| 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 These men are rightly indignant, and furious about the unjust accusations that cannot be proven but are never withdrawn.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 don't think Christ was a pacifist either.
Our entire judicial system is founded on Biblical precepts of justice and mercy, contrary to the Napoleonic code utilized in many Romanist countries. Our Scripturally-based judicial system assumes all men are equally guilty of sin in the abstract, including the judges and juries. Therefore a specific responsibility for a specific crime must be proven before that man is deemed guilty of that specific crime.
Christ could have been speaking of the "sword of the spirit" which is the word of God when He told his disciples "he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
But the context of the verse is that Christ is well aware of the coming conflagration against Himself and all Christians by the Roman authorities. And He's warning them as well as equipping them.
Just like the Scriptures, "the sword of the spirit," protect God's children, so, too, would an iron sword protect the Christian beset by those who want to kill him.
Christ likewise tells Christians to hide, if necessary. He tells His followers not to make themselves vulnerable. He tells them to be cautious and yet fearless.
I lean towards postmillennialism. "Onward Christian soldiers..." resonates. Not that we are called to command armies and invade territories, per se, but we are instructed to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to all people," being "wise as serpents and harmless as doves." Christ tells us He has sent us out in the midst of wolves. He has not left us defenseless. Nor suicidal.
We can criticize ideas, beliefs, practices all we want. We simply cannot make it personal by criticizing individual FReepers.
It's a good rule. A simple rule. Some RC apologists have actually learned this rule. Sadly, the majority of RCs on these threads have not.
Don't give up trying. It's worth the effort.
lololol.
And some of them want to return the mass to Latin "because everyone will understand what's being said." lolol
POW!
“OH DEAR!
What did their donkeys do to deserve such fate???
Were THE donkeys speaking heresies, too? . . . hmmmm”
LOL!
LOLOL. Squirrels in an ermine dress and Prada shoes.
It's been instructive, only not in the way that some might think.
PWND.
What does the canon of saints have to doe with clerical sexual abuse? NOTHING.
What does a person's opinion of the epistles of Saint Paul have to do with clerical sexual abuse? NOTHING.
There was a time when I might have agreed with you. But after reading these many threads and comments over the years on FR, it's become clear that at the heart of Rome's error is its elevation of men to the status belonging to God alone.
The priest is not "another Christ."
Mary is not a "co-redeemer."
Dead saints now in heaven are not "mediators between God and men."
And all of this is made known to us in Scripture, particularly in the teachings of Paul which RC apologists on this thread have rebuked.
Thus when RC apologists accept these erroneous, anti-Scriptural suppositions as fact, they leave themselves vulnerable to ignoring, excusing, defending and/or denying the obvious sins of the pederast priest and the papal bureaucracy that hides it.
Ping to 2,368. I fling pings with abandon. 8~)
lol. That's great. You're a poet. 8~)
A ping fling with a sting!
A report from the window. Heads turn. Another errant doctrine slumps to the pavement.
How does the deadly accuracy continue? Tune in next week, kids. Same 8~) time, same 8~) channel!
Apparently you are.
No high school student council failures in the Catholic Church. Nobody in the Catholic Church reaches middle age and finds themselves complete failures and has to concoct grotesque caricatures of Christian faith in order to try to make themselves feel better in the scheme of things. There is no Christ in Reformed Christianity.
You absolutely and most certainly do ignore Paul. :) "Interpreting Paul in light of the Gospels" is code for ignoring Paul completely whenever he disagrees with Catholic theology (which is often). Recently you have said yourself that you do not believe Paul was Trinitarian. Therefore, you must ignore the many Pauline scriptures that have been given to you showing that he understood and believed in the Trinity.
I have found that the correct interpretation of Paul according to Catholicism leaves little left of Paul's actual words. I think that Judith Anne's testimony of her opinion of Paul's actual words is really closer to the true opinion of many Catholics about Paul (at least around here).
There appear to be two very distinct Catholic approaches. One is like Judith Anne's, read Paul's actual words, understand them for what they are, and disagree with many of them. The other approach is like yours, say that Paul was right when read through the prism of the Catholic view of the Gospels. The problem with this, though, is that it obliterates what Paul actually said and changes it into something completely different. So, to me when a Catholic says that Paul was right he is really speaking of some other invented Paul, not the one portrayed in the Bible.
This has been a VERY instructive thread. I never knew that some Roman Catholics believe the words of Paul were not inspired by God, but that, instead, as we've been told, Paul was "insane."
Ah Paul, if only he’d had a red pencil tho
I thought I had made this clear before, but perhaps you didn’t understand me; I could really care less what you think about anything, if I had been interested in your opinion I would have pinged you.
I think you mean you "couldn't care less."
You have every right not to be interested in my opinions. And I have every right to be interested in yours. Christians have a duty to preach the Gospel correctly and to rebuke error concerning Christ.
lolol. “A report form the window.”
Cool.
By God's grace alone.
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.