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 ...
I didn’t ask if we were also Abraham’s seed. I asked if the church replaced Israel.
That is worship...Of a deity...
I tend to agree, but even though our sins are forgiven, they are without consequence. There is a price to be paid and it was paid by Jesus. Those who believe that they can act with complete impunity in their actions today because the sacrifice of Jesus secured their elect or "saved" status are wrong.
Indeed it does.. why would Jesus have to hang on a cross to appease the wrath of the Father for all of OUR sin..when He simply could have just issued a broad clemency for all mankind ?
God does indeed work in mysterious ways. We cannot always know why, but it’s enough to know that He knows. Have a blessed day
That was beneath you.
If we consider it ALL of our sin was "future" to Christ as He hung on that cross..those we committed before our salvation and those we commit after ..what a wonderful Savior !
Yes, when ever the single, generic term is used it means water baptism. St. Thomas Aquinas defined baptism as; "Baptism is the external ablution of the body" It is the default meaning.
When ever Scripture refers to any other kind of symbolic baptism it always uses a qualifier.
I have to agree with metmom, Mad Dawg. That just doesn’t sound like something you would post. WHO’S USING YOUR COMPUTER?
hat questiuon was addressed and answered by Mad Dawg within the last 100 poata. Question: who asked it last?
I wish there was a “like” button
So water is the only way for that to happen?
MD-—I think I owe an apology; you referred in your post to “falsehoods about the Church’s teachings” and I go off on a tangent about what Catholics believe.
So I offer my correction:
For example:
It’s a falsehood to say that the Catholic Church teaches that we are to keep a “perfect account with God in order to go to heaven”.
It’s a falsehood to say that the Catholic Church teaches that we saved by works.
It’s a falsehood to say that the Catholic Church teaches that we are saved by Mary
It’s a falsehood to say that the Catholic Church teaches that we are saved by multiplying prayers.
Paul, quoting a Psalm, says all have fallen. The argument is made that since that permits no exceptions, then Mary has fallen. But Jesus is a man.
So either the “all” can have an exception, or Jesus has fallen. It is absurd to assert that Jesus has fallen, therefore to insist that Paul's “all” permits no exception is absurd.
Therefore it admits of exception. Therefore its use in arguing against the Immaculate Conception is rendered inconclusive.
In my view that's how arguments are supposed to work. It doesn't show there WAS an Immaculate Conception. It doesn't show there aren't other arguments against the Immaculate conception. It just shows that one argument winds up in an absurdity.
. What usually happens next is your side says, "Of course Paul didn't mean Jesus!" I agree. His "all" didn't really mean "all". That's what I set out to show.
Because of this, to use this text against the Immaculate Conception usually turns out to be a case of assuming what was to be proved.
and this is where somebody tells me I have a carnal mind and am reasoning according to my own understanding, which is one reason I have many grey hairs.
ab·lu·tion
NOUN:
1. A washing or cleansing of the body, especially as part of a religious rite.
2. The liquid so used.
Paul's "all" absolutely permits no exception.
Deductio ad absurdum.
Then why having to go to confession weekly?
Why purgatory?
Why call Mary *Mediatrix* and *Advocate* titles (mediator for male) of Jesus alone?
Who said that Catholics claim they are saved by multiplying prayers? I don’t recall that ever coming up.
That’ the sort of thing that happens to people who worship Paul, and denigrate Mary. Logic flies right over their heads.
MM, smvoicer: How Mary was saved is different from how YOU were saved. If you were. Mary is special. She is the mother of Christ Jesus. You are not. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again now: I think it really bothers some protestant women that Mary was the one chosen to bear Christ, and therefore they were not and never could be. I wonder if the real reason they hate Catholics so, is because they are jealous of the love we have for Mary, the veneration we have for the woman who was closest to Christ all His life. I wonder if that’s not why they are so viciously critical of priests, because priests do not marry, thus they are denied that special status as well.
How is it that you can repent for sins you haven’t committed yet, when you cannot even repent for or acknowledge the ones you commit daily?
Assuming what was to be proved is exactly what the Catholic Church does for it’s believe of the immaculate conception of Mary. There is no hint in scripture that Mary was conceived without sin. It’s entirely made up by the Catholic Church.
Either you just contradicted yourself or Jesus’ manhood was incomplete or compromised somehow by his divinity. You may think so, but I follow Ephesus and Chalcedon.
Paul does not characterize any exception. For us to do so is to bring preconceptions to bour reading. In which case the tet does not serve. All we know is that he did not mean all.
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.