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 ...
Titus 3:5 and I assume that St. Paul told Luke about Acts 22:16. Also, Romans 6:3-4.
Rom3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
WSo, which Paul? The one who is glad he baptized so few in Corintians I, or the Paul who wrote Romans?
Paul was NOT esteemed over. His commission was different than that of the twelve. Otherwise, why not make him the 12th Apostle in Acts 1? He says the gospel preached by him was not after man, neither was it taught by a man, but was given to him by revelation of Jesus Christ. Gal. 1:11. Meaning he did NOT receive it from Peter and the 11. Why did Jesus not just send him to Jerusalem to learn what the gospel was, so he could take it to the Gentiles? Because IT WASN’T THE SAME GOSPEL. IT WAS THE GOSPEL OF THE GRACE OF GOD..
Thanks for the NT scripture references by Paul on baptism. It appears that metmom and smvoice do not want to read them, as there is no reference to them in their posts.
Titus 3:5 and I assume that St. Paul told Luke about Acts 22:1-16. Also, Romans 6:3-4.
The ones carrying out commands - whether terrorist, soldier, enforcer, clerk, laborer, etc. - may be motivated by religious zealotry, fear, money, duty and so on. The motive of gathering or securing political power would apply to the ones who could achieve it, i.e. those who masterminded and/or sent them.
Power is a reasonable motive for Genghis Khan though not for the hordes that carried out his will.
Hey, Judith Anne, seemingly masher of the abuse button, and hall monitor, aren’t you supposed to ping those people you talk about in your posts?
The Gospel of the Grace of God is the gospel of Christ Jesus, and so far, it appears that you reject Christ's gospel for Paul, except when you don't.
Oh, good. And what is the gospel of Christ Jesus, precisely? Scripture please.
Are you positive you want to make this personal, again?
John 3:16,
You made it personal when you failed to inform people you were talking about, that you were talking about them, thereby failing to give them a chance to defend themselves. Mash away. Just be certain that you cross every t and dot every i from this point on. I have found the abuse button. Oh, BTW, I said “seemingly”, that is NOT making it personal. I did NOT say you were. It seems you are desperate. Not you ARE desperate.
It's a courtesy. Actually, I'm following your example, like you follow Paul instead of Christ.
Attempting to read my mind in saying that I follow Paul instead of Christ? Attributing something to me that may not be true? WHere is that list of rules...
Well, be sure to let metmom know about that “making it personal when you failed to inform people you were talking baiout, thereby failing to give them a chance to defend themselves.” Because she SEEMS to have a habit of doing that.
You have found the abuse button? Wonderful for you. I hope it makes you happy. Now you can be a hall monitor, if that’s what you want.
Your posts have made it clear that you follow Paul, and his “dispensation of Grace” and not Christ and the other apolstles, and their “dispensation of Law. You have made a clear differentiation in your posts, and we pretty much get it. If you don’t like what you posted, post something else.
I’m sorry, you don’t SEEM to read. I said I follow Paul as he follows Christ. NOT that I follow Paul INSTEAD of Christ. SEE the difference? KNOW the difference? UNDERSTAND the difference? Do NOT accuse me of following Paul INSTEAD of Christ ever again. And I DO mean that.
Just as protestants accuse Catholics of worshpping Mary, it appears that some protestans worship Paul and think that Paul has a better gospel than Christ. Paulicians are fairly obvious, you can know them, as Christ said, “by their fruits.”
Or else what?
It is a courtesy, nothing more. So what exactly are your damages? Are your feelings hurt? Do you feel disrespected? Insignificant? Trivialized?
You were mentioned on a thread that you are very active on and responded to the posting within minutes of it being posted. Seems to me that there is, no harm, no foul, no damages.
I have a dinner date. I won’t be back before midnight. Make all the ugly posts you want, I am going to go enjoy myself.
We need only read your posts, not your mind to conclude that.
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.