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?
I was corrected by Mad Dawg — Church doctrine is that Mary was taken body and soul into heaven at the end of her earthy life. It is silent on whether she died or not. And, yes, Western Church tradition is that she died, but after that was assumed body and soul into heaven.
I've seen this posted numerous times - not just by you - but to clarify, God did not "choose" the people of Israel. He didn't look out over all the nations and say eenie, meenie, miney, moe. He chose Abram. A man from Ur of the Chaldees, who believed in the true God. God made a promise to him, now called Abraham, that through him all the nations of the earth would be blessed and that he would make his descendants as numerous as the sands of the sea. God make a covenant with Abraham. Abraham had Isaac, Isaac had Jacob, and from Jacob (who's name was changed to Israel - or Prince of God) came his twelve sons who were called the twelve tribes of Israel. This covenant was passed down to them and is still in effect today.
I know most of y'all know this, but just in case, I didn't want any confusion to not go unaddressed.
The heresies referenced in the snippet have been around since the time of Christ. As far as Scientology goes, it has no recognizable Christian roots, it is heathen.
as the Councils did when setting the doctrine of The Church
Get Firefox. (Just came across this thread, why stop now?)
I 2nd the motion.
I have Firefox.
Use it from time to time.
However, there’s no 64 bit . . . flash thingy . . . to view YOUTUBE stuff with . . . same with IE 64bit. So I have to keep pasting URL’s into this regular IE . . . so I just end up using it mostly. I do like FireFox’s spell as you go.
No sin is the will of God!If God willed sin to happen than God would be the creator of Sin and the Crucifixion would mean that man followed the will of God by sinning. ...
Then when Jesus prayed to have the cup taken away, what was God's answer? Was it "No Jesus, I'm going to let man decide"? :) Of course not. Jesus also prayed for the will of the Father to be done, so the answer to Jesus was "Yes My Son, I will do my will in this matter and you will be crucified."
In addition, if God's will had nothing to do with the crucifixion, then how do you think about the men who demanded and carried out the crucifixion of Christ? If it was their will that was controlling then should we not be everlastingly grateful to them for killing Christ? After all, where would we be if that had never happened? We would all be damned. That kind of puts us in an uncomfortable place I think.
Thus,if man’s sin is God’s will it would be an act of love because following God’s will is love thus making sin an act of LOVE, sin is NOT love,it’s an imperfection against God’s will.
Well, God letting man sin against Him by design sure WAS an act of love. Did man REALLY arrange everything concerning the crucifixion and it was just our good fortune that God decided to cooperate? ---- And those who were the guilty were not following God because they did not have the requisite knowledge. They were not "obeying", they were sinning on their own, which was in accordance with God's plan.
Adam and Eve’s sin ,the crucifixion,Moses in the desert,sin that will occur tomorrow etc.. is all one NOW to God who does NOT CHANGE(James 1:17) and saw all of our free choices to sin as ONE event that God’s love instantaneously conquers evil in the one NOW,thus,God is NEVER the cause of sin and man has a free will to sin,thus man creates his own sin that Christ suffered for out of love and extreme humility for us on the Cross in an extreme act of Love
Is the "one now" idea any different than regular omniscience? If it is basically the same thing, then it does not solve the luck problem in that our eternal salvation was completely dependent on the chance that men would sin as they did, killing Christ. If God is truly a purely reactionary God, who rolled with all the punches thrown at Him simultaneously in the one now, and just accepted history as it was dictated to Him by man, then we really owe an eternal debt of gratitude to the murderers who killed Him, don't we? They were the ones in charge and God did not interfere.
James 1:17-”Every best gift, and every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is NO CHANGE, nor shadow of alteration.” James 1:17
But if God wasn't in charge of the crucifixion then we cannot say that gift was only from Him. God's gift would only be in agreeing to man's gift (killing Him). ALL of these types of verses evaporate if we say that man was in charge and it was man's will that governed over the happening of the crucifixion. I don't see how God's omniscience would make any difference. It matters what God did or did not do, or willed or did not will.
From Aquinas.... That God is Cause of Sin to no Man THOUGH there are some sinners whom God does not convert to Himself, but leaves them in their sins according to their deserts, still He does not induce them to sin.
I totally agree, although I would use the word "author" instead of "cause" just to be more precise. Causation can get muddled depending on how it is used. IMO, "authoring" is clearer.
1. Men sin by deviating from God their last end. But as every agent acts to its own proper and befitting end, it is impossible for God’s action to avert any from their ultimate end in God.
Different men have different ultimate ends in God, so I'm not sure what this means. I would agree that God does nothing to change where He already knows each of us is going to end up, if that's what he means.
2. Good cannot be the cause of evil, nor God the cause of sin.
Author instead of cause, yes.
3. All the wisdom and goodness of man is derived from the wisdom and goodness of God, being a likeness thereof. But it is repugnant to the wisdom and goodness of man to make any one to sin: therefore much more to divine wisdom and goodness.
If we are talking post-Adam then I would have to disagree since there is no wisdom and goodness in the fallen man. (Rom. 3:12 - All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”) However, I would fully agree that God does not make anyone sin (hence "author" beats "cause"). God zaps no one with evil juice, forcing him to then commit some "desired" sin.
4. A fault always arises from some defect of the proximate agent, not from any defect of the prime agent. Thus the fault of limping comes from some defect of the shin-bone, not from the locomotor power, from which power however is whatever perfection of movement appears in the limping. But the proximate agent of human sin is the will. The sinful defect then is from the will of man, not from God, who is the prime agent, of whom however is whatever point of perfect action appears in the act of sin.*
Yes, the sinful defect is in the sinful nature, not from God. God has dominion and power over everything, however, and He commonly and by design uses the sins of sinners to further His purposes.
