| 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 These men are rightly indignant, and furious about the unjust accusations that cannot be proven but are never withdrawn.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 suppose that it depends on your point of view.
Thank you that's a pretty nice thing to say.
We learn more and more from one another. I think that's why I really enjoy a heated debate. It forces all sides to present why they believe something and then I can go to the one source that has the Truth, Scripture.
So, to clear up any confusion, here are all of Judith Anne's comments specific to St Paul and his epistles, as they've appeared on this thread:
Post #435:
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.Post #441:
Before I became Catholic or even Christian, I spent a lot of time reading the Old and New Testament scriptures in various translations. Frankly, St. Paul was just plain loony in a lot of what he says, legalistic and nit-picky at times, and at other times a wild-eyed foaming visionary. The epistles made me wonder at times if he had a blood sugar problem, you know, extreme highs and lows. Now, 1 Corinthians 13 was absolutely true and beautiful, and if that were all we had of St. Paul, it had been an elegant sufficiency.Post #446:
Anyway, why would my criticism of the Pauline epistles interest you enough to comment?Post #483:
I almost cannot believe the indignation here about my comments on Paul. I have noticed whenever a Catholic will quote the Gospel of Jesus Christ, say, John 6 or something, some nutburger or Professionally Perfect Persecuting Presbyterian will counter Christ’s plain, beautiful words with some confused tortured verse out of the Pauline epistles. Well, as Paul said in one of his saner moments, “I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I’ve committed unto Him, against that day.”Face it, Paul was a goofball. He’s the clearest proof anyone should need that God Almighty and His Risen Son can take any pieces of human garbage — murderers, Pharisees, etc. and make them eat their words and praise His Most Holy Name. He does not and did not make Paul perfect, however. Which is clear from Paul’s epistles, which the Presbyterians (and other anti-Catholic bigots) worship.
Post #484:
So, of course, the next post will be that if there was hope for Paul, there is hope for Judith Anne!Post #504:
In particular, I personally do not worship Paul, nor do I hang on his every word in the NT. I tend to think he was insane. However, God can do anything, use anybody.Post #510:
Yes, some of his stuff really was a problem for me. And at one point I totally rejected Christianity because I thought all Christians thought Paul was the perfect apostle.Worshipping the Pauline epistles is just daffy.
Post #515:
To me, Paul’s writing is so confused that I cannot really tell where he may or may not conflict with Church teaching. The first quote from your post above is a perfect example.Post #540:
Paul never has and never will impress me. I didn’t just skim the Bible and then ignore Paul, I read the whole thing cover to cover multiple times, and not in a rush, either.It seems that it’s sacrilege to dislike Paul, or to refuse to take him seriously. Feh, say I.
Post #548:
Does anyone here think it’s possible to bully me into like St. Paul? Or to scare me into it? I don’t like the man revealed by his writing. I do not think he was very tightly wrapped; I think he may have been insane. His level of sophistication does not impress me........I despise St. Paul. Presbyterians worship him. I prefer, above all books, the Gospels but I am not ignorant of the other books. I’m not that wild about Jeremiah either, frankly.
Post #575:
When I read the Bible, I read it as though God is talking to me, personally. The posters here seem to think that just because some words are in red ink, they are NO MORE IMPORTANT OR SIGNIFICANT than any other words in the Bible.......I am not playing any game. And I’m not going to make it pleasant or easy for anyone who wants to attack me for liking some books of the Bible more than others and NOT liking some saints, or to bully me into liking a flaming loony like St. Paul was.
I do not like St. Paul. I have never liked St. Paul. I doubt I will ever like him. God can do anything, however, and I submit myself to Him. Not to YOU.
Red ink doesn’t make “it” superior. Christ’s words when He was one of us, the Living Son of God on Earth, are superior to anything else in the Good Book. In. My. Opinion.
Post #578:
I will not insinuate that I don't like St. Paul, I will state it right out. God knows what I think. No point lying or insinuating anything.Post #580:
I don’t dismiss St. Paul. I just don’t like him. Or much of what he wrote.Post #594:
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.
Post #645:
If I do not like St. Paul, ******** cannot change my feelings or my opinion. No edict from anyone can force me to like St. Paul.Post #646 :
Please point to the verse where I stated that I dismissed 1/3 of the NT, or dismissed the Pauline Epistles.Post #650 :
I. DO. NOT. LIKE. ST. PAUL.
I. DO. NOT. LIKE. ST. PAUL.
I. DO. NOT. LIKE. ST. PAUL.
I. DO. NOT. LIKE. ST. PAUL.Post #782 :
First of all, I was responding to another poster's comment that St. Paul was very highly educated, and thus very knowledgeable. I said in response that St. Paul's level of sophistication did not impress me. So, it's possible that you have misread that comment from the beginning.Post #789:
If bigotry is the consequence of taking St. Paul literally, then I have to reassert the comment.Post #821:
Well, I am not a man. And I am not without spirit. And I accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. Some of them I do not like.
