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 ...
Martin didn’t get everything right. Remember, he still had to renew his mind after all that deceptive teaching he had for years. And why idolize him? He was a servant of The Lord like Abraham, Moses, Esther, David, Joseph, John The Baptist, Peter, Paul and the list goes on who followed the calling on their life. Some get greater callings, some lesser - but that’s in our eyes only. Each and every one is important for God’s will to be accomplished. For one man is not different from another before God - God is no respecter of persons. And that’s the way it should be for us, also. I do find it awesome how one person can make a huge difference in whatever their calling - and that’s because they are being led by God to make that difference. And we all have our own unique calling.
The Scripture you received from the Church.
The reformation is the break from the Church.
Luther used the rich and the poor against each other.
Protestants are exactly what the Church says they are, separated brothers and sisters of Christ. For they cling to those things which the Church has taught them while rejecting others.
They have accepted the Church’s authority when it suited them and reject it when it does not. But, to what authority do they now submit. Scripture? Hardly, it is every man for himself and that has led to doctrinal and spiritual chaos.
So, when a protestant says they follow Scripture and Scripture alone, they are not sure whose teachings they follow. Just whatever one best tickles their ears, I guess.
boatbums -- it is against the forum rules to make it personal. Stop doing that and stop pretending to mind-read. It's against the rules. Sheesh.
So, Avalon isn't a member of this "Proddy" group? I am thankful to hear that as her posts before your, Quix's group came along were insightful.
As we've established, everyone here now knows that when you refer to the term "Proddy", that does not include Lutherans, Anglicans, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists or even Pentecostals, but it only encompasses your little group that has its belief in aliens.
Quix: Christ said lots of things that were NOT EnScripturated and not intended to be—2,000 years ago AND SINCE.
I'm not greatly interested in arguing about whether such are authentic, Biblical, accurate etc.
And the clincher: quix: Jesse DuPlantis is in a different category, to me. Jesse's a 1,000% more congruent with Scripture, with himself, with God's priorities etc.
Jesse:
“I’m going to say something that will knock your lights off. Go has the power to take life, but He can’t. He’s got the power to do it, but He won’t. He’s bound; He can’t. He says, “Death and life is in the power of” who’s tongue? Yours. You ready for this? You want something that’ll knock your lights off? You choose when you live; you choose when you die. Death and life is in the power of your tongue, not God’s.
It's so nice that all can see that your little 'Proddy' cult has nothing to do with Protestants who are Christians, not alien-believers
I agree, Why did I idolize Martin in the past? In my case it may have been pride. It got so bad for me, I was a teenager BTW, I thought the only people saved had to belong to my local church. We had all the truth! LOL.
BTW for discussion of fruit by their actions, which person better modeled broken in Spirit surrendered faith. Mother Teresa or Martin Luther
Was the world a more spiritual place before the reformation? I am not saying good or bad spiritual. IOW was the motivation of life trying to please God or was it based on common sense as it is today. Is the reformation influenced by the age of reason? or vise versa? I do not know but, Thank God, God knows.
As I drifted off to sleep last night I remembered that the Hebrew word for “glory” also means “heaviness”. So your text from Philippians serves as a good companion to the “natural”v.”spiritual” discussion of 1 Cor 15 and a corrective when our minds make”spiritual” all wispy and thin.
In a homily once a friar took us on a brief tripthrou0gh IHS’s encounter with Nicodemus who came to him by night. He said it was customary in the evenings to go up to the roof of the house to catch the cool breezes, and suggested that as IHS spoke of the Spirit, the breeze was stirring the leaves of the trees.
And certainly this year many of us have seen that not all breezes are gentle and pleasant. Many are ‘heavy’ enough to destroy buildings.
Enough of this thin aetherial Spirit (still small voices to the contrary notwithstanding)! The Glory of God is “heavy” enough to support all creation, and the glorious body for which we hope ... well, who can say? But maybe we should abandon Victorian ideas of unearthliness and take up a notion of things almost TOO real to fit in the physical world.
I told somebody the other day,"Oh, You'll LOVE my new place! It's decorated in clutter with a cardboard theme. Charming!"
The disaster happened when I realized an unpacked book carton serves as a perfectly good side table. I may never unpack.
