"That's not fair. Johnny said a swear word too! Wah!"
Being a parent of three children, now grown, I have heard that argument many times.
Posted on 03/15/2008 10:17:55 AM PDT by big'ol_freeper
More than once during these talks I referred to Luther and what always occurred to me as his destructive influence. I pointed out that even in such an admirable book as Rohan Butler's “The Roots of National Socialism” the spiritual origins of Nazism and Luther's influence had not been given the necessary importance. Then I was asked if I would be prepared to elaborate to them—about a dozen of the very senior boys, that is—my own views on Luther and Lutheranism. I agreed—with the proviso that they would be my own views and nothing else. Admittedly, I had read more on Luther and about Luther than on most other subjects. But I wanted to make it quite clear that I would not speak to them with the voice of a great authority, but would merely give them my own interpretation. I told them, moreover, that I should try to prove how dangerous it is to accept legends; and that the picture I had of Luther and his influence was thoroughly contradictory of the customary Luther of the legend.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicapologetics.info ...
I DO NOT believe his supposed ‘pro-Jewish’ actions by being quiet were ever meant to help Jews.
Where in the Bible does it say to stay silent about wrong? This solely shows the Pope found it expedient to stay silent.
You wrote:
“How about this: the failure of the Catholic Church as a religion is that they make up the rules as they go along, e.g., the new “sins” of pollution and stem cell research, etc.”
How about this: if you read here at FR more often you would have seen all the articles and postings DAYS AGO that pointed out that there was no list of new sins from the Church. It was merely a Church official speaking his mind in a newspaper interview. There is no new list of seven deadly sins. It was a phony story, bogus as a three dollar bill.
“Whereas, Christianity is rooted in the the Word of God and it is unchanging.”
The moral teachings of the Church are unchanging. They are certainly more constant that some FR readers are turning out to be!
Here, because I hate to see probably decent people embarrass themselves simply because they’re misinformed: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1983926/posts
No more shocking than John Chrysostom's remarks.
No problem! By the way, I love your posts. I learn something everyday from you and NYer!
“What harm could it do if aman told a good lusty lie in a worthy cause and for the sake of the Christian Churches?” (Lenz: Briefwechsel, vol. 1, page 373).
“To lie in a case of necessity or for convenience or in excuse—such lying would not be against God; He was ready to take such lies on Himself” (ibid, page 375).
Sounds like Islam doesn’t it? Don’t Muslims believe they can lie for their cause too?
“Lying is a virtue if it is indulged in for the purpose of preventing the fury of the Devil, or made to serve the honour, the life, and the welfare of one’s fellow-men.” “The lie of service is wrongly termed a lie . . . it may be called Christian and brotherly charity,” is one of many similar sayings by the Reformer.
Oh, but let's give credit to the Pope where it is due. In his inaction, he surely saved a lot of people. Right?
See post #215.
It doesn't matter a dang thing about how many Jewish lives he apparently saved, sitting quiet, when all we can know is that over 6 million Jews were killed and a world war was fought over the issue.
He should have spoken up and made sure that 6.5 million were killed, instead?
If you or someone you loved were among the additional 500,000 who died as a result of the Pope's words, would you consider that a good trade?
"That's not fair. Johnny said a swear word too! Wah!"
Being a parent of three children, now grown, I have heard that argument many times.
You can’t prove a negative.
By the way, I saved 200 million people over 50 years ago, and I wasn’t even born.
Prove me wrong.
lol. Only a law-observing Catholic would question the difference.
"Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." -- 1 Peter 2:24
All Bible-believing Christians who have received true faith in Jesus Christ by the grace of God alone have been judged acquitted of their sins by Christ's atoning work on the cross. Christ took upon Himself the punishment rightly due His flock and paid-in-full for every one of their transgressions so that they now stand before God as His children, covered, cleansed, acquitted, redeemed, atoned for, saved and beloved by Christ's justification alone, for God's glory alone.
Mercy triumphs over judgment.
A great many Protestant churches in Germany certainly weren't.
Rome had made her position on the Nazis utterly clear by 1937.
“Peasants”, Luther declared, “are no better than straw. They will not hear the Word and they are without sense; therefore they must be compelled to hear the crack of the whip and the whizz of bullets, and it is only what they deserve. We must pray for them that they may become obedient; but if they do not, pity is of no avail here; we must let the cannon-balls whistle among them, or they will only make things a thousand times worse.”
You're just evading the question with a personal insult.
To kill a peasant is not murder; it is helping to extinguish the conflagration. Let there be no half measures! Crush them! Cut their throats! Transfix them! Leave no stone unturned! To kill a peasant is to destroy a mad dog!. . . Our princes must in the circumstances regard themselves as the officers of the divine wrath which bids them chastise such scoundrels. A prince who failed to do so would be sinning against God very badly. He would be failing in his mission. A prince who in such circumstances avoided bloodshed would become responsible for the murders and all the further crimes which these low swine might commit. It is no longer a question of tolerance, patience, pity. It is the hour of wrath and for the sword; the hour for mercy is past.”
Which part of the phrase "law-observing Catholic" do you consider insulting?
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.