I dare say, Paul’s Judge has spoken already. all the rest is chorus.
“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.”
what the heck is this supposed to mean?
I think the word you want is “disingenuous.” But in case you meant what you posted, thanks but you’re mistaken. In fact, you’re mistaken either way. ;-D
I do object to some remarks. Not all of them. The ones that are untrue, probably don’t need to all be answered, and I haven’t bothered with all of them (it would take YEARS) I am just amazed at the response, though.
Since I was brought up with complete freedom of thought (not action, we all had to behave) and freedom of belief, I’m not as desensitized as some are to intellectual compulsion by anonymous others. Maybe some people think it means something to be criticized for my personal preferences in the Bible, by multiple nobodies on the net. Not me. Especially not by someone who has been wrong or told falsehoods about my beliefs so many times before.
Well, I tried to dumb it down, that was as far as I could go.
There is a lot of truth in that observation.
Resist the mind-meld.
That's why the first "Matrix" movie was so good. Reality and the conscious understanding that you are a slave to something other than God and good is painful. Men resist that pain and some prefer to fall back asleep, like Joe Pantoliano, the Cypher character. He desired the pleasure of stated senses and steak dinners to the raw knowledge of the real world.
"Awake to righteousness" -- 1 Corinthian s 15:34
"Wherefore he saith, awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light." -- Ephesians 5:14"As for me, I will behold thy face in righteousness: I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness." -- Psalm 17:15
Twice.
/ɪnˈdʒɛnyuəs/ Show Spelled[in-jen-yoo-uhs] Show IPA –adjective 1.free from reserve, restraint, or dissimulation; candid; sincere. 2.artless; innocent; naive. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMEN!
It is that presupposition which guides Christianity towards the truth. We are not left to our own devices. We are indwelled by the Holy Spirit who leads us every step of the way.
Do Christians still sin? Of course. And even the Christian's missteps are accomplished for his sanctification. We learn from both doing good and regretting error.
And it doesn't take rocket science to figure out why, just an ability to think for yourself.
It has to do with the fact that Christ died once for all and is done dying - the cross is empty, so there's no reason to keep Him nailed there.
FWIW, if the Catholic Church wanted to portray the crucified Christ accurately, they'd need to make a few changes. The image they put up doesn't coincide with Scripture.
This is one reason why it is illogical to dismiss Paul and not also dismiss John because they are hand-in-glove.
[There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. - Romans 8:1
But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. - John 14:26
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. - I Cor 2:13-14
lol.
Alex, I love you! That is SO convenient.
I’m amazed that folks would niggle fault at the Catholic Church using an icon which reminds someone that Christ died on a cruel cross for them. Mormons won’t even place a cross on their churches because they view the cross as an obscenity. They have the figure of a fictional angel on their buildings.
Our little ray of sunshine never fails to come through.
And that fictional angel disagrees with a famous statement of Paul’s and they certainly dont like him either
Great response. I'm taking it! ;0
Let me give you a different angle.
Jesus authenticated the Hebrew cannon when he said,
Luke 24:44 ...,"These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me."
So the question really would be why certain books are in the New Testament. As early as the first part of the 2nd century our Christian ancestors had resolved this without any dominant church in power. All the books were written during the Apostolic Era and were "peer reviewed" for accuracy during that period when witnesses to the actual events were still living. All the books were written by Apostles, or those that traveled with Apostles. Also, Apostles acknowledged the inspired writings of other Apostles as Scripture. For example, Peter states that Paul's writings are Scripture,
2Peter 3:16...as they do also the rest of the Scriptures
I see this "bubbling up" of the Scriptures as the Holy Spirit at work.
In addition to the formation of the Scriptures during this period what I find so exciting is how quickly Christianity grew. No missionary societies existed yet and no hierarchy. Yet by the early 2nd century at least 10-15% of the Roman Empire had become Christian and it was spread throughout all strata of the society.
I'm not.
Some people live and breathe The Rules:
THE RULES
Rule One: "Rome" is the locus of all evil in the universe.
Rule Two: In case of doubt, see Rule One.
Corollary: "Rome" must be destroyed. All else is irrelevant".
It should be obvious, even to the most casual observer, whose posting history is consistent with THE RULES.
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.