Skip to comments.
Another vicious, inaccurate, and contradictory New York Times attack on Pope Benedict
catholicculture.org ^
| July 2, 2010
| Phil Lawler
Posted on 07/02/2010 6:56:08 PM PDT by Desdemona
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,201-1,220, 1,221-1,240, 1,241-1,260 ... 2,821-2,822 next last
To: count-your-change; Dr. Eckleburg
They felt stabbed to the heart and asked what to do in view of what Peter had just said, that they had impaled the one God had made Christ, Jesus That's a little naïve. They would have known for certain that Jesus was crucified, but why would they know for certain that he was "the one God had made the Christ"? Because a simple fisherman told them? They would have believed Peter but not Christ? LOL.
You say so, what do the Scriptures say?
The scriptures say the Spirit is the giver of life, and dead people do not repent. So, receive the Spirit (come to life with a changed heart), realize your trespasses, repent, and be baptized.
John the Baptist called upon the Jews coming to him to repent of their sins
Jewish repentance is different.
1,221
posted on
07/19/2010 6:49:08 PM PDT
by
kosta50
(The world is the way it is even if YOU don't understand it)
To: count-your-change
That in its self was a choice freely made. Apparently the choice he wanted was for him not to go through the ordeal, but he relizied that what is ordained must happen and that man's will cannot change it. Just as death is a given and not a choice; men can accept it or reject it, but what we will is for naught.
1,222
posted on
07/19/2010 7:03:16 PM PDT
by
kosta50
(The world is the way it is even if YOU don't understand it)
To: kosta50
When nothing else works claim it’s all a set up, use “LOL” freely and make with the silly remarks.
Outstanding!!
1,223
posted on
07/19/2010 7:51:40 PM PDT
by
count-your-change
(You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
To: betty boop
Having said that, I just want to note the absolutely unbridgeable chasm between what God sees, and what His plans are for the Creation; and what man sees, from a planet of a middling star which is not even located in the center of its galaxy, not to mention what his plans may be....
Indeed! Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
To: kosta50; annalex
I guess when someone can’t understand the plain meaning of Scripture, they need all the help they can get.
1,225
posted on
07/19/2010 8:08:05 PM PDT
by
Dr. Eckleburg
("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
To: annalex; TXnMA; betty boop; kosta50; xzins; shibumi; GOPJ; count-your-change; blue-duncan
That Jesus took on human form signifies that our human race was the center of His divine attention. Therefore, we are the center of the universe that He created. Now, that does not make Jesus any less God or invites us to NOT focus our lives on Jesus, and if you will center them around Jesus. You are raising a false dichotomy. I don't know if it is scientism or Calvinism you are advancing but it is plain illogical.
It is neither scientism nor Calvinism - nor is it illogical.
And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. Revelation 5:6
That Jesus enfleshed to rescue us is to His glory not ours. God did not "owe" man anything.
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. - Revelation 1:8
His Name is I AM and Alpha and Omega and The Almighty. None of those names apply to us.
Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. - Revelation 4:11
Evidently we will have to agree to disagree. To God be the glory, not man, never man.
To: Dr. Eckleburg; annalex
I guess when someone cant understand the plain meaning of Scripture, they need all the help they can get The plain meaning is in the original language, Dr. E. Problems begin with translations. Something is always lost in them.
Besides, even in the original language the scriptures are not plain in meaning. So, translations, among other things, only add to the complexityand misunderstanding.
1,227
posted on
07/19/2010 9:00:48 PM PDT
by
kosta50
(The world is the way it is even if YOU don't understand it)
To: kosta50; count-your-change; Dr. Eckleburg; Alamo-Girl; betty boop
Help me understand what you wrote here, please.
"The plain meaning is in the original language, Dr. E. Problems begin with translations."
Then in your next paragraph you write:
"Besides, even in the original language the scriptures are not plain in meaning."
So, what is your position? Do you hold that the Scriptures in their original language have a plain meaning, or that they do not?
I have my own perspective on interpreting the Scriptures, but before I go off on a tangent, I want to clearly understand what you are trying to say.
1,228
posted on
07/19/2010 10:47:26 PM PDT
by
shibumi
(But we are becoming who we might yet be...)
To: shibumi
Nuts. How'd I miss that obvious contradiction?
I've been PWD = posting while distracted.
8~)
1,229
posted on
07/19/2010 10:56:10 PM PDT
by
Dr. Eckleburg
("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
To: Dr. Eckleburg
That's why I'm here for you.
(And someday, when you least expect it, The Cowma Sutra!)
1,230
posted on
07/19/2010 11:00:55 PM PDT
by
shibumi
(But we are becoming who we might yet be...)
To: shibumi
lol. Still one of the funniest lines ever. 8~)
1,231
posted on
07/19/2010 11:14:15 PM PDT
by
Dr. Eckleburg
("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
To: shibumi; annalex; Dr. Eckleburg
So, what is your position? Do you hold that the Scriptures in their original language have a plain meaning, or that they do not? Yes and no. For example, Matthew 5:58 is in the future tense but in manyif not most#151;English-language Bibles it is in the present.
Nicodemus' misunderstanding of John 3:3 would not be possible in Aramaic, and it is doubtfulbaseless in factthat Jesus wold have spoken to Nicodemus in sophisticated Greek.
