Posted on 01/13/2012 10:31:42 AM PST by RnMomof7
A German Catholic priest has admitted 280 counts of sexual abuse involving three boys over almost a decade, the BBC reported. About 2,800 pornographic images -- including several of his victims -- were found on the priest's computer.
Named only as Andreas L, the priest, 46, told a court in Braunschweig he did not think he was doing harm.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
O.k. So Dr. E does not believe it is blasphemous. I am not allowed to repeat her statement. I will edit the thread to remove all references to beliefs. I expect then that actual statements of faith do not in any way reflect a person’s religious beliefs.
So if I write. Jesus is God, no one can say I believe that Jesus is God. If someone says “Christ is not divine” and I say it is blasphemy they may not write that I believe Jesus is God.
The word believes is off limits in the Religious forum, got it.
That is a valid opinion about the doctrine if one is not Catholic. I don’t agree, but I am not allowed to discuss what people believe because of their faith on this forum.
You wrote that it was blasphemous. Since I can not say what motivates you to opine that it is blasphemous I must assume it arises from indisputable evidence that it is indeed so. Therefore it is no longer just an opinion with orgins in adherence to different doctrine but true. I have to eliminate the word believe to reflect this epiphany.
So Alter Christi is blasphemous because you have written so based on fact and not on any opinion or belief on the matter.
Got it. Gee that makes for short discussion.
I have to agree with every thing you write or only parrot it back word for word and say I don’t agree. But my disagreement arises out of my beliefs so we get dangerously close to bringing up belief as a reason for opinions. Another no, no.
So whatever you write must be accepted and not challenged. Got it.
Belief: something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion.
That is what I meant by believes.
“And that’s why RC children are at risk. Their priests rape them and their parents do not protect them”.
Since I am not permitted to say this is only a strong opinion. It must be taken as fact.
I will let Catholic parents know that all priests rape all children because they are unwilling to protect them thereby placing them at risk.
“Ask about the early religious affiliation of some gay men you know. Odds are they were raised Roman Catholic. It’s an eye-opening exercise.”
So we must conclude that being gay is caused by being Roman Catholic.
Thanks for the revelation.
Everything you write must now be treated as fact and not has an opinion. Which really does give you an advantage.
“The RCC lies to its members by telling them the Bible is too difficult to be read on their own and so they need a bunch of old men in dresses to interpret all the big words for them.”
Again I am not permitted to write this is your opinion. I will immediately tear up my Bible to reflect my acceptance that whatever you write must be correct.
“Again what is your obsession with robes as a sign of their professional station?
Clergy wear robes, not just Catholic priests.
Judges wear robes.
Professors wear robes during certain ceremonies where they display their office.
Graduating students wear robes.
A robe is not a dress.”
Correction priests wear dresses the others wear gowns or robes. I mistakenly treated your post as an opinion. It is instead the unvarnished truth. If you write the other professions do also wear dresses I will further edit to remove my very mistaken statement.
“I am pro Scripture and anti authoritarian interpretation by old men in dresses.”
So you don’t believe that Christ is an authority that you should believe?
“I am pro truth and anti fables, superstition and errors.”
How would you perceive an error? If someone were to come to you and say, “you were in error, under what circumstances would you accept this determination?
He says he’s anti-authoritarian. Presumably that is also because he believes that he is autonomous.
The problem is that Christ doesn’t teach autonomy. Quite the opposite. Christ teaches submission to the lawful authorities and to God, and finally, last but not least, submission to the Apostles.
You can state what you believe. No problem.
You can say why you believe what you believe. No problem.
But to put words in another Freeper's mouth - whether what he believes or why he believes it - is mind reading, attributing motive, making it personal and incites flame wars.
For instance, it would incite a flame war for an RF poster to say "You believe Mary is God" or "You hate Mormonism because you believe that website" or "You say that is blasphemy because you don't know any better" and so on.
