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 ...
We as Catholics can post whatever and it will not change a mind here.
When you are dealing with anti-Catholics they cannot see a truth if it hit them upside the head. You know the old saying: The truth is not in them and they can’t see it, bless their little heretical hearts. lol
Have a good evening. I’m leaving for the night. I’ve got a good book to read.
Yhey literally worship Paul, so that NO ONE can question his writing or his teaching, but yet completely toss out Paul’s commandments in Hebrews 13.
Yeah, I got home early, but I’ve got a good book too. Thanks for the suggestion. Fiction is going to have more truth in it than some of these posts.
Prove by Scripture that Paul wrote Hebrews, Judith Anne. Then perhaps I will listen to you.
The discussion about the authorship of Hebrews has been had multiple times on the RF. I’m not into playing your games. Your credibility is pretty well shot, anyway.
The one baptism surely refers to baptism into the body of Christ, as no other would line up with Paul’s statements in other letters.
When taking all of Paul’s references to baptism in all his writings we would be hard pressed to conclude that Paul was claiming that baptism by water was not important. Did it physically cleanse from sin? NO. Was it a spiritual exercise symbolic of being cleansed by Jesus blood? Yes.
The difference as I have understood it between us and Catholics is that the Catholics believe it’s the water that actually cleanses after somehow being made holy by the Priest or whoever.
Read that entire passage. The Rock is referring back to God who is the ONLY rock as evidenced in many passages of scripture.
blah blah blah. Because if you acknowledged the truth, you’d have to convert, and that would be embarrassing.
That’s an unfair statement. I am not Catholic but I see baptism by water as important. It is a spiritual exercise symbolizing the cleansing by Jesus blood and being buried with Him and risen to new life with Him.
To lump all “Protestants” together is naïve and tends to make one appear ill informed.
Yeah, there is a definite strangeness in the way some of Protestants look at the Bible. I mentioned that there was a Moody Bible prof who refused to teach anything other than St. Paul’s letters because he believed the gospel was only in St. Paul. He didn’t believe Christ taught the gospel. Imagine that!
So convince me from scripture that the woman in Revelation 12 is not Israel but is Mary.
THe strange thing is, if water baptism was important in the dispensation of Grace, Paul never ONCE, in any of his letters, commands or exhorts us to be baptized with water. Once Israel is set aside, he does state emphatically that there is now but “ONE BAPTISM” (Eph. 4:5). I say once Israel is set aside, because water baptism was a Jewish ordinance and it was part of the Kingdom Gospel command. After the Dispensation of Grace began, with the setting aside of Israel, Paul no longer preached, practiced or performed things that were Jewish in character. Including water baptism. Hence no exhortation or command to be baptized with water in his letters.
He’s not alone. There are some “rightly dividers” here on FR who don’t think the Gospels pertain to anybody except the Jews. Paul’s letters were for the rest, the present day Christians, all the FR posters, you know.. Within the past 500 posts, you can read all about it.
Please turn down your soundtrack when you post. I seem to hear horses neighing in the background.
Which commandments?
The one to follow authority?
Hebrews 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
Are you saying that the Catholic Church “rulers” are spoken of here? It’s you who think they are put in “authority” not those of us who watch and see that they are not “watching over your souls”. They have strayed from the pure teaching of scripture.
In Matthew 16 Jesus is talking to all of the Apostles. They were all asked the question of who they thought He was. Though Peter was the one who answered for the group Jesus was talking to them all. When Peter said that they believed He was “Christ the Son of the Living God” Jesus replied and said that it was not flesh and blood that had revealed that to Peter but that it was “my Father which is in heaven”. He then says to Peter “and thou art Peter”, acknowledging that He knew who Peter was just as Peter knew who Jesus was. Then Jesus, referring back to “my Father which is in heaven”, says, “upon this rock I will build my church”.
In other places in scripture Jesus is referred to as the “corner stone”, but the rock that the church is build on is the Father.
If you want reference to God as the Rock here are some verses.
Deut. 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
2 Sam. 22:2 And he said, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; 3 The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.
Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."
Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."
Rom. 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."
1 Cor. 3:11, "For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,"
1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."
1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."
Most of his letters where to those “saints”, Christians who had already been baptized.
So, you think that Paul “set Israel aside”? Or do you think in Paul’s private revelation, Christ told him to?
That is your interpretation, and I disagree with it.
Acts 28, Judith Anne. Acts 28.
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.