Posted on 10/15/2001 6:54:40 AM PDT by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
Here is what most of the RCs sound like when they run out of cheese to go with there whine. :)
A man walks into an office.
Man: Good morning, I'd like to have an argument, please.
Receptionist: Certainly, sir. Have you been here before?
Man: No, this is my first time.
Receptionist: I see, well we'll see who's free at the moment.
Mr. Bakely's free, but he's a little bit concilliatory. No.
Try Mr. Barnhart, room 12.
Man: Thank you.
He enters room 12.
Angry man: WHADDAYOU WANT?
Man: Well, Well, I was told outside that...
Angry man: DON'T GIVE ME THAT, YOU SNOTTY-FACED EVIL PAN OF DROPPINGS!
Man: What?
A: SHUT YOUR FESTERING GOB, YOU TIT! YOUR TYPE MAKES ME PUKE! YOU VACUOUS
STUFFY-NOSED MALODOROUS PERVERT!!!
M: Yes, but I came here for an argument!!
A: OH! Oh! I'm sorry! This is abuse!
M: Oh! Oh I see!
A: Aha! No, you want room 12A, next door.
M: Oh...Sorry...
A: Not at all!
A: (under his breath) stupid git.
The man goes into room 12A. Another man is sitting behind a desk.
Man: Is this the right room for an argument?
Other Man:(pause) I've told you once.
Man: No you haven't!
Other Man: Yes I have.
M: When?
O: Just now.
M: No you didn't!
O: Yes I did!
M: You didn't!
O: I did!
M: You didn't!
O: I'm telling you, I did!
M: You didn't!
O: Oh I'm sorry, is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour?
M: Ah! (taking out his wallet and paying) Just the five minutes.
O: Just the five minutes. Thank you.
O: Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not!
O: Now let's get one thing perfectly clear: I most definitely told you!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: No you DIDN'T!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: No you DIDN'T!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: No you DIDN'T!
O: Oh yes I did!
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument!
(pause)
O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
(pause)
M: It's just contradiction!
O: No it isn't!
M: It IS!
O: It is NOT!
M: You just contradicted me!
O: No I didn't!
M: You DID!
O: No no no!
M: You did just then!
O: Nonsense!
M: (exasperated) Oh, this is futile!!
(pause)
O: No it isn't!
M: Yes it is!
(pause)
M: I came here for a good argument!
O: AH, no you didn't, you came here for an argument!
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
O: Well! it CAN be!
M: No it can't!
M: An argument is a connected series of statement intended to establish a proposition.
O: No it isn't!
M: Yes it is! 'tisn't just contradiction.
O: Look, if I *argue* with you, I must take up a contrary position!
M: Yes but it isn't just saying "no it isn't".
O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
O: Yes it is!
M: No it ISN'T! Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
O: It is NOT!
M: It is!
O: Not at all!
M: It is!
The Arguer hits a bell on his desk and stops.
O: Thank you, that's it.
M: (stunned) What?
O: That's it. Good morning.
M: But I was just getting interested!
O: I'm sorry, the five minutes is up.
M: That was never five minutes!!
O: I'm afraid it was.
M: (leading on) No it wasn't.....
O: I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to argue any more.
M: WHAT??
O: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.
M: But that was never five minutes just now!
Oh Come on!
Oh this is...
This is ridiculous!
O: I told you...
I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you PAY!
M: Oh all right. (takes out his wallet and pays again.) There you are.
O: Thank you.
M: (clears throat) Well...
O: Well WHAT?
M: That was never five minutes just now.
O: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!
M: Well I just paid!
O: No you didn't!
M: I DID!!!
O: YOU didn't!
M: I DID!!!
O: YOU didn't!
M: I DID!!!
O: YOU didn't!
M: I DID!!!
O: YOU didn't!
M: I-dbct-fd-tq! I don't want to argue about it!
O: Well I'm very sorry but you didn't pay!
M: Ah hah! Well if I didn't pay, why are you arguing??? Ah HAAAAAAHHH!
