A
VIGOROUS
CHAMPION
OF
THE
CONVOLUTIONS
AND
BRAZEN INCONSISTENCIES
OF THE
VATICAN ALICE IN WONDERLAND SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY AND REALITY MANGLING
ARE
CALLING FOR
????CONSISTENCY????
.
.
.
Posted on 08/27/2010 11:45:13 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
Man up
You have to make up you mind because I can't keep up with the flip flops and spinning. It's like a religion authored by David Axelrod and explained by Bob Gibbs. You said: .. doing good works, being nice, helping neighbors is all good stuff.. but it saves no one..not the doer or the receiver.. it gives no testimony to Jesus Christ if the words are not spoken good...
I simply asked if one then has to talk their way into heaven and if that applies equally to the double predestined elect and unelect. I really want to know if all one has to do is "nag thy neighbor" and if actually acting on the commands of Jesus as examples if nothing else, are not a necessary or even accepted form of witness.
Rediculous doubletalk.
Apparently the RM has agreed with you. Tou should have no difficulty reading how others don't agree with your language, which some of us find unnecessarily graphic.
Yes. We all can. Most of us find it unnecessary to say, "filthy bloody menstrual rags," though. After all, it's a normal function and we all know what it is.
It appears the standard isn't so much what is being said, or even how it is being said. I appears to be more about who is saying it and even more about whom it is being said to. I just need to recalibrate. As a Catholic I don't expect fair treatment from the secular world or the so-called Christians. The anti-Catholic biases are so ingrained and institutionalized in our culture that many don't even realize they are guilty of it.
I realize that it is "bovine dung", but even the etymology of the modern cognate of that term contains an anti-Catholic slur. The word "bull" is a derogatory and offensive reference to Papal edicts.
Years ago, I had a post pulled for using the Biblical term in, I thought, a fitting way. I think, IIRC, a few years later, the RM noted that Scriptures would be allowed AS SCRIPTURE.
In our culture at large, the language has been degraded or has evolved in an 'earthier' direction--perhaps language normall does that--particularly when the culture is going to blazes in a hand basket so rapidly.
Personally, I think Scriptural terms would be fittingly used in a Scriptural way. Though that could easily get into endless arguments, I think the RM'S 'MERE' OPINION SHOULD BE ACCEPTED BY ONE AND ALL WITHOUT ANY QUIBBLE WHATSOEVER. . . . Unless, perhaps, the quibbler is willing to pay the RM a salary of say $3,500/month.
I like the Message version of Scripture so much because it rings true to my sense of God in Scripture--very down to earth, practical, involved with our nitty gritties of life and NOT AT ALL PRISSY--not at all fussed up about shallow things . . . the INFINITE PURE HOLY GOD IN THE RAW MANIFESTATIONS OF HIS POWER AND PRESENCE without a microgram of prissy-ness. That's MY GOD WHOM I LOVE TO SERVE. HE IS REAL AND REALLY RELIABLY GOD, FAITHFUL TO THE NTH DEGREE. WHAT A TRUE 'MATE' IN THE AUSSIE MEANING OF THE TERM.
Pontificated, rabbit fur lined diplo-speak weasel words are more things to be validly allergic to, imho. I think Christ demonstrated a similar attitude--sometimes with his raw language.
Sometimes, raw, earthy language knocks the starch, the shallowness, the prissy-ness out of us and out of our high-horse mentalities and sensibilities. Humility is good.
By the same token, we ought to avoid any side-trip into the gutter of the modern gutteral communication. That may seem like a tricky dance back and forth across a thin line. I don't think it needs to be. We can tell and certainly the RM can tell when we have decided to drench our phrasing in the gutter and when we are using a Biblical emphasis on an authentic Scriptural meaning and truth that God's Spirit first authored.
He directed it to His Father.
Jesus on the cross was fully human. He felt the same pain, suffering and abondment as any other human. He was not yet with His Father.
Do not finesse the guidelines by using the same or similar language without a direct Biblical reference.
And you are a Bishop?
In the meantime women are second class citizens in the Catholic Church.
Does that mean if I cannot bear children I am second class in nature?
What in the world are you talking about? I am talking about women!
A woman can be President of the United States. She has equality.
A woman cannot be Pope,or even a Priest, in the Catholic Church. She has been relegated to a secondary status.
Not only is it untrue, it is a statement of pure hate. Sad!
Substitute the word "Catholic" for "Calvinist" in the above rant and your horde of "defenders" would be flooding the thread with "anti-Catholic", "Hater", "Catholic Hater", and the like.
You'd even have your friend
complaining.nice font!
Thought you might like it.
It’s clear, clean yet artsy.
Since this is the Religion Forum and not the Christian Forum am I restricted to using only Christian scriptural references or am I permitted to use scriptural references from any major religion such as the following:
- Hindu Ramayana, Kamasutra, and Upanishads, the Samaritan Memar Markah,
- The Druze Rasahl al-Hikma,
- The Koran,
- The Druid Lebor Feasa Rúnda (Book of Secret Knowledge),
- The Buddhist books such as the Tipitaka, Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, the Kalamas,
- The Confucian Analects, The Book of Odes, and the Chinese Mahayana Sutras,
- The Book of Mormon, the Book of Moroni, a Pearl of Great Price,
- The Shinto Kojiki texts,
- The Jainist Tirthankaras?
(I had a Philosophy Minor)
if it’s so objectionable why do you insist on repeating it
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.