Posted on 10/29/2007 9:10:41 PM PDT by Salvation
Happy Reformation Day to you and yours. :-)
Who can’t do that?
So in 1994 I became a Catholic.
I know who Don Juan was. I was on the road in the 60's, and he was pretty hard to miss in the circles with which I became occasionally tangent.
This is, I think, an example of what I was talking about in suggesting that discussion or conversation wasn't really the aim. It's a description of "them" in response to a post addressed to me. So if it's fair to conclude that I am an element of the set "they", then the meaning of the statement is that I am irredeemably wrong and prefer being wrong to wounding my pride.
It's not so important to respond to the implied personal attack as it is to note that this is not "faith seeking understanding" but, if we assume Missey_Lucy_Goosey is right, the righteous merely proclaiming their (imputed if not infused) righteousness without any intention of actual discussion. The only tolerable alternative would be the "frank exchange of views" I mentioned earlier.
And, I note again that the subject and the content of the thread and initial post are swallowed up in the diagnosis of our alleged corporate and individual sinfulness
Where's the LOVE?
I think people become very passionate in their views on a forum like this. I often thought that if we all were to take a cruise somewhere we all would probably laugh and chuckle about some of our posts. Plus, this media isn’t the best for conveying thoughts. Posts that I thought were innocuous are sometimes taken to be completely opposite from what I intended. I try to carefully screen my posts but I’m not always successful since most of the time I’m in a hurry, just plain careless, or I phrase things that could have been phrased a bit better. Plus I tend to be a very analytical and blunt type of person, so that doesn’t help because I can be rather insensitive. Recognizing my posts failings have helped me understand what others are probably experiencing.
If you were to carefully analyze the words of our Lord Jesus, you’ll find that He wasn’t one to be "happy and loving" in the way the world would define this. He was a man “full of sorrow, given to grief”. No where in scripture does it say that our Lord laughed; yet it tells us He wept. But through this sorrow and grief He still loved. Love can come in many forms.
I'm not complaining, not here, anyway. I'm talking about what you might call the "theology of conversation" or of disputation or something along those lines.
Yeah, miscommunication happens, (as in right now) but what else we got but words? If we're patient and approach this with good will I think a lot of miscues can be worked through.
What I'm trying to convey and think about is the question of what end does such a post serve? It's a declaration that there's no point in talking to Catholics because our pride prevents us from acknowledging our, well, heresy, I guess.
So the question naturally follows: why post a remark like that on a thread about a Catholic writing? If there's no point in talking to Catholics, the post is either pointless or not addressed to Catholics. If it's pointless, we're done.
But if it's not addressed to Catholics, then can we assume it (along with all the other posts made by somebody with this POV) is addressed to Protestants?
And that's where the high-five comment I made came from. The posts are not made to portray a point of view in a comprehensible and persuasive way, it would seem, but rather just to plant the flag of Protestant truth in the presence of prideful Catholics.
And that's why I said that I wasn't interested in such, ah, communication. It's not that I was going off to sulk. It's that my aims involve understanding and having my POV understood, and then sharing in the examination of each, for the purpose of a shared quest of deepening our understanding of one another and of God. But if the role required of me by such posts as I describe is to represent the benighted Papist falling back in awe before the flag of the conquerors, well, naturally, that doesn't serve any needs or wants I'm aware of having.
Is that more comprehensible (or just reprehensible?)
Love can come in many forms.
Indeed. Is one Protestant telling another that Catholics cannot "throw away" the Council of Trent because of their pride a form of Love's coming?
There are many sources contrasting the biblical account of Jesus' ministry with that portrayed in the movie. The constant appearance of Satan as a bald, androgynous character emitting snakes was taking more than a few liberties if you ask me. The entire Roman Catholic slant of Mary's involvement throughout the movie (her "sensing" him in the prison cell through the floor and He "sensing" her above), the cleaning up of the blood by the women after the scourging, the attack on Judas of the children, etc, etc, were all extra biblical and, hence, unbiblical. Catholics (Roman) are not the only offenders in mis-protraying Christ - almost everyone assumes that Mary held the body of Jesus after being taken off the cross (similar to Michelangelo's Pieta) but nowhere in the Gospels does this occur. There were many other points of departure from what Scripture provides, but it has been years since I've seen the film and only the glaring ones come to mind.
