| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/28/2010 11:54:24 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Per poster’s request |
Posted on 04/18/2010 9:49:35 PM PDT by Judith Anne
I seriously wonder about some FReepers, sometimes. Any other person accused of a crime would be defended by every FReeper as being innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. I've seen whole threads written by men who have been accused of child abuse by ex-wives out to deny them their visitation rights or to wrest more money out of them. These men are rightly indignant, and furious about the unjust accusations that cannot be proven but are never withdrawn.
Yet where are those FReepers when a PRIEST is accused? Where is the presumption of innocence? Suddenly, every accusation becomes a verdict, and not only the accused but his entire organization and all its adherents are held responsible.
I can only wonder what some of these so-called conservatives (who so faithfully defend the Constitution) would do, if THEY were the ones accused! It is a nightmare for any man -- all of you know how even the accusation stains the man forever, even if it is proven false!
Not only that, many here assert that the problems of 30, 40 and even 50 years ago must be tried in the media TODAY!
Remember the Duke rape case? There are more similarities than differences here. The priests are accused, nifonged, and instead of being defended, they are vilified!
What other man of you could stand under the weight of such an accusation trumpeted by the press, and come out whole? None! And such accusations made, LONG after the statute of limitations has passed, sometimes even after the accused is dead and buried for YEARS -- are YOU one of those who automatically, reflexively, spitefully, and gleefully act as judge, jury, and executioner?
Women! What if it were YOUR HUSBAND, YOUR BROTHER, YOUR FATHER, YOUR UNCLE, YOUR SON who was accused? Wouldn't you want the best defense possible? Wouldn't YOU believe in their innocence? Wouldn't YOU help protect your loved ones as much as possible? And yet, YOU JUDGE THE CHURCH FOR DOING WHAT YOU WOULD DO?
Shame! Vast shame! On all who have sinned against the innocent!
I have
ALWAYS thought that a naked Christ on the cross was
MUCH MORE BIBLICAL, honest, accurate, impactful and telling.
Christ was never one to whitewash anything.
Okay Quix, my FRiend, I want you to invent a symbol which can be worn on a necklace or as a broach which represents the empty tomb! ... I would buy a dozen or more to give to famiuly. Make than a few dozen, so I could give them to family and friends.
It is that presupposition which guides Christianity towards the truth. We are not left to our own devices. We are indwelled by the Holy Spirit who leads us every step of the way.
Precisely so.
This is one reason why it is illogical to dismiss Paul and not also dismiss John because they are hand-in-glove.
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. - I John 2:27
[There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. - Romans 8:1
###
AMEN! AMEN!
No different that the flesh of those that Catholics burned for centuries.
Jesus authenticated the Hebrew cannon when he said,
Luke 24:44 ...,”These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.”
So the question really would be why certain books are in the New Testament. As early as the first part of the 2nd century our Christian ancestors had resolved this without any dominant church in power. All the books were written during the Apostolic Era and were “peer reviewed” for accuracy during that period when witnesses to the actual events were still living. All the books were written by Apostles, or those that traveled with Apostles. Also, Apostles acknowledged the inspired writings of other Apostles as Scripture. For example, Peter states that Paul’s writings are Scripture,
2Peter 3:16...as they do also the rest of the Scriptures
I see this “bubbling up” of the Scriptures as the Holy Spirit at work.
In addition to the formation of the Scriptures during this period what I find so exciting is how quickly Christianity grew. No missionary societies existed yet and no hierarchy. Yet by the early 2nd century at least 10-15% of the Roman Empire had become Christian and it was spread throughout all strata of the society.
#####
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
PRAISE GOD!
NOPE.
I COR 12-14 AND ACTS 2 ARE STILL OPERANT IN THIS CHURCH AGE AT THIS STAGE OF IT.
Humans did not change. Holy Spirit did not change.
The need for the fullness of Holy Spirit operating in our lives for the furtherance of The Gospel to all the world remains as crucial now as it was 2,000 years ago.
That notion is, imho, a silly, artificial fantasy from hell.
Whether is is Catholics or Protestants who engage in that behavior, you can always count on some of us speaking up in defense of Holy Scripture.
###
AMEN! AMEN!
Well, good and honorable, to a point.
However, Christ did not shrink back from being offensive—lots of times.
There is nothing in either the book of the Acts of the Apostles or I and II Peter that indicates he kept and special position or was elevated to any special position greater than the rest or that he passed on any mantle of any kind.
Scripture is deafeningly silent about the supposed papal succession that allegedly occurred for the next 300 or so years. Word of mouth, after the fact tradition doesn’t rate.
###
INDEED TO THE MAX! WELL SAID.
So you accept that Luther was right about Catholicism, but wrong about Judaism? Isn't that cognitive dissonance?
"The Spanish Inquisition was not even three decades before."
The Spanish Inquisition was not a Church activity, it was the de-Islamification of Spain by the Crown after over 700 years of Sharia Law. The standard of citizenship set by the Crown was being a Christian and the Church only judged whether the accused was Christian or not. Punishments and expulsions were also the purvue of the Crown.
Personally, I prefer a simple silhouette of a fish.
I have a plain, wooden cross hanging on the wall of my living room. A sprig of barley is carved in it.
Not to mention that in the book of Revelation when Jesus is addressing the churches in chapters 2 and 3, there is NO mention of a church at Rome, NO mention of anyone appointed to be sole leader of it, NO mention of Peter, nothing.
That would be quite an oversight on the Lord’s part if the papacy had really been established.
####
WELL PUT. THX.
THANKS.
I’ve thought long and hard on it.
Have wanted one for my pottery.
Maybe I’ll try again.
Thx. One is coming to mind as I type. I’ll try it out at pottery tomorrow, maybe.
Thx.
Oh, now. Divine right of kings and all that. You cannot possibly hope to argue that the monarchy and the church were not part and parcel of the same entity. Otherwise the church would not have been the judge for the state expulsions of Jews and burning others at the stake.
Details, details.....
Thank you for your encouragements, dear brother in Christ!
Not sure I understand it myself but I think it may mean we project modern ideas on ancient understandings.
I.E., why write he katholike ekklesia as Catholic Church?
Galileo was in trouble with the Catholic church and likely faced the Inquisition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Church_controversy
After 1610, when he began publicly supporting the heliocentric view, which placed the Sun at the centre of the universe, he met with bitter opposition from some philosophers and clerics, and two of the latter eventually denounced him to the Roman Inquisition early in 1615.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition
By the start of the 16th century the Roman Church had reached an apparently dominant position as the established religious authority in western and central Europe, dominating a faith-landscape in which Judaism, Waldensianism, Hussitism, Lollardry and the finally-conquered Muslims of al-Andalus hardly figured in terms of numbers or of influence. When the institutions of the church felt themselves threatened by what they perceived as the heresy, and then schism of the Protestant Reformation, they reacted. Paul III (Pope from 1534 to 1549) established a system of tribunals, administered by the “Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition”, and staffed by cardinals and other Church officials. This system would later become known as the Roman Inquisition.
But it was Calvin who actually torched him.... So much for the moral superiority .... LOL.
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.