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 ...
Or, what do you think — in your opinion St. Paul’s writings were inspired, right?
you do realise that that poster does not believe in a Trinitarian God or that Christ is God, right?
Actually, Quix, you have NEVER made the case that Mary = Ishtar. You have, however, made the case that the Fatima apparition was due to demonic UFOs, not that it was believable from you. Statements that Catholics are a cult that worships Ishtar are even weaker. Continuing to repeat a falsehood is very democratic of you, and does not make your falsehood true. Sort of like OThuga continuing to assert that Bush caused all the economic problems we live with today.
Looking at the clear meaning of asserting that Catholics are a cult that worships temple prostitute goddess is very nearly potty language. I personally think it goes over the line, and I hope the RM will reconsider the use of that phrase in light of its meaning, as potty language.
Discuss the issues all you want but do not make it personal.
No harm, no foul! Thanks for explaining the mystery ping. Snarks away!
As difficult as it may be for Biblioloters to accept God sent something far more precious, comprehensive and enduring than a book, He send his only begotten son. The Bible is only a fraction of the Word. Jesus is the Word made flesh, the Alpha and Omega. Jesus preceded the Bible and he will survive the Bible.
Did you ever attempt to drive it on the Turkish highway system?
God has place His word above His name. His word must be extremely important to Him, to place it above all His name. Wouldn't ya' think? Biblioloters. Another new attempt to create a smear name that only backfires when Scripture is given.
Just remember this, He placed His word above all His name, and your Church places tradition and doctrines of men on an equal basis as His word. Hmmmmm....
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." - John 1:1
The Word is NOT a Book.
Want more on the word of God?
"For this I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy fo this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book." Rev. 22:18,19.
Want more?
Matthew 22:31
Isaiah 30:8
Psalm 12:6,7
Psalm119:89, 111, 160
I Peter 1:23-25 (Isa. 40:8)
Matthew 5:17, 18
Deut. 17:14-18- They were to make COPIES of God's word for distribution and preservation. I'm pretty sure they weren't making copies of Jesus for distribution and preservation.
If we've been taught anything here we have been taught that God's "word" is the Holy Bible. God's Word is Jesus Christ.
Don't try to play ignorant of this fact. His "word" He has placed above His name. He said it, not me.
Psalm 119:9-16 9How can a young man keep his way pure? By guarding it according to your word. 10 With my whole heart I seek you; let me not wander from your commandments! 11I have stored up your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you. 12Blessed are you, O LORD; teach me your statutes! 13With my lips I declare all the rules of your mouth. 14In the way of your testimonies I delight as much as in all riches. 15I will meditate on your precepts and fix my eyes on your ways. 16I will delight in your statutes; I will not forget your word.
It sure looks like GOD thought writing down His word was important. What what that Moses brought down from the mountain but the very words of GOD that GOD HIMSELF inscribed with His finger for man to know.
Exodus 32:15-19 15Then Moses turned and went down from the mountain with the two tablets of the testimony in his hand, tablets that were written on both sides; on the front and on the back they were written. 16 The tablets were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, engraved on the tablets. 17When Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said to Moses, "There is a noise of war in the camp." 18But he said, "It is not the sound of shouting for victory, or the sound of the cry of defeat, but the sound of singing that I hear." 19And as soon as he came near the camp and saw the calf and the dancing, Moses’ anger burned hot, and he threw the tablets out of his hands and broke them at the foot of the mountain.
Exodus 34:1 1The LORD said to Moses, "Cut for yourself two tablets of stone like the first, and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke. Exodus 34:27-28 27And the LORD said to Moses, "Write these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." 28 So he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights. He neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.
I simply find it incredulous that any human would dare criticize or pass judgment on God for writing the written word of Scripture when God Himself wrote it. Obviously God saw the value in doing so. Who are we to criticize God for doing that?
What chutzpah.
Can you point us to any extra biblical quotes from Jesus, The Word?
From my point of view, the "Ishtar" mocking is only the latest in a very long pattern of absurd ridicule which is allowed under the guidelines for "open" Religion Forum threads. Previous volleys involved hankies, frothing fingers and on and on.
Evidently the only reason the mocking continues is that it acheives the desired result causing such visceral outrage that contempt is poured out on the mocker which as I understand it is taken as a blessing by the mocker. So the more it upsets you, the more it will continue.
