Ya How You Like Coming on a Religion Thread! ROFL!!
Posted on 01/07/2012 6:00:19 PM PST by rzman21
Define believe.
Define is.
You’re actually protecting the kennedys and Pelosi? WOW!
>>How so? I think you are putting words in my mouth.
If it were up to me they would be excommunicated.
I said the media was ignorant. You put words in my mouth.
Of late I have been reminded of how many Catholics reject central tenants of the denomination, yet still consider themselves Catholics. At what point might the term CINO apply?
“If it were up to me they would be excommunicated.”
yet amazingly they are not. And who makes that decision? The men that many think are the only ones who can absolve their sins and guide them to salvation.
REALLY!~ THATS PERSONAL!! I WAS always TALKING ABOUT THE AUTHOR NOT YOU! Do you want to recant!
Well . . . now for some reason you have adopted the tactic of not answering my questions. Is there some reason for this? Is it perhaps sympathy for a poor redneck like myself who doesn't have what it takes to debate with an intellectual such as yourself?
Come now.
You say the Catholic/Orthodox churches are "agnostics" when it comes to creationism yet post an article that condemns creationism.
You say that since Genesis is a theological text rather than a history book it can't be interpreted literally. Does that mean that since Luke isn't a science text its assertions about the virgin birth and resurrection from the dead can't be taken literally?
Do you think you could take the time to answer those two questions? Never mind about how unintelligent I am. Please, devastate me . . . by all means.
hmmm, but he uses Ray, and in other places Webster provides discussion of a debate with Ray, in which Ray could not get any traction.
The argument appears to founded upon what is called in other quarters a later "unpacking" of what has been handed down.
The oak tree not resembling the acorn, but the acorn having contained "the elements" from which the tree grows.(?)
Looks like more the same 'ol same 'ol apologetic double-talk, to me.
Viva voce, the living tradition. It appears he is not ignorant of it, and suffers not from a misunderstanding of it, simply because he doesn't fully buy into the party line.
Ya How You Like Coming on a Religion Thread! ROFL!!
I think you fail to understand that the Church does not have a dogmatically defined perspective.
I meant the secular media. That’s how I read your reference to the media.
Perhaps Webster’s ego was talking.
Thank you. I appreciate your wisdom and fairness.
Yes, it IS, when can we expect some? All I've seen so far is attempts at humiliation towards all non-Catholics. Some humility from your side would be welcome.
Then why does it have a dogmatically defined perspective on the virgin birth, the resurrection, the multiplication of loaves and fishes, and transubstantiation, seeing as how each and every one of these things is a scientific impossibility and that the gospels that contain these stories are theological works, not science books?
How many times do I have to ask that question before you answer it?
I meant the secular media. That’s how I read your reference to the media.
You don't read very carefully. I asked specifically why, if the Catholic Church is "agnostic" in the matter of creation, all CHURCH media are slanted so heavily in favor of evolution and against creation? If the Church is "agnostic," its media should be "agnostic," but they are not. I refer to Liguorian, Catholic Digest, US Catholic, Our Sunday Visitor, and all the tracts and books that Catholics print and distribute that promote evolution. Is this the position of the media of an organization that is "agnostic" about evolution and creation?
You evidently also don't read your own posts very well. You posted an article by a former Calvinist convert to Orthodoxy who rejected young earth creationism. What is the reader supposed to judge from this but that the adoption of evolution is one of the things Orthodoxy requires of Calvinists before it accepts them?
You have been on FR for a little over three months. In all that time, so far as I know, you have done absolutely nothing but post a series of provocative, Protestant-bashing articles (including one by an atheist using the "Dead Sea Scrolls" to attack Biblical inerrancy). That seems to be your one and only purpose here. It does not present a positive picture of you.
One final thing: about a year ago there was a Catholic who signed up to post here. Although I disagreed with him 180 degrees on many issues (especially Jews and Israel) I never attacked his right to post here. Furthermore, he actually (unlike most Catholic FReepers) expected the "unchanging religion" to actually remain unchanged. This meant he spoke out about the "conservative" JPII and the "orthodox" VII Council. For doing this--for quoting the ancient positions of the Catholic religion against its positions today--he was constantly attacked by his "co-religionists" as "anti-Catholic" and "Protestant." Eventually, thanks to the work of his loving brothers and sisters he was banned from posting here. I didn't ask for it. The Protestants didn't ask for it. It was his co-religionists who asked for it and who would not leave him alone simply because he expected the Church to believe the same things today that it always has, which it obviously does not. Maybe that's why he had to go--he wouldn't play along with the "nothing has changed" line that contemporary Catholics like to constantly repeat.
My experience of Catholics on FR has been even more negative than my experience inside the Catholic Church. I have witnessed not just theological arguments but ethnic slurs aimed at rural and small town Americans ("Cletus," "Billy Bob," "snake handlers,") that would sound right at home coming from the mouth of Al Sharpton. But aside from the anti-Semites who used to litter this forum before 9/11, the way they treated that particular poster is absolutely the lowest thing I have ever seen here on FR.
Finally, for your information, I have every intention of voting for Rick Santorum in my state's primary (provided he's still running) despite the deplorable attitude of his co-religionists here, and I urge all other FReepers to do the same. It's just a shame that Catholic FReepers who depend on Fundamentalist Protestants to vote for their candidates can't have a modicum of respect for them.
Humiliation?
Catholics and Orthodox Christians are all over the map when it comes to how they read Genesis, especially the former.
My experience of Catholics on FR has been even more negative than my experience inside the Catholic Church. I have witnessed not just theological arguments but ethnic slurs aimed at rural and small town Americans (”Cletus,” “Billy Bob,” “snake handlers,”) that would sound right at home coming from the mouth of Al Sharpton.
>>Where? I have never used such language.
If I have done anything, it has been to point out that American Protestants read the Bible in the context of their American individualist culture. For the most part, taking a deeper look at the historical, cultural, and linguistic bases of the scriptural texts are nonexistent.
Then why does it have a dogmatically defined perspective on the virgin birth, the resurrection, the multiplication of loaves and fishes, and transubstantiation, seeing as how each and every one of these things is a scientific impossibility and that the gospels that contain these stories are theological works, not science books?
>>Because these are core matters of Christological dogma that define what it means to be a Christian.
The hows or whats of Genesis are matters of theological opinion that are open for debate because they aren’t core matters of dogma.
St. Augustine and many of the Greek Fathers took Genesis allegorically like Philo of Alexandria did, but others like St. Ambrose and St. Basil the Great took it literally.
Unlike Fundementalist Protestantism, we don’t reject or deny the ability of human reason to comprehend matters of nature.
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt93.html
A Catholic could not be termed a heretic for believing in young Earth creationism as a theological opinion.
Are we writing about Pope Gregory again? About 600AD seems to be when most of the tangential doctrines arose in the Catholic Church which have caused the most distraction from Bible based doctrine.
ouch......
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.