Posted on 09/02/2011 9:07:47 AM PDT by marshmallow
Minneapolis, Minnesota (CNN) –Prior to 2006, few people even knew that then-Minnesota state legislator Keith Ellison was a Muslim. Because of his English name, he said, no one thought to ask.
But five years ago, when he ran for a seat in the United States House of Representatives - a race he would go on to win - word of his religious affiliation began to spread.
“When I started running for Congress it actually took me by surprise that so many people were fascinated with me being the first Muslim in Congress,” said Ellison, a Democrat now serving his third term in the House.
“But someone said to me, ‘Look Keith, think of a person of Japanese origin running for Congress six years after Pearl Harbor–this might be a news story.’”
Though Ellison's status as the first Muslim elected to Congress is widely known, fewer are aware that he was born into a Catholic family in Detroit and was brought up attending Catholic schools.
But he said he was never comfortable with that faith.
“I just felt it was ritual and dogma,” Ellison said. “Of course, that’s not the reality of Catholicism, but it’s the reality I lived. So I just kind of lost interest and stopped going to Mass unless I was required to.”
It wasn’t until he was a student at Wayne State University in Detroit when Ellison began, “looking for other things.”
(Excerpt) Read more at religion.blogs.cnn.com ...
Thanks for the lesson. I totally get what you are saying but it seems to me that you are forgetting of whom we are speaking. We are not talking about the mundane conception of a baby.
Jesus, to be the Son of Man, a human, had to be born of a woman in the same way we all are. However, and here is the catch, He was not conceived by a man. In the normal course of human life, one needs the egg of a woman and the seed of a man. Jesus had only one side of that equation.
Each parent contributes half the genes of the newly created life, and from those genes, the fertilized egg develops. From these genes we get our skin tone, eye color, hair color, height, weight etc....dominant genes and heredity and all that if you will.
As His Father, the Holy Spirit did not have these human genes to pass along to Jesus in His human form, all of those had to have come from Mary. Simple biology.
Again, we are not talking about the ordinary here, we are talking of Jesus, God made Man. Though He was fully human, He was not ordinary was He?
When God formed woman from Adam’s rib, he says that she is flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone because she came from him. In like manner, so are our children, because they come from us.
So yes, though a completely separate person with a unique DNA, the child is still a product of the parent, flesh of their flesh, bone of their bone. And since Mary was the only human in the formation of that product, it was indeed her flesh that clothed Him.
We do know the exact stage the human Jesus “took up residence” in Mary’s womb. What an odd thing to say and what a disjointed and impersonal way to express His conception.
The angel tells Mary, “The Holy Spirit will overshadow you and you will conceive a child.”
Conception is a singular event. It happens when the egg is fertilized. So, Jesus was conceived and became human in that nanosecond of conception. He was not “placed” there in any other form or stage of human life, nor did He take up residency like Mary was a roadside inn or incubator.
Lastly, as to the alternate Mary question. I did answer it by referring you to the post in which I answered the same question from another poster.
#752 if I remember correctly.
Are you asking us to buy into a perverse Cartesian paradox in which Quix thinks it therefore it is? Or is this some appeal to understanding because of his sincerity? Do you not think Catholics are at least equally sincere in our beliefs such that we deserve the same courtesies you claim for Quix?
I weary of the abuse. You made the error. You are not shy about pointing out errors from my side. Shall I from now own characterize your doing so as hair-splitting?
There is a large difference between the meaning and nature of the ascension of the Lord and the assumption of our Lady. To blue the two is precisely to blur the difference between giver and recipient of a gift. And to blur that distinction is to blur the distinction between Jesus' role and Mary's in salvation.
Ok, so we agree she was “assumed” into heaven but she didn’t ascend. Was it a lateral assumption then?
Jokes appropriate to 8 year old boys do not persuade me to believe that you want or are able to have this conversation.
I think you need to go back and read my post again
One point your side makes is that there is only one intercessor/mediator, and therefore no one else can mediate or intercede. (or so your point seems to be.) I am addressing that. When that is settled, but not before, then I will move on to the communion of the living and the dead.
To scatter objections all over the field does not move the conversation or resolve the issue. This is not a high school debate or even a courtroom with a jury to be confused. It is, I hope, an inquiry into differences. So let us inquire.
And this misstatement of my position:
“proof” that your “teachers” rely and refer to scripture for their “teaching” leads me to think that you might find better playthings elsewhere.
Do ping me if you want to have an adult conversation.
LOL, I had to look up modo proleptico and am still not sure what it means. But, I do understand the premise of your post and think it is an apt way to explain Mary. I have said often that in her, we see the promises of Christ to us all fulfilled.
I would say that someone is a Catholic and doesn't believe those things, he needs to get clear in his own head why he's a Catholic.
And if someone isn't a Catholic and cares enough about it to take a thread about an apostate Muslim congresscritter and turn it into a donnybrook with Catholics, he should REALLY study his opposition rather than confine himself to what those on his side say about us.
I think thoughtlessness is a vice and negligent ignorance can be a sin. Leaving aside "getting into heaven" I would think people would want to avoid vices and sins out of their love of God and His goodness.
Just one question, Cronos. Do you believe that God spoke directly to Moses and that the words Moses gave Israel were: a. inspired by God, or b. Given to Moses directly FROM God to give to Israel?
It's not mind reading if I know if for a fact. I've had several long conversations with Quix about this matter and have talked with him at length to make certain that I understand what it is that he believes. His views were so odd that I had to make certain that I understood them correctly and, after talking with him, I have to admit that he has a point.
