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
That's one way to look at it. But not the only way.
From the earliest days, the Church understood itself as being meant for all men
So is Judaism. The difference is that the Jews are the ordained clergy-nation, while the Gentiles are the Noachide congregation.
When St. Peter tells his audience "you are a priestly nation" who is he addressing, given that he was an apostle to the circumcision?
I admit I didn't have time to read the whole post, so this may be a shot in the dark, but how will you argue on the ground of reaoson if you don't have the liberty to argue, if your oponents don't have the stomach for it, but can only tolerate an atmosphere of one-sided partisanship?
Since there is so much heresy and blasphemy on the RF, one would think that there would be a campaign by real truth-promoters to shut down the RF, even if that meant giving up the opportunity to claim holier-than-thou status.
There's more than one way to look at most anything -- I thought it was clear that I was merely stating how I look at it! ;-)
So is Judaism. The difference is that the Jews are the ordained clergy-nation, while the Gentiles are the Noachide congregation.
Judaism got to that point, but it didn't start out there, and progress was . . . let's say "uneven."
When St. Peter tells his audience "you are a priestly nation" who is he addressing, given that he was an apostle to the circumcision?
I'm not sure what your point is here.
That is not "another". In several places St. Paul explains that works of the Law, Jewish Law or any other are not necessary for salvation, and we Catholics agree with him. In that passage, as well, he repeats that. Note verse 10.
As to Abraham's faith, St. Paul also lists the works that Abraham did to glorify God. His circumcision is not one of them. So does St James. (Hebrews 11:8-19, James 2:21-24). So, in the example of Abraham whose faith is indeed an inspiration for us, we conclude with St. James, -- Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?
Does this standard [Matthew 5:38-48] apply to Catholics when it comes to the sinlessness of Mary, her perpetual virginity, her immaculate conception, and her assumption? So, when Catholics evade the clear teaching of Scripture about Jesus siblings, then by your standard we can ridicule you back?
The standard of the Sermon of the Mount, and generally the standard of divine perfection in Matthew 5:48 applies to Catholics. In fact it applies to everyone, the Protestant just think they can avoid applying it to thmselves through their sleazy "faith alone" maneuvre.
As to these Mary issues, I agree that the scripture is not alone sufficient to teach about her lifelong sinlessness and virginity; we don't teach that from the Bible but rather from the Holy Tradition whence the entire knowledge of Mary and her life comes.
It is however false that there is a "clear teaching of Scripture about Jesus siblings". There is the correct usage of the word "adelphos/adelpheh" that may include other relatives or even apparent relatives. That usage does not preclude actual brothers in the narrow sense, but it does not prove it. The Protestant error is to read the English translation as if it were the original and pretend that they cannot understand the explanation of what the text means.
Do we Catholics love the Protestants? We love you all, and we hate your theology because your theology is false and leads you away from the Holy Church, the pillar and foundation of truth. How can we, as we love you, not hate that?
No one here agrees with that; I sure didn't "admit" that. It helps one who weants to be taekn seriously in a conversation to understand the posts you are referring to or at least point to the one that gave you this impression.
... and that, lo and behold, the word used in the NT actually meant BROTHER after all!
"Adelphoi/adelpheh" can mean biological brother/sister as well as a nephew/niece, step brother/sister, half brother/sister, adopted siblings, and even playmates, in the Greek and Hebrew usage. The "brothers" passages do not prove that Jesus had only brothers of another mother, but neither they prove that He had brothers from the same mother. They prove that He grew up in a large family.
I still haven't seen an answer to my question about why, if Joseph had other kids, he failed to bring them along with him when he had to go to Nazareth to register his family for the census? If they were left with family instead then why couldn't Mary also have been left seeing as how she was so close to her delivery?
Do me a favor. If you have a question to me, wait till I get around to that post and read the answer. If my answer for some reason missed that question, write a Freepmail to me and I will answer that one ahead of the line. However, you seem to have that figure of speech "I still haven't got an answer" which implies that I avoided answering something. Please try "I have a question" instead. I wouldn't be here if I did not want to answer your questions.