Then there is the ambiguity of the Greek text itself, which in some cases actually leading to divergent and even conflicting doctrine. For example the sentence ef ho pantes hemarton (Roman 5:12) can be understood legitimately in two different ways. The western Church interpreted it as an inherited sin, while the Eastern Church (in whose native language the New Testament was written) didn't.
This resulted in the Augustinian teaching that eventually forced the issue of Mary's own Immaculate Conception, which of course has no theological basic in the East.
For similar reasons, the East looks at Adam's life being passed on from one generation to another, while the West looks at each soul being created anew at the moment of conception.
So, to speak of "plain meaning" of scriptures is a fallacy. People have spent a lifetime studying the scriptures and to this day there is no consensual agreement on them. Of course, I think the reason for that is rather obvious, but I doubt it would be well received here.
In summary, then, the original language does clarify a lot of subtleties, but it doesn't mean that the original language itself is free of ambiguities. And translations only add another layer additional ambiguities and errors.
1,232
posted on
07/20/2010 12:22:22 AM PDT
by
kosta50
(The world is the way it is even if YOU don't understand it)
To: D-fendr
Because youve already said that even if Free Will was demonstrated to be true, you would not accept it.You'll kindly show me where I said that or else please admit you're making things up again.
I asked you before if you missed my assent to your proposal. Apparently you're still missing it. Do you want to miss it? Did it surprise and upset you when I agreed to your terms? Did I stymie what you may have hoped to be a "gotcha!" moment, when in fact all it has turned out to be is more RC evasion?
lol. Oops on you.
Proof doesnt matter you said - as you demonstrated your free will to accept or reject it.
Again, show me where I made that statement.
I sense you were trying to set up some kind of strategy here, but perhaps you forgot how it was supposed to go or I didn't answer as you had planned.
Let's get back to your question without all your evasion, shall we?
You asked me would I believe in free will if you could prove free will?
And I said yes.
I asked you to show your proof.
And yet you have not.
With all that free will floating around can't you use some of it to find some proof somewhere for your supposition?
No?
1,233
posted on
07/20/2010 12:25:16 AM PDT
by
Dr. Eckleburg
("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
To: kosta50; shibumi
So, to speak of "plain meaning" of scriptures is a fallacyAs Einstein said, our job is to make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.
When Christ said, "Be not afraid; only believe," He was telling men, women and children how to come to a saving knowledge of the truth.
Lexicons appreciated, but not required.
"For by the Scripture as our guide and teacher, God not only makes those things plain which would otherwise escape our notice, but almost compels us to behold them; as if he had assisted our dull sight with spectacles." -- JOHN CALVIN "Commentary on Genesis" Vol. I
1,234
posted on
07/20/2010 12:30:50 AM PDT
by
Dr. Eckleburg
("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
To: kosta50; Dr. Eckleburg
"Of course, I think the reason for that is rather obvious, but I doubt it would be well received here."
I've not seen you hold back before, nor has the reception of your ideas seemed to make you shy about expressing them.
Please, in your own words, share.
1,235
posted on
07/20/2010 12:33:30 AM PDT
by
shibumi
(But we are becoming who we might yet be...)
To: D-fendr
The question was: ""If Free Will was demonstrated to be true, would you accept it?" You said you wouldn't, no matter how much proofAgain, we'll all wait for you to produce the post where I "said I wouldn't."
But, I do appreciate your participation in the demonstration.
The only thing that's been demonstrated is that you don't know how to run a demonstration.
For clarity's sake, here is your request and my answer...
To: Dr. EckleburgI answered your question.
Help me out then. Was it "Yes" "No" or "Maybe"?
978 posted on 07/15/2010 7:38:15 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
To: D-fendr
Are you stalling?
Yes. Sure. Alrighty. Definitely. Absolutely. But of course. Mais, qui. You betcha...
And here I "helped you out" and STILL you missed my answer.
I guess your free will has been trumped by mine. Imagine what God could do with that set-up. Do you think He knows about it?
1,236
posted on
07/20/2010 12:44:12 AM PDT
by
Dr. Eckleburg
("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
To: kosta50
I will admit that the Calvinist view makes more sense, but the opposite view is Biblically closer. Half right.
Scripture is clear that regeneration precedes faith, repentance, obedience and any good work man might accomplish.
Can the natural man understand the things of God or must he be first born again?
1,237
posted on
07/20/2010 12:48:48 AM PDT
by
Dr. Eckleburg
("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
To: Dr. Eckleburg
Post 965, and reiterated following.
But, if you’d like, you can change your mind of course.
If Free Will was demonstrated to be true, would you accept it?
1,238
posted on
07/20/2010 1:03:12 AM PDT
by
D-fendr
(Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
To: Dr. Eckleburg
Here, it seems perhaps I'll need to repeat your demonstration, this time with the opposite variation:
You asked me would I believe in free will if you could prove free will?
Actually, the question was: "If Free Will was demonstrated to be true, would you accept it?"
And I said yes.
Q.E.D. Assuming you made that decision consciously and freely of course.
I guess your free will has been trumped by mine.
Q.E.D.
Would you care to demonstrate again?
1,239
posted on
07/20/2010 1:20:46 AM PDT
by
D-fendr
(Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
To: kosta50
No, I think it’s more a simple lack of paying attention to what is being said.
1,240
posted on
07/20/2010 1:27:00 AM PDT
by
count-your-change
(You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,201-1,220, 1,221-1,240, 1,241-1,260 ... 2,821-2,822 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson