Posted on 01/23/2010 4:09:32 PM PST by NYer
In the end, this seems to be a matter of the will. The ‘super pseudo-rationalist’ makes a choice....
Evidently some people feel they cannot be entirely "free" if there's a God. Their idea of freedom is essentially "freedom from." They do not see that freedom in its essence is "freedom for." The latter is at the root of the American idea of liberty.
But now I'm probably digressing, so had better stop here.
Thank you ever so much, dearest brother in Christ, for your insightful essay/post!
I completely agree.
But now I'm probably digressing, so had better stop here.
All;
Somehow, I think the following link and discourse on the
Jezebel spirit
touches on this sidebar and a lot of others . . .
Certainly facets of the Jezebel spirit have increasingly begun afflicting churches, the public square, government, attitudes and behaviors of folks far and wide.
We would be wise to be alert and resist the enemy at every turn—within and without.
Seductive nuances can be subtle or brazen and everywhere in between.
Our focus, our goals, our manner, our strategies, our ways need to be from His heart wrapped in His Blood and Spirit directed at His priorities and goals.
Blessed be the Name of The Lord.
Here’s the link:
Are you a practicing Catholic in agreement with and in line with dogmatic Church teaching,bb? Such as.. Confession, Real Presence in Eucharist, Assumption Of Mary, Immaculate Conception etc...
INDEED.
However, they can’t even get
FREEDOM FROM
very right.
They wholesale neglect FREEDOM FROM:
—suicidal philosophies and behaviors;
—suicidal arrogance;
—suicidal self-absorption;
—suicidal selfishness;
—suicidal using and abusing of their own bodies and of others;
—suicidal fantasies that one can sow poison and destruction and not reap the same;
—suicidal craziness that it’s reasonable to do the same absurd things over and over and expect a better outcome;
—suicidal myopic vision that their willfully chosen, wholesale biased tunnel vision is a picture of all that is;
—suicidal notion that they are better at judging anything; understanding anything; knowing anything better than God Almighty;
. . .
They seem to construe themselves as some sort of exalted Ayan Rand or Marxist NEW ORDER OF BEING that’s left the shackles of such spiritual perspectives in the ‘discredited’ dust of philosophical backwater shanty wide spots in the road of life.
They seem to think that the
FREEDOM to
—contract an endless string of STD’s;
—attempt to sleep with piles of earned guilt;
—use, abuse, sabotage and cheat their closest loved ones;
—manipulate, coerce, !!!!CONTROL!!!!, torture, play sadistic, self-serving games with . . . others;
—flaunt whatever personally FEELS GOOD TO THE FLESH;
—wallow in various levels and varieties of various addictions 24/7;
—be awash in existential and interpersonal isolation, angst and desperation;
—rant, rail, scream, pontificate shrilly etc. against ALMIGHTY GOD
. . .
that all such “FREEDOMS”
are somehow maximally LIBERATING FREEDOMS of the highest order
when
actually they are chief tools of maximum enslavement by the Dark UNLord himself.
Have they no clue?
Dreadfully sad.
Thanks for your true,
kind and generous reply.
Blessed be the Name of The Lord.
My impression is that
in terms of the parable of the rich young ruler . . .
Betty has already sold all she has and given it to the poor in her heart and probably a lot of other ways.
That is, she has already sold out to Jesus Christ lock, stock, barrel, fantasies, preferences, habits, goals, relationships and property.
Given that . . . your list is pretty petty, imho.
Jesus tells us in Matthew 7 that we can discern the tree by looking at its fruits. And the fruits of the Spirit are these:
It is for that reason I call her "my dearest sister in Christ!"
Amen. Thanks for an affirming reply.
I only know her hereon.
However, though my vision is long beyond 20/20, I can see plenty well enough to see our Dear Sister's heart for The Lord.
And the issues of life and eternity are always settled in the heart first and foremost.
And that therefore, such a list for Betty = pretty petty.
There. Got the chance for the alliteration I missed the first round. LOL.
Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
I don’t know if you’re aware or not . . .
scientists have discovered that there’s quite a cluster of
BRAIN CELLS
in/on the heart.
They don’t quite know what to make of the findings.
Fascinating . . . given all the Bible has to say about the ‘heart’ of man.
I never doubted that for a minute,she exudes much love,much like you do as well.
