This one is pretty funny
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?
It’s easy to take something and twist it, and use it to impeach a whole body of worshippers; it’s easy to demand explanations for questionable so-called “art” done by unknown artists; it’s easy to put a vicious interpretation on something meant to uplift, inspire, and inform.
It’s far more difficult to accept these things in the BEST spirit, in Christian sympathy for others’ deeply held beliefs (no matter if we disagree).
I suggest that nothing was meant to offend on either side. Perhaps we are all mistaken about each other.
And with no sarcasm whatsoever, may I pray that WE ALL JUST GET ALONG, in the Most Holy Name of Christ Jesus, risen Son of the Living Almighty I AM.
Comfort? When did you ever express comfort with Christianity or any of its beliefs? Or even belief in them?
The difference between Sacred and Immaculate escapes you does it? Thousands of websites? Most of the ones that you post are questionable at best or hate sites at worst. Your wayoflife hate site which was strongly antiCatholic saved the bulk and the core of its hatred for Calvinists, which you apparently overlooked.
You don't post as if you know the difference between sacred and immaculate. Or what consecration means. Or that you know that since we have no image of either Jesus or Mary (except for the icon painted (written really) by the Gospel author Luke), there have no basis whatsoever to criticize this images in these paintings. Or know the Gospels. Or know most of Paul's writings except for what your coven tells you and also what it is supposed to mean. You only post as if you know snippets of the OT and what your coven tells you that they mean.
You prate and prattle about American superiority and we can only find the American Machen awash in a sea of foreign religious idols that you post on. You pull up antiCatholic sites and we find out that they hate Calvinists more. You get your YOPIOS wrong, and your YOPIOP (photos) even more wrong.
The fourth is holding a lunch bag, indicating gluttony.
You’re both being far too generous. If you note the figure that is placed second from the left. Look at how he is holding his Bible in his left hand. He is clearly giving the Bible the middle finger. He is cleverly shown hiding it inside, but it’s been revealed to me that that is what is going on. And if you dare to challenge me on that because you think my interpretation is irrational and completely devoid of reason, please remember, this has been revealed to me and you can’t compete with that revelation with all your logic and stuff.
I’m not sure if that needs a sarcasm tag or not.
Perhaps your revelation does not translate properly since you do not have the January 2010 secret Bible decoder ring; you have the December 2009 version and are hopelessly out of date. The tall figure has had too many beers and is preparing to lighten his liquid load. It has been revealed to me by a reliable source on a street corner, complete with a handwritten sign, long hair and beard, dirt, halitosis, and lice.
That's not a picture of "Mary on the cross."
It's a "picture of Mary" affixed to a cross.
Can't you tell the difference?
Tyndale Col 1:24
21 And you (which were in tymes past straungers and enymes because youre myndes were set in evyll workes) hath he now recocilied
22 in ye body of his flesshe thorowe deeth to make you holy vnblameable and with out faut in his awne syght
23 yf ye continue grounded and stablysshed in the fayth and be not moved awaye from the hope of the gospell wher of ye have herde howe that it is preached amonge all creatures which are vnder heven wher of I Paul am made a minister.
24 Now ioye I in my soferinges which I suffre for you and fulfill that which is behynde of the passions of Christ in my flesshe for his bodies sake which is the congregacion
25 wher of I am made a minister acordynge to the ordinaunce of god which ordinaunce was geven me vnto you warde to fulfill ye worde of god
26 that mistery hid sence the worlde beganne and sence ye begynnynge of generacions: but now is opened to his saynctes
27 to whom god wolde make knowen the glorious riches of this mistery amonge the gentyls which riches is Christ in you the hope of glory
28 whom we preach warnynge all men and teachinge all men in all wisdome to make all men parfect in Christ Iesu.
The OPC can’t be a church if it worships Machen and Calvin. Or is it just worshipping MAchen as God?
You wrote:
“Perhaps your revelation does not translate properly since you do not have the January 2010 secret Bible decoder ring; you have the December 2009 version and are hopelessly out of date.”
NNNOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! Soylent Green is made of people!!!!!
“The tall figure has had too many beers and is preparing to lighten his liquid load. It has been revealed to me by a reliable source on a street corner, complete with a handwritten sign, long hair and beard, dirt, halitosis, and lice.”
He is the seeker who speaks to the anti-Catholics in the night!
[I’m just trying to make as little sense as the anti-Catholics here. It’s hard work. It seems to come naturally them.]
All of you — you are coming up with random interpretations of some random picture from some random website, with no verification of what it’s supposed to be, or if it is authorised by religious doctrine. That’s si.... oh, wait, wasn’t that what Gamecock, Dr. Eckleburg etc. were just doing?
