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 ...
"I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me." -Exodus 20:2,3
"And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment." -Mark 12:29-31
Standing applause, sir. This is possibly the greatest post that I have ever seen you publish. This is the Faith, handed down to us from the Apostles who received it from Jesus Christ, Lord God Almighty.
May the Lord have mercy on us, keep us free from sin and bring us to everlasting life. Amen.
The Jim Robinson who owns this site?
It is a tribute to your intellect, gullibility and adherence to Christianity that you approve of it...
Reminds me of when my mother in law began asking questions about football.........
This is so wonderful. Thank you
I plant to print it out for my class which starts in a couple of weeks. I have confirmation kids, teens, they will be able to appreciate it.
Now, who was is who said the Nicene creed is unScriptural?
LOL
Just like having a credit card that you never have to pay back. Now, that's Christianity!!! You can be Christian and it doesn't cost you anything. Never mind that almost all the Apostles died a martyr's death. You, too, can be a saved Christian going straight to heaven from comfort of your very own LaZBoy. No fuss, no muss, no discomfort of any kind.
Just say the magic phrase - it doesn't even matter if you mean it or not. Whee, instant Christianity. Just add grape juice.
Not for people who understand the question. This might be an example of how community is important.
Look. If Catholics have to continually explain to others who have not been taught Catholic doctrine in catechism what they mean by the words they use, and that what they say is not really what they mean, or what they mean is not what is actually said, there's a real communication problem there.
If someone has to explain to me that what they say isn't what they really meant, I lose interest. I feel that there is not much about them that I'd trust.
Just sayin'
No, that's congress.
I'd go with that. I mean what category would you put Chaz Bono in?
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.
Of course. We have agreed here more than we have in a while.
You put out a sentence like this and complain that the Church has a communication problem? Just wow! I'll bet if you diagram that sentence it will look like that Presbyterian schism chart that shows up here every so often.
You could sell used rosary beads to Amish farmers, that's how smooth you are. Of course, they would be planted in hopes of raising more beds of rosary beads to sell to the tourists, but that's not the point.
At other times the action seems to matter more than the best of (apparent) inclinations like the fellow that came to fugitive, on the run for his life David with water that came from a spring David favored. David pours the water out on the ground and said it would be like the man's blood since the fellow had risked his life for it.
Both otherwise acceptable offering rejected but with two very different hearts of the givers.
Idolatry is a most serious offence otherwise those use images or icons or any sort would not so quick and ardent in defending their practices as relative worship or dulia I think is the word used.
But my question has been when does obeisance or honor slip into the forbidden territory of worship? The Israelites seem to have a problem with that distinction making a golden calf and saying not that it represented YHWH or Jehovah but that it was in fact Him. (Ex. 32:4)
Of course that didn't cut it and God says pointedly that the worship was of the idol not Him, the sacrifices were to the idol, not Him.
It didn't matter whether it was dulia or not. In just a bit the Jealous Sovereign Yahweh, YHWH, Jehovah was going to wipe out the entire idol worshiping nation and make Moses the elder patriarch.
And even without that Moses’ body was hidden when he died, I suppose, to keep it from becoming a relic to be worshiped.
Hardly harsh; and I will remind you of the braggadocio of many here who proclaimed that and more. It is not Christian as defined by the Councils.
Lots of people reject the worship of icons - the Jews particularly in obedience to the first commandment.
Ah, ah, ah. Iconoclasm is not the rejection of the worship of icons. It is the rejection of icons. The first icon was written by St. Luke - Gospel writer and the writer of Acts. Did he fall into apostacy around the time he wrote Scripture? For 10 points, I will ask you who the subject is.
I no more prefer the epistles of Paul than I do any other Scripture - ALL scripture is God-breathed.
I'd check your Scriptural quotations and see if that holds true.
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.
Doesn't matter. The Church declared and as such as Kolokotronis (a far better Catholic than I'll ever be) are dedicated to the Theotokos. Unless you are willing to don the mantle that I regularly accuse the antiCatholics of - the creation of doctrine at whim.
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.
Umm, that is a rejection. And, by the way, it is not the priest; it is the Holy Spirit. Will I never be able to educate you on this?
You can certainly call me whatever you choose, yet those who know what that term really means will not be fooled by false invectives.
bb, you know that I love you like a prickly antagonist that I grudgingly approve of, but exactly none of these are false. They are true and accurate according to the Councils of the Church. For those which are not, please, educate me. As I have shown, I welcome it.
Don't make me laugh! Your context implied that a long time had passed before any of the Bible books were written.
A generation is not a long time? Seems like a long time to me.
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.
It was. And 350 years before the Canon was accepted.
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.
Who wrote Hebrews, Jude, or II Peter? With proofs, please.
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.
Can you show me that II Peter was written by Peter? Or when it was written and by whom?
- The space cadet who is beyond belief has talked to some of the others on this forum and first now they can accept his wacko ideas.This clearly testifies to the extremest and self serving type of individual who opposes your ideas.
-The one who wont's see the concept Mother of God after you and others throughout the years have explained it an infinite variety of ways is prima face evidence of a Stiff Neck character referred to by Our Lord.
These types deserve the imperfect brand of Christianity serviced by their own prideful interpretations of Scripture. Yet,only Jesus can judge their intent.
I preserved their specious rhetoric from this prolonged engagement and am employing its use in many parishes to inoculate the faithful.
I really appreciate when you cite their subjective source materials and expose its spiritual and intellectual bankruptcy.
Not only, but the description of marriage from its genesis is that of leave and cleave, affirmed by the Lord Himself, though it is supposed His mother did none of the latter.
Except for the complicating factor that the term *Mother of God* is found NOWHERE in Scripture, even from Jesus Himself.
Show me where Trinity is found in Scripture, even from Jesus Himself? If you hold to Trinitarian doctrine, you must hold to Mother of God.
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.
A lot of people were led down the heretical path by following this belief. If Christ is not fully man and fully God to you, then you are not fully Christian by definition.
Except for the complicating factor that the term *Mother of God* is found NOWHERE in Scripture, even from Jesus Himself.
Show me where Trinity is found in Scripture, even from Jesus Himself? If you hold to Trinitarian doctrine, you must hold to Mother of God.
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.
A lot of people were led down the heretical path by following this belief. If Christ is not fully man and fully God to you, then you are not fully Christian by definition.
Tell me, what is length of the Baby Boom generation? GenX? GenY? Get back to me on that would you please?
Thank you for those kind words. We have a loving Lord whose sweetness (even in anger) always amazes.
I will now go to be chuckling about fresh, organically grown, Amish Rosary Beads.
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.