Posted on 03/28/2013 5:58:16 AM PDT by markomalley
I agree with your post, NL.
I have been away for a while, because I found the tone of exchanges here were not fulfilling very well the Pauline admonition: “Whatsoever things are good, whatsoever things are true , whatsoever things are of good report, think on these things”.
The definition of sarcasm is “to use irony to mock or convey contempt”.
I think sarcasm-—according to that definition-— doesn’t fit well in Christian dialogue.
I also agree with you that we have an obligation to bring light out of darkness, for St. John reminds us that we are children of the light.
Reading postings here, I’m aware that there are non-Catholics who have a deep and lively faith and I am bound in Christ-like behavior to honor that and to rejoice in it. I tend to believe that the Lord Jesus would rather we seek and find what goodness is manifest in one another. That would be a far better way-—”a more excellent way” as St. Paul would say-—of being disciples and witnesses of Christ.
The definition of sarcasm is the opposite, since it is intended to mock, show contempt, or as in another definition, “to cause pain”.
Peace be with you also.
>> “Looks like she is praying to her bunny.” <<
.
You’re right GC, I wonder if that is Ishtar Bunny?
“We ask saints, whom we believe are still alive, to intercede and pray for us.”
We also believe the saints are alive. It’s just that, number one, we don’t believe they have omnipresent or omniscient divine qualities that allow them to hear and understand billions of Catholic prayers everyday.
Number two, we don’t see the point of praying to men when we can pray directly to God, having earned the right not through our own “earning,” but by the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ who shed His blood for us on the cross, so that we who were dead in sins can now march boldly into the throne room of God.
Considering the number of miraculous prayers God answers from me, though I deserve it not, I’ve never had a reason to ask someone else.
And Number three, all Christians are “saints,” a peculiar people made Kings and Priests in the sight of God.
A little more from the same link he provided. That sort of stuff [errant thinking] is all over the place in regards to Marionism(s).
Statues of Mary and other Marian artwork have been known to invoke particular graces when set in places of honor. A Mary statue or figurine creates a wonderful conversational piece and adds a peerless quality of beauty to your home.
You may wish to continue pretending that none of us understand. Some other day I'll backtrack and touch upon how the communion of the saints idea became conflated, too.
It doesn't matter that the strange fruit is of long standing (Catholic) tradition. Try asking a Messianic Jew (that knows the scripture) and was steeped enough in Torah tradition what they think of Marionism. It could be enlightening, if the right ones could be coaxed into talking.
These were troll posts not worth correcting.
That would be acceptable if it was fact...Problem is, we have posted for evidence countless pages from Catholic books and internet sites which clearly show that Mary is to be prayed to, not prayed thru, for salvation, grace and many other things which only God can provide...You can slice it and dice it any way you want, but THAT is worship...
As Pope John Paul II explained Marian devotions, Catholics ask the Blessed Mother to help guide and form the Christ in us as God asked Her to do with His Son. I don't expect you to accept this because I do not expect you to understand it.
I (we) understand it perfectly...But I for one just flat out don't believe it...Mary has absolutely ZERO to do with the Holy Spirit within the bodies of born again, bible believing Christians...Or Catholics, for that matter...
I am not here to argue the merits of what you believe. I only post to correctly present Catholic teaching. As purchased by Adam and Eve at great price to humanity, you remain free to believe anything you want.
Peace be with you
The key word to understanding that sentence in a Catholic context is "invoke". From the Latin verb invocare it literally means "to call on" or "give voice to". As I stated earlier, such art is viewed within Catholicism as a window or portal into heaven through which we can project our minds into His presence. The beauty of the art is important because God is the source and summit of all beauty, truth and goodness.
I think we would all agree that all are given sufficient Grace for Salvation, yet not all are saved. Catholics believe that religious art does not confer grace but it prepares us for Grace and disposes us to cooperation with Grace. I have personally found religious art, whether paintings, sculpture, stained glass, or music to have an efficacious property on my cooperation with Grace.
Peace be with you
It’s really scary to be a catholic!
A guy would better off taking his chances with the killer bunnies.
I meant the dude that Peter converted was not Jewish.
Another question to you...Acts 1:8 and the scattering of the Jerusalem disciples to Judea and Samaria. Most believe this was in fulfillment of the "great commisssion", as recorded in Acts 1:8. However, the very OPPOSITE is true, according to God's word. These disciples had NOT left Jerusalem in response to any command of the Lord. They had FLED FOR THEIR LIVES. And the TWELVE APOSTLES, the VERY ONES our Lord had COMMANDED to go FROM JERUSALEM TO ALL THE WORLD, STAYED AT JERUSALEM. Hmmmm, that seems strange. Why would the 12 STAY at Jerusalem? Were they delinquent in their duty to evangelize the world? The Scriptures say plainly that they were NOT delinquent. The REASON the twelve stayed at Jerusalem was because the Kingdom, in which they were to have twelve thrones (Matt. 19:28),was to be ESTABLISHED AT JERUSALEM, and blessing and SALVATION was to FLOW FROM THERE to the ends of the earth. Obviously their work for the kingdom and Israel was not yet done.
