Reading carelessly wastes time.
Being vague in objections hinders conversation.
; ^ )
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 ...
Every time all-y’all post about what a sinner she was, your implication is that God chose a sinner to bear His Son. Do you think that? An ordinary little sinful Jewish girl, who was used and then discarded once she had served her Grand Purpose, who went on to be a normal old lady sinner, who died and may or may not have gone to heaven. An ordinary girl who would be APPALLED to find out that Catholics “hyperdulia” her, who cannot hear prayers, answer them, or speak to her Son anymore since she is dead.
Right?
Gee, it crashed and burned in so many other places according to your side ... which no doubt accounts for the changing of subject.
So every timesomenon-Catholicsays “pray for me,” what they really mean is “pray with me”? That’s the argument now? That’s the crash and burn du jour?
You yourself say you ask metmom to pray for you, and then say you don’t mean it?
And people complain about how WE use language?
Now for some facts. When I ask a saint in heaven to pray for me,I also address petitions on the same matter to God. So what, exactly, is the difference as regards intercession?
So you are conceding that the “Why ask anybody other than Jesus?” argument doesn’t apply.
You’re moving to the dead argument and a new argument that says we ask saints for what only God can supply, while Iscool is trying to say that asking somebody to pray for you is not, um,asking somebody to pray for you, because “for” really means “with” except when Catholics say it.
I’m just trying to get clear about where we are. I don’t want to spend a lot of time on the dead and the new argument and then get hit with the “praying for/with” thing again.
(*quick backchannel conference among the YOIOS crowd*)
Mark, Cronos, are you guys reading this page?
It was a mighty act of God.. not Mary ...
I’m reading Judith Anne and I just love MadDawg and his responses.
I think that catholics steal the glory from God and place it on a woman ...
The entire OT points to Christ.. scripture tells us that He was slain before the foundation of the earth.. all the OT points to HIM and His prophesied definite genealogy. One that Mary and step father Joseph fulfilled .. this was no accident.. God had ordained this time and this family for the messiah to be born into..
Mary was blessed to be the fulfillment of that plan.. to be the mother of the messiah was a desire of all Jewish girls ,which is why she says all generations will call me blessed ..not blesse ed ...blessed by God
Mary's yes was a work of grace by God in her heart.. just as Joseph's acceptance of the pregnancy was.. This was a spiritual act of God not a work of the flesh..
All the glory goes to God for the incarnation... respect for His chosen vessel and her faithfulness..but praise to Him and Him alone
Yes, as she immediately said, as Catholics say along with her: :46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, 1:47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. 1:48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. 1:49 For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name. 1:50 And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation. 1:51 He hath showed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. 1:52 He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree. 1:53 He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away. 1:54 He hath helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy; 1:55 As he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.
How, when she herself gorifies God for what He has done? The magnificat is one of the most beautiful of scriptures, a love song of praise from Mary to her Maker. How do Catholics "steal" God's glory (as if that were even possible?)"
BTW, What is your issue with the pronunciation of "blessed?" Is it illegal to say, "bles sed?"
Judith, I’m reading and I’m sure a lot of us are.
I love how they dismiss Ezekiel 44.
“Then He brought me back
to the outer gate of the Sanctuary,
which faces East;
and it was shut.
And He said to me,
“This gate shall remain shut;
it shall not be opened,
and no man shall enter by it;
for the Lord, the God of Israel,
has entered by it;
therefore it shall remain shut.
Only the Prince may sit in it
to eat bread before the Lord;
He shall enter by way of the vestibule of the gate,
and shall go out the same way” (Ezek 44:1-3).”
The Bless~ed Mother is set aside and holy.
Lovely. I’m pretty sure they do not think the prophecy applies to Mary.
; ^ )
So He chose a sinful human to bear His Son.
How does that translate into *God made a mistake choosing her*?
“I’m pretty sure they do not think the prophecy applies to Mary.”
More’s the pity.
The Eucharist they miss too.
Verse 19 Exekiel 44
[19] And when they go forth into the utter court, even into the utter court to the people, they shall put off their garments wherein they ministered, and lay them in the holy chambers, and they shall put on other garments; and they shall not sanctify the people with their garments.
Shall not sanctify — By the law, common things, touching holy things, became consecrated, and no more fit for common use.
So, by law, Mary’s body, touching the infant Christ, became consecrated, no more fit for “common use”
1 Corinthians 12:27
Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.
We P&C's know that GOD (the father) was INCARNATE in Jesus: given a body of flesh.
MORMONs have been taught (and STILL teach) that GOD (the father) has a body of flesh, too.
Do you really think 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.