Equivalent points can be made without making it personal, e.g. "It appears to me that those statements elevate Mary to godhood." or "That website mongers hatred towards Mormonism" or "Those of us who embrace that doctrine do not call it blasphemy as you just did."
The requirement that we not accuse people of lying is reasonable. It does make the conversation about the person, which usually doesn't end well. Even if the preponderance of evidence is that they're engaged in vincible ignorance or intentional falsehood, it does no good to point it out.
For, let it be true that they despise the truth. Then falsehood has been aimed at us. And we are blessed. We would probably do better to thank God for the blessing and to seek his help in discerning it than in trying to deal with someone who thinks it good to lie or to broadcast ignorance.
We know what we are to do: to bless, to pray, to ask for more faith. We bear our witness, and shake the dust off our feet. God can do better for those who take refuge in lies, and He wants to do better for them. We must commend them to His love.
NOT be born lucky and be saved.
So simple and yet the lawyer Calvin got it wrong.
If someone writes. “Mary is God” then how do they not believe “Mary is God”? I understand if I write “Mary is venerated by the Catholic Church” and the response is “You believe Mary is God.” Because that is indeed an inference based on what I believe is the implication they made in their post.
Belief does not just mean what a person thinks. It also means having a strong opinion about something. In matters of faith it is a statement of what a person accepts as doctrine and therefore true.
Me: “I believe in God the Father almighty.”
Response “You believe in God the Father.”
The above is a simple statement affirming what another has already stated.
Me “Mary remained a Virgin.”
Response. “You write that because don’t believe in the Bible.”
This is an example of attributing motive.
The word believe is used to mean different things in the contexts above. If there is another word that expresses a statement is grounded in one’s doctrine please let me know and I will use that.
The truly ironic thing is that by saying it was what Dr. E believed I was trying to show that I could respect a view that arose from that factor. Even if I disagree with it.
Amen.
Your sect’s perversions are well-known. Your sect is vile and satanic.
Spirit of Lies, I bind you in the Name of Jesus, by the power of the most Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ and by the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, St Michael the Archangel, the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul and all of the saints, and I command you to leave all lying Freepers and go to the foot of the Holy Cross to receive your sentence, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Spiritus mendacii, ego te ligo in nomine Jesu, potestate Crucis sancti, potestate pretiosissimi Sanguinis Domini nostri Jesu Christi, auctoritate sacerdotii mei et per intercessione beatissimae Mariae Virginis, sancti Michaelis archangeli, beatorum Apostolorum Petri et Pauli, et omnium Sanctorum et te impero recedere Freeperae omnique mendacio et ire ad pedem Crucis sancti sententiam tuam recipere, in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.
The OPC is overwhelmingly Republican/Independent and follows Scripture as its only rule for faith and practice.
No Alter Christus; no co-redeemers; no magic trinkets; no works-based salvation; no levitating Lord's Supper; no world-wide, multi-billion dollar payouts for rapists priests, etc.
"Be not afraid; only believe." -- Mark 5:36
I am curious are they now using another version of the Westminster Confession?
If a member can show they have a valid argument on the basis of their reading of Scripture would that readng by accepted even if it was in conflict with the Confession? If yes, how does the OPC establish whether a belief is heretical? I am asking this with all respect and do not mean in any way to come across as being argumentive.
In the case of the Anglican Church even the seemingly most innocent of changes in the 1979 BOC lead to some very serious theological consequences. An example of this is the 1979 service for Baptisms.
Be careful even the most orthodox of sects are targets for the liberal (especially gay) agenda and one of their chief weapons is by changing language to suit their meaning and not the classic Christian meaning understood for 2 millenium.
No salvation by grace through faith - except for the born lucky - no free will, no responsibility for one's choices - rapist or otherwise -. no salvation theology in common with the rest of Christianity: Protestant or Catholic. No real presence in Holy Eucharist as known by the Apostles, early Church, current Church and many Protestant Churches.
In short: a different god who is the author of sin, a different Christ, a different gospel, a different salvation, a different Christian faith.
Calvinism and you're welcome to it.
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.