| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/28/2010 11:54:24 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Per poster’s request |
Posted on 04/18/2010 9:49:35 PM PDT by Judith Anne
I seriously wonder about some FReepers, sometimes. Any other person accused of a crime would be defended by every FReeper as being innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. I've seen whole threads written by men who have been accused of child abuse by ex-wives out to deny them their visitation rights or to wrest more money out of them. These men are rightly indignant, and furious about the unjust accusations that cannot be proven but are never withdrawn.
Yet where are those FReepers when a PRIEST is accused? Where is the presumption of innocence? Suddenly, every accusation becomes a verdict, and not only the accused but his entire organization and all its adherents are held responsible.
I can only wonder what some of these so-called conservatives (who so faithfully defend the Constitution) would do, if THEY were the ones accused! It is a nightmare for any man -- all of you know how even the accusation stains the man forever, even if it is proven false!
Not only that, many here assert that the problems of 30, 40 and even 50 years ago must be tried in the media TODAY!
Remember the Duke rape case? There are more similarities than differences here. The priests are accused, nifonged, and instead of being defended, they are vilified!
What other man of you could stand under the weight of such an accusation trumpeted by the press, and come out whole? None! And such accusations made, LONG after the statute of limitations has passed, sometimes even after the accused is dead and buried for YEARS -- are YOU one of those who automatically, reflexively, spitefully, and gleefully act as judge, jury, and executioner?
Women! What if it were YOUR HUSBAND, YOUR BROTHER, YOUR FATHER, YOUR UNCLE, YOUR SON who was accused? Wouldn't you want the best defense possible? Wouldn't YOU believe in their innocence? Wouldn't YOU help protect your loved ones as much as possible? And yet, YOU JUDGE THE CHURCH FOR DOING WHAT YOU WOULD DO?
Shame! Vast shame! On all who have sinned against the innocent!
That wouldn't be anything like building the whole papacy on one verse in Matthew?
Or building the whole perpetual virginity of Mary which has ZERO verses in Scripture to support it?
Or the concept of the Immaculate Conception on who knows what?
Or the ascension of Mary?
You want to start on church doctrine with weak Scriptural support? Sure, have at it.
Just be aware that for every finger you point at someone else for building doctrines on one verse of Scripture, there are more than four pointing back at the Catholic Church.
There are entire libraries filled with that content. To ask me to cite the corroboration on an FR post is to deny the issue.
Good Grief! There are entire domination's who proclaim them in their names.
Did you read that in the clouds, or did you piece it together from what wasn't taught to you in your first communion catechism?
You made the assertion, you back it up. I’m not doing your work for you. It’s your responsibility to back it up or we can rightly conclude that you have nothing.
If it’s so easy to do, then do it.
There is no succession of Lutherism like the papacy.
Nobody has elected a replacement Luther every time the current replacement dies.
No church is claiming that it is built on Luther like the Catholic church claims its build on Peter.
That’s not an answer to the questions.
Go on. Explain why you criticize Protestants for allegedly building whole doctrines on one verse when the Catholic Church does the very self same thing.
Therein lies the reason for the value attached to tradition as found in the Gospel of Thomas and Infancy Gospel of James and other such tripe.
Elevating the tradition of men to the level of Scripture is the ONLY way the Catholic Church can justify teaching as truth things not only not found in the Bible, but that are directly contradicted by a plain, basic reading of Scripture.
You know what I find interesting?
That some people do in the theological realm what they condemn in the scientific realm.
Creationists are condemned for believing the creation account in the Bible that (evos/scientists claim) has no scientific support, in the face of the mountains of evidence they claim backs up the ToE.
And yet, many will believe in theological issues that are completely devoid of any Scriptural support as some claim creationism is of scientific support.
Exactly. There was only one Luther to whom you attribute your revised interpretation of Scripture. It makes the succession of popes seem almost ordinary.
There is no point. I know from past discussions that any response I submit would be dismissed outright before even being read.
As opposed to elevating other traditions of men like Luther and Calvin who twisted, redacted, and revised the plain, basic meaning of scripture?
Interesting the Catholic take on a man who only wanted to have the Catholic church return to the Bible that said Catholic Church not only claims it wrote but takes responsibility for its very existence; the same Bible that it uses to justify its very existence and the papacy.
He's a trouble maker for wanting that and he and his followers are heretics for wanting that?
So, if the Catholic Church claims that it is responsible for the Bible's very existence, why the condemnation of those who want to get back to it? If the Bible is good enough for the Catholic church to use to justify its existence, why is it not good enough for other churches to use to justify their existence?
You’re really big on throwing out unsubstantiated accusations as fact and blowing off any responsibility for backing them up.
What tradition and what Scripture? Chapter and verse and misinterpretation, please.
The sale of indulgences is often mentioned when describing Luther's 95 complaints but not the purpose of the indulgences.
Even the great Erasmus favored ending the sham of the celibacy rule that easily tolerated immoral concubinage but condemned honorable marriage for a clergyman.
But as Luther and others discovered, reform was impossible let alone a restoration to the apostolic church.
Ummm, with the Catholic churches track record of shuffling child molesting priests from one unsuspecting diocese to another, why should we?
Trust is something that must be earned.
Kindda reminds me of the following story:
One day, a scorpion looked around at the mountain where he lived and decided that he wanted a change. So he set out on a journey through the forests and hills. He climbed over rocks and under vines and kept going until he reached a river. The river was wide and swift, and the scorpion stopped to reconsider the situation. He couldn't see any way across. So he ran upriver and then checked downriver, all the while thinking that he might have to turn back.
Suddenly, he saw a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream.
"Hellooo Mr. Frog!" called the scorpion across the water, "Would you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?"
"Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you wont try to kill me?" asked the frog hesitantly.
"Because," the scorpion replied, "If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!"
Now this seemed to make sense to the frog. But he asked. "What about when I get close to the bank? You could still try to kill me and get back to the shore!"
"This is true," agreed the scorpion, "But then I wouldn't be able to get to the other side of the river!"
"Alright then...how do I know you wont just wait till we get to the other side and THEN kill me?" said the frog.
"Ahh...," crooned the scorpion, "Because you see, once you've taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with death, now would it?!"
So the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river. He swam over to the bank and settled himself near the mud to pick up his passenger. The scorpion crawled onto the frog's back, his sharp claws prickling into the frog's soft hide, and the frog slid into the river. The muddy water swirled around them, but the frog stayed near the surface so the scorpion would not drown. He kicked strongly through the first half of the stream, his flippers paddling wildly against the current.
Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog's back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.
"You fool!" croaked the frog, "Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?"
The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drownings frog's back. "I could not help myself. It is my nature."
Then they both sank into the muddy waters of the swiftly flowing river.
Another keeper of a statement, folks. Make a note of it.
Please do. Refute this statemet if you can. You cannot. Paul subscribes to a subordinationalist theology, and the role of Paul's Holy Spirit is not co-equal to either Jesus or Paul's God the Father.
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.