Now, the Bible does not tell us anything about the age of the brothers or what kind of brothers were they. I don't think it even tells us that they traveled to Bethlehem (not Nazareth) without them. The possibilities are that they were indeed left with the relatives as underage, or that they were grown up and were left alone, or traveled to Betholehem alone. That Mary had to travel is because she was the wife and a grown up and so subject to census.
Has anyone ever stated how old James the less was? If he really was a stepbrother to Jesus he had to be older than him. So when was he born...?
Ditto, we don't know and we don't even know for sure if St. James was a son of St. Joseph. Yes, if he was, then he would have to be older.
I'm not sure what your point is here
The point is that St. Peter was addressing Jewish Christians as the priestly nation. Remember, Jesus was sent, in his own words, to the lost sheep of Israel only, and he defines the lost sheep of Israel very clearly as not Gentiles and not Samaritans. I know, Matthew 28:19 suggests otherwise. That's another issue.
Judaism had a place for Gentiles as well as for the Jews ever since the Great Flood, when God gave all humans his seven Noachiade Laws to abide by. Gentiles are not held to any other task. They are to be the congregation and the Jews the priestly nation required to do what priests do.
The idea of a universal priesthood is a latter day development (a work in progress as you call it) that was necessitated by the turn of events that saw Christianity condemned as an apostate sect, kicked out of Israel, and left to itself to survive. Which it did, by becoming a hallenized religion acceptable to pagan Greeks and Romans.
I know this is not what they teach in Sunday school. That would be counter-productive. But the history tells us otherwise.
Well now isn't this revealing.....the ENTIRE knowledge of Mary and her life comes from catholic tradition...and not from the Bible....amazing confession Annalex.
So then 'anyone' can write their own rendition of the story about Mary and her life, (for that matter any Biblical person), and pass their ideas and imaginations of how they see her on thru the ranks of 'any religion' and call it truth. Then obtain the seal of approval from the leadership........draw a few pictures...form a few or various idols and icons...and there you have a new entity in which to worship.
So then how is that any different than fables and yarns passed thru the lineage of other religions who say they have their own truth and their leaderships approval as other religions also do this very thing and claim they are the only true religion. Even New Agers do this as well as Mormons and Eastern Religions.
The article is about the failure of what boundless liberty leads to ,not liberty to argue
As the late Fulton Sheen says... “boundless liberty leads to boundless tyranny”. Uncontrolled freedom will always lead a person into slavery. The second alternative can be found in people who have no direction. Their fleeting desires change without there ever being an internal change of the soul, and they are unable to choose between the many attractions and temptations in life. But there is hope because there is a searching. Those who are empty can be filled, but people who are intoxicated with their own egos have no room for God.
Good post boatbums...and great questions. Response should prove interesting I would think..
“”consider for a moment if you can that others feel the same about yours. So why are you “right” and they re “wrong?”””
I try to consider what other people believe and they are free to believe whatever they want,all I can do is try and imitate what I believe God is through my actions towards others in love and humility(which I admit that I fail sometimes)
I would never believe that God is not anything but love because He would lack perfection,so when I see the OT represent God as hateful I understand that these things a metaphoric because God cannot have love and hate in Him or he would not be perfection,Thus can not be God
If it [inspiration] is by the breath of God, working to “move” men by the Holy Spirit
So, you don't believe the Holy Spirit is God? Another non-Tirniatrian "Christian?"
How or what do you extrapolate that? You must know that the Hebrew the same word for breath means Spirit, and second Peter 1:21 states that men were moved by the Holy Spirit. Also, Jesus is called the arm of the Lord and the Holy Spirit is called the finger, none of such is contrary to to the Trinity.
If it is by the breath of God, working to “move” men by the Holy Spirit, then the key issue is not how it works but that it does, and should not be unduly restricted
Who says it works? People who wrote the Bible wrote what they believed. They were moved by their faith. That's no different than anyone else. People write what they believe.
