Posted on 05/30/2008 10:21:34 AM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
Whomever is wearing earplugs should do so.
Could it be possible that a ‘taking offense virus’ infected the ‘holy’ water?
>>You didn’t answer my question<<
Why yes I did....
“I don’t claim manifestation about anything.”
>>Only God knows if mgist will go to heaven.<<
Fantastic. That means nothing you say will make it otherwise. She believes Christ to be the person who saves her, so do I and that’s that for that!
Given God’s impartiality . . .
I don’t ASSUME
it’s an automatical truism
that Christ loved His mother above all other humans . . .
IF He had, I think his response when told she and His blood half brothers were waiting to see Him would have been quite different.
Eph.2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost
Do you consider the sacraments righteous works?
Paul was speaking of the customs of Mosaic law, chiefly circumcision.
No, Catholics do not believe we are saved by circumcision.
The tenth time you say rubber dictionary without a thoughtful and mutual respectful conversation’s even being possible I just quit reaading.
= = =
I wouldn’t want to label that an unreasonable resposne. Perfectly understandable, to me. No sweat, no biggy.
However, your post seems to ignore the similar perspective many Prottys have to the chronic relentless insistence that
IT AND IT ALONE can legitimately use the word catholic and
IT AND IT ALONE can legitimately be construed to be the only authentically Christian UNIVERSAL CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
The relentlessness of such assertions are as troublesome, annoying, . . . at some point, in some ways as outrageous and infuriating as anything Prottys are dogged about.
Other RC examples of dogged relentlessness could be cited—I think a lot more than on the Protty side.
It would appear that here we have YET ANOTHER
IT’S SO HORRIFIC WHEN THE PROTTYS DO THUS AND SO
and utter denial that RC’s do essentially, if not exactly the same thing and often worse.
That’s more than a little underwhelming in terms of contributing to meaningful mutually respectful dialogue from the perspective that seems to be proffered above.
To some of us a long list of Marian stuff is hyper, hyper, hyper-blasphemous hyperbole making my hyperbole look weak and anemically muffled by comparison.
Yet, Prottys are expected to swallow it hook line and sinker 100-’s of times a day hereon and to smile cheerfully and claim that the spiritual/intellectual . . . forced intercourse is wonderful.
Some of us are not remotely inclined to take that perspectvie. It’s wholesale, to us, unreasonable, unconsciencable, UNBiblical, preposterous, outrageous etc.
Alas, only RC’s are allowed to be outraged. When Prottys are outraged, they are unreasonable, off the wall, mentally insane, evil, etc. etc. etc.
We just don’t buy into such a stacked deck/double standard. Not by a long shot.
Y’all scream about us imputing internal feelings and intents that aren’t there.
Yet, Y’all persistently impute to us hatred etc. that we don’t feel nor think, at all.
DOUBLE STANDARDS STINK regardless of who wallows in them.
Could you point out to me why you think Paul is speaking of Mosaic Law?
“It’s a human institution, and I don’t care what you guys think, and that’s that.”
Y’all say similar things about Luther; the “missing” books of the Bible; Sola Scriptura and a list of other Protty distinctives dozens to 100’s of times a day. I guess it’s quite righteous when RC’s do it and quite evil when Prottys do it?
Not in our book.
Some of us don’t understand how RC’s have such a seemingly compulsively easy time demonstrating AN OUTRAGEOUS DOUBLE STANDARD and live in wholesale blind denial that such is ever the case.
Unbelievable
I’ve long preferred that approach.
HOGWASH! Guffaws to the MAX!You Charismatics and UFO types use a
RUBBER DICTIONARY and
RUBBER hermeneutic and a
RUBBER Calendar and a
RUBBER whatever!
Except for when you use plastic (or is it paper, I forget, paper or plastic?).I HATE the Charismatic Movement for the way it canonizes emotions and impulse, and despises careful thought and the way it rules out real personal growth for delusive and self-involved spiritual romanticism, and the way it provides a kind of exclusive, unless you have OUR experience and worship with OUR style of worship, you are spiritually dead and probably an idolater.
You would THINK that the Charismatics out there simply cannot accept that fact that a few of their number fit this description -- and use rubber dictionaries and elastic syllogism to dissociate their movement from the inevitable fruit of psychosis in some of their adherents
And given the way God says, "Who is this that darkens counsel with words without knowledge?" I think I'm in good company.
{I left out the colors and fonts and font sizes and all.)
(AND, nothing personal but I;m going not only to ignore but to scoff in big letters at your rubber arguments for the sake of the lurkers.)
I'm not saying I think that. I'm saying that that may fail just a wee bit in conveying a deep and heartfelt love for Charismatics and UFO types.
*****************
My heartfelt thanks.
I consider that there are many Bible verses to prove both sides.
If there wasn’t, all of the debate would be over.
Yeah. THAT's the one.
And I usually follow it up to be clear that includes the Pope, Billy Graham, Joseph Smith, Calvin, etc.
And of course we differ on the whole Pope guy thing.
To be all persnickety, I GET why "the doctrines and traditions of men" are a bad thing. Do you think I do not get it, as a principle? Do you think that I have not read that passage eleventy-twelve times, at least?
I feel that I have conveyed my acceptance of your having that point of view, and my knowledge and understanding of the relevant texts, as cited.
I do NOT feel that you have even heard that we don't think the the definitions and such are not, in our view" doctrines of men (and that consequently that passage, excellent though it be, does not apply, in our view, to the Magisterium because it is not "of men".) At least I wonder if you have, because here in a conversation about how we are perceived by one another you put up that passage, and your doing so bewilders me a little.
No offense, just trying to hack through this ....
But my personal epistemology is such that I do not agree.
The indwelling Spirit has not yet authenticated to me that the words of the Magisterium are His own. If He ever does, then I will receive them that way.
Until then, they remain at a certainty level of 8, 10 or 11 to me.
To God be the glory!
No, most Protestants believe in the spiritual presence of Christ which is very "real;" it is just not "physical."
Although, on one hand, Calvin denies the descent of Christ's body to us (absentia localis), he paradoxically speaks of such a descent by the Holy Spirit as the source of real presence (praesentia realis) in the Supper. Calvin would only allow the word "real" (reali) to be used if it meant that which was not fallacious and imaginary or the opposite of that which was deceptive and illusory. On the whole he preferred the word "true" (vero) to describe Christ's presence. In normal speech "real" connotes something that is existent, objective, and in the external order. When used with reference to the Supper, "real presence" implies "local presence," and, of course, this is denied by Calvin. So then, Calvin would allow the phrase praesentia realis only if "real" was used for "true" as is sometimes the case in common or vulgar parlance.[15] As for the mode of "descent" (modum descensus) Calvin maintains that it is the Holy Spirit who descends but not alone. Christ "descends" by His Spirit. But again Calvin employs paradoxical language when he maintains that the manner of descent is that "by which he lifts us up to himself.[16] There is, so to speak, a simultaneous descent and ascent. What is in view, here, is sacramental "proximity" effected by the Spirit upon the ground of the mystical union of Christ and His people..."...Calvin (as most Protestants) rejected any notion of a local presence of Christ in the Supper. Labeling the Lutheran notion of the ubiquity of Christ's body a "phantasm," he fully discredited it as a credible way to understand the Supper. [8] He described the doctrine of transubstantiation with even greater invective, calling it "fictitious" and the work of Satan...
>>Where do I do that?<<
You don’t. I do. Am I not human?
I don’t eat Strawberries. I can, I don’t.
Jesus didn’t need to pray with His mother. I do.
Amen
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.