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 ...
Says the one who tells us that he doesn't believe what he believes.
Correct...But the word is...And God placed it above his name which incidently puts the word above everything...Including your church..
Prove that from Scripture. Book and verse wherein Scripture says that it is above His name and above everything.
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Some translations use bulwark or foundation.
My new translation of 2 Tim.? I can see Eph. Chapter 2 did you absolutely no good.
God has divided His word. And if you care to take the time to study it, you will find the divisions and the reasons for them.
You can start with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Are they part of the NT or the OT?
Like this one...I mean how ludicrous to even think such a thing, let alone write it...
Jesus didn't say you couldn't smoke a crack pipe before you go to Mass...I guess that means,,,,,blah, blah, blah.....
2 Peter 1:20 - interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one's own private interpretation. Therefore, it must be a matter of "public" interpretation of the Church. The Divine Word needs a Divine Interpreter. Private judgment leads to divisions, and this is why there are 30,000 different Protestant denominations.
I mean, doesn't the average Catholic emit a little nervous chuckle and feel a little embarrassed every time your religion puts this one out???
Now that you mention it I do notice that distinct pattern.
Someone asked earlier about anything extra Biblical.
Jesus spoke of the “chair of Moses” which is mentioned no where else in Scripture.
He also said the the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.
It does seem sometimes though that the words Jesus spoke are subordinate to the Paul’s epistles.
After coming up with the immaculate conception of Mary, that Mary dispenses all graces and salvation comes thru Mary, and that your pope is infallible, or any of the outrageous ideas your religion makes up for itself, how could you criticize any religion on the face of the earth???
You guys make the Mormons and Rosicrucians look legitimate...
I think this is a very important point. Could we ever imagine Jesus or his Apostles executing heretics? Saul certainly executed those he believed were heretics against the Jewish religion, but not once he was saved and became Paul. Quite a bit of the justification for such actions in the past were done because they considered anyone who drew away someone from the truth of the Gospel, was committing a type of "spiritual" murder of men's souls. This, to me, showed a serious lack of confidence in the works of the Holy Spirit in the hearts and minds of those who followed the truth.
Rather, I believe we must rebuke and correct wrong doctrine by using THE authority for truth that God has provided for us. No, it's NOT the "Church" which may or may not be at any given time in the control of Holy Spirit led believers, but by the infallible Holy Scriptures which are God-breathed by which the Holy Spirit leads us into all truth. Jesus said, "Thy word is truth." (John 17:17)
"I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: For thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." Psalm 138:2.
You claim to have been a Catholic, you tell me.
There were not any secular authorities...They were all Catholic...
I agree and though I believe that it is His will that I am Catholic, I can also accept that it is not His will that all are.
I believe that whether Catholic or Protestant, faith in Jesus is the foundation, the cornerstone for our life, how we live it here on earth and where we will spend eternity once this earthly life is done.
We are called to be followers of Christ and ambassadors of His Good News and if that means that it is as a protestant or as a Catholic I trust that Jesus does indeed know His own.
When we discuss doctrines and practices and theology, I try to always remember that the other person loves Jesus and if that is true then they love me too and like all families there may be some squabbles.
I reject those here who are just plain nasty and/or rude by ignoring them when they post to me. I so enjoy apologetics and discussing my faith that I don’t want that negativity around me.
I am not a scholar and have and will make errors as to certain passages, but I will always admit when I am wrong or when I don’t know.
With that, carry on dude:)
I have said as much many times, but each time I get castigated that, no, it is truly the body, blood and divinty of Jesus Christ that is present in the Eucharist. So which is it? Do you see why some get confused by what is what is not Catholic doctrine?
Ya, it takes you about a month to get thru the bible in your Sun Day school classes...Your bible has only 13 verses of scripture in it...And they are all from the backside of the Cross...
It was meant as irony in a response to Iscool who claimed to take all of Scripture literally.
