Posted on 01/05/2010 9:46:47 PM PST by the_conscience
I just witnessed a couple of Orthodox posters get kicked off a "Catholic Caucus" thread. I thought, despite their differences, they had a mutual understanding that each sect was considered "Catholic". Are not the Orthodox considered Catholic? Why do the Romanists get to monopolize the term "Catholic"?
I consider myself to be Catholic being a part of the universal church of Christ. Why should one sect be able to use a universal concept to identify themselves in a caucus thread while other Christian denominations need to use specific qualifiers to identify themselves in a caucus thread?
Again, is God powerful enough to give us free will?
It's kind of like this for me:
The Word: Cast all your care on him that careth for thee.
Me: Okay, I'm trying REALLY hard to cast all my care on ...
The Word: Do you know what you just said? I said ALL your care, even you care about caring.
Me: Okay, I will now try really REALLY hard not to try hard.
The Word: [laughs, speaking to self] I can see this is going to take a while. Fortunately, a thousand ages in my sight ....
Now now....The Vatican is just a sovereign nation and therefore has diplomatic immunity. It can do no wrong.
I don't think you understand the nature of "diplomatic immunity."
Papist Conventicle CAUCUS
Catholic Caucus
Wow. It's like the joke about Moses and God playing golf.
We could have sold tickets!
OK, but I would think it would take all of three seconds to debunk such a claim by a Muslim. You and I know that Christ IS God, and Muslims deny that identity. To me at least, that is automatically disqualifying. It is simply impossible to worship the God of Abraham while denying Christ.
Try this: in our disagreements, many of us are saying, "We're in the same family but You're one of the black sheep.." So at least we're acknowledging kinship. It could be worse ....
Yes, and I would say the above is very civil. It's sure a lot more civil than that updating of "Dominus Iesus" in, I think, the summer of '07. Boy did that thing get my nose out of joint. :)
And just to flog it again, and because evidently some find it offensive, "separated brethren" DOES acknowledge the family relationship. It's not ALL bad.
I agree and do not find that term offensive at all. If we are brothers in Christ, and are separated by profound differences in theology, then the term is perfectly fitting.
Further suppose that one were to choose, as his field of engagement, a pseudonymous internet discussion group.
Now, it seems to me, that one has a choice of many possible courses of action.
One could, for example, set oneself up openly as an opponent of said group ... troll the highways, byways, and fever swamps of the internet for derogatory information regarding the group, and post it all. It matters not whether said information is true or not ... only that it is derogatory. This will set members of the targeted group back, at first, as they scramble to defend themselves. However, its effectiveness is limited in time. Eventually, the targets will realize that they have been targeted ... organize a defense ... and refute the charges. At which point, the attacker rather than the target starts to look bad.
Alternatively, one could be devious. One could set oneself up falsely as a member of the targeted group, and establish credibility promoting its ideology for a while. Then, one begins to lash out at other groups ... doing so with increasingly false, bizarre, irrational and outrageous behaviour. There's no limit, here ... one is essentially attacking ones' own allies ... who rise to defend themselves against the lashing out. One responds at each turn by turning up the volume ... becoming ever weirder and nastier. Remenber, here, that one is posing as a member of a group that one wishes to discredit. One's irrational and antisocial behaviour is taken to be representative of the organisation one wishes to target, and of which one has claimed to be a member. It's great ... one can be as weird and nasty as one likes, for as long as one likes, and in doing so continue to bring discredit on the target group. It need never end.
Just sayin'
John 6 :24 New International Version (©1984) Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin.
New American Standard Bible (©1995) Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.
International Standard Version (©2008) Jesus answered them, "Truly, I tell all of you with certainty that everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin.
American Standard Version Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Every one that committeth sin is the bondservant of sin.
King James Bible Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
The greek word is doulos
1) a slave, bondman, man of servile condition
a) a slave
b) metaph., one who gives himself up to another's will those whose service is used by Christ in extending and advancing his cause among men c) devoted to another to the disregard of one's own interests
2) a servant, attendant
Paul says the unsaved are slaves to sin..or servants if you will...take it up with him
What I do know is that everything an unsaved man does..even if man calls it good..God calls it sin..
I do know that unsaved men love their sin, the saved hate it..Other than that take it up with Paul
Can God sin?
Hmmmm ... who or what do you suppose Jews worship?
In the Bhagavad Gita, Ch.4, Verse 13 The Lord says:
"The fourfold caste has been created by Me according to the differentiation of Guna and Karma;"
In the Bhagavad Gita, Ch.18, verse 40 the Lord says:
"There is no being on earth, or again in heaven among the gods, that is liberated from the three qualities born of Nature."
Gita Ch. 18, V.41: "Of Brahmanas, Kshtriyas and Vaishyas, as also the Sudras, O Arjuna, the duties are distributed according to the qualities born of their own nature."
Oh really? Why were the lawsuits filed against the Vatican regarding the perverted homo priests attacking children dismissed?
Does the Vatican not have diplomats whom enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution?
Monsignor Pater???
Free will.
...What I do know is that everything an unsaved man does..even if man calls it good..God calls it sin...
So if I give myself up to Christ, God calls that a sin?
Do you think “immunity from prosecution” means “can do no wrong?”
Wait...does this mean Calvinists eat curry on Fridays?
The question is not "could God" the question is did He??
We are made in the IMAGE and likeness of God...
God does not have a totally free will..He can not violate His Holy nature or He ceases to be God..
Like God man can not violate his natural fallen nature..he will always act and choose according to that nature unless God changes that nature back to one that is in HIS image..
We then have a true few will, one like Adam had in the garden, one that allows us to choose to sin or not to sin.
Does God have the right to decide what of His creations He chooses to adopt as His children or is His will dominated by His creations?
In the eyes of God, no. For those who fall under immunity, yes.
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.