Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
In Christ Alone lyrics
Songwriters: Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;
In Christ alone my hope is found He is my light, my strength, my song This Cornerstone, this solid ground Firm through the fiercest drought and storm
What heights of love, what depths of peace When fears are stilled, when strivings cease My Comforter, my All in All Here in the love of Christ I stand
In Christ alone, who took on flesh Fullness of God in helpless Babe This gift of love and righteousness Scorned by the ones He came to save
?Til on that cross as Jesus died The wrath of God was satisfied For every sin on Him was laid Here in the death of Christ I live, I live
There in the ground His body lay Light of the world by darkness slain Then bursting forth in glorious Day Up from the grave He rose again
And as He stands in victory Sin?s curse has lost its grip on me For I am His and He is mine Bought with the precious blood of Christ
First,like I said many times, it is important for you to know that Mary remained a virgin because it is a historical truth received by the Chruch since the first days.
On that score, indeed among the many titles given Mary by the pious, there is "Spouse of the Holy Spirit". The title is of course quite scriptural because it is by the Holy Spirit that Christ was conceived by Mary.
Obviouly one cannot simply say "she was married to the Holy Ghost" and leave it at that. for one thingm, the Chruch never taught that her marriage to Joseph was somehow defective. But the idea of Mary having a unique relationship with God on so many levels helps understand why it was so logical for her to remain virgin. It is not merely a whim that she remained virgin: sex simply lost its meaning for her. We enjoy sex because through marital sex we learn something about God Who is the Creator (and sex creates) and Who is Love (and sex loves). But Mary learned about God directly and not through model substitution of sex. She probably was not interested, just liek an adult is not interested in playing with rattles and toy trucks.
Something similar happens with celibate priests and monastics. These are also forms of marriage, of sorts.
“But in order to be saved you cannot just wait for these works to be some kind of chemical product of the faith. You have to either do the good works or you will kill your faith, as St. James so thunderously states. “Why call you me, Lord, Lord; and do not the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46). Faith is what we do.”
That statement has so many contradictions in it as to be unintelligible.
How can lack of good works kill your faith if “Faith is what we do”?
One has to believe someone is Lord in order to call him “Lord”. What Jesus is saying is the evidence of that belief is obedience.
Your tag read “AKA Cool Breeze.”)
Hitting your name, getoffmylawn, takes you to one homepage.
Hitting your AKA name, Cool Breeze, takes you to another, different homepage.
You ID’ed yourself as having two open FR accounts which is against the rules of Free Republic.
Drop one.
-- My close friends call me "Cool Breeze", but you can call me "Sir Cool Breeze"
BTW, I'm not going to "drop one". Mind your own business, woman.
Nobody believes you.
You’ve been PWND.
I believe him. Unlike some of the serial and pathological liars who frequent these threads getoffmylawn has never given me a reason not to.
Why am I not surprised?
This exercise has been a great example of Roman Catholic hubris.
“I do NOT worship Mary. It only looks like I do when I’m kneeling and praying to her.”
“I do NOT have two names. Only this one and this one.”
“I am not prevaricating. I am telling you what I want you to believe.”
They think everyone is as blind as they are.
Mind your own business, woman.
Since we're in a conversation and you are apparently breaking the rules, it is my business and the business of anyone who happens to converse with you.
That's how rules work.
What a wonderful and orthodox post, SFA. Too bad it doesn’t match the Old Testament God—St. Tomas Aquinas’ brilliant attempt to reconcile notwithstanding.
annalex, you might as well be from Mars for all that we have in common. I honestly do not understand how you read, parse, and understand human language.
As for your reference to this particular canon of Trent with which you conclude your response to my previous post, to whit:
“If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.
Trent, Session 6, CANON IX”
This is nothing less than the spirit of antichrist, the exact negation of the very truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I already read it. Thanks.
annalex wrote:
“Obviouly one cannot simply say “she was married to the Holy Ghost” and leave it at that. for one thingm, the Chruch never taught that her marriage to Joseph was somehow defective. But the idea of Mary having a unique relationship with God on so many levels helps understand why it was so logical for her to remain virgin. It is not merely a whim that she remained virgin: sex simply lost its meaning for her. We enjoy sex because through marital sex we learn something about God Who is the Creator (and sex creates) and Who is Love (and sex loves). But Mary learned about God directly and not through model substitution of sex. She probably was not interested, just liek an adult is not interested in playing with rattles and toy trucks.”