The issue was about the nature of Divine inspiration in which you restricted, opposing that of the Roman Catholic Church, and my response was propositional. While it seems you must oppose any statement that affirms Divine inspiration, the point is that Roman Catholic Church, who you argue has the right to define doctrine, disagrees with you.
Outside the hijack, in writing Scripture God can give a a holy man discernment on the truth of accounts, and inspire by impressing a spiritual man how and what to write down regarding such
If you say so.
The issue was how Divine inspiration may be understood, not that you had to subscribe to it.
but records that many who did miraculous works will be revealed as having only that as a testimony, versus a faith with works which corresponded to repentance...
So what? This is something you believe and I don't. Why should I believe you?
Once again, the issue is your take on Matthew 7:22 (though you said Mt. 7:12) regarding assurance of salvation, and while you contest Rome on inspiration, and which also allows for special of relation providing assurance, I tried to reason with you showing the Scriptures, which you don't necessarily have to believe in order to following argument, if you want to be reasonable.
And militant atheists also fit the description you gave , and with easily provoked antagonistic contentious dispositions.
Militant atheists are zealots just like militant evangelicals. Same fundamentalist mind set, different god.
Kosta50, if anyone’s hold here should be considered tenuous it would be yours.
No one is forcing you to post to me. I merely reminded you to stop using personally disparaging remarks (such as "you seem incapable" or "your narrow-minded denigrations") with someone you choose to debate.
I don't go around making personal comments about you capabilities or lack therefor, or your narrow-mindedness even if I thing you are. You believe the Bible and I don't, so stop quoting it to me unless you are prepared to allow me to respond without classifying it as "denigration."
You are warning about disparaging remarks? You excel at them as the evidence shows, while my question, “as you do seem incapable of dealing with the anything related to the Bible and God without ending up in your narrow minded denigrations..why should i give you excuse to express more of the same?” was well-justified as that is your propensity even if one attempts a civil discussion which touches on the integrity of the Bible or Protestantism.
This is one of your retreats into formalism which you have resorted to before.
Well, this is your retreat to "lableism," which you have resorted to before. What I said is that the disciples were sent to proclaim the good news and not to engage in theological lectures. They were supposedly simple fisherman after all.
It is neither a retreat nor a need, as you look for an explicit command to the apostles to write down the gospel, and suppose that the commission to preach the gospel precluded writing the message down so that common people could read it. Yet Jesus obviously affirmed the practice of writing Divine revelation, and tutored his unlettered disciples by them, and commanded them to teach others, and there is more than one way to preach.
In addition, the issue was about the basis for Rome's rejection of private interpretation, and she bases her doctrine on more than the gospels, while you reject accepts 2Tim. 3 as being inspired by the Spirit of Christ. Your argument that it is “clear” based upon silence that Jesus wanted his message taught by "experts" and not read is simply unreasonable.
And it cannot be permitted by you that even though writing down revelation from God was the norm,
Who says?