Hence it is said: Say not, He himself hath led me astray: for he hath no use for sinful men: He hath commanded none to do impiously, and he hath not given to any man license to sin (Ecclus xv, 12, 21): Let none, when he is tempted, say that he is tempted by God: for God tempteth no man to evil (James i, 13).
While scripture is crystal clear that God has use of sinful men (e.g., Gen. 50:20), I would agree that God commands no one to sin, and has given no one license to sin. I also agree that God tempts no man.
...... All these passages are to be understood as meaning that God does not bestow on some the help for avoiding sin which He bestows on others. ......
YES, this is precisely the mechanism I am employing to explain my position here. God withdrew from the Jews and the Romans to the point that crucifixion was a certainty, all in accordance with God's ordained plan from the foundation of the world, or in the one now.
Overall, I'd say these passages from Aquinas aren't half bad at all. :)
Perhaps the answer is in degrees of rewards, i.e. that some will have crowns and others will be heavenly paupers.
The phrase "Mother of God" . . . is meant to glorify GOD, not Mary.
#####################################################
It boggles my mind that ANYONE could make such a contention . . . and believe that anyone else would believe it.
1. Have had a fair amount of training and experience in FAMILY SYSTEMS THERAPY. One of the themes is re-establishing some order to a chaotic family. That frequently involves establishing Dad as Dad--getting him to ACT LIKE THE DAD and to be respected as the dad. Order.
2. Either Mary is less than God, or she's equal to God or she's greater than God.
3. IF, as Vatican associates et al acknowledge (much of the time--when they aren't ACTING AND WRITING OTHERWISE) that Mary is less than God (though ALMOST equal--according to a vast array of writings) THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO WAY--in terms of rank and discussions of rank--THAT CALLING THE LESSER MOTHER OF THE GREATER IS A WAY TO BRING GLORY TO THE GREATER.
WOULD IT BRING GLORY TO:
Ronald Reagan to call Cindy Sheehan the mother of Ronald Reagan?
.
WOULD IT BRING GLORY TO:
Abraham Lincoln to call Che Guevara the father of Abraham Lincoln?
.
WOULD IT BRING GLORY TO:
Chuck Norris to call BoxerFace the mother of Chuck Norris?
.
WOULD IT BRING GLORY TO:
Pope Benedict to call Teddy Kennedy the illegitimate father of Pope Benedict?
.
WOULD IT BRING GLORY TO:
Pope Jean Paul II to call Shrillery Klintoon the mother of Pope Jean Paul II?
.
WOULD IT BRING GLORY TO:
Professor Higgins to call Liza Doolittle the mother of Professor Higgins?
.
WOULD IT BRING GLORY TO:
Sarah Palin to call Barney Frank the father of Sarah Palin?
.
WOULD IT BRING GLORY TO FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT to call some Aussie Bushman mama skilled at lean-to's his Mamma?
.
HOW could it possibly bring Glory to:
The King to call the lowly serf--no matter how pure--his mother?
.
4. I realize that Madison Avenue and any politically powerful bureaucratic magicsterical of any denomination can do wonders . . . in any era . . . however, there ARE functional, practical, possible limits on reality!
5. Logically, dyanmically, contextually, culturally, ordinally, emphasizing Mary as the MOTHER OF GOD IS A BRAZENLY TRANSPARENT and largely successful effort to bring God down to Mary's level that she may appear more at God's level--in the minds, at least, of the eager Mary acolytes.
6. I believe there are GROUP-THINK, MASS propaganda, MASS MANIPULATION reasons for this--hatched in hell--but that's a whole 'nother discussion.
7. It's grieveously disturbing that ANYONE IN ANY GROUP could even imagine that a feudal, vested interest oriented bunch of bureaucratic power-mongers 1600-1700 years ago were as objective and fair-minded as a very objectively programmed computer would be. It boggles my mind that folks could look themselves in their eyes in their mirrors and unflinchingly assert that and walk away believing it.
8. My observed reality is that there's a centuries old GREAT DECEPTION going on here . . . and rare--very rarely do those immersed in it see the least corner of the huge deception . . . while many of those outside of it experience it slapping them in the face relentlessly.
9. AS with a lot of things about RELIGION--it's not even rational. It's EMOTIONAL. It is hooked to and plays on all mankind's deepest, most intense, archetypal heart-strings--those tied to MOMMY.
10. The pseudo rational elements are . . . cobbled together as after-thoughts in terms of their quality and reliability. Anything and everything, including the kitchen sink, is tossed in to justify the unjustifiable.
I have compassion for those immersed in the GREAT DECEPTION. I have outrage at the forces so actively deceiving folks.
An Assembly of God Pastor—brother of my Dad married to my mother’s sister had a son . . . who was essentially a life-long alcoholic. Uncle said that my double cousin would make Heaven but he wouldn’t have anything to spend when he got there. He evidently did exactly that. He actually reported seeing the angles who came to get him in the hospital room.
Certainly visitors to Heaven report ranks of reward and status. Such is throughout Scripture. Yet, in Heaven, no one is jealous. There is an utter fittingness to it all—which is not only accepted but delighted in as it is.
You've got to be kidding...Is that what they told you at your baptism???
Since Jesus Christ is the Alpha and Omega, it is deceptive to refer to Mary as the Mother of God. She indeed is the mother of our Lord Christ Jesus, and in His humanity, she bore Him as her son, but He is the Son of God and the son of man, albeit the second Adam.
Then they go on and on about Mary as the 2nd Eve.
As well as the Woman in Revelation!
Sigh.
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.