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 ...
The flesh is good. Genesis says God thought so.
The problem with the FALLEN flesh is it has a tendency to death, while Spirit vivifies. So Paul's opposition between flesh and spirit can be best understood ( I think, this is MY deal) as an opposition between the dying aspect of us and the coming to life aspect.
The way Paul talks about Baptism is that it is dying and being buried (which is why when I'm pope we're going back to full immersion) AND resurrection. Thereafter the 'tension' is between the old me that died and the new me (yet not I, but Christ lives in me) that is coming to life.
As that comrehensible? IF it is, then it is gnostic to overstress the opposition, to think that the flesh is icky or bad.
That kind of thing.
Oh yeah.
BTW, I’m working on saying “inconsistency” when I want to say “hypocrisy”.
Did the glorified body of Christ appear as it did before the resurrection? I mean, He looked the same did He not? And the body bore the wounds of His passion didn’t it?
I don't know the history of the idea.
In 17 years as a Catholic I have not heard the topic come up once in a sermon, and certainly not in a Mass.
As to Mary's 'pre'-destination, in our view it's not God looking ahead. We think he beholds all time at once.
If I seem more than usually superficial it's because I am more than usually tired.
Did you get a promotion so that now you can speak for "everyone here"? I don't recall voting. I understand what Quix means by the term and I am not offended by it, why are you? I DO, however, recognize that the constant, unconnected and irrelevant denigration of him only makes YOU look bad. Kinda like the "spitwads" the Moderator warns everyone about that only get launched when the poster has nothing of value to add to the discussion.
Now if it could only be done without those doing the reaching out being called hateful, anti-Muslim bigots.
It is a very thin tightrope on which we trod.
Our country celebrates the freedom of religion.
Yet, we are faced with a religion that seeks destruction of our country.
How do we deal with it?
Pre 9-11 there was no question of the welcome of Muslims here.
Post 9-11 we must look hard at what we can do to guarantee their freedoms while still protecting the country.
Ten years later, only a few are willing to brave scorn to bring this to the attention of the American people. Pete King(?) of New York is one. But, so far he is a lone voice crying in the wilderness.
To be honest, I was not the first to post those verses to your query. Regarding whether this "man" meant the human race, I would answer not specifically in this passage seeing as it names the first man - Adam. However, after this first failure of "a" man the sin nature was passed down to all "men" - humanity - male and female and even neuter. As to the theoretical clone, if it's a "human" being, then the sin nature is still there. All have sinned means ALL.
It is an interesting argument that Jesus, who had a human mother and a Divine "father" did not get the "sin" nature, is only that, an interesting topic of discussion. Scripture clearly states Jesus, in his humanity, was tempted at all points like we are, yet he was without sin. He did not sin because he was God incarnate, not because he was a perfect "human" proving such a thing is remotely possible for any other humans.
You said:
You just shot yourself in the foot with that one, MD.
Mary gave birth to the person who was the Christ, who was God in nature but not God as a person, therefore by your own reasoning, could not have given birth to God.
He was God AND Man as a person. I did not say he was not God (simply understood) as a person.
If Jesus was GOD, the person, then He was confined to a human body for His sojourn on earth and when He was crucified, the Romans crucified GOD. God died.
I don't know my way through what died and what didn't die on Calvary yet.
However, It was God the SON of God who Jesus was. Yes. The Romans Crucified God the Son of God. He let them. He interceded for them.
As to the confinement, don't forget eternity.God, all three persons, behold all of Time and Space in one 'here and now'. So I'm not sure he's confined in the sense that all he can do while He's incarnate is be incarnate. We need Kolokotronis. I think he's better at the Trinity and the Incarnation than I am. Is that what you're really saying because it sure sounds like it. Otherwise, it is treating Jesus as if that is all of God that there is.
There is similar stuff in Plate and Plotinus. There is something about the contemplation of oneness that seems to cry out for a threeness. Even the Hindus have their trimurti.
I think what Nicea adds is sense of God freely being what He is and the idea of Love as the force that keeps the three persons in community.
Our new bodies will mostly only look like the old ones. There will be some of the same functions, eating for example, but they will not be the corruptible, decaying, sin riddled human bodies we have now.
The changes will be intrinsic, not extrinsic.
Hey, call me anything but late for supper, as the saying goes.;o)
You use some pretty harsh words to define "us", yet the doctrines I hold to are hardly unique nor the sole domain of the Paulicians. Lots of people reject the worship of icons - the Jews particularly in obedience to the first commandment. I no more prefer the epistles of Paul than I do any other Scripture - ALL scripture is God-breathed. Strike two. I reject the title for Mary than states she is God's mother, but, again, I am not alone in that. In fact, many ECFs rejected that terminology. I do NOT "detest" the Eucharist, only the mistaken belief that a priest can change the very substance of bread and wine into physical flesh and blood rather than a spiritual recognition. I also reject the doctrine that regular receiving of the Eucharist is critical to the infusion of grace necessary for salvation. I believe we receive Jesus Christ as our "bread of life" and his blood as the "propitiation" for our sins when we believe in him and trust in his sacrifice for our sins. When we observe the Lord's Supper, we are doing so in remembrance of him. Strike three. OOPS.
You can certainly call me whatever you choose, yet those who know what that term really means will not be fooled by false invectives.
Good post. I mean that. Not only civil, but I believe, some honest thought put into it, as well as nonsensical frivolities eliminated.
For the record I still maintain, as far as a human being goes, and with regards to the question of whether or not a given human being commits idolatry, that God, with His perfect Heart, judges our heart accordingly, and not outward actions alone.
At this point I wouldn’t say anymore usually, but I would genuinely like to know at this time: Do you agree or disagree with what the preceding paragraph states? Please state your reasons if you are so inclined. Thank you.
You’re really on a roll tonight.
LOL!!!
Don't make me laugh! Your context implied that a long time had passed before any of the Bible books were written. You probably said so to make the impression that the "church" was the arbiter of what was true way before there even was any New Testament scripture.
Cynical Bear made the statement that your implication was wrong and proved it by showing the probable dates for when each book was written - most within the first few decades after Christ's ascension. You constantly have stated, "Some books weren't even written until the second century.", implying that we cannot have certainty that the authors WERE even who we know them to be.
If you had said the Scriptures weren't even written until twenty or thirty years after the ascension, then no one would have argued about it, since it is true. That is really hardly any time at all considering the mission the disciples undertook to preach the Gospel across the world. But to say "a generation" or "generations" makes it sound like your usual second century and beyond contention rather than the truth.
My contention is, and always has been, that saying that Mary was the mother of Christ says something different than Mary was the mother of God.
GOD, is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal, without beginning or end.
Christ, during His incarnation, had a point of conception, although His nature didn’t.
It’s a technicality, but it is a distinction. The eternal, no beginning GOD did not have a mother. The Incarnation of CHRIST did. Saying the mother of Christ says something different than saying the mother of God.
Saying that Mary was the mother of God can too easily be construed as saying that Mary was the mother of the Godhead.
As long as the RCC continues to say that Mary was the mother of God, it will continue to carry the implication that Mary was the mother of the Godhead, as that is what it is saying if you stick to the plain meanings of the words.
It’s battle Catholics will fight and never win trying to explain it away. That only makes them look duplicitous,
Except for the complicating factor that the term *Mother of God* is found NOWHERE in Scripture, even from Jesus Himself.
Best He called Him mother was *woman*.
Besides, words mean things. Saying the mother of God says that God had a mother. The more precise term is that Mary was the mother of Christ.
You can certainly call me whatever you choose, yet those who know what that term really means will not be fooled by false invectives.
You speak for me as well.
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.