Posted on 02/23/2010 9:25:41 AM PST by stfassisi
“”No, most of my post is beyond your comprehension, that’s all””
Try reading Aquinas, he makes Calvin look dumb,Calvin is a mental midget in comparison and was not intellectually gifted with God’s love
Not really. Look at stfassisi's post #3 on this thread. All I did was Google " John Rao" and "Cardinal Vlk" and... Lo and Behold!
Sad to see that the anti-Protestant animus amongst some on FR is such that they would post an article from someone that publicly accuses Americans, and American Conservatives in particular, of being fascists and Neo-nazis.
Yeah, I meant it more in the sense of it having a large impact on how one views Rao than in the sense of it being difficult to find; I probably didn't word that the best.
Sad to see that the anti-Protestant animus amongst some on FR is such that they would post an article from someone that publicly accuses Americans, and American Conservatives in particular, of being fascists and Neo-nazis.
Unfortunate indeed.
Best defense is offense. Here’s to eternal peace and a terrific article. This guy, Rao, is very good.
Those are all words, yet they seem to be chosen at random and tossed into a salad.
Wham.
Ping to proper anthropology. It is not my intention to bait you. Just read it, and don't tell anyone.
Also, most enjoyable Litvinov anecdotes.
See post 93 for just how "good" Rao is. Then let me know what you think of him.
Of course. Another thing that is important is that no one is saying that Protestantism, -- even its ugly Calvinist mutant bastard, -- is 100 percent wrong. Numbers don't work her, but ANY brand of Protestantism is a departure from the solid ground of Catholic Orthodoxy. (There are our own internal departures, too). So we should not be surprised when a Protestant reads, understands and explains the scripture in a perfectly Catholic way -- at times. His method is wrong, his whole worldview is a heresy, his pastor can barely read English, but the grandfather of Protestantism is the Catholic Church, so we agree more often than we know. Let us not forget that, especially now at Lent when Satan has really great fears to face.
Better yet, the Word of God.
Not bad either. I wouldn’t write it, but not bad, as constructive criticism.
America that loses her Christian character will lose her Fathers’ heritage as well.
Numbers don’t work her -> Numbers don’t work here
At times I say, Protestantism is 90% Catholicism, and that is really not proper use of arithmetic.
“we have a free will”
I see. You can also say, “I am a genius.” And that assertion will also be met with a degree of doubt.
So, here is your MO, as I see it. You post a long article - less than convincing - written by someone else, which pushes what you want to believe. And then you scream at anyone who disagrees with you. I see no engagement of argument, no thoughtful discourse, nothing but copy+paste+scream. Is this Roman Catholic apologetics? Talk about a barren harvest.
I think the entire object of this and so many other similar exercises (some of which emanate from some of your opposite numbers) as being to offend and bash. I see no attempt to tone down emotions and and actually appeal reasonably and rationally to the “free will” that you claim exists in man, but to ratchet up emotions from the start the better to get the invective started. I see no respect, no civility.
In short, I see no seriousness of purpose ... or sincerity of purpose.
Let's discuss the article.
“Let’s discuss the article.”
There is nothing to discuss. It is simply a long, pseudo-intellectual opinion piece, ungrounded in anything. References to Scripture: 0. I would offer a far more harshly accurate assessment of it, but I do try to follow the guidelines as delineated.
Besides, it was, as I said, meant to provoke.
The point of the article is proper Christian anthropology and the cultural damage done by the doctrine of the total depravity of man. By their fruits we know them. Do you yourself support the T in the damn tulip or what? The article may not give scriptural references — it is not that kind of an arcticle. Do you have a scriptural rebuttal? Or any other kind?
“Do you have a scriptural rebuttal? Or any other kind?”
Why don’t you just deal with one, in context:
“The the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” (Genesis 6:5)
Help me understand how this teaches free will.
Do you think Jesus Christ in His humanity had free will.
“Do you think Jesus Christ in His humanity had free will”
He was sinless, as numerous verses of Scripture explicitly say. So, yes.
Unfortunate, but not surprising.
“Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” (Genesis 6:5)
Let me help the defenders of free will and naysayers of total depravity - and no I am not a T for TULIP Calvinist - a little bit.
Let’s assume God really is almighty and omniscient. Let’s also assume that even as He inspired Moses to record/edit (and we can talk about that if you’d really like to) the aforementioned words, words He would not forget that He had Moses record, that He already knew He would send His Son into the world to become man, to be the second Adam, and redeem that which was lost. Let us also assume that He was actually communicating to mankind His will and the truth of their situation after the fact of the fall into sin ... and thus their dire need for a Savior from sin. Let us assume all that.
Where, do you think, God would most likely tell man who he really was and how serious his problem really was? How long would God leave it to man, who hadn’t fallen over physically dead “in the day that you eat of it” to wonder about what He meant when He said, “in the day that you eat of it you will surely die”? Why would man, who had never known anything from God other than good, have immediately assumed the worst of God’s marvelous and “very good” creation in Genesis 3:10 have feared anything in it? In other words, where would God most probably fill man in on anthropology, i.e., who and what man, after the fall, was really like?
Again, help me understand how Genesis 6:5 teaches “free will” and not total depravity. Help me on the basis of the Holy Scriptures.
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.