It's known as the "step on a crack" apologetic.
| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 02/23/2011 7:05:41 AM PST by Religion Moderator, reason:
Old scandal article |
Posted on 02/08/2011 7:12:21 AM PST by Gamecock
HINDUS HAVE applauded Pope Benedict for including verse from ancient Hindu scripture Upanishads in the Good Friday Meditations and Prayers led by him at Roman Colosseum.
Acclaimed Hindu statesman Rajan Zed, in a statement in Nevada (USA) today, said that it was a remarkable gesture from Pope and invited him to study more ancient Hindu scriptures, which were very rich in philosophical thought. He or other Hindu scholars would gladly provide the help and resources in this regard, if asked, Zed added.
Zed, who is president of Universal Society of Hinduism, also commended His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI for inclusion of a verse from India’s Nobel Laureate Rabindranath Tagore’s Gitanjali and reference to peace icon Mahatma Gandhi in these prayers.
This year’s 'Way of the Cross at the Colesseum' Meditations and Prayers on Good Friday, led by Pope, included well-known verse from Brahadaranyakopanishad (“Lead me from the unreal to the real, from darkness to light, from death to immortality”), line from Tagore’s Gitanjali (“Give me the strength to make my love fruitful in service”) and reference to Mahatma Gandhi.
Rajan Zed stressed that all religions should work together for a just and peaceful world. Dialogue would bring us mutual enrichment, he added.
Pope Benedict heads the Roman Catholic Church, which is the largest of the Christian denominations. Hinduism, oldest and third largest religion of the world, has about one billion adherents and moksha (liberation) is its ultimate goal.
Those verses are not convenient and they have to decide which argument to use against them. Personally I would go with the no such thing as Apostolic Succession but most likely we will be told bind and loose do not mean what we think they mean.
It’s for your discernment. Catholics understand it well.
You will understand it better if you read it after prayer. If I may suggest, read the whole Gospel.
Oh I know well, I don’t play their heretical game. This entire thread was boasted to start a flame war...I just attempt to get them from raving lunatic mode to actually talking about theology.
...and then it is in God’s hands. They apparently don’t have the gift of comprehension and I don’t play their simple-minded baiting games. They are in error, in their theology and in their hearts.
Oh I know well, I don’t play their heretical game. This entire thread was boasted to start a flame war...I just attempt to get them from raving lunatic mode to actually talking about theology.
...and then it is in God’s hands. They apparently don’t have the gift of comprehension and I don’t play their simple-minded baiting games. They are in error, in their theology and in their hearts.
Well put.
I doubt that “all” fits but sometimes it seems like it.
What do thinks those ‘keys’ actually were? and
Did Peter make the decision about what he would bind or loose or had that already been made before it was announced to him?
Thanks.
I don’t understand these protestant posters.
I always thought it wrong to mock someones religion.
One could debate but in a thoughtful cordial way...but these folks are soooo wrong in their beliefs on the Church.
What is it they want to do..? convert or just denigrate?
sad
I don’t understand these protestant posters.
I always thought it wrong to mock someones religion.
One could debate but in a thoughtful cordial way...but these folks are soooo wrong in their beliefs on the Church.
What is it they want to do..? convert or just denigrate?
sad
Looks like I double poseted..sorry
I do, and have. They are yet more proof the RCC is in ERROR. If the average pew sitting RC member would grow a set and be willing to question the Magisterium once in a while they would know this.
Please cite Scriptural book, chapter, and verse where that is commanded by GOD.
Several points are in order:
1. Regarding Matthew 16:18-19, even IF we were to concede 'rock' in that passage equals Peter (which is error) - but even IF for the sake of argument: where does that passage imply that would 'Peter' could bind and loose would apply to ALL HIS SUCCESSORS? That's pulling out of the text what isn't there, manipulating the text to make it say what the RCC wants it to say.
2. If the text is read in CONTEXT the point of the passage (v.13-20) was that Jesus is the Messiah. Any interpretation of this passage that diverges from this point actually misses the point. Just two verses before “upon this rock” were spoken, Peter said, “You are the Christ the Son of the living God.” Thus, what is more likely is that the “rock” of v.18 is Peter’s confession of Christ. To twist the text to make "rock" = Peter is yet more RCC ERROR.
3. Identification of the “rock” in v.18 as Peter was the minority view in the early church. This means that the Roman Catholic interpretation of this passage goes against the ‘unanimous consent of the fathers’!
4. The Greek words translated here respectively as “shall be bound” and “shall be loosed” are dedemenon…and lelumenon…Both are future periphrastic perfect participles, which simply means that the action, though future, is prior to the binding and loosing that Peter will do. A more literal translation of this passage would look like this:
“Whatever you may bind on earth shall already have been bound in heaven, and whatever you may loose on earth shall already have been loosed in heaven.”
So, far from teaching Peter’s infallibility to define dogma this passage teaches that Peter (and the other apostles according to Matthew 18:19) will be (unwittingly) carrying out what has already been sovereignly decreed in heaven. Yet more proof of Scriptural mangling and twisting in order to prove an unbiblical Dogma by the Magisterium. More precisely: MORE ERROR. Of course they HAVE to do this in order to maintain their power and their 'authority' don't you know?
Nice post and good read — thanks Gramma!
:D
Hoss
Whatever contacting the dead is called then, even outside the technicality of calling them up.
Contacting those who have died is forbidden in Scripture.
Claiming that they are not *really* dead when their bodies are laying rotting in the ground somewhere, (or should be) is just semantics and hair splitting in an effort to bend the rules that God gave us to justify breaking them.
Calling asking another person on earth to pray for us is NOT the same as *talking* to a dead person. Asking them is NOT praying to them.
Again, finessing the rules with semantics and hair splitting.
NOWHERE are we commanded to pray to anyone but God. He is the ONLY being outside of this physical creation we are instructed or permitted to contact.
This is a perfect example of the kind of error that holding to oral tradition can lead to. The Catholic church is incredibly intellectually dishonest in the word games it plays. If it’s not redefining words, it’s claiming that the interpretation is wrong. That what it says isn’t what it really means. You’d think that after 2,000 years someone in the Vatican would earn to say what they mean instead of making pronouncements and declarations that are so easily misunderstood*.
If they can’t get a good grasp of something as simple as getting the message across in human language, they have shown themselves singularly unqualified to speak on more important and serious issues as spiritual matters.
Me : Well there certainly is. Christ said so in regard to His Church. The Holy Spirit is with us even now.
What is inspired? What did Christ say so in regard to His church if not that? That it can continue to inspire new revelation? If not, to what were you referring?
We know it.
We also know it well enough to know that it wasn’t found in Matthew 5.
pwnd....
I do believe you need to re-read that post.
{ All, your study for this weeks is to read the Gospel of Matthew. 5 points for the first to cite me the verse regarding Peter being given the keys to heaven and the power to loose and bind...}
I do believe it says they will give 5 points for the first to cite ….. in Matthew since the period is after Matthew, not 5.
Does the million still hold? Even though I disagree with the Catholics on the meaning I could use the million. :-)
It's known as the "step on a crack" apologetic.
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.