That sounds right, but I think the only thing to do is for you to buy one and me to come out and assist you in research.
The Jehovah's Witnesses argue that the stauros actually means "pillar" or "post" and that those of us who litter cross shapes around the place are actually pagans because that shape shows up in pagan religions which antedate Xty. Naturally I countered that the central pillar of an old style Japanese house was considered sacred in Shinto, and that the KW sect was incorporating elements of Japanese nature religion by giving pillars such prominence. Awkward silence ensued. Few Witnesses have a good sense of humor. My attitude is that the misappropriation of language by people who are wrong does not render the language useless to those who are right. They may have thought their Aphrodite/Artemis/Hera figure was queen of heaven. That doesn't mean there is no one to whom the title can be given, it just means they were suckered by an imposter.
Here's something from Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta:
There is a terrible hunger for love. We all experience that in our lives - the pain, the loneliness. We must have the courage to recognize it. The poor you may have right in your own family.I think that for me, focussing on the one hand on the ringing Reformation proclamation of the Love of God AND on the other the clearly evangelical quality of good works is a great part of what led me to swim the Tiber. Luther, Calvin, and the likes of Teresa were among my escorts to the shores of the river.
Find them.
Love them.
It seems that the Catholics want to take credit for the writing of Scripture, the preservation of Scripture, and the interpretation of Scripture, so that they can make us feel like we have to *owe* them for it, and that gives them some sort of control over us or makes us somehow indebted to them for it.
We owe the Jews for most of Scripture, and the logic that being the instrument and steward of Holy Writ confers perpetual assured infallibility would require us to submit to the Jews, as (unlike Rome) the Jews are explicitly declared to be the instrument and steward of Holy Writ (Rm. 3:2l cf. 9:4) then existing, but this did not make those who sat in the seat of Moses assuredly infallible, nor was a perpetual, assuredly infallible magisterium necessary for the bulk of Scripture to become established as such, (Lk. 24:27,44) and for God to preserve Truth and a people. But God raises up men from without the formal magisterium if needed, to reprove such leaders who depart from the faith and cause souls to err, (Is. 9:16) and presume such things as teaching as dogma what is only the "tradition of the elders." (Mk. 6:1-13)
Nor is there any statement that all that the church magisterium (which SS affirms) will ever speak on faith and morals will be infallible. The church can speak infallible Scriptural truth, which even affirming the existence of God is, but the basis for this is Scriptural warrant and conflation and the manner of supernatural attestation that Scripture affirms being overall given to its truth claims. (Mk. 16:20; Jn 14:11; Acts 15:12-18; Rm. 15:19; Heb. 2:3,4). But Rome effectively declares truth by fiat, that it is infallible whenever it speaks in accordance with its infallibly defined subject and scope-based formula.
In addition, Catholics could not have certitude on the whole canon until 1400 years after the last book was written, which was the first infallible decree on it, and this differs from the canon of the EOs, as well as ours Rome, and may not have been exactly the same as that of Carthage and Hippo (debatable). See here
And as helpful as conciliar statements can be, this is not how Divinely inspired writings essentially were established as such, but this was and is due to their heavenly qualities and effects, and other supernatural attestation from God, and their progressive conflation complimentary to that which was first established as Holy Writ. The Scriptures and the power of God go together, as most supremely seen in the manifest regenerative effects of believing the gospel of grace through faith , and those who know them not do err. (Mt. 22:29)
God first revealed Himself to man and supernaturally attested to His reality and truth, (like to Abraham) and of the faith and character of those who believed and obeyed it and testified of it (like Moses). This revelation and testimony was progressively written and established as from God thru the aforementioned manner, and as they were they became the standard for obedience and by which further revelation and men of God were tested and established, as a continuing principle*. (Is. 8:20; Mt. 22:29-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:39,42; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Heb. 1; 2:3,4, etc.)