Gotcha!
O: No you haven't!
M: Yes I have!
If you're arguing, I must have paid.
O: Not necessarily.
I *could* be arguing in my spare time.
M: I've had enough of this!
O: No you haven't.
(door slam)
BigMack
I was taught,in Catholic school that it referred to the many Jews who hailed Jesus as the Messiah one day and the next day followed other gods or false idols or Mammon. The nuns were very clear that Christians often did the same things in our own day and age and thats what we were to guard against.
I always felt that it served a purpose and that was to remind us that even while Jesus Christ lived,men could turn their backs on Him,betray Him and crucify Him,if this were possible while He walked with them how likely we could do the same sans His physical presence.
Gave it up for Lent. :)
BigMack
Merriam-Webster says, "Greek leitourgia public service, from Greek (Attic) leïton public building (from Greek laos -- Attic leOs -- people) + -ourgia -urgy"
The Greek word appears in Scripture, although at the moment I can't tell you where. The Orthodox understanding is that the Liturgy is the common spiritual work of God's people. Here's a couple of passages that make it clear the reverence we have towards Liturgy:
"The word liturgy means common work or common action. The Divine Liturgy is the common work of the Orthodox Church. It is the official action of the Church formally gathered together as the chosen People of God. "...It is the action of the Church assembled by God in order to be together in one community to worship, to pray, to sing, to hear God's Word, to be instructed in God's commandments, to offer itself with thanksgiving in Christ to God the Father, and to have the living experience of God's eternal kingdom through communion with the same Christ Who is present in His people by the Holy Spirit.
"...The Divine Liturgy is not an act of personal piety. It is not a prayer service. It is not merely one of the sacraments. The Divine Liturgy is the one common sacrament of the very being of the Church Itself. It is the one sacramental manifestation of the essence of the Church as the Community of God in heaven and on earth. It is the one unique sacramental revelation of the Church as the mystical Body and Bride of Christ.
"...In the New Testament Church Jesus Christ is the Living Word of God, and it is the Christian gospels and apostolic writings which are proclaimed and meditated at the first part of the Divine Liturgy. And in the New Testament Church, the central saving event is the one perfect, eternal and all-sufficient sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the one great High Priest who is also the Lamb of God slain for the salvation of the world, the New Passover. At the Divine Liturgy the faithful Christians participate in the voluntary self-offering of Christ to the Father, accomplished once and for all upon the Cross by the power of the Holy Spirit. In and through this unique sacrifice of Christ, the faithful Christians receive Holy Communion with God."
The online source is: The Divine Liturgy, if you would like additional information. Christ Bless.
I didn't realize that. Thanks for the heads-up!
The mind boggling thing is that everyone's story will all be presented in an interactive format. The reason I asked is because I went to Hollywood video to rent a movie and I ended up with a 2 hour documentary called "Survivors of the Shoa". It described the work of the foundation along with numberous previews of the interviews and such that related to their project.
I'm gonna hit the post button 53 more times. :)
BigMack
I'm gonna hit the post button 53 more times. :)
BigMack
I'm gonna hit the post button 53 more times. :)
BigMack
-ksen
And that has what bearing on the facts. The RCC put ecclesiastical law above civil law. The forgeries it adopted as law were also adopted by civil authorities of Europe. The RCC still holds to the forged canon that was put in place and still thinks itself above the law, though it presents itself before civil authority when it feels it must. That is not the same thing as being subject to the law. If a priest breaks ecclesiastical law and thusly civil law, he is first answerable to the proper civil authorities, then to the Church. Try addressing that point. Because it is most relevant. I'll not address the pointless rhetoric that accompanied the above.
This statement made me think of the article below that I got into a descussion on several yrs. ago. Thought you might be interested.
Vatican declaration says only faithful Catholics can attain full salvation from earthly sin
Source: Washington Post
Published: 9/6/00 Author: R. JEFFREY SMITH
ROME -- A new Vatican declaration issued Tuesday says that only faithful Catholics can attain full salvation from earthly sin, and that other beliefs -- including Protestant Christian ones -- have defects that render them inferior.