The Ishtar business is getting very very old. For one thing, it was a bad movie. For another, we are way past Easter. Most importantly, Mary was not a temple prostitute.
Frankly, Quix, I'm tired of it. If your intent is to mock doctrines concerning Mary or titles given to her, there are much better choices out there.
"..the Church does not draw her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Hence, both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal feelings of devotion and reverence." -Second Vatican Council, "Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation" no. 9.
God has magnified His word above His name. Not the RCC's traditions and doctrines. If they accept that, then "poof", out goes their religion, based on traditions and doctrines.
They cannot afford to have anything above their own man-made religion. Especially not God's word. They would fold like a cheap umbrella.
Whether he uttered those words or not it was with Calvins encouragement that Michael Servetus burned at the stake in 1553. Not only that but the edict was to use green wood so that it would take longer and a wreath strewn with sulfur was put on his head.
What the Catholics fail to mention is that it was the Catholics who originally convicted Servetus but he escaped only to have Calvin have him arrested again when he recognized him at one of his sermons. So if the Catholics use that line they are denying the Catholic involvement and really only set a trap for themselves. So while I didn’t mention anything about the Catholic complicity I knew that I couldn’t rely on NLs historical accuracy or honesty whichever it was. It helps me understand the reliance of who I am debating. There are some who I don't take too seriously or give much credence to.
"..the Church does not draw her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Hence, both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal feelings of devotion and reverence." -Second Vatican Council, "Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation" no. 9.
While Catholics believe the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit and that it is true, one cannot take individual biblical quotes or passages and say each one is literally true, Pope Benedict XVI said........The commission of biblical scholars, an advisory body to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, met at the Vatican May 2-6 to continue discussions about “Inspiration and Truth in the Bible”....
....In his message, the Pope said clearer explanations about the Catholic position on the divine inspiration and truth of the Bible were important because some people seem to treat the Scriptures simply as literature, while others believe that each line was dictated by the Holy Spirit and is literally true. Neither position is Catholic, the Pope said.
-- from the thread How to Read the Bible as a Catholic
The relativization of the Bible, which denies the value of Word of God, constitutes a genuine crisis that is both external and internal to the Church, says Cardinal Marc Ouellet. The prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, who served as relator of the 2008 Synod of Bishops on the Word of God, stated this Monday in the opening address of a congress on "Sacred Scripture in the Church"........"the crisis has also penetrated the interior of the Church, given that a certain rationalist exegesis has seized the Bible to dissect the different stages and forms of its human composition, eliminating the prodigies and miracles, multiplying the theories and, not infrequently, sowing confusion among the faithful." Thus, he explained, disturbing questions arise: Is Sacred Scripture no more than a human word? Isn't it true that the results of the historical sciences invalidate the biblical testimony and, hence, the credibility of the Church? How can we continue to believe? And, finally, whom should we listen to?
-- from the thread Cardinal Ouellet Warns Against Bible Crisis
Yesterday saw...a forceful plea from a key papal advisor [Bishop Salvatore Fisichella, the rector of the Lateran University and President of the Pontifical Academy for Life] to reject the idea of Christianity as a “Religion of the Book”...........the big debate over Dei Verbum at the time of the council pitted what was then known as the “two-source theory,” which held that Scripture and tradition are essentially two separate streams of revelation, against the “one-source theory,” which posited that Scripture is the lone source of revelation and tradition is an elaboration of it. In effect, Dei Verbum held that Scripture and tradition are interdependent and integrally related to one another.
-- from the thread Synod: Christianity not a 'Religion of the Book'
...while fewer believers know much about the Bible, one-third of Americans continue to believe that it is literally true, something organizers of the Synod on the Word of God called a dangerous form of fundamentalism that is “winning more and more adherents…even among Catholics.” Such literalism, the synod’s preparatory document said, “demands an unshakable adherence to rigid doctrinal points of view and imposes, as the only source of teaching for Christian life and salvation, a reading of the Bible which rejects all questioning and any kind of critical research”....
....The flip side of this embarrassment is the presumption among many Catholics that they “get” the Bible at Mass, along with everything else they need for their spiritual lives. The postconciliar revolution in liturgy greatly expanded the readings, with a three-year cycle in the vernacular that for the first time included Old Testament passages. Given that exposure, many think they do not need anything else. As Mr. McMahon put it, “The majority still say you go to Mass, you get your ticket punched, and that’s it for the week.”
-- from the thread A Literate Church: The state of Catholic Bible study today
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.