Posted on 08/27/2010 11:45:13 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
>>> It’s “What’s in it for me?” as the primary motivation for Christianity.
What’s in it for me — and not for thee.
“If you don’t Buy Calvin™, you don’t have ears to hear.”
Now you are starting to get it. Catholicism is not about Bibliolotry, it is about Christianity. Its message is pure and simple and preached such that a child can understand it and live it. It was introduced to and for the disenfranchised, the excluded, the throw-away of the world, the simple, and the pure. It is not the complex legal code developed by a French sodomite shyster or his predecessor Mohammud.
Matthew, Mark, and Luke all state that "whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.".
Oh, well.
One big Gotcha Investment down the tubes.
Being Catholic, I have to ask -- Is that in the Old Testament or the New?
Sheesh. Why do you deny the plain reading and meaning of Scripture and then make up your own fairy tales about how God must do things and pass those off as valid?
I guess you’ve learned your Catholicism well.
Actually, as a Catholic I SHOULD have said the Epistle of Saint James, while a Protestant would typically call it the Book of James.
>>>Has Jesus sat on the Throne and Judged you yet?
“Yes He certainly has.”
Never been wrong?
Or could God “change his mind” about you?
:)
Because, as the anti-Catholics keep explaining, word choice is critical. Since I am not blessed with the hyper-Calvinism decoder ring or cipher codes to tell me what the wording "really" means and when it means it I have to ask. So I'll ask again, is there a "book" or was that symbolic?
That’s an interesting cultural usage. Here a lot of Catholics also use the “book of” expression.
I was a lector in the pepsicola church from the age of 10, so I was programmed to be precise, “The Book of the Prophet X,” “The epistle General of James,” “The Second Epistle of st. Paul to the Corinthians,” blah blah.
This is a side note. I recently started listening to the Gospels read aloud (you can find various sites online that provide this).
The early Christians did this, listened to them read, and so it’s more similar to the medium for which they were written. It’s very different than reading them yourself, much different than cross-referencing study, just hearing the story unfold, told as it was centuries ago - worth a try for anyone interested. I just finished listening to Mark and recommend it for a start.
If someone that you ABSOLUTELY TRUSTED said to you, "Unless you eat this, you WILL NOT have life in you." What would you think is the "plain reading" of that?
That sounds great!
It means eat a soda cracker, duh.
The definition of profanity is to treat with contempt or irreverence for which is sacred. It would seem that the conservanator holds the Eucharist, the Body of Christ, in low regard. It seems odd that a forum such as this would permit actual profanity but would ban "potty language" words used by toddlers.
The good news is that an anti-Catholic calling the Eucharist a soda cracker doesn't make it one. There is no opposite process to transubstantiation. It only blackens the soul of those saying it.
Hold your fire, conservonator is on our side, the “duh” indicated sarcasm.
Jesus is incapable of teaching the Gospel - but it takes only five verses of Paul to do so? No wonder your theology differs so significantly from Christianity.
I thought he was just being sarcastic. His other comments do not indicate that he is an anti-Catholic. It appears he is Catholic.
My apologies. There is a fine line between sarcasm and insult and I was too quick or defensive to realize it. Call it a Pavlovian response.
A stalking horse? Perhaps he does, but I don't sense the vindictiveness that we get out of the various anti Catholic Reformed Chuckies that wander the FR RF.
You bring up an excellent point. Calvinism, at least as it's portrayed on FR, is nothing more than a synthesis of Arianism, Nestorianism and various other gnostic heresies worshipping a "god" who appears to be straight out of a Wagnerian opera.
Or the Norse pantheon - appropriate since the Reformed seem to believe in an array of gods. What difference in behaviour does the Reformed God manifest that is apparent when compared to Odin? Other than the names?
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.