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 ...
You wrote:
“Buddhism is far older and Hell obviously didn’t want to defeat that either...So what’s your point???”
Buddhism is atheistic and therefore denies God. Clearly Hell won.
Exactly ....
Let me guess ...you “found the truth” in the early church fathers
Look, we have been over this ad naseum in countless threads and you introducing it into this thread only displays your willful ignorance or desire to mislead.
The Baltimore Catechism is not a declarative document of the doctrines of the Catholic Church it was a 19th century primer intended to introduce Catholic terms and doctrines to school children, not adult theologians or catechists.
The "Baptism of Blood" is a reference to the martyrs who have died for their faith. The Baptism of Desire is a reference to those who die while pursuing baptism. Both are an appeal to God's infinite mercy and not a routine substitute for water baptism.
That said I am leaving this thread. I cannot stomach such duplicity and repeated mistruths.
When you leave mass on Sundays..how have you grown in your knowledge of Christ? How are you holier? What has communion done for you?
You wrote:
“I rest my case on the word of God Vladimir,”
No, you don’t. YOu rest it on your rather modern interpretation.
” and you are free to rest yours on your churchs leadership as you do.”
I rest it on Christ. He sent my Church. He never sent your sect.
Amen
It’s obvious that the RCC has many convinced of that. Of course wide is the way.
LOL
You wrote:
“It’s obvious that the RCC has many convinced of that.”
Actually no. Those who believe it usually do so because of scripture, logic, and history.
“Of course wide is the way.”
The only thing wide here is your variance with reality.
Just to be clear once again...God did not ‘send’ a church He sent ‘His son’.. and it is His authority we believers trust in, not mans, nor His traditions, nor any leadership.
They are defenders of their church denomination and the vatican which oversees it CB....because their allegience is to the church above all else. No different then the meiddle ages really, just a different time today. They didn’t heed the warnings then, later or now and will in the near future have to determine if they are going to go where the catholic church is going to take them.....better they leave now...but most won’t....especially as deception increases and God’s word continues to be hushed and or replaced by traditions and “other” thans Christ.
The Universal Church is fast obtaining it’s followers worldwide as we see churches integrate other religions and their practices while foolishly believing they remain loyal to Christianity. Chrislam is increasingly becoming popular though the catholic churches have been doing so for years....as we see evidenced in Haiti and other nations where they incorporate pagan practices into their catholic services ...But none seem to be excempt from the “push” of all inclusiveness. ..and it’s moving rapidly across the nations.
You wrote:
“Just to be clear once again...God did not ‘send’ a church He sent ‘His son’..”
Christ is God and He sent the Church. Do you deny that Christ is God?
“and it is His authority we believers trust in, not mans, nor His traditions, nor any leadership.”
So you don’t believe in God’s traditions? “His” would mean God’s.
In verse 21 Jesus sends the Apostles. The RCC somehow decided to appropriate that for themselves with no indication that an organized hierarchy that would usurp power or “stand in” was intended.
John 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. 20 And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the LORD. 21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
Of course we have the Mormons, Muslims, and Catholics who all claim to have “additional revelation” or authority trying to lead the only true “church”. I’ve stayed with God’s written word and “search the scriptures daily, whether those things were so”.
Now there is a perfect example of how the RCC scams the people. First “claim” Christ sent the “church” then ask if one believes Christ is God. Honestly, do you think a rational individual doesn’t see the deception in that type of shift? It’s the same double speak that Satan used on Eve.
I know what you think. And I know how we all confuse what we heard with what somebody said.
AND I know that many on your side wouldn’t know a tertium quid if it bit them on the, ah, nose.
There you go again. Relying on human “logic” for doctrine. It’s rampant in Catholic doctrine and doesn’t work well.
No, God sent His son not a church....and of course Christ is God....made clear in past posts and well understood among believers.
Interesting is how catholics here enjoy lifting words and meanings off peoples post to make them say something they don't, and the same is done when they use scripture.... so it's not surprising seeing that ones approach to scripture is the same as that of understanding peoples posts... habits are hard to break and often reveal themselves in unintentional places.
I hardly know where to begin, but the blurring of “physical” and “real” indicates a lack of comprehension, as does the silly contention that we think or imply that sacramental presence is the only mode of our Lord's presence.
It would save time if your side actually made an effort to understand what we think before denouncing it. You all could aim your objections so much more precisely.
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.