And another thing (the rant continues)... the fact that a few certain people have not been zotted is one proof that this site has a bit of an anti-Catholic tilt.
On admittance to eternal salvation you stated "Those who have accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior and don’t rely on their own human effort" How then does this correlate to James 2 14-17. Surely your interpretative skills can reconcile this apparent contradiction between your words and the Words of Our Savior.
Now that you agree the rapture/dispensation/ Harold Camping are complete nonsense would you care to make a prediction on the end of times?
If as you say "Only God knows their heart" how much of an allowance does He make for faulty interpretations and is there a pass fail grade given by God for erroneous interpretations?
If as you advise "Those who are left behind will need to read Revelations" doesn't this advice seem questionable as Luther wished to excise this work from scripture. Why read a book the reformers felt not inspired Are you advising these to swim the Tiber?.
Do you have "Gnosis" allowing for such enlightenment exceeding the majority of humanity. Inquiring minds want to know.
Not trying to be contrary but this IS what was said in the Papal bull Unam Sanctum:
"Now, therefore, we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff" (Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronuntiamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis).
The Bull is universal in character. As its content shows, a careful distinction is made between the fundamental principles concerning the Roman primacy and the declarations as to the application of these to the secular power and its representatives. In the registers, on the margin of the text of the record, the last sentence is noted as its real definition: "Declaratio quod subesse Romano Pontifici est omni humanae creaturae de necessitate salutis" (It is here stated that for salvation it is necessary that every human creature be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff). This definition, the meaning and importance of which are clearly evident from the connection with the first part on the necessity of the one Church for salvation, and on the pope as the one supreme head of the Church, expresses the necessity for everyone who wishes to attain salvation of belonging to the Church, and therefore of being subject to the authority of the pope in all religious matters. This has been the constant teaching of the Church, and it was declared in the same sense by the Fifth Ecumenical Council of the Lateran, in 1516: "De necessitate esse salutis omnes Christi fideles Romano Pontifici subesse" (That it is of the necessity of salvation for all Christ's faithful to be subject to the Roman pontiff). (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15126a.htm)
Also,
Finally, since the faithful have voluntarily sought membership in the Christian society they are bound to submit to its authority and obey its rulers. As to the rights of the faithful, they consist chiefly in the fullest participation in all the Christian mysteries, so long as one does not become unworthy of the same. Thus the faithful Christian is entitled to take part in the Holy Sacrifice, to remain in the assembly after the deacon has sent away the catechumens, to offer up with the priest the orate fidelium or prayer of the faithful, to receive there the Body and Blood of Christ, and to receive the other rites and sacraments. He may also aspire to the highest rank of the clergy. In a word, he is a full member of the Christian society, and is such, regularly speaking, in perpetuity. If by reason of his own misdeeds he deserves to be expelled from said society, repentance and the reparatory penitential rite, a second baptism, as it were, permit his return. Finally, if he persist in the observance of his baptismal promises, he will obtain eternal life, i.e. his original petition at the moment of baptism. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05769a.htm
Those bastards!
For your edification, I only say "I believe" about some things because I am not so presumptuous to speak for ALL people on this forum. As to my faith in Jesus Christ as my Savior, I have believed in him since I was sixteen years old. I understood the Gospel because I read the very words of Jesus quoted in John 10:27-30. You should read it sometime.
What Cronos failed to state, as do you, is that if Jesus or the Apostles quoted from the Greek translation of the Old Testament - known as the Septuagint - that still does not say that they considered the Apocryphal books as inspired Scripture. In fact, they do not ever give any indication that any of those books were to be held as God's word.
One last thing...we've been through this part before, if you remember. There are not and never have been 30,000 denominations of Protestants. You have been corrected more times than I can count. Is this a case of believing your own god in the mirror? Pride indeed! And for your own sake, don't pull out that phony IRS publication as your "empirical" proof defense again. Unless you want to destroy whatever is left of your credibility.
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.