| 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 These men are rightly indignant, and furious about the unjust accusations that cannot be proven but are never withdrawn.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!
I am sorry, too, for your dismissal of one of God’s chosen scribes. He was honored by God to write to the gentiles, to instruct and teach them, to work beside them and build His church. I will pray for you.
We focus on the "red" words because God chose to send his only Son to reveal some of the scripture. Christ was not just another prophet or even a peer of Moses and the Apostles, he is one in being with the father. The words spoken by Him were as if received directly from the burning bush. Were the actual words of Christ no more important God could just as easily have given the entire revealed word by proxy.
Why is it you concede infallibility to the canon process of the Church, but not to any other products of Apostolic Tradition?
Amen, been there done that.
The entirety of the Bible is God’s word, is Jesus’ word. To ignore, belittle, dismiss, or otherwise reduce any part of the word of God is a sin. Would the Ten Commandments be any less important if Paul had been the scribe?
I like John of Patmos and what he wrote even less.
Well, here’s a couple of Paul’s teachings. How do you feel about them?
-Only men can be ministers (in the leading the church sense)
No Women Priests
-He spoke of a benefit to singleness in the ministry so that there were not distractions from marriage.
Celibacy
-Women should keep silent in the church.
My guess it that there are a lot of Catholic women who given these three Pauline teachers would agree with Meatloaf.
Two out of three aint bad.
Will Wallace
Do you want my thoughts, the nihil obstat position of the Catholic Church, or were you looking for affirmation of the Pauline heretical position?
Forget it, I just got your opinion, and it’s value.
To: Dr. Eckleburg
I also find it difficult to believe that any presbyterians read the gospels. They sure do concentrate on those freaky Pauline epistles. St. Paul got a few things right, but he was likely just as loony as his protegee, Calvin.
435 posted on Wednesday, April 21, 2010 8:03:57 PM by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 433 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
Just remember you can't begin these discussions with the presumptions that Catholics do or even should agree with Sola Scriptura.
No, those ideas of Paul’s don’t bother me. My husband was the spiritual head of our household, and I think the feminist movement has done damage to all churches, especially the ones with female pastors, bishops, etc.
? I can’t get you to agree with the Bible!
To: Dr. Eckleburg I also find it difficult to believe that any presbyterians read the gospels. They sure do concentrate on those freaky Pauline epistles. St. Paul got a few things right, but he was likely just as loony as his protegee, Calvin.
So, giving my opinion about the Pauline epistles is the same as saying God made a mistake with Paul?
Let me be very very clear: GOD. DOES. NOT. MAKE. MISTAKES. I. DO. NOT. CARE. FOR. THE. PAULINE. EPISTLES. Again: God does not make mistakes. I do not care for the Pauline Epistles. I think St. Paul was not wrapped too tight. Was a few cards short of a deck. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Etc.
Stating that my dislike of Paul is the same as disrespecting God or telling God He made a mistake -- that is completely untrue. That was quite a stretch, by the way, to come up with a falsehood like that one.
Which translation is God's word? Which one do you read? Are any of them translated wrong? What about the interpretation, do you go by your own, or do you go by the tenets of any particular faith? Do you never question what you are reading?
Ironically (based on your comments about Paul), you probably apply those first two teachings more literally than would I.
I can offer long arguments about how they were addressed to particular people at a particular time for a particular purpose; but the truth is every Christian I have talked with in any depth will grasp some scripture eagerly and let other scripture lay quietly undisturbed.
Many Protestants claim sola scriptura, but in practice it’s more ‘selected scriptura’
It’s done in every denomination.
And it’s a slippery slope that we’d all like to pretend we don’t slide one, but we all do.
The church at it’s healthiest has people of widely divergent schools of thought at the table. Certainly not all can be right about everything; but when we segregate into like minded groups, we reinforce what we believe without ever having it challenged by opposing views.
That is one of the reasons this forum is such a healthy (of imperfect) tool.
Will Wallace
See how it works?
Jesus direction to Peter to “feed my sheep” three times in response to Peter's proclaiming his love for Jesus, is often quoted by Catholics to show how that charge devolved upon the Popes in the particular and the Catholic church in the general. O.K., then that solemn charge absolutely must be accomplished or the unproductive tree will be cut down.
“Thinking for a minute what “a billion members on the books” means would suggest the natural conclusion that controlling this outfit is virtually impossible.”
For all the reasons that you enumerated before this.
The exact structure of the New Testament Church is not set forward in the Scriptures other that the various necessary functions had men appointed to fulfill them and it was apparently a form that could be expanded upon as Jesus also commissioned his followers (not just a clerical class) to make disciples and teach in all the nations.
In Matthew he said that the gospel or good news would, in fact, be preached in all the inhabited earth.
Whatever organizational structure that attempts to copy or professes to be that Christian church admits that it is under Jesus’ charge also and must accomplish the work.
So if Jesus asks Peter if Peter did feed the sheep and Peter says there was just too many to care for, that the under shepherds were too busy because not enough men were entering the seminaries and those that did lost the respect of the sheep and were involved in turf wars and the whole organization was just too unwieldy to get the job done?
I don't think that would fly, I really don't. It sounds like Ford Motors saying the company structure didn't lend its self to safety and so Pintos should be expected. Other than that it does well on safety.
Given a choice, if that is the choice, between a long established structure of reverends, cardinals, eminences, nuncios, prelates, on and on, And...and accomplishing the feeding and shepherding of Jesus’ sheep....no contest.
“It's harder to forgive them when they are jerks or vicious sinners, but it's just as important as any forgiveness is.”
In 1 Cor. 5:1-5 Paul tells the congregation to deal with what was apparently an incestuous relationship and further advises the removal of the wicked from the congregation.
The moral cleanness and protection of the congregation was the priority but even as Paul reports in his second letter this same man evidently repented and was restored.
Forgiveness followed the repentance.
So yes, perhaps unfair but unjustified? maybe not so much.
I already agree with the 100% of the Bible, I just don't agree with the revisionist Protestant Pauline heresy and its interpretations of it or agree that the Bible alone encompasses the entire revealed word of God.
But wasn't it the Protestants who discarded entire books from the Bible?
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.