Posted on 04/12/2011 7:55:27 AM PDT by bkaycee
Do y'all REALLY fail to understand . . . sooooooooooo utterly fail to understand HOW MUCH, HOW HORRIFICALLY, HOW INTENSELY, the IDOLATROUS, BLASPHEMOUS Marian fantasies stuff is an OUTRAGEOUS MOCKERY of Scripture, of Christ, of The Gospel, of Christianity and even of Mary herself . . . all that is . . . to most of us Proddys?
I guess until today I have failed to understand
(a) how disagreement with a teaching could render one unable to argue coherently; and
(b) how that incapacity would be considered a virtue by many on your side.
You have greater patience than I perhaps.
When someone posts incoherent ranting, a post that strongly indicates loss of self control, evidence of some emotional problems, perhaps trauma or current levels of stress rendering communication impossible… I tend to ignore it.
Pray for such posters is the only good response usually. Only in my weakest moments can I hold them mentally accountable enough to consider dialogue. And going there, I’ve found, is not good for my or my posting.
thanks for this and your previous post. I think they add a needed perspective on this particular forum.
I have sworn off all sects.
Where does the Bible say scripture is the final authority?
The basic problem here is you deny the ministry of the Holy Spirit for the sake of legalism.
The basic problem here
is that he/she denies
the ministry of the Holy Spirit
for the sake of sects.
You think I don’t have enough on my plate? ;-)
The answer you gave is one I would expect from anyone that has gone to CCD or Sunday school..
Jesus is indeed fully God and fully man .....the Son of God and the Son of man .
When He is not identified as ones Savior and Lord it tells us much about what relationship someone has with Christ..
Others suggest that the REAL deal is that I ain't got no sense and don't know when to quit.
I do not believe it is ever child's play to honor God by correctly attributing His works to Him correctly .or correctly honoring His attributes..
I did too once.
But just until I needed glasses.
So this often uttered cry of “Sola Scriptura” is not as crisp and clear as it may sound. Neither is our professed allegiance to the Magisterium.
MD:
I say that the words “literal” appear only in poorly written explanations and I am not aware of “actual” being used anywhere. “Real” and “substantial” are used and they are by no means synonyms of “literal” or “actual”. At this point, instead of seeking understanding, the non-catholics start talking about the DAFFYNITIONARY.
QX:
It depends. When the weasel words and rationalizations seem to become THE TASK at hand . . . and all meaningful dialogue seems to have been shredded . . . and/or when the words used by the RC’s do not seem to hold more than a very distant glance to the meanings most of us hold for those words—THEN I use “DAFFYNITIONARY.”
MD:
But the critical point here is that real conversation beyond “a frank exchange of views” is simply made impossible by the metaphysics of these non-Catholics. As I wrote in an earlier post, just as it is noble for a Muslim to kill a kaffir in warfare but unforgivable for a kaffir to kill a Muslim, so incredible and relentless mockery, insult, discourtesy, and sophistry is virtuous when done by a non-Catholic, but forever wrong and culpable is done by a Catholic.
QX:
NOT AT ALL.
I think
1. ACCURACY—CONGRUENCE WITH “REALITY” is important in all I post. Even the hyperbole etc. must have a serious grounding in reality for there to be any useful point or reason to bother.
2. The heart motive needs to be right.
3. The objective needs to be redemptive—regardless of what the reader may think.
4. There should be no vengeance, personal anger, personal assault involved.
5. Hopefully there can also be some wit and humor as well as some interesting creativity.
6. The main concern I have with recent obnoxiousness from some RC’s is that there’s no foundation for their assertions. They are just 100% wholesale—at least 99.999% wholesale off the wall assertions having not the least grounding in objective fact of any sort.
7. However, that’s not a big deal. Once one realizes that’s the SOP, then so what. Consider the source and scroll on by.
8. I and other Proddys have relentlessly offered evidence and documentation for our assertions. I CAN’T RECALL A SINGLE CASE WHERE SUCH SOLID EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTATION—EVEN IN RCC’S OWN DOCUMENTS—has had the slightest constructive impact on the RC readers on FR.
9. If the documentation/evidence is uncomfortable to their view, they just totally ignore it. Will not even respond to it. Certainly there’s no healthy dialogue sort of response from the RC side. At best we get weasel words, thick rationalizations—all dodging the points and appealing to packs of straw dogs . . . and tons of blaming and acucsaton of a harshly personal sort.
10. You expect Proddys to RESPECT !THAT!???
Sheesh.
Have a blessed Resurrection Sunday, Bro.
I know.
Quite so.
However, some lurkers do learn. I’m quite confident of that.
LOL.
HMMMMM
So, was that a yes, or a no?
At that point, the rending of the curtain in the Temple was done in full view of everyone there. It was not done in secret or in an empty Temple so that someone could claim it was an act of vandalism, or desecration.
I mean Dom Gregory Dix's classic liturgical book went with the Johannine chronology, and Joachim Jeremias went with the Synoptic chronology. We are arguing that puppy in the 70's, and using the work of people some of whom had written decades earlier.
Here's an idle question, since idolatry (sorry, Stockholm syndrome) idleness is about all I have time for right now: What difference does it make and to whom does it make that difference?
Replacement Theology is a problem.
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.