Do you mean who says it cannot be permitted? That is apparent by your rejection of the warrant for it versus an argument from silence and restricting preaching to only being orally. As for who says that was the norm to write Divine revelation, below are references on Scripture being written and having been so. And while there some evidence of revelation being not written, (Jn. 21:25; 2Cor. 12:4; Rev. 10:4) it is interesting that i find no place where the specific term “the word of God” or “the word of the Lord” refers to revelation for which the content was not subsequently written down. Ex. 17:14; 24:4,7,12; 31:18; 32:15; 34:1,27; 35:29; Lv. 8:36; 10:10; 26:46; Num. 4:5,37,45,49; 9:23; 10:13; 15:23; 16:40; 27:23; 33:2; 36:13; Dt. 4:13; 5:22; 9:10; 10:2,4; 17:18,19; 27:3,8; 28:58,61; 29:20,21,27; 30:10; 31:9,11,19,22,26; Josh. 1:8; 8:31,32,34,35; 10:13; 14:2; 20:2; 21:2; 22:9; 23:6; 24:26; Jdg. 3:4; 1Sam. 10:25; 2Sam. 1:8; 1Ki. 2:3; 8:53,56; 12:22; 2Ki. 1:8; 14:6; 17:37; 22:8,10,13,16; 23:2,21; 1Ch. 16:40; 17:3,9; 2Ch. 23:18; 25:4; 31:3; 33:8; 34:14,15,18,21,24; 34:30; 35:6,12; Ezra 3:2,4; 6:18; Neh. 6:6; 8:1,3,8,15,18; 9:3,14; 10:34,36; 13:1; Psa. 40:7; Is. 8:20; 30:8; 34:16; 65:6; Jer. 17:1; 25:13; 30:2; 36:2,6,10,18,27,28; 51:60; Dan. 9:11,13; Hab. 2:2;
Refs to Scripture in the New Testament: Mat. 1:22; 2:5,15; 3:3; 4:4,6,7,10,14; 8:17; 11:10; 12:3,5,17; 13:35; 19:4; 21:4,13,16,42; 22:29,31; 24:15; 26:24,31,54,56; 27:9,34; Mark 1:2; 7:3; 9:12,13; 10:5; 11:17; 12:10,19,24,26 13:14; 14:21,47,49; Lk. 2:3,23; 3:4; 4:4,8,10,16,17,20; 7:27; 10:26; 18:31; 19:46; 20:17,42; 22:37, 24:22.27,32,44,45,46; Jn. 2:17; 5:39,46,47; 6:31,45; 7:42,52; 8:17; 12:14; 10; 34; 12:14,16; 15:25; 20:31; 21:24; Acts 1:20; 2:16-21,25-28,34,35; 7:42; 8:28,30,32; 7:42; 3:33; 13:29,33; 15:15,21; 17:2,11; 18:24,28; 23:5; 24:14; Rom 1:2,17; 2:24; 3:4,10; 4:17; 8:36; 9:3,13,33; 10:15; 11:8,26; 12:19; 14:11; 15:3,4,9,21; 16:16; 1Cor. 1:19,31; 2:9; 3:19; 4:6; 9:9,10; 10:7,11; 14:21; 15:3,4,45,54; 2Cor. 1:13; 2:3,4; 3:7,15; 4:13; 7:12; 8:15; 9:9; Gal. 3:10,13; 4:22,27; Eph. 3:3,4; Col. 4:16; 1Thes. 5:27; 2Tim. 3:15; Heb. 7:28; 10:7; 13:22; 1Pet. 1:16; 5:12; 2Pet. 3:15,16; 1Jn. 2:21; 5:13; Rev. 1:3,11; 22:6,7;10,18,19 (Note: while the Bible reveals that there is revelation which is not written down, (2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 10:4)
and which Jesus Christ implicitly affirmed, and even though He reproved his unlettered disciples for not for believing what was written in the Scriptures concerning him, (Lk. 24:25-27)
There are numerous sites, to use your argument, that shown that there is nothing written about Jesus in the OT, but that it is a Christian innovation.
That issue is another thread, while the argument was your assertion that 2Pt. 1:20 forbade PI, and Rome's restriction on it, with interpretation being restricted to the magisterium.
No, the objection by the Church (not just by Rome) is that by private interpretation the morality of the Bible becomes relative. It is clear that Jesus wanted his message taught by "experts" and not read.
..even though He reproved his unlettered disciples for not for believing what was written in the Scriptures concerning him, (LK. 24:25-27) that He expected them to eventually write down what they had seen and heard, and to promote fluency in the Scriptures.
Where did he command them to write anything down and to promote "fluency in the Scriptures"?
In context, i was referring to the unreasonable nature of your disallowing this as a conclusion based upon the established pattern which He implicitly affirmed. Jesus often invoked Scripture from the beginning of His ministry to the end, which He would not have had the texts unless it was the practice to write it, and He specifically opened up the minds of the disciples to the understanding of the Scriptures. (Lk. 24:45) If they were to follow Jesus, they would have done likewise. And in the rest of the New Testament, which the Church of Rome accepts, it shows that writing of Divine revelation continued as a pattern.
