Posted on 08/27/2010 11:45:13 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
Again, we have the New Testament, look to Jesus for who his Father is.
Does Jesus wish for evil?
24
And Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver, and the garment, and the wedge of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had: and they brought them unto the valley of Achor.
25And Joshua said, Why hast thou troubled us? the LORD shall trouble thee this day. And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones.
26And they raised over him a great heap of stones unto this day. So the LORD turned from the fierceness of his anger. Wherefore the name of that place was called, The valley of Achor, unto this day.
I hope it goes without saying that God is not evil. I would point out that animals cannot be evil. Robots cannot be evil.
Evil is only possible with free will choices, you cannot accuse someone without choice of evil. They cannot help themselves. And if someone creates something that is incapable of anything but evil, it is the creator that is responsible for evil.
If evil exists, your theory results in two possibilities: God is evil, or man has free will.
Jesus told the Jews what was going to befall Jerusalem, and it was pretty hairy. Why didn’t he save them from it?
Have you heard of Jesus?
would that be the infant on Mary’s knee that the Catholics love so, or the real Jesus?
- and now that the ROMAN Catholic Church is coterminous with the Catholic Church; When'd that get added?
Seriously? This is getting hard to believe.
In response to my saying that it was false that we had ever taught that there was no salvation outside the ROMAN Catholic Church, you presented a text that there was no salvation outside the Church.
For that to imply, "The Church" and "The Roman Catholic Church" would have to be the same thing. But as your own post says, there are Catholics who are not Roman Catholics.
Q.E.D.
So, all the priests can now go out and get married? And priests entering the priesthood can get married and do not have to take a vow of celibacy?
That is not what you originally said. NOW you are getting closer to the truth. But your original post was incorrect. I did not have to show that ANY priest can be or can get married to show you wrong.The proposition that SOME priests can BE married was enough to show you wrong, and that I showed. I can't argue against (or agree with) what you don't say, and it's not my responsibility if a proposition is expressed imprecisely.
Saving the best for last:
Transubstantiation is disproved by Scripture. Physical evidence verifies it.
First of all that is not your original argument. Since you have not indicated that you have abandoned your original argument, I am still addressing it.
But you say Physical evidence verifies it.
I'm not sure what the antecedent of "it" is. BUT I say again, the absence of a perceptible change is explained by the teaching on transubstantiation. So the absnece of a physical change cannot possible verify that the teaching is wrong. Some other thing might be able to verify that the teaching was wrong. But you seem to be arguing that if something happens just as it is predicted to happen, that means the prediction is wrong. This, of course, makes no sense.
The question of transubstantiation and Scripture is a different (and harder) question from the question of your repeated insistence that the absence of blood and flesh meant that transubstantiation was wrong.
To sum up. some statements which were easily seen to be wrong were proposed as certainly true AND were backed up by the claim that the person proposing them had been Catholic once.
Since the statements were obviously wrong, it was clear that the person, whoever long she had been Catholic, did not really know her Church's teaching.
When I drew that conclusion I was told that the conclusion was somehow beneath me. It interests me that the TRUTH of the conclusion was not a concern.
So I have been defending the conclusion and myself. It seems to me that there is something wrong with trying to defend propositions other than the ones originally made. You said things which were not true and cited your past for authority. That's what happened. This is now ridiculous.
Did you ever consider: "free will?" If you stare at Calvinism long enough you have questions like yours and even, eventually, "Why didn't God just create heaven, put the saved there and dispense with the whole "life" thing altogether. We're just acting in a play here anyway."
****It’s in the Westminster Confession of Faith, it’s Calvin’s doctrine. Whether those who don’t support it are still Calvinists is not my area. ****
On the Westminster confession
By predestination they meant a positive decree determining to confer everlasting life ; and this they regarded as the basis of the whole doctrine of free grace, arising from nothing in man, but having for its divine origin the character and sovereignty of God. By foreordination, on the other hand, they meant a decree of order, or arrangement, determining that the guilty should be condemned to everlasting death ; and this they regarded as the basis of judicial procedure, according to which God “ordains men to dishonor and wrath for their sin,” and having respect to man’s own character and conduct. Let it be further remarked, that while, according to this view, the term predestination could never with propriety be applied to the lost, the term foreordination might be applied to the saved, since they also are the subjects, in one sense, of judicial procedure. Accordingly there is no instance in the Confession of Faith where the term predestination is applied to the lost,
http://www.reformed.org/index.html
SO YOUR INFO IS WRONG
There's a HUGE disparity between what the Catholic church's official position is supposed to be and what happens and is taught, at the local level.
Certainly. Consequently those of us who want to have some reliability when we talk about what the Church teaches do not rely on what we learned in CCD. We study. We inquire. We take pains. We gather reliable evidence BEFORE we judge.
It is no child's fault that he is poorly catechized. If an adult is content to rest at an elementary and middle school level of learning, he or she must give up hope of being considered an authority.
Either one would be an improvement. I’m trying to get you towards the Beatitudes at least.
the same little children that sat on his knee may have died at Jerusalem, what does “free will” have to do with it?
The Westminster Confession of Faith (1643)
By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.
Double Predestination is called “Calvinistic Predestination.” Whether various followers support part or all of TULIP or Double Predestination and still can be called Calvinists is their own call.
I feel accurate in calling Double Predestination, Calvinism, that’s what he believed and taught.
If other’s reject any part of Calvin’s teaching, that is to their credit and I commend them.
The beatitudes deal with those in the kingdom, the rest are out of luck
Catholics have it backwards: the earth and everything in it, including humble Jewish girls, were created by Christ. Mary did not create Christ.
That is an essential aspect of Mariology. She is a creature. She is NOT a creator. So we repeatedly and joyfully assert. YOu are attacking some teaching other than ours.
Text after text! From "Alma Redemptoris Mater: ...tu quae genuisti, natura mirante, tuum sanctum Genitorem translated in my breviary as "to the wonderment of nature you bore your Creator." She just 'bore'. He creates.
She must also be pre-existent,We do not say this. Do you have a text?
You account, depending as it does on things we do not say, blending the falsehoods with what we do say, leads to an unreliable result.
You seem already to the point of "Why does God bother with this "life" thing anyway?"
Spoken as one of the born lucky.
Congratulations.
It’s out there, Scully and sources have been posted, even Papal writings. Doesn’t matter, there’s postings and then there’s denials. It’s time y’all researched Catholic theology, not us
well the bible tells you why
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.