| 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 These men are rightly indignant, and furious about the unjust accusations that cannot be proven but are never withdrawn.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!
No doubt Paul's comments, based as they were upon being taught by Christ, do seem looney to those who put themselves up as a higher authority.
Amen. You and Wmfights nailed it.
Aren't you just so special, JA, that you feel so free to condemn the works that your church fathers designate as Scripture. Sorry to laugh, but your statement reminded me instantly of Dana Garvey's "Church Lady" on SNL. "Well. Isn't that spayshul?" His satire was the epitome of sanctimonious self-appointed church women everywhere. ;-D
Aren't you just so special, JA, that you feel so free to condemn the works that your church fathers designate as Scripture.
Sorry to laugh, but your statement reminded me instantly of Dana Garvey's "Church Lady" on SNL. "Well. Isn't that spayshul?" His satire was the epitome of sanctimonious self-appointed church women everywhere. ;-D
There!
A distinction without a difference.
Since the [Roman] Catholic Church [et al] teaches that salvation is through it and it alone, *dissociating* someone from it is condemning them to hell eternally, since until they agree with the [Roman] Catholic [et al] Church, [they supposedly] cannot get back in and be saved.
INDEED--glad you caught that slippery weasel assertion.
That's one of the things about the EDIFICE that few, if any, hereon have been willing to admit--or admit very forthrightly. It's kind of like LDS theology and INSTITUTION. They present themselves as very similar to whatever sort of person they are trying to evangelize. The theology is soooooooo complex, convoluted, rubbery, they can stretch it to fit any evangelizing situation or perspective needed to seduce the likely suspect into their fold.
The Vatican edifice has this long 1600 year history of bureaucratic political power-mongering--wherein all manner of nonsense has been promulgated, believed, practiced, shoved down folks' throats at the point of death or exclusion/excommunication; . . . all over the theological water front in one form or another to one degree or another on almost every conceivable--remotely Christian issue, point &/or context.
And, it's all collected into the extremely lengthy Catechism--which would either do an obsessive Pharisee proud or embarrass him--depending on his candor or mood that day.
I haven't gotten far enough into it to assess to WHAT DEGREE it is internally consistent. HOWEVER, IF THE PRESENTATIONS hereon by the more rabid clique sorts of representatives of the INSTITUTION are ANY clue whatsoever, then I think it likely not greatly more internally consistent than an explosion at an old type-setting factory.
Thankfully, there are a number of faithful Protty Believers hereon who aren't fooled by such slippery, rubbery, mangled DOUBLE STANDARD theological presentments and who are quick to blow the whistle and throw a red flag on the play.
PTL for that!
Amen. You and Wmfights nailed it.
Great! Now, if you or someone who thinks like you could just show me where I put myself up as a higher authority...?
Isn't that what St. Paul did? "To the Jews, I am a Jew, to the Romans, a Roman," etc. Do I have to look up chapter and verse, or are you familiar with that statement of St. Paul's?
What was Mrs Peter doing during this time?
@@@
I know! I know! Call on me!
. . . she was concocting, dreaming up, fantasizing, fabricating, compiling and seeding in lots of discoverable caves, archives and other places . . . all manner of pseudo-’proofs’ that Peter was the new theological pseudo-King of Kings and Lord of Lords over all the other Bishop-also-rans amongst all the significant centers of political power to arise 300-400 years later.
And . . . she was stockpiling thousands of white hankies to be used in all manner of new ‘incult-tations’ for the planned-from-a pit goddess theology to be layered on the whole political/theological machine/institution.
/s
Of course, since, as Dr E, you and others have documented hereon multiple times . . .
The INSTITUTION’s proclivity to speak out of both sides of its fingers; both sides of its multiple mouths; multiple sides of its magicsterical; multiple sides of its mangled pseudo-’Bible’ manuscripts; multiple sides of its mangled dictionaries; multiple sides of its mangled histories . . .
someone will likely claim that the edifice ‘doesn’t teach that’ and cite one side or one facet of the slippery evidence.
LOL.
What a racket!
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
THE POWER OF THE WORD OF GOD IS AWESOME, INDEED.
It does NOT return void.
The POWER OF THE WORD, HOLY SPIRIT, GOD’S LOVE ARE ALL SUPREME.
I’d be at a stuck loss as to how to rank them.
Truly, the writings attributed to John and Paul go together hand-in-glove. It is illogical to dismiss one and not the other. And if both are dismissed, the revelation that Jesus Christ is God can be lost as well.
@@@
Well put.
All this anti-Catholic bigoted flap was NEVER about non-Catholics’ concern for children, else they would have looked immediately and visibly at their own confession.
Look how easily this entire thread has been diverted into a several-hundred post discussion of my opinion of St. Paul, and how wicked I am for it! With all the “children” forgotten immediately.
Anti-Catholic bigotry is about nothing but anti-Catholic bigotry. I am quite certain that some would be happy to go back to the old American colonial days to deprive Catholics of their right to worship according to their own beliefs, with civil and criminal penalties for doing so.
Any comment any Catholic makes on the forum that disagrees with any part of protestant theology is grist for the mill of the anti-Catholic bigots. It’s a scary machine, until you realize that all these bigots are just individual FReepers behind a computer screen, most of whom wouldn’t say boo to a goose in real life.
Well said, as usual.
Is it just me, or has Holy Spirit kicked your anointing in such postings up several levels the last few months?
Well said, as usual.
Is it just me [that is, my impression observations], or has Holy Spirit kicked your anointing in such postings up several levels the last few months?
I see the weasel rationalizing responses have begun. LOL. Sigh.
lol. Imagine that. Christians complaining that someone has called the apostle Paul a lunatic and goofy and incomprehensible and a goofball and not very tightly wrapped (whatever that means) and maybe insane along with the final insult - that Paul's "level of sophistication" is sub par - well, Judith, I would suggest you study more to show yourself approved.
Well done—again. Congrats.
Note especially, this comment.....
Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
@@@@
DING! DING! DING! DING!
SLAM! WHAM! SMACK!
OUTTA DA PARK!
Well done.
INDEED!
Of course,
we realize that
“unassailable”
doesn’t seem to register well within the more rabid folks’ noggins.
They will likely still vainly try to jury-rig some rubbery house of cards rationalized work-around!
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.