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 ...
Yes and clearly so CB....all to obvious but expected as is their nature to do so. Generally used as a means of keeping the truth from settling in, though they don’t recognize it as so. It’s a defense frequently used and you’re correct has the same framework as used in the Garden with Eve. But we are aware of those devices....scripture has taught us how to “see” these as they are... and not with the deception they are presented by.
To both your questions my answer is that I’m not going to do your work for you.
++++++++
Those are both physical acts.
++++++++
Neither God nor angels nor men do very many things that are ONLY physical.
And to underscore that point:
He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given]; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) - John 7:38-39
Might be a good idea to focus more on what the scriptures say then who wrote them...for we know that "all scripture" was given by God...which includes Matthew.
Sorry if your’re offended by my post but is how this was presented in Mass...and further many I spoke with who believe this.....so is what you’re saying is catholics don’t understand their own ritual?
You wrote:
“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.”
The Apostles were the hierarchy. There was no usurpation. Presbyters and deacons are Biblical too. It is telling that you believe God’s Church is essentially an usurpation.
“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”.”
So Muslims have a “church” now? The knots anti-Catholics tie themselves into are amazing. Also, Joseph Smith founded the Mormons. Muhammad founded Islam. Christ founded the Catholic Church.
“I’ve stayed with God’s written word and “search the scriptures daily, whether those things were so”.”
No, you merely rely on your interpretations.
You wrote:
“I don’t recall God saying He has traditions...so clearly the meaning is mans ‘his’ traditions.”
You said “His”. Make up your mind.
“In fact as stated Jesus cautioned us about adhering to the traditions of men..... Reading in context is a good thing valdimir.”
So, God’s traditions are man’s traditions? Make up your mind. You do not destroy the idea that there are traditions from God by saying Christ told us to beware of man made traditions. The two would not be of the same origin. Knowing how to make an sensible argument is a good thing cwaw. Learn how to do it.
You wrote:
“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?”
There is no “shift”? Either Christ is God or He isn’t. Which is it?
“It’s the same double speak that Satan used on Eve.”
It’s not double speak at all. Are you afraid to say Christ is God?
You wrote:
“There you go again. Relying on human “logic” for doctrine. It’s rampant in Catholic doctrine and doesn’t work well.”
I am about to express some logical points. I hope you can handle it. We use logic all the time. We even use it when learning from scriptures. If you’re going to deny that you have used logic in learning from scriptures, then I (and I am betting everyone else) would have to consider you some sort of fool. The ability to reason is a gift from God, and there is no reason we shouldn’t use it. Now, everything I just said is perfectly logical. Are you going to disimiss is to remain logically consistent (oh, the irony)?
Good grief man. The subject was whether Christ sent “the Catholic Church” not whether Christ is God. You’re trying to obfuscate and you don’t even see it.
You wrote:
“No, God sent His son not a church....and of course Christ is God....made clear in past posts and well understood among believers.”
Did Christ send the Church?
No, Christ founded the catholic (small c) as in universal church of believers. The RCC confiscated the original pure intent and polluted it. Not much different then the Mormons or Muslims. BTW, the Muslims used the Old Testament and Mary is the only woman of note.
You wrote:
“Might be a good idea to focus more on what the scriptures say then who wrote them...for we know that “all scripture” was given by God...which includes Matthew.”
How do you know it includes Matthew? Show me the verse that says scriptures includes Matthew.
You will fail.
You wrote:
“No, Christ founded the catholic (small c) as in universal church of believers.”
Okay, show me the verse that says, “Christ founded the catholic (small c) as in universal church of believers.” Also, show me exactly how a “believer” is defined and by whom. How are Mormons not believers, for instance? How about Oneness Pentecostals?
“The RCC confiscated the original pure intent and polluted it.”
Confiscated? How can anyone confiscate intent? Intent in not a tangible thing. How does someone confiscate something that no one can actually touch?
“Not much different then the Mormons or Muslims.”
So, Mormons and Muslims confiscated the intent of Christianity? So, Christians don’t have it anymore? DO you realize that you’re not even posting coherent ideas?
“BTW, the Muslims used the Old Testament and Mary is the only woman of note.”
And?
Matthew 5:22 Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
As I have said a bunch recently, not all are teachers. Some are not very good students. And the “theology” of the Mass is different from the thing itself. You don't need to know a lot of psychology for your marriage to be holy, loving, and happy. Likewise with the Mass.
For some time now the trend is to use the word "confects." A priest with the proper intention is something necessary (but not sufficient) to confect an assuredly valid Eucharist.
I suspect that one reason this word is being used is to get away from the idea that the priest "makes it happen."
So, with that preamble, I would answer your question with a yes, a lot of Catholics don't understand, and some that do can't express what they do understand -- as long as we understand that there are some basic expectation, for example that they affirm that it is a real encounter with the Lord, whether they “feel” it or not.
++++++++
What has communion done for you?
++++++++
The phrasing of this question is perilously imprecise, whether by intent or accident I do not know. Had been asked of me, I’d insist on a rewording.
Confiscate, to use as ones own regardless of true ownership. Nice try at deflection again though.
>> Okay, show me the verse that says, “Christ founded the catholic (small c) as in universal church of believers.”<<
Christ founded a “universal” church as in all believers in Him are part of that “universal” church. Catholic - a person who belongs to the universal Christian church (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/catholic)
++++++++
We know that God did not send a church He sent a ‘Savior’..
++++++++
And that Savior’s body on earth, I find in Paul, is the Church. So either God sent an incorporeal Jesus or He sent the Church in the same act as that of sending Jesus.
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.