Umm, the Jerusalem is descended from heaven (see especially Revelation chapters 3 and 21) and will have the saved inhabiting it. It WILL happen - the Apostles are long dead at this point, and the New Jerusalem will be larger than any city on earth. The Apostles are long dead and presumably in Heaven among the saved. Christianity believes that the saved go to Heaven, not hang about in the earth waiting for future eventualities.
Again, Peter was Jewish. The one he converted was not.
That meme gets really old. Pictures of parents etc. are not used to worship God.
This meme gets really old. Were the cherubim etc. commanded by God to be fashioned onto the Ark not used to assist in the worship of God?
The difference is very great as God said not to use images etc like the pagans did in worshiping Him.
Negative. God said not to worship images. When you worship other gods, God gets a tad vexed. St. Luke wrote the first icon (of Mary). Others followed - the catacombs under Rome are full of icons. So are the Orthodox places of worship. This whole nonsense about icons began with the heretical iconoclasts, fuelled by the Muslims' desire to wipe out Christianity. The Muslims have teamed with the antiCatholics throughout history to try to wipe out Christianity. Look at the events in Iraq over the last decade, for example.
"Therefore" what? I'm not going to play run/fetch. If there is something you wish to actually say in establishing some "therefore", then please feel free to do so.
From your discourse here, you certainly appear to be playing run/fetch. And not for the Christian side.
But now we seem to moved on to seraphim without examining why the serpent on the staff was not prohibited. There is a key stipulation which is the crux of the prohibition of making images. That might be a good place to start, if you wish to build some thesis.
Your position appears to be that there are no serpents in Heaven. I pointed out that there are seraphim. Your position is wrong.
Avoidance of my other statements or questions does not strengthen your position.
If there weren't any Jews there, Thomas violated the command of Jesus...
Either there weren't any Jews in India at the time, or else your interpretation of Scripture is wrong. Hmmm. There weren't any Jews in India at the time.
And of course it was after that the the commission for the Jewish apostles was to send them to where Jews lived...And for Paul, he was sent to where Gentiles lived...Even if there were Jews and Gentiles in those respective areas...
There weren't any Jews in what is now Russia, or what is now France, or what is now Germany, nor in India. Yet the Apostles went there - we have the evidence.
I have some very nice pictures of birds. However, it would be a bit weird to kneel before the blue bird asking for his help before God.
Tap dancing is probably not your strongest talent. You made the definitive statement that we were not to make images. You said nothing about anything qualifying that statement before.
Like just about every other religious artifacts, people worship those things rather than worshiping God. That is why God forbids us doing so. It isn't for His benefit but for ours.
Which people? Me? You think that I worship Mary? Pope Francis? Cardinal Dolan? Your local parish priest? Any of the Catholic contingent on FR?
4. Peter doubts in himself what this vision meant. He was told by the Spirit that 3 men sought him, arise and go to them, nothing doubting. Hmmm, that doesn't sound like he was ready to take the gospel of the Kingdom to all nations. 5. He is told that Cornelius was a just man, and of good report among all the NATION OF THE JEWS. Again, what about to all the nations? Would it not have mattered WHAT Cornelius believed if the twelve were actually carrying out the "great commission"?
6. And this is the kicker: "And he said unto them 'YE KNOW HOW THAT IT IS AN UNLAWFUL THING FOR A MAN THAT IS A JEW TO KEEP COMPANY, OR COME UNTO ONE OF ANOTHER NATION; but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean." (Acts 10, the whole Chapter).
What is THAT about? If they were given a commission to go into all the world, preaching the gospel to every creature, why in the world would Peter have hesitated, doubted, argued with anyone regarding Cornelius? Why hesitate regarding the gospel of the kingdom? Why not just RUN to Cornelius with the good news? And why did he rehearse what happened when he met before the council at Jerusalem? Did they not understand the commission given to them? Or were they doing EXACTLY what Christ commissioned them to do, go to the Jew first. And once Israel is saved, it's on to the gentiles. There's a lot of meat in this particular part of Acts. Meat that can change your life, if understood and believed as God had it written. Not as man has changed, avoided, or deceived others about. It says what it means and means what it says.
Great stuff about the way the story unfolds as it moves through Acts. That is excellent hermeneutics. The way you describe the grafting in of us Gentiles slowly dawning on Peter (well, after he is startled by the vision) also tells a lot about what was actually going on in the Gospels. The blood had not been shed and we were not yet included (Eph 2). There would not be near the collision between grace and Law if people would read the story as it unfolds. Wonderful info. Thanks.
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.