[That is Paul, and Paul is no Christ. Christ never said what Paul said] That is irrelevant as regards Rome's opposition to private interpretation, which was the issue, as she affirms the opposite of what you oppose.
You have this fixation with Rome, and I don't understand why you keep referencing it to me.
Fixation? Your assertion that Protestants are to submit to Rome as being the authority over Scripture was how this exchange began and was primarily about, only to have you reject her definition of inspiration, etc.
I already told you that private interpretation leads to relative morality, that every individual creates his own "theology." That's why you have endless denominations and interpretations and no one is of the same mind as they are supposed to be. Something's wrong with private interpretation.
Actually, the things which Catholics must give assent to faith in corresponds to the core essentials evangelicals most universally consent to, while very little all of the Bible has been infallibly defined by the Catholic Church, and they can have varying degrees of disagreement on non-infallible teachings of the Ordinary and General magisteriums. And as there is no infallible list of all infallible teachings, there is disagreement upon all of which ones are. This is pointed out by the Orthodox.
Related to this, “the Catholic Bible interpreter has the liberty to adopt any interpretation of a passage that is not excluded with certainty by other passages of Scripture, by the judgment of the magisterium, by the Church Fathers, or by the analogy of faith. That is a great deal of liberty, as only a few interpretations will be excluded with certainty by any of the four factors circumscribing the interpreter’s liberty” (Jimmy Akin, Catholic Answers)
Moreover, Rome's official doctrinal unity is not necessarily greater than that of any single Protestant denomination. And if doctrinal conformity is the real goal itself, then the Watchtower Society would have the preeminence. And in this case the means of such unity is by implicit trust in an ecclesiastical office, versus men being persuaded by “manifestation of the truth.” The former means has greater quantity, while I would submit of the latter is of greater quality, however more rare it may be. Meanwhile, the basic unity the among evangelicals, which is manifest in many ways, is overall greater than the divisions among them, however deleterious they are.
Jesus never promoted it., so why should Christians?
Jesus appealed to man's reasoning as a means of discerning spiritual meaning, including from Scripture, from the fallible Pharisees to the common people (Mk. 12:36,37) to his disciples, (search refs above), and Rome actually realizes this this appeal is valid and necessary in bringing people to submit to Rome. However, once they have they are discouraged from objectively using it in order to ascertain the validity of her infallible teachings.
Because Paul said so. But Paul is no Christ.
Well again, since it is Rome's restriction that is at issue, and she accepts the plenary inspiration of all Scripture, and derives her doctrine from more than the Gospels, this must be included.
With 7 posts from you in one day (with typos) you are a match, and i think it should be evident whose interpretive authority is at issue, just as i can deduce what you mean with your frequent typos.
I am a sloppy typist, what can I say. And FR's spell checker seems to have a mind of its own. :) BTW, you can improve your proof reading too.
A small percentage, but typos would be far worse if it were not for Firefox (marks typos as you type)
As for the number of posts, that was intended to break down your "book" responses, never mind the color show.
Partly due to your many assertions which require substantiation, and going off on another point when shown to be wrong on the one at issue. And the color is formatting others find helpful.
No, you have a manifest problem with the God of the Bible,
Or the Koran, or the Upanishads, etc. I said man-made God. I don't know of any other kind.
Not uniquely, as Rome infallibly asserts the Bible is and its God is true
So? The difference is that, unlike the Protestants, the Catholic Church has enough humility to say to preach hope rather than certainty.
Her hope does not refer to “hope its true” which would be contrary to her assuredly infallible magisterium, but a hope that one effectually believes the truth, versus presumption. But despite your affirmation of her in seeking to subdue Protestants, you effectively do denigrate her Bible and God.
You have said more than this, and you are insulting both Catholics and Protestant as well,
Insults are not lacking on Christian forums. Pretty telling, isn't it? If I find someone's worship to be "pagan-like" that's my impression, which seems too much for those with mind-police mentality, but they don't mind when Mary is called all sorts of unflattering things.
