| 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 These men are rightly indignant, and furious about the unjust accusations that cannot be proven but are never withdrawn.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!
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.
However, I am neither anti-Catholic nor anti-Catholicism.
I'm just a Christian, plain and simple, responding when I'm compelled to do so. In this case, the discussion about Paul brought a flood of Scripture to mind that I needed to release.
And I have already posted my response to the child abuse scandal over here. (repeated below)
This is not only a Catholic problem.
For instance, we see similar conduct and gay activist religious leaders in various Protestant organizations.
Such persons obviously do not take God seriously for if they believed God, if they knew Him, if they loved Him they could in no way willfully do things which God has declared an abomination.
And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, [concerning] him that hath so done this deed, In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Your glorying [is] not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened.
For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened [bread] of sincerity and truth. - I Cor 5:1-8
But if they believe on authority of the religious hierarchy that they cannot or should not leave, it seems to me that the guilt accrues to the higher authorities in the same way they will no doubt be held accountable by God for every responsibility they have been assigned or have assumed.
God's Name is I AM.
Perhaps I missed it.
I don’t recall seeing any Protty hereon as seeing Christ on The Cross as a weakness or a defeat.
In terms of casting gritches at Paul . . . If the shoe had been on the other foot, it would have been the Roman Catholics et al dog piling on the Protty who had dared to say such things against Paul.
That’s the nature of IN-GROUP/OUT-GROUP feelings and dynamics.
And, if past patterns had been any indication, the fierceness and personal assaultiveness in the Roman Catholic et al dogpiling on said Protty would have been orders of magnitude worse than the total JA has received so far.
Besides all that, JA give more than as good as she gets, routinely.
I think it’s one thing to struggle with, dislike some of God’s dealings with us or even some of God’s ways. I still don’t understand very well the prophet calling the bears down to eat the kids taunting him about his bald head.
It is very much another level of cheek or something to call the scribe of most of the New Testament insane.
However it’s sliced, that’s NOT a MINOR assertion.
Then to try and weasel around and pretend it’s a minor assertion only worsens things, imho.
Certainly God uses everything in His Creation for His glory—even insanity in some sense.
However, asserting that HIS CHOSEN MAJOR SCRIBE of such a huge proportion of Scripture is insane is well beyond reason and well over the line of insult—not just against Paul but against HIS BOSS WHO CREATED, CHOSE, TRAINED, CONDITIONED AND REDEMMED HIM AND THEN TAUGHT HIM more.
It is right, Biblical and honorable to blow the whistle and throw a red flag of enormous caution—even outrage on that.
AMEN. AMEN. AMEN. VERY WELL PUT.
THX.
Tu quoque (ea quoque?) isn’t much of an excuse.
I have the distinct impression that when we mention crucifixes in our churches we get criticized for portraying Christ in His weakness, pain, and all.
I am not trying to minimize what JA said. I am trying to distinguish it from saying “an epistle of straw,” or saying that Paul shouldn’t be in the Bible.
I do not share her opinion of Paul.
Thank you for your encouragement, dear brother in Christ!
Dr. E.: I almost can't believe a Christian wrote that line. Astounding.
Considering the topic of the thread and its author, I would say doubly astounding. :) Since we have learned how wrong it is to pre-judge an accused priest before his trial, we must assume that Paul has already been tried in the official court of the Catholic Church and convicted of being "loony".
Presumably, at Paul's trial the defense brought into evidence that according to the Catholic Church's own teaching standard, the CCC, the words of the accused "have God as their author" (CCC 105). But apparently, that wasn't enough and the court of the Catholic Church found these words of God to be "loony" anyway. Again, that must have happened since the author of the essay argued so strongly how wrong it was to pre-judge a priest without due process. Surely if a priest is entitled to the presumption of innocence in the court of public opinion before trial then an Apostle would also be so entitled.
lol, well someone's loony, but it isn't Paul
I remember reading Romans, all of it, and just being blown away with the depth and understanding that Paul had. Of course it was his familiarity with the Jewish traditions that help to enlighten and his great gift from God of the Holy Spirit.
Sorry, I’m ignorant or have forgotten about:
Tu quoque (ea quoque?) isn’t much of an excuse.
I don’t know, personally, as a Protty, that Christ on the cross as in a crucifix . . . is so much an issue for me of displaying Christ in his weakness, pain etc.
as it is an issue of not emphasizing
THE RESURRECTION LIFE.
As Paul noted . . . without the RESURRECTION, we are of all men, most miserable.
Emphasizing his death on the cross by displaying it so persistently is a WRONG FOCUS, to Prottys.
Also, as we OBSERVE *MANY* Roman Catholics et al
vis a vis their crucifixes . . . there seems to be a tailisman/magical attitude toward them—which Prottys find idolatrous.
Certainly SOME [seems to me a minority percentage-wise] Prottys have a SIMILAR magical attitude toward their cross jewelry (USUALLY, even then, such attitudes do not seem to be quite as intense on the part of MOST Prottys). MOST PROTTYS just relate to such jewelry crosses as an advertisement of their relationship with Christ—which is something quite different in purpose, feeling and attitude.
I think the empty crosses Prottys use are, for us, more like an empty tomb advertisement as well as a reminder of the cost Christ paid and to crucify our flesh daily. Most Prottys don’t likely think of all that very often even when looking at such a cross. They just relate to it as a simple advertisement of their Christianity.
Evidently, you didn't read my remarks, only Eckleburg's
I doubt he cares
EXTREMELY WELL PUT.
THX.
LOL.
His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction
lol, now that’s funny
I’m doing a “Marysecretary” today, coming on late and posting catch-up. We miss her
lol
THANKS for your kind words.
Yeah, we miss her LOTS.
Glad you got some of the designed humor.
LUB
LOL.
So defending piling on a person with misconstrued arguments because the person herself has been, ahem, koff, ah, vigorous is kind of a tu quoque.
The whole thing about crosses and such... To me, personally, the crucifix is a reminder that between now and the eschaton, most of what we do is "take up our cross daily," and that many of challenges of charity will be painful.
But more than that, I have this alleged though: That God shows his power in weakness, as a zygote, fetus, baby who must be feed and changed and washed and as a man hung on the cross. The "Way" is the way of the cross, and only at the end is it the way of the empty cross. So to me, looking at a crucifix is about the love that God shows in His willingness to suffer AND about how if I want to let that Love work in me, it's going to be really hard sometimes and I'm going to fail a lot. But these failures are as redeemable as the act of putting the righteous man on a cross.
Kinda like that.
I do. Dr. Eckleburg routinely criticizes Catholics for using the crucifix, opposed to an empty cross.
I guess it’s part of Dr. E’s whole idol worship thingie.
As Bonhoeffer said, "When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die."
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.