Posted on 07/18/2010 6:04:05 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
I know, right? But it is a very hard thing to do - Protestants also have !!!TRADITIONS!!! (hat-tip Quix) which they cannot stand to lay down, in order to follow the Word.
Babylon=Confusion
I DO know I would hate to generalize. My experience of nuns and sisters is that they are eager to tell us what their role is.
"Religious" generally live lives as eschatological signs; they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angles in heaven, sort of.
They follow more or less well, the evangelical counsel of poverty. At least usually the amount of personal possessions they may have is limited even when the community itself is prosperous. The success of Benedictine monasticism turned out too be a great temptation, again and again. If you work hard, live frugally, and "receive gifts from men" you can end up a little more well off than you had planned. That's one of the reasons for periodic monastic reforms.
I don't know much about Carmelite nuns. I do know that both the "Poor Clares" and the Dominican Second Order are enclosed nuns whose mission includes praying for the First Order Franciscans and Dominicans. This takes place in the context of a prayerful and simple life.
I would VENTURE to say that for nuns as for male "religious" the idea is to approach as much as possible a 24/7 dedication of oneslef to living in the Love of God, with as few distractions as possible. However orders have "charisms", for instance to serve to poor, abandoned, and sick. Other charisms include preaching, teaching (and study), and other good works.
Though it's about men and not women, I think "Into the Great Silence", available on Netflix , is a wonderful film about structured communal lives given to solitary contemplation.
Luke describes Mary, more than once, as pondering in her heart about various aspects of her Son. Consequently she is a kind of a hero to contemplatives.
Is this the kind of answer you were wanting?
N.B. I may be away from my confuser for the rest of the day.
Which ones do you have a problem with?
You seemed to place a special requirement on my restated premise that you were not requiring for the other premises.
The requirement your premise failed was relevance/necessity. Which of the other premises do you see as getting special treatment on this requirement?
If the simple syllogism is true but by adding the additional premise makes it false does that negate the simple syllogism?
In this case, whether your added premise was true or false did not effect the conclusion. This is how it is shown to be unnecessary and irrelevant.
Interesting. Is there a website you could point to for a more extensive presentation of this? From a couple of exchanges we have had and some other posts I have read, you seem to have an affinity for the Jewish tradition? Are you a Christian?
What's UP? Has the Mother Ship finally arrived????
A belief that Catholics share, BTW.
How about "[17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
That is a strong word for a time out :)
Hope you are keeping cool ..
Nothing in there about Scripture, only Scripture, or the exclusion of the rest of the Revealed Word.
The third (restated) premise included a necessary condition on the argument. I don’t have a problem with the other premises just the fact that you placed a special requirement on the third premise.
Clearly the third premise does effect the conclusion.
I think maybe I can save you some time here.
Are you trying to get to a proof similar to: The Immaculate Conception must be true in order for Jesus to be God (divine)?
Is this what you’re trying to build to in order to prove the above false, or some variant of this? In order to disprove IC doctrine?
Perhaps you have a different premise than the one I'm referring to. I'd have to see it all together. Please post.
Nope.
I’m just showing that I can say that Mary is the mother of God is true by the simple syllogism
and
I can say Mary is the mother of God is false with the additional premise.
Ok. It’s the second syllogism I’’d need to see to understand your position.
The Fathers at Chalcedon and Ephesus did right much testing.
sacred cows we held onto dearly over the years with it.
You know I became a catholic when I was 46. The sacred cows were not a part of my "over the years" herd. They were NEW sacred cows.
Again, considering the hostility with which Catholic views are met both by non-Catholics here on FR and by the world generally, I do not think we can easily be accused of conforming to a worldly understanding. My own sister finds that if an idea is supported by Catholics that's enough reason to reject it. The rest of my family treats me with the strained courtesy one reserves for the head-hunter who somehow ended up at the dinner table.
But the main difference is that you have a starker notion of the Fall. I, personally, do not think Jesus's teachings don't make sense. I think once my mind is renewed, they make lots of sense.
And I think your position is untenable. You say I reason with natural reason, but if you find a text you think contradicts me, with what other than logic do you identify it as contradicting me? It is logic and its principles which will lead you to say you can't think A as long as you're thinking B. And it is logic that you will appeal to to get me to consider changing my opinions. I think it is as true in heaven as on earth that a triangle can not have 4 sides. I think the principles of logic are eternal. So I think that if Mary is not the mother of God the Son of God, then Jesus was not God from the moment of His conception or Mary was not the mother of Jesus.
When I accept that Jesus is God and man and am then told that I think with a carnal mind, I have to laugh.
I don't mean to be confrontative. I think we're going to have to go back and forth for a while and miss each other before we can go, Ah! THERE! There's the shared thing.
No, not particularly... but it isn't a hard premise to discover.
Although priests controlled the rituals of the Temple, the scribes and sages, later called rabbis (Heb.: "my master") dominated the study of the Torah. These sages identified with the Prophets and developed and maintained an oral tradition that they believed had originated at Mount Sinai alongside the Holy Writ. The Pharisees had its origins in this new group of authorities.
Wikipedia: "Pharisee #Roots of Pharisaic Belief" (pp.4)
From a couple of exchanges we have had and some other posts I have read, you seem to have an affinity for the Jewish tradition?
I have an affinity for the Word of God. One cannot dismiss the witness of the Old Covenant and still support the witness of the New... When the two agree, one knows one has it right.
Are you a Christian?
Absolutely. Although others would probably disagree.
Calling all dispensationalists.
Jesus also said of the Pharisees that one should do as they say but not as they do. I don't think it follows from what H said of them that he was against all of their "traditions of men." He was very much against the traditions that worked against piety and justice, like "Corban."
But We would say that in the promise of the Holy Spirit Jesus CAN be understood to say that the "all truth" into which the Church would be led might be more than the canonical scriptures.
Sorry. speedy glib answer. Dinner awaits and stomach growls.
I should have added: please post the second syllogism you are referring to.
Could be, but if aliens say Jesus is one of them, they are preaching a new Gospel. Why would Christians believe it? If they do miraculous acts, so what? Christians already should know that we contend not just against flesh but also Satan and his minions. That is why there is the FULL armor of God. Through Christ Satan, death and hell are defeated, why worry about aliens?
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.