Insults themselves were not the issue, but your defense that your insults were only aimed at Protestants in defense of Rome, while you oppose its Bible and its God as well. And i do not engage in denigrating Mary, while opposing extreme exaltation, and try to have reasonable debates.
as both faiths are in opposition to your arrogant attacks and blasphemy of the God of the Bible and Paul etc.
So, what now? A Fatwah? This is not a Christian-only Forum. It's a Religion Forum, all things about religion, any religion. People say all sorts of "blasphemous" things on these threads. Mary is a particular target of Protestants, and the Catholic Church in general. The Trinity is attacked and denied, etc. Not to talk about some other less popular religions.
You are the one who seems to have a sworn Fatwah against the Bible, while my statement her was in response to your inference that you were consistent with the rules of this pro-God forum.
As for being within RF rules, they are part of FR statements on its general ethos, and somehow you suppose that you are consistent with such as, For God, Family, Country, Life and Liberty!! If you cannot live with the above, fine, but keep your mouth shut about it while on FR. Don't fight against us on ANY of our deeply held beliefs!!”
I have already told you that I am not against God. It's obvious from all my posts that I have objections and questions about man-made Gods. I am not against Country (I served this country 20+ years in uniform), I am not against Family, Life or LIBERTY! I recognize everyone's right to speak their mind and to have no "official truth" religion as the greatest gift of America. And, this is not a caucus thread.
Thank you for your service, but as for this forum, the reality is that as you relegate all Gods to being man-made ones, you oppose being pro-God in any real Christian sense, to which their nation owes so much, while you denigrate the faith of those who attempt to reason with you as to warrant for it. While you do have freedom to do so, yet it can hardly be supposed that you support the FR pro-God intent.
The only one who seems to be against liberty and freedom of speech and belief is you, by telling me to shut up because my idea of God is different from yours.
I think you have gone over the top. From what you say you would have silenced some of American Founding Fathers for their religious stance! In the name of Liberty! I have nothing more to say to you.
I do NOT tell you to be silent because you expressed an idea of God different from mine, and you said here that you do not know of any except man-made ones, nor would i have silenced AFF (though Paine's attacks where discouraged), but the problem is your reacting with censorious attacks when you see something that touches on the integrity of the Bible and its claims, mainly by Protestants.
I thank God we were able to have a fairly civil debate regarding the first infallible definition of the Roman Catholic canon however. Good day, over and out.
Galatians 3
1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. 2Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? 3Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? 4 Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? 5Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— 6just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?
7Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” 9So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
10For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” 12But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— 14so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
15 To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. 16Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. 17This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
19Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. 20Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.
21Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.
Even in isolation man is never completely free, SFA. He is still subject to his environment and forces that are greater than he.
In any even a minuscule group or society, the pecking order established limits to liberty. Anarchy is untenable because it is unnatural.
As the late Fulton Sheen says... “boundless liberty leads to boundless tyranny”.
Of individuals in power only. And even then their tyranny is not boundless but will, in the worst case, expire with their life. Nothing human is boundless.
It's good to believe in God who is love. It is better for the whole world. But the world is not made to our measure, taste or order, so why would God be? Just asking...
To: annalex; metmom; Quix
we don’t teach that from the Bible but rather from the Holy Tradition whence the entire knowledge of Mary and her life comes.
Well now isn’t this revealing.....the ENTIRE knowledge of Mary and her life comes from catholic tradition...and not from the Bible....amazing confession Annalex.
So then ‘anyone’ can write their own rendition of the story about Mary and her life, (for that matter any Biblical person), and pass their ideas and imaginations of how they see her on thru the ranks of ‘any religion’ and call it truth. Then obtain the seal of approval from the leadership........draw a few pictures...form a few or various idols and icons...and there you have a new entity in which to worship.
So then how is that any different than fables and yarns passed thru the lineage of other religions who say they have their own truth and their leaderships approval as other religions also do this very thing and claim they are the only true religion. Even New Agers do this as well as Mormons and Eastern Religions.
5,649 posted on Monday, December 20, 2010 9:02:54 AM by caww
INDEED.
THX.
Absolutely, good point.
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.