall, such also till now are their descendants in the world. “Adam begat a son in his own likeness, after his image” (Genesis 5:3, KJV). Estrangement from God, the loss of grace, the distortion of God’s image, the perversion and weakening of the bodily organism, which ends with death - here is Adam’s sad legacy, received by each of us at our very appearance in the world. “As from an infected source there naturally flows an infected stream,” teaches the Orthodox catechism, “so from an ancestor infected with sin, and hence mortal, there naturally proceeds a posterity infected with sin, and hence mortal.”
I don’t see a substantial difference in the whole, merely in emphasis.
Sin is an offence against Almighty God and the gravity of an offence is measured by the dignity of the person who is offended. If an offence is to be atoned for (if we are to make-up for what we have done) then we must make up for the offence in an acceptable way to the person offended. It is not possible for the creature (man) to make up in an adequate and acceptable way for an offence committed against the Creator (Almighty God). Only God could solve this problem and God did solve the problem by becoming Man in the Person of Jesus Christ. Jesus offered Himself as a sacrifice of atonement (to make-up) for all the sins of mankind. Jesus offered His life to make amends for all the sins committed against God - an acceptable sacrifice which was more than adequate. Jesus gave His life for us when He suffered and died on the Cross. “There is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”
We owe nothing to satan. We owe everything to God.
Kosta’s beliefs are, of course, his own. It is fascinating to have discourse on individual differences, but, in the end, it is the Catechism that is the standard against which we measure our own beliefs.
I do appreciate Suzy doing some digging for me on a previous post. The Catechism is the standard. If I, or any of us, fall short, it is normally easy to catch and understand.
No problem.
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.