Posted on 03/04/2007 8:21:23 AM PST by Iscool
My local UU "Church" is called "The First Religious Society - Unitarian". What the heck is that? It so happens that most of the congregation reads the Bible and we have a somewhat tradional service but it stops there.
My take on OR is that he used to be a Calflick or something in the Christian line of country. Somewhere in the past the natural hunger for reason and qauitable dealings among human-type personnel, which is strong in him, was outraged.
I am familiar, probably we ALL have experienced bogus argument, fallacious reasoning based on questionable premises and presented as so self-evident that only wicked people would question the offered conclusion. One day OR had had enough, because unlike our Islamic brethren he was sure that Ultimate Reality and Reason have a discernible and possibly even an essential relationship, despite the imperfections of human reason.
He is drawn to threads like these by his Diogenes-like desire to see, before he dies, if there may be somewhere a person both reasonable AND devout.
When one of us commits an error in reason it is, to him, like fingernails on a blackboard or someone chanting the name of the first girl to give him the toss, and the pain leads him to respond sometimes bitterly. I consider him kin, even if he is as I suppose technically an apostate, because my guess is he loves the Good and is irritated that there isn't more evidence of it.
Hey, OR, How'd I do? Anywhere close?
Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it. Acts 28:28
Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: Romans 3:29
Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? Romans 9:24
But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. I Corinthians 1:24
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. I Cor. 12:13
Who can argue against such unimpeachable authority. Spider it is. (Where was granny from?)
I just wonder why you care what other people believe when you aren't on either side.
My post was not in disagreement with you. Of course He sent salvation to all.
However, He was first sent to the lost sheep of the House of Israel, not Jews or Gentiles.
I am convinced God loves us all and doesn't care a whit what "Church" we belong to or what "formula" we adhere to, just that we love Him and do the best we can.
Hope they didn't mistakenly prescribe Prozac for your pain...
Where is it documented?
We are not discussing any others which may or may not exist.
We certainly are. Because if the apostles wrote in code words, then a whole lot of the NT has to be thrown up for reinterpretation when we find that code book.
The charge has been made that Peter was nevef in Rome. We have evidence that he was.
The evidence that Peter was in Rome is late second century and at the time that the apocryphal books about the battles between Simon Magus and Simon Peter were circulating. Many church fathers obviously assumed that that fiction was true. There is no early documentary evidence of Peter being in Rome, and if he was there at all, it would have been a visit not a residency there, a far cry from the myth of that 25 year Roman Petrine Bishopric that the RCC propagated for centuries, but only of late has realized to be absurd. Now, all the RCC is willing to defend is that Peter was in Rome sometime. My goodness, how the mighty myth has fallen.
2 Pet 3:1a - "Beloved, this is my second writing to you." But you're saying the first one was NOT to them, but rather 1 Pet to the Jews and 2 Pet to the Gentiles?
We have such different notions of what argument and proof are that I often find myself just shaking my head.
I've noticed that you come on all these Protestant vs. Catholic threads and argue with everyone. I accused you on one thread that you weren't searching for the Truth and you told me never to post to you again. I replied that you posted to me first and that I would reply if you ever did again, and so I have. You continue to post to me and argue with what I say, so my question is, why do YOU care what I believe?
A person has to first believe that greater minds than his/hers have wrestled with these questions and that there is a Truth to be found, if only we search for it. I think you, Old Reggie, just like to argue for the sake of arguing.
Dad gum. Need to do a reinstall of the drivers on my crystal ball.
The double predestination folks to the contrary notwithstanding, I think we can safely say that God does not change His being because of what church you go to. But there is something debatable, I would say.
I recently got a very consoling "testimony" from some one who had been saying he couldn't believe that God would love him. And then there was an apprehension that the problem wasn't with God's love of him but with my correspondent's love of God!
I guess I adduce this to say that somehow the path towards my heart and the path toward God's heart intersect in places. (And in other hows, even the metaphor of "path" is misleading.) And so one can be mistaken about things and those mistakes can have consequences in the degree or quality of joy one apprehends.
It's not like Abraham alienated God by having relations with Hagar. It was licit. But Abraham did forfeit the benefits of chaste and faithful monogamy. He, even he, missed something important, I submit.
You don't agree that the Revelation name Babylon is actually Rome? I thought that you did.
Yet, you know of certitude that first use of Babylon for Rome was in Revelation? And that none of the Apostles or epistles used it?
You know that the Holy Catholic Church is changing its tune on Peter's papacy? You know much, sir.
Maybe I missed it (this thread is long!) but where do you get this idea about Peter Magus and the Roman church? Who came up with it? What book is it in? Or is it just your deductions from reading certain things?
I noticed that you missed or ignored my post to you (1454) showing that there is a Christian tomb from the second century underneath the High Altar of the Basilica of St. Peter. It is in a mausoleum with other tombs, mostly pagan. Christians from antiquity have believed that Peter was buried under the High Altar, and now they have found a second century Chrisitan tomb there, just where it should be.
You said "There is no early documentary evidence of Peter being in Rome, and if he was there at all, it would have been a visit not a residency there, a far cry from the myth of that 25 year Roman Petrine Bishopric that the RCC propagated for centuries, but only of late has realized to be absurd." Could it be that you don't want to believe that St. Peter was buried in Rome at St. Peter's Basilica (duh! Who else would be buried there?) and that you've just seized upon this theory of Simon Magus because you refuse to believe the Truth? Your theory is the absurd one.
Have you ever thought that maybe these "apocryphal books about the battles between Simon Magus and Simon Peter" were circulated precisely to call into question the authority of the Holy Father? Here it is, 19 centuries later, and you fell for 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.