| 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 These men are rightly indignant, and furious about the unjust accusations that cannot be proven but are never withdrawn.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!
What was the theology of the Church Fathers, and which Fathers in particular? I submit to you that there was no uniform teaching of the Church Fathers until 325 AD.
He never said that.
John 10:30 I and the Father are one.”
One is substance or nature; not one in person. Hypostatically they are distinct realities. Otherwise this is Modalism.
In fact, Jesus says that "the Father is greater than I." (John 14:28)
In fact, Jesus says "my God and your God." (John 20:17)
God calling God his God?
John says a lot of things because his is the most interpolated and disconnected Gospel of the four.
Mmhaha! That is one hard up house church!
Deep fried chou dofu for bread and, what, congee for wine? Can you imagine needing something for the meal and the only thing on the block is Tai Hang’s food stall of unique stink? You better remember to remove the century eggs on the way back or you’ll be having conversions to Judaism on the spot lol! Yahweh sure would find it funny! He probably had the event in mind when he created the stuff.
You know, I think I saw this in a Jackie Chan film. “A Chinese Odyssey Part Three: Snake in the Eagle’s Stink” or something. lol.
It seems to me it is you who needs to read some more... :)
WELL PUT.
Thank you for posting the Archbishop Sheen quote. He is one of my favorites.
This is as close as it gets. This one line alone does not justify the overruling of all the subordinationalist verses in the NT.
John 14:5-11 says that the Father is in Jesus and Jesus in the Father. Not entirely explicit, and does not indicate the Trinity.
Colossians 2:9 says that the fullness of the Deity exists in bodily form. Again, not entirely explicit and does not indicate the Trinity.
I normally capitalize the various sects' and cults' names, and will use what would appear to normally used diminutives of lengthy screen names, rarely attempting levity or insult with the names. The OPC, for instance, regularly refers to itself with that contraction - their website is www.opc.org.
The use of RC during the 1800s and early 1900s in the United States and Britain (primarily) was pronounced 'arse' and used as a perjorative against the Church. Not just a matter of thin-skinned, but a recognition of historical use and religious oppression. We will, of course accept the RM's ruling.
Wellllllllllll, no teeth has contributed to a greatly reduced ‘spare tire.’
However, there’s some left I could donate, too.
LOL.
INDEED.
ROTFLOL
That’s a trip. Thanks for the laugh.
Haha. Imagining you as the Pope is really handing me a laugh right now. Especially the ring. Oops, now I’m thinking about the hat too.
I got a couple of Romanist straw men together and we burned some white smoke in my wood stove to make it official.
Though I think yer also supposed to go on a world spanning tour looking for secret codes under the toes of famous Queen of Heaven statues that when deciphered will lead you to the conclave chamber where the super secret official Romeble is kept. Don’t let anyone know about it though cause it could destroy the whole Edifice if the public found out the truth.
There was also something about anti-matter.
At least I think that’s right. I only skimmed that manual in the bookstore. I might be thinking of the movie though.
No teeth? Did something happen?
Yep. Those Irish RCs had it tough, but they usually gave as good as they got from the Orangeman.
lol. Oops. Posting on the fly. I’ll reroute the post correctly.
I think you caught it and corrected it shortly after the original post.
ph
Wondeful insight into the Calvinist mindset. Well, if the Catholics were predestined to be slaughtered by the Orangemen, then so be it. Who are we to gainsay God?
LOL.
CUTE.
THX.
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.