Posted on 05/03/2008 4:38:34 PM PDT by NYer
That is of course distressing, but also interesting to me. You couldn't get "real" answers? Where did you look? It seems to me they're all over the place and I've been aware of them since my late teens. Augustine, Athanasius, Chrysostum, Aquinas, Dante, Newman, Sheen, Chesterton, ... and I didn't get these names from Catholics but from my secular college, and from just looking around.
sympathies. of all the stupid things I've done and said, I have to thank God that I've never been so idiotically arrogant as to make a remark like that.
alter Christus
Those who are Latin deficient may not know what that means...
1Co 14:27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
1Co 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
Yawn.
Let me ask you a question. Assuming (please humor me for just a moment) that on the Sixth Day of Creaton G-d literally credited a literal physically mature Adam and Eve, how old would they have been? Granted that they would have looked like people who (in our experience) have lived about twenty years. Would the fact that they had adult bodies have made them actually twenty years old? Well, would it?
Are you going to claim that G-d could not have created the first human couple in a mature state because that would make Him a "liar" (since in our experience mature bodies imply growth from infancy and ultimately from a zygote)?
This is the year 5768 from creation. All human history is included in that period of time, and the entire history of the universe is included in that period of time and the six days prior. The fact that natural processes as we know them today would require billions of years for certain things to happen do not in any way whatsoever mean that they could not have been (like Adam and Eve) created in a state that, by the laws of nature as we experience them, would have required a much greater period of time.
But of course G-d wouldn't do that, would He? At least people who think nature is holier than the Torah say He wouldn't. That would make Him (they say) a "liar." Never mind that the alternative makes Him out to be a "liar" anyway because His words in the Torah would not be true.
So if G-d is a "liar" (chas veshalom!) either in nature or in the Torah, I know which one is His Perfect Revelation--and it ain't nature!
But never mind. Perhaps you will tell your co-religionists (pinged above) that they are "un-Catholic" because they don't accept uniformitarianism.
No, he was not the first or second or even the third Pope. You guys got that all wrong.
Riiiight, that's what I thought you'd say.
A good friend of mine who is now an ex-catholic, just said the other day that catholics say they don’t worship Mary but many of them do.
Low salt?
A big AMEN, doc!
A good friend of mine who just converted to Catholicism just said the other day that your good friend made that up.
The unbroken testimony of two thousand years declares Peter the first pope.
The notion that he was not the first pope was invented out of whole cloth by anti-papal obsessives 1500 years later.
We northerners calls em ‘covered dish dinners.’
His church is the body of Christ, not the RCC. Youse guys got it all wrong...
Try the Episcopalians. They’ve spun out of control these past few years, sadly so.
IMHO, you need to have Christ in your life with a healthy does of the Holy Spirit to be able to read and understand scripture. Otherwise, it’s only a book.
IMHO, you need to have Christ in your life with a healthy does of the Holy Spirit to be able to read and understand scripture. Otherwise, it’s only a book.
IMHO, you are correct.
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.