According to the Bible Jesus was raised by God. How does that make him God? Obviously his Resurrection could not have been part of his "God-ness." It was only later that the Church changed the biblical words of St. Paul (1 Cor 15:4) in the Creed by stating that he rose from the dead, "And rose again on the third day, according to the Scriptures," to harmonize it in accord with the dogmatic pronouncements of the first and second Ecumenical Councils centuries later (325 and 381 AD).
Paul considered Jesus closer to a Platonic ideal man "in the form" (Gr. morphe – external appearance, ergo not in nature or essence!) of God" and asserts that "for us there is but one God, the Father...and one Lord Jesus Christ," (1 Cor 8:6), clearly distinguishing the two as not one and the same.
As for the miracles, that was given to him, as it was later given to his human disciples who could heal with their shadow and raise people from the dead. So, miracles are also not an indication of Jesus' "God-ness" as you say.
In addition to that, the Resurrected Jesus admits that only the Father (i.e. God) knows the future (Acts 1:7), thereby admitting his "man-ness," rather than his "God-ness."
The account of Jesus Transformation (Matthew 17, Mark 9, Luke 9) on Mount Tabor also denies his "God-ness," until then (and then it was only what was to come in the future).
Even though John has Thomas saying, "My lord and my God." (John 20:28), after inserting his fingers into Jesus' wounds (which means his glorified body would be imperfect!), in that very same chapter John's has this same divine Jesus call the Father his God (John 20:17)! God calling God his God? But this self-contradicting inerpolational witness is typical of John*.
*[NB for more on John's Gospel I recommend Robert M. Grant's "The Gospel of John" analysis. Grant has been a bible scholar at the U. of Chicago for over 30 years]
The New Testament account portrays Jesus as a man (think of his prayer in Gethsemane) who knows he is God's favorite who is greater than men, but definitely lesser than God (cf. John 14:28). The two greatest Apostles, Peter for example, refer to Jesus as a man even after his Resurrection (Acts 4:10), as does Paul (Romans 5:15, 1 Tim 2:5), who also asserts that God is higher than Christ ("man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ." – 1 Cor 11:3)
Paul even suggests in the Phillipians that Christ was made in the likeness of men (Phil 2:7) and calls him the firstborn of all creation, i.e. a creature (Colosians 1:15).
This suggests that many early Christians, including obviously Peter and Paul, believed he was a man, who in the best case was made divine only after the Resurrection, and even that is questionable. Consider that some of his own 11 remaining disciples, who saw knew the Resurrected Jesus doubted him to the last day! (cf Mat 28:17)
Thus all references to Jesus as a man, even a celestial ideal Platonic man, still portrays him as a creature. Even in his external appearance of God (an image of God, but not God), he was never worshiped by the apostles (except in the manner appropriate for earthly lords, cf Mat 28:17).
This flies in the face of the dogmatic Christian beliefs. The Incarnation and the miraculous birth are thereby put in question (cf Gal 4:4), for he was "born of a woman according to the Law."
In adiditon tot hat the Biblical accounts strongly suggests two contradicting beliefs regarding Jesus late divinization, suggests Jesus was adopted (made divine) either after his baptism or after his resurrection (Luke associates resurrection with Psalm 2:7 "You are my son, today I have begotten you"). And this tells us that early Christians did not believe in Incarnation or the miraculous birth of Jesus.
However, this also stands in stark contrast to John's latter-day Gospel account written some 66 years after Christ (c. 99 AD), when all the other eyewitnesses were already dead and with Christianity in dire straits, who launches a novel idea that Jesus is the eternal divine Logos who became flesh (cf John 1:1, 1:14).
There's no wonder it took the Church some 300 years to synchronize the story and choreograph the faith. Save for for John, The NT does not portray earthly Jesus as divine, or being Incarnate.
That's how I see it, for what it's worth. I am ready, I have my flak jacket and my Kevlar pot on. :)
Hmmm, Catholics are not in-your-face type of people, I doubt too many would stoop so low.
Now I know why Notre Dame football has been hurting....
So very true, dear betty. Their apparent inability to discern the contrast between their wish for freedom from religion and a constitutional vision of freedom of religion, is a stark revelation of the confusion residing in their minds respecting the whole range of the issue.
Thanks for the beep, boop. Always a pleasure. And, thanks to you Quix for your efforts (and to all the others whose contributions are what makes this thread cook).
Thanks for your kind reply.
Have a blessed week with those you love.
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.