Weird. Just weird. No wonder Sigmund Freud came up with the theories he did in the fertile ground of Catholic Vienna.
Catholics have been so conditioned to believe everything they’re told that someone claims is true, that they’re apparently incapable of thinking for themselves and distinguishing truth from fiction.
So, they’ll believe anything anyone claims in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
Especially if said person is Catholic.
Though, if a non-Catholic said the sky was blue and the sun rises in the east, they’d argue it on principle alone.
No, but adults ARE interested in sex. God made them that way. I'll betcha Joseph was interested. Too bad for him.
I'll bet he was pretty unhappy after God told him to not be afraid to take Mary AS HIS WIFE, when he found out what came with the package (according to Catholicism).
Joseph should be considered a better saint than Mary after finding out she had a headache every night of their married life.
Weird. Just weird. No wonder Sigmund Freud came up with the theories he did in the fertile ground of Catholic Vienna.
Catholicism just can't make up its collective mind what to do concerning sex. It's good, except when it's bad, except when it's good again.....
That is certainly the orthodox understanding of God of the Church, yet it doesn't correspond to the God of the Old Testament, who is—as you say—ruled by an implacable Necessity, and exhibits the most base of human emotions, such as jealousy, anger, even hate—a true Zeus-like pagan god indeed.
I know the Church spent much of her talent marrying up the two views of God, and +Irenaeus was the first among early apologists to do so, but it remains an awkward reconciliation if for no reasn other than because the Old Testament is so darn clear and direct when it comes to God's emotions.
Philo of Alexandria (the Alexandrian Jews who was so influential in forming the basis for the Christian Hellenization of Jesus, aka "St. Philo" in Eusebius' words!) did much to convince early Christians that that the Old Testament—despite its language to the contrary—is really an allegorical story not to be taken literally. Only viewed in that light can one begin to reason the Old Testament God as "no different" that the Christian God.
But allegorical reading is also problematic because it reduces the certainly of some vital verses to symbolism which is subject to interpretation when literalism is actually needed!
The biggest problem, then, is when to read something allegorically and when to read it literally. And that's when the human factor comes in, and corrupts everything, because an individual will tend to interpret controversial or unbelievable statements as allegorical and those which agree with a particular doctrine as literal.
And then there is what I call selective verse avoidance. The church can find Pauline verses which completely agree with the orthodox theology, and reads only those in its reading cycle, which the Protestants never quote because they don't agree with their theology, but rather read only those that do.
Ultimately, people believe what they want to believe because that is what gives them comfort (isn't that what faith is all about?). No one seems to believe in a God who is not their friend, imaginary or not. Everyone seems to believe in a God who loved them for whatever reason they can come up with, usually those who believe and try to imitate him.
But if God is not moved by human emotions then God would not insist that man believe in him, or become like him in order to save him.
If I have to believe something, it's safe to say I don't have evidence. If I do have evidence, then I know it for a fact and I don't have to have faith that it is so.My point is that you have basic assumptions and philosophical pre-commitments regarding metaphysical and epistemological matters such as the nature of reality, reason, laws of logic, explanation, certainty, universals, possibility, cause, and so on, which determine how you view evidence, and those assumptions about reality and knowledge have not and cannot be proved by empirical experience or logic, but rather it is by those beliefs that you proceed to prove everything else.
An example of this is your statement, "rejecting claims that cannot be backed with evidence is rational and justifiable. But how do you prove the claim itself? What evidence is there for it? If there isn't any evidence for it isn't it, on it's own terms a belief and therefore self-referential? Second, if believing something without evidence is irrational, is a person holding such a belief violating some sort of intellectual duty or obligation? Is such a person suffering from some sort of intellectual dysfunction?
Well, what you thing to be rational and justified depends upon your metaphysical and religious or philosophical assumptions. Your view as to what sort of creature a human being is will determine your views as to what is rational or irrational for human beings to believe and whether you think such persons are suffering from some sort of intellectual defect that deserves your approbation. Suppose you assume that the universe is a gigantic, uncreated, purposeless accident. The question then becomes, what is the evidence for the notion of matter in motion not functioning as it "ought" to function?
Ignorance of absolute truth does not allow us the freedom to invent truth, to create invisible and undetectable things and claim they exist. Our proofs must be compatible with our nature. We can't presume something exists unless we have evidence of it that is not only in our heads, but clearly demonstrable directly or indirectly.
Is a proof a visible, detectable thing? Where do these rules of thought that you espouse come from?
Cordially
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.