Do a study on what Jesus said about following tradition that was not backed up by scripture. Here’s one passage that may serve to get you started.
Mark 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. 9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
Then there is this admonition and example.
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Over and over again we are shown examples of proving what men teach by scripture “to see if it is true”.
So pro-lepsis "grasping before."
One way to talk about the Kingdom and the life of the Church between the Incarnation and the end is that it is "proleptic". The Future keeps breaking into the present.
This is not some kind of exotic concept, though the name is exotic. When the French underground in eastern France learned of the success of the D-Day invasion, they could draw strength from the way that success assured the coming victory. So they could fight more boldly. That's a kind of secular prolepsis.
The Eucharist is everything we usually talk about, but it is also a present instance of the future banquet in our Father's house. Prolepsis.
We look forward to sinlessness and to enjoying all the delights promised with the added richness of "spiritual bodies" -- "changed from glory into glory" as the hymn says.
Mary is a kind of token of that future promise. Not only does he promise this gift to all, but he's already given it to Mary.
I have said often that in her, we see the promises of Christ to us all fulfilled.
Yup. Praise God!
Before you dare to lecture me about calling others a liar, remove that beam from your own eye first.
If you noticed I did agree that I used the wrong word. Playing word semantics however doesn’t release you from proving your contention that the “assumption” of Mary is based in scripture. I will remind you that often in scripture we are admonished and encouraged to search scripture to see if what the “teachers” teach is true.
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Then there are Jesus words about how he felt about tradition not being proven by scripture.
Mark 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. 9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
There are no glowing endorsement of tradition not backed by scripture from Him.
You still haven’t addressed the scriptural basis for either the assumption of Mary or praying to people who are no longer living. The adult response would be to do that forthwith if it’s possible wouldn’t it?
Whoa there Cupcake, you better get some thicker skin or stay in the cooking and knitting threads. I only reminded you that calling me a liar, as you did on post #601, is against Forum Rules. We would all hate to see that stinking pile removed, and you with it, now wouldn't we.
My primary complaint against calling Mary a Co-Redeemer is that she had no part in the actual redemptive work on the Cross. I understand and fully support the adoration and honor that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have paid to Mary, as this is completely Scriptural and is not something which I would speak against. That said, however, I cannot in good conscious declare Mary a Co-Redemptrix due to the fact that it was Christ, not Mary, which provided the blood sacrifice for our redemption back to the Father.
I completely understand that Mary willingly acted as a vessel to carry the Christ child in her womb, and for that we should do as the Scriptures state and honor her above all other women, but the act of redemption cannot be performed by any other than Christ Himself. Mary, for all of her honorable actions, could not provide the perfect, sinless sacrifice which the Father required, only Christ could fill that requirement and because of that only Christ is worthy of being called the Redeemer of Mankind.
As for the "Mary Ishtar Worship" or whatever it is that Quix calls it, while I don't think that most Catholics intend that their adoration of Mary be viewed as worship, the similarities are there to the point that some have began to fear that the same demon who seduced the Babylonians into worshiping her has infiltrated this portion of the RCC. This, coupled with Mary's status within the RCC as co-redeemer has many of us outside of the RCC worried quite a bit.
I hope that this begins to explain some of our hostility towards what we perceive as Mary worship.
I'm not the one who compared other FReepers to Hitler in post #5 now was I? Who's got the thin skin now?
It has nothing to do with either his sincerity or a perverse Cartesian paradox. Quix has pointed out to me the underlying message of these “aliens” is always anti-Christian and anti-Christ in it’s nature. It always points to an origin of creation and redemption that is other than from the Father. If you would like to delve into it more, I can provide links to others who have dealt with these creatures before and have found evidence lending support to this idea, but my main concern is that a Christian Brother is being met with scorn and ridicule from those who should value him the most due to the fact that they claim to be from the same spiritual family.
Are you denying the fact that Adolf Hitler, like many of the anti-Catholics on these threads, was an ex-Catholic?
If we don't intend it as worship, it isn't worship. I know when I am worshipping, don't you? Others can mistakenly view it as whatever they want, it doesn't make them right. It makes them offensive, and their utterances false. Your "worrying" -- as you called it in your post -- about something false, not happening, and ridiculous is fruitless "worry" and affects the state of our souls not at all.
That all explains your "worry" but not the hostility you mention in your last paragraph. Maybe you can get into that sometime. Because your hostility over your fruitless pointless "worry" over nothing is just evil.
So you're making it personal again? You pinged those other FReepers to this thread in post #5 when they hadn't even posted in it yet. So, if we're to judge by what you're saying here and declare that all those ex-Catholics which you pinged are akin to Hitler, have you stopped molesting those children yet like your pedophile priests were doing?
Better yet, have you murdered any innocents yet in the name of the Inquisition? That's as Catholic as it comes.
Face it, if you're going to troll other Christians you might want to be careful about how you go about doing it. The Catholic Church has enough blood on it's hands due to renegade priests and what not to paint you as Satan's right hand man.
I thought that once a Catholic always a Catholic. If Hitler was baptized into the Catholic Church, rather he later renounced it or not, the Catholic Church still considered him a member. You’re not denying this most important point of Hotel Catholicfornia, are you? I know, I know, people can be excommunicated. Was he excommunicated?
Please quote my exact words for which you are taking me to task.
Semantics matter.
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.