*Partial list of references to Divine written revelation being written (Scripture) and references to it, often showing it to be the standard for obedience, and establishment of truth claims: 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;
Mat. 1:22; 2:5,15; 3:3; 4:4,6,7,10,14; 8:4,17; 11:10; 12:3,5,17; 13:35; 19:47,8; 21:4,13,16,42; 22:24,29,31; 24:15; 26:24,31,54,56; 27:9,34; Mark 1:2,44; 7:3,10; 9:12,13; 10:4,5; 11:17; 12:10,19,24,26 13:14; 14:21,47,49; Lk. 2:3,22,23; 3:4; 4:4,6-8,10,16,17,20; 5:14; 7:27; 10:26; 16:29,31; 18:31; 19:46; 20:17,28,37,42; 22:37, 24:22.27,32,44,45,46; Jn. 1:17,45; 2:17; 3:14; 5:39,45-47; 6:31,32,45; 7:19,22,23,42,52; 8:5,17; 10:34; 12:14,16; 15:25; 20:31; 21:24; Acts 1:20; 2:16-21,25-28,34,35; 3:22; 7:42; 8:28,30,32; 7:42; 3:33; 13:29,33,39; 15:5,15,21; 17:2,11; 18:24,28; 21:24; 23:5; 24:14; 26:22; Rom 1:2,17; 2:24; 3:4,10; 4:3,17,23; 8:36; 9:3,13,15,17,,33; 10:5,11,15,19; 11:2,8,26; 12:19; 14:11; 15:3,4,9,21; 16:16,26,27; 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; 8:5; 10:7,28; 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) yet interestingly, i know of no place where the phrase “the word of God” or “the word of the Lord” refers to unwritten revelation that was not subsequently written.)
I think it's a good question. I don't see how we can know the answer. As the poets have said, "Everybody talkin' 'bout heaven ain't goin' there," and it is possible that the vast majority of hearts touched and held by the Lord passed in quiet anonymity.
That's one reason for our Holy Day of all hallows. Through the year we praise God for holy notables. We set aside one day to praise him formally for the ones we never heard of, the multitude whom no man can number. (Which is a line from the second Scripture reading for the Mass of that day. When I was an Episcopalian at a very high church that was the reading in which I learned how to sing a question in the chant tone we used. When I am in my final coma if you listen closely you will probably hear me trying to sing, "Who are these and from whence have they come?")
Catholics like to say, "It takes a lot of manure to produce roses." We claim our share of roses, and there's no question that we're good at providing the manure.
I'd venture that those who wrote wrote more of spiritual things before, say, 1700' than after.
Is the reformation influenced by the age of reason? or vise versa?
Yes. :-)
Some intellectual movement was certainly afoot. Galileo and Bacon flourished after the Reformation was well established, but Copernicus was already in his forties when Luther took a hammer and nail to the Wittenburg chapel door.
Of course, It was ALL the to the Dominicans credit, naturally! (nods intently.)
Though Albert the Great, who died in 1280 -- almost a quarter millennium before Wittenburg -- thought there was something in alchemy, he was a firm proponent of the empirical method.
I do not know but, Thank God, God knows.
So in our own quest, let us always take refuge in that truth.
Thanks. I did post the text from Philippians as a good companion to the “natural”v.”spiritual” discussion of 1 Cor 15.
As for “spiritual light” versus weighty impact, Jesus, having His “sails up,” was “driven” by the Spirit into the wilderness with its wild beasts to fast for 40 days and nights.
And as for doctrine, the element of mystery in unrevealed things must be respected, such as in aspects re the issue of predestination (which is not resolved in Rome either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregatio_de_Auxiliis), rather than insisting on answering every implication if scripture does not, and making such into dogma.
“O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?35 Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.” (Romans 11:33-36)
“A Song of degrees of David. 1 Lord, my heart is not haughty, nor mine eyes lofty: neither do I exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high for me.” (Psalms 131:1)
You say:
... Catholics could not have certitude on the whole canon until 1400 years after the last book was written, ...
My quibble is with the "could not". My take is that the Church, as we see in Acts 15 and a lot of the Pauline corpus, responds to crisis. The persistent image seems to be that there is a perpetual group at the Vatican which continuously asks itself, "What shall we tell them they have to believe today?"
But the reason Trent "defined" the OT canon is that there was a controversy, what with the so-called "apocryphal" works being challenged and all. Before then, there wasn't enough dispute to call for a settlement. So it's not so much a matter of "could not" as "didn't think it needed to".
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.