The goal, according to a top Vatican official, is to combat the "so-called theology of religious pluralism," which suggests that Catholics are on par in God's eyes with, say, Jews, Muslims or Hindus. The statement drew responses of dismay from other religious groups, with whom Pope John Paul II has sought to establish more peaceful and cooperative links over the past two decades. Muslim, Jewish and even Orthodox Christian leaders have repeatedly asked to be treated as equals in dialogue with the Vatican, an idea that the new statement explicitly circumscribes by reaffirming centuries-old claims of Catholic primacy.
Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey, spiritual leader of Anglicanism, which includes the Episcopal Church U.S.A., said "the idea that Anglican and other churches are not `proper churches´ seems to question the considerable gains we have made," the Associated Press reported.
The World Council of Churches said it would be a "tragedy" if Christian cooperation were "obscured by the churches' dialogues about their relative authority and status, however important they may be."
Jesuit scholar Thomas J. Reese, editor of the Catholic weekly magazine America, said he was dismayed that the statement had "practically no reference to the dialogue going on for the past 35 years between Catholics and Protestants" on various religious issues.
"The danger," he said, "is that this document will be seen as a rejection of that dialogue," a message he said he did not think was intended.
Issued after two years of study and timed to coincide with the millennial celebration of Jesus' birth, the document effectively delineates the boundaries of the Vatican's forbearance of other faiths.
As such, it reflects age-old Vatican anxieties about the dilution of Catholic authority, which church officials maintain comes directly from God through the pope. It also may grow from a heightened concern by church officials that Catholicism must remain competitive with Islam and other expanding faiths, particularly in East Asia and other battlegrounds for religious adherence in the developing world.
Without citing particular alternative religions, the document describes other religions as inherently inferior because they depend on "superstitions or other errors (that) constitute an obstacle to salvation."
It also reminds Catholics that their duty is to "evangelize" the adherents of other faiths during any dialogue, an idea that has rankled Orthodox Christian leaders, among others, who have long accused the Vatican of trying to convert their adherents.
The document appears to differentiate non-Catholic Christian churches from other religions. The non-Catholic churches "suffer from defects," but they "have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation."
The document was presented at a Tuesday news conference by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the principal Vatican body charged with defining and upholding theological tradition. Its release comes in the midst of uncertainty about the longevity of John Paul II, who has suffered increasingly from the effects of a Parkinson's-like disease, and a growing clash of views within the church about its future direction.
John Paul has notably embraced a handful of dictums dating from the famed Second Vatican Council meetings of the mid-1960s, which called for religious liberty and explicitly supported ecumenism, or religious cooperation and unity. During a March visit to the Middle East, he also called for "more mature understanding and ever more practical cooperation" among Christians, Jews, and Muslims.
Tuesday's 36-page document, "Declaration The Lord Jesus on the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church," contains a list of doctrinal errors that Vatican officials say threaten the church's "constant missionary proclamation" and must be shunned by modern adherents.
The list of erroneous ideas include any conviction that divine truth is elusive; that a different truth can exist for some cultures, particularly those in the Asia; that the last judgment of God does not loom; and that reason can be the only source of knowledge.
The Vatican statement noted that such false ideas are reducing the distinction between Christianity and other religions "to the point of disappearance." Church officials said the new dictums should be considered as "infallible" as any doctrinal statement made directly by the pontiff.
Becky
I'm a newbie, so I don't think my opinion should matter much.IMO, your opinion is worth just as much as anyone else's:
"The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 'These men who were hired last worked only one hour,' they said, 'and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.' "But he answered one of them, 'Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?' "So the last will be first, and the first will be last."Mt20:9-16.
Under the new software implemented last fall, one thread can have up to 65,536 replies.
We decided a long time ago that if this ever comes to an end, Steven (Invincibly Ignorant) gets to make the last post.
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.