This one is pretty funny
Wait - did I type that in the forum and not FReepmail? Rats....
I recall how Catholics worked so hard to defend our Church, taking flak from all sides (were we over the target, or what?). I recall that the lowest explanations possible were put forward by the opposition, regarding the so-called “ART.”
Yet, not one of the separated brethren or sistren seem to have any explanations for these photos. They don’t even ask for the provenance.
I suspect it is because it does not comport with their earlier arguments against the Church.
Is silence consent, here?
There are multiple versions of this art (?) form all over Europe. This one's in Geneva, and it's the centerpiece of a wall some 100 yards long, all covered with more idolatrous depictions of various Reformers.
Calvin does look particularly grim, as though he's watching Servetus burn. As my dear grandmother used to say, a person you could not possibly ask to dinner.
Sure it can. Just not a Christian church. Which the OPC only occasionally resembles. If you squint. On a hazy day. After drinking deeply from the Calvinist bathtub full of gin. From a considerable distance.
Or is it just worshipping MAchen as God?
I'm sure that Machen is an exalted servant to Calvin; as Beelzebub is to Lucifer.
Touchdown Calvin?
I'm sure this is the key to something very important that they are trying to hide from us . . . .
< . . . cue spooky music . . . >
“the word church used thruout the KJV is the same word that was used in Matt. 16...IF you are correct, Jesus then built a congregation, not a church...Jesus’ body is a congregation... / The Greek word for congregation was used only once in the NT...”
I can’t tell you much about this link, although it seems to agree with what I’ve read elsewhere:
http://www.bible-truth.org/Ekklesia.html
Britannica had an article on the secular use of the word...1911 edition found here:
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Ecclesia
“Definitions: The New Testament
But one doesn’t need lexicons and dictionaries to know something of the meaning of our term. Anyone with a good English text of the Bible should be able to read and, with some thought, arrive at an accurate concept of “ekklesia”. As can be seen from the definitions above, “ekklesia” is not used in strictly spiritual contexts, and this can be determined from the New Testament. “Ekklesia” is used four times in a purely “secular” sense, not denoting “church” as we commonly think of it, and an examination of these passages will help us to arrive at an accurate understanding of this term.
Acts 19:32,41-—”Some therefore cried one thing, and some another: for the assembly was in confusion; and the more part knew not wherefore they were come together...And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly.” This assembly was made up of the silversmiths in town who had been “called out” by Demetrius for less-than-honorable purposes, resulting in a riotous mob. By way of contrast we read of another “ekklesia” in....
Acts 19:39-—”But if ye seek anything about other matters, it shall be settled in the regular assembly.” This was a group of people who could be “called out” to legally transact business. (The word “regular” [ASV] means “lawful, legal, lit., in law...or strictly, what is within the range of law”. W.E. Vine, The Expanded Vine’s Expository Dictionary Of New Testament Words, p. 646)
Acts 7:38-—”This is he that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel that spake to him in the Mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received living oracles to give unto us:” This “church” was composed of the Jews who had been in captivity in Egypt but had obeyed the call of God through Moses to come out. For forty years they were assembled in the wilderness as they headed for the land God had promised to their father Abraham.
Conclusions
The terms “church” and “ekklesia” denote (a) an assembly of (b) a certain kind of people who (c) are collected or grouped together based upon things held in common and (d) having responded to a common call. When “church” is used in spiritual contexts, sometimes these people are assembled literally, other times they are “brought together” figuratively as we shall see in future studies. The type of people and the nature of the assembly (whether a “local church” or the “universal church”) is always determined from the context.”
http://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-what-is-church.htm
When the KJV was translated, James made certain that “church” was used instead of “congregation”. Why?
Having been raised in Scotland with a congregational style church, he was convinced that royal authority was linked to the church. In the 1604 meeting where he agreed to sponsor the KJV, the Puritans were thrown out of the meeting by King James, with the pithy, “No Bishop, No King!”
Hence his requirement that the new translation keep intact high church structure.
“The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, as the word church, not to be translated congregation.”
http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvhist.html
I think silence on their part is classified as a miracle even more than consent
Calvin on marijuana. There can be no other explanation. Those guys in the front row with the little kids (and only one female in the entire picture) wouldn't be a pair of same sex Calvinist couples with adopted kids, would they?
Extra, extra, read all about it. Calvinist pot loving same sex adoptions on the rise!!! Come to the Presbyterian church and enjoy the intimacy that one normally experiences in a San Francisco bathhouse. Next week; wiccan Presbyterian covens naked around the bonfire under the harvest moon!!!! Get your tickets now.
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.