Overall, the film had a very "Hollywood" feel to it - typical violence for the sake of drawing controversy and a crowd.
Yes!, that is the first prong, the 2nd is in Corinthians, wher paul writes: “ When we eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, we proclaim the death of the Lord until He comes.”
the 2nd part of Tim, which prots often use for sola scriptura, clearly states: “ so that you will be equipped for every good work”.
Most prot never get the meaning of “Believe” as stated in John3. Jesus was very clear in John 14” he who believes in Me, does the will of My Father..”. SO belief carries with an action, “to do”.
The Jewish people always cleaned up the blood of their slain, so that it would not be used for any pagan ritual. there were Jewish advisors used during the film to try to maek the film as accurate as possible.
Tell me this, since if you can’t find it in your Bible, you don’t believe it, why are Jesus and His apostles going up into the Temple Circa John 10:30?
You have to remember, Protestants (true Protestants) think that Catholics are steeped in deep heresy. That's OK because Catholics think Protestants are lost outside the Church (Vatican I) or, at best, in great heresy (Vatican II).
Some people simply have different ways of communicating this message. I'll give you two biblical examples on techniques.
Neh 13:25 And I contended with them, and cursed them, and struck certain of them, and plucked off their hair. And I made them swear by the name of God, saying, You shall not give your daughters to their sons, or take their daughters to your sons, or for yourselves.
I think the problem with ALL Biblical dramatic portrayals is that they can't escape a certain "pageant" or "Passion Play" quality. Certainly I didn't think that Jesus encountered a snake-emitting Satan in the garden, but I appreciated the, as it were, "gloss" of His "crushing the serpent's head" "according to the Scriptures"
I also very much enjoyed the lift in Pilate's eyebrow when he addresses Jesus in Aramaic and Jesus answers in Latin. But my guess is that IF that little fillip happened, it would have been Koine and not Latin.
I think it was very much a Catholic movie, so I Can understand your disappointment.
I KNOW you guys think we're wrong. I don't have a problem with that. Heck, I once thought Catholics were wrong. And, after all, as you say, we think you're wrong. And we both think each other's wrongitude has grave consequences.
I wonder how many Catholics became Protestants because somebody said they were too proud to admit error or switched the argument on them. I suppose some succumbed to endless repetition. That kind of stuff just makes me all the more sure I made the right choice and all the less inclined to listen. But maybe it's an effective approach to some.
I wonder if good old Nehemiah plucked ear and nose hair. Most of us have plenty of that!
Well, you can become frustrated like Ezra and yank your hair out or be like Nehemiah and yank someone else's hair out. Historically, of the two, Nehemiah was considered far more sophisticated.
Have a good Saturday!
**SO belief carries with an action, “to do”.**
Very good observation. One that is often missed.
In today’s Gospel Zacchaeus not only heard that Christ was coming, he was looking for an answer. So, his action was to climb the tree so he might see this “Jesus” passing by.
Jesus passes by all of us every day. Are we taking the action steps to look for him as Zacchaeus did?
Zacchaeus then, was called down from the tree, (Christ’s action) and told that Jesus would eat supper as his house “today”.
What was The action of Zacchaeus? He got down quickly and received Christ graciously, promising to give away half his belongings and repay unearned income four times over. Some action step for him the CHIEF tax collector!
Jesus calls each of us TODAY; he wants to be with us at our house — our hearts — TODAY! Do we drop what we are doing and receive him graciously? What is our action step?
BTW, it’s great to see you around again!
my dear friend in Christ, thank you. i noticed that the anti-Catholic i challenged has not responded, i was so hoping for him to start tho think and reason.
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.