Posted on 05/14/2010 11:03:45 AM PDT by NYer
It isn't in the bible, the Catechism, the Canon Law or any other catholic document. That assertion is merely a Protestant "tradition".
Yes, he also said, "Ye are the salt of the earth" So if one wishes to niggle over words, there is vast opportunity for that endeavor in the Bible. We each have to come to grips with God and the teachings of the Bible. There is ample evidence that some "Christians" go far afield in "interpretation" to justify their proclivities and lusts. This is not something new, it has been going on for about 2000 years and has been prophesized. So conditions of allegory and parable are, to me, things that should not be stumblingblocks. After all, the disciples did not understand the allegory about the "leaven" of the Pharisees and Sadducees. But "abomination" is a fairly clear word.
I've seen it. What are the referees pointing at when the ball goes thru the uprights? Hot babes in the stands?
You bet. And we must always remember that the Protestants are not protesting for; they are protesting against. The children of the Reformation are rebelling against the adults of Christianity.
Certainly. I'd post one, but the RM has indicated that I've posted one too many babe pics.
//It’s not so different these days either//
It never changes does it?
The atheist/evolutionists dont seem to get this part do they?
//I mean, if God’s truth doesn’t do it for you, then what does//
Man that is one he** of a question and I see the implications in it. I wonder if all do though.
You da best!!
This I gotta read. Type away!
When did the Church think it WAS flat? Seriously. I think most of the intelligentsia around the Med knew it was round.
Natural Family Planning means, for that time that the woman is fertile, the couple do not have sex.
The woman takes her temperature every day and charts it. She also notes bodily changes. Over time, she can begin to see a pattern and knows the signs of fertility. When those signs begin, she and her husband do not have intercourse.
To refrain is not sinful; to deliberately engage in the pleasure of sex without allowing God’s will to be part of the process is the sinful part.
Also, it gets more terrible than that because the pill and other forms of contraception are actually allowing you to conceive but flushing the embryo out of your system. So people who use those forms of contraception are actually, usually without knowing it, repeatedly aborting their babies.
The Church will never condone this aptly named “birth control.” It is not conception control. It’s genocide.
Something doesn't add up.
Einstein died in 1955. Hubble's 'first light' wasn't until 1990.
Not the Hubble telescope, Edwin Hubble’s observations in 1929 associated with Hubble’s law.
Metmom, upon re-reading your post I just realized that you were probably speaking of Edwin Hubble himself, not the Hubble Space Telescope, as I first thought.
Editor-surveyor, I think that you & I may have been on the same (wrong) track on this one :)
Thanks, Cvengr. I had an “aha moment” immediately after I posted :)
I think I’ve heard “Hubble” so frequently in reference to the telescope that I now automatically associate the name that way, rather than with Mr. Hubble himself. Ironic, that! ;-)
The fantasy of Washington Irving of the untutored sailor instructing the wise scholars of Europe that the Earth was round had, as its basis in fact, that there was indeed an argument.
But it was not over if the Earth was round, it was about how FAR around it was. Columbus incorrectly assumed the figure of Erotosthenes was an overestimation. The wise scholars correctly pointed out to Columbus that if Erotosthenes was correct (and he was), Columbus would never make it to India.... and he wouldn't have.
So any lettered person who was from the time of Christ onward would know, not only that the Earth was round, they would know how far around it was.
I know of no Christian who does not, as an article of faith, believe that God created the universe (the heaven and the earth). Do you?
”I am not by any means a progressive . . ."
“I propose that a system whereby one allows their knowledge of the reality that God created to influence their interpretation of scripture is superior in *philosophy and results* (emphasis mine) to one in which the favored interpretation is deemed ‘God's teaching’ and anything contrary is just ‘man's teaching’” (your post #676).
As quintessential a declaration of Progressive faith as one could hope to find (if, that is, one wishes to maintain the fiction of Christian faith while denying the legitimacy of the Biblical authority upon which that Christian faith is founded). Otherwise Progressivism simply denies the existence of any religion. What scientific finding (or findings) leads you to the inescapable conclusion that the Judeo-Christian belief is valid?
Of themselves, scientific findings cannot inspire Judeo-Christian faith. They do, of course, provide support for that faith: “That the Truth of reason is not contrary to the Truth of Christian Faith: ”THE natural dictates of reason must certainly be quite true: it is impossible to think of their being otherwise. Nor again is it permissible to believe that the tenets of faith are false, being so evidently confirmed by God. Since therefore falsehood alone is contrary to truth, it is impossible for the truth of faith to be contrary to principles known by natural reason.” (Saint Thos Aquinas, Of God and His Creatures)
And, the Scientific Method has perhaps been the happiest inspiration of the Western Civilization from which it arose. I could go on, but I see no point in restating what metmom has already summarized in her Post #678.
“The subject of this thread is intellectual suicide . . . ”
And that precisely summarizes the ultimate fate of a Western Civilization that now rejects the Judeo-Christian tradition. The struggle encapsulated in this thread has nothing to do with the Intellectualism either of Science or Christianity. It is quite simply a fight for the control of public money. You want control of that money without any say from the people you propose to take it from. That is, likewise, a quintessential definition of Progressivism.
Making it personal, you mean?
Contingent on what you mean by “this,” the very title of the thread, Avoid Intellectual Suicide: Do Not Interpret the Bible Like a Fundamentalist, already makes it about as personal as you can get.
You apparently lead a very rich fantasy life, as nothing I have said or ever would say could lead a reasonable person to conclude what you have concluded.
Your particular interpretation of Scripture is not “Biblical authority” and by rejecting your particular views about what you think Scripture says about physical reality I am not rejecting the Bible.
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any (Christian), not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false” Thomas Aquinas
I've seen you cite this quote several times. You've never been able to cite your source. Please provide the precise source for this quote.
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.