CLICK
Posted on 04/12/2011 7:55:27 AM PDT by bkaycee
No, that’s way too tame for what most Catholics can produce.
Precisely!
Is your answer that no discussion is necessary because either one sees that scripture says what you think it says, or one is wrong? If I agree with you, I'm fine. If I don't, I'm not in the spirit. So whjy talk to me?
What advice do you have for the person who doesn't think Scripture says what you think it says?
Do you distinguish between what Scripture says and what you interpret it as saying.
I ask again: If I am to give ALL my love to God, where will I find any with which to love my neighbor? And if I love my neighbor is that idolatry?
Oh, tell me how many times do you need to read it before you get a clue.
There is no number of repetitions that can find sense in what has none.
He didn't say have a discussion about His Word and see if He's right. HEAR and OBEY. Simple.
Since you admit that I didn't say that, why do you bring it up?
"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned".
Yes, that could explain a lot. I'm not so sure I have trouble with things that come from the Spirit, though some are still mighty fuzzy to me. But I have a lot of trouble with the things that come from you. How can I know that what comes from you really comes from the Spirit?
Totally agree!
Excellent and verifiable history lesson. Thank you.
Careful, Roamer, it’s starting to foam at the mouth. ;o)
But that statement is YOUR man-made teaching. Whom should I believe? You, or the teaching authority of the Catholic Church?
Heh. You lose.
Are you quoting scripture here?
CLICK
That is one of the most beautiful posts I’ve read in a long time. It could almost be called a jewel of midrash halakha.
Amen. Beautifully stated post.
Every means every I guess.
Or every man his own god, own church, and own decider of what is the true Christian Faith.
I don't think this is what we find in Holy Scripture.
I've noticed some of your sect can't think of anything original to say, but only copy others.
Believe God. "Let God be true, and every man a liar".
Well, I will not argue with that. Of course, probably 85% of your sect are probably elderly women. Just a guess, based on posting style.
How do you now that?
We are talking about subject matter covered in a book of more than 200 pages with a 9 page bibliography.
Most non-Catholics have not even heard of Montesinos or de las Casas in the matter of civil rights, of Boscovich, who was an important figure in physics, of Grimaldi's work on the wave theory of light, or of the work of Buridan and Oresmes in economics. About the latter, Schumpeter and Rothbard in the 20th century attributed the origins of modern economics to 14th century scholastics. Rothbard traces the Austrian school of economics from scholastics.
Roamer_1 may be right; but so may Thomas Wood.
I know two guys, one a history prof at UVA and the other a Ph.D. candidate who have looked at the earliest records of the Spanish Inquisition. What they report is that, especially compared to contemporary and even later judicial proceedings they were advanced with respect to due process.
It's controversial, of course. But I think a lot of us, including a lot of Catholics, underestimate the effect of anti-Catholic prejudice in developing the substrate of things"everybody knows" which later turn out not to be true.
In particular the rivalry between England and Spain would have been fertile ground for spin.
How easy is it for Protestants even to imagine that the Protestant witch persecutions may have turned out to have relied more on trial by ordeal and have lead to several times the executions which came from the Spanish Inquisition? Nobody finds that a comfortable thought.
I regret that I probably won't be around for more than another 20 years, because I think we're going to see some new scholarship in the coming decades.
As I've mentioned before, the UVA historian attributes his opening to the monster whore of Babylon to his own discovery that so much of what everyone KNEW about the Spanish Inquisition was false. He began to wonder what else that he knew about Catholicism wasn't true.
Thank you. both. I was thinking about the Song of Songs and, of course, our Lady.
Devotion to Mary should come in loud and clear?
Here's what I hear you saying: You will not or cannot argue for what you maintain. You will not or cannot entertain the opinions of others. You are persuaded that you know the truth because you are in the Spirit.
Here's what I note:You have not answered the question about how I can give all my love to God and have any left over for my neighbor though I asked it twice.
At our earliest encounter, when you were presented with a logical inference from Scripture you said it was reasoning according to one's own understanding, but you never SHOWED why it was wrong. When a logical argument following from premises with which you agree led to a conclusion you didn't like, you did not deny the premises or fault the logic. You just called it a name.
So you do not believe in reason. So I don't see how we can have a conversation.
Now, I don't know of anyone but you (or me quoting you) who brought up the matter of Jesus saying (or not saying) discuss his word to see if it's true. I certainly didn't say it, you said it to me. I still don't know why.
But I think you are mistaken in some respects. Unfortunately I would have to use reason to show it. Even referring to Philip's conversation with the Ethiopian eunuch where he helps him to see what the text is about would do no good. But plenty of people have discussed Scripture and by the grace of God working through the conversation have come to see that it was true.
So while I don't have a particular word of our Lord's to cite on this, it seems to me that if I reason with a doubter and if through that conversation the grace of God brings that doubter to faith, then it was a good thing for him to discuss the word to see if it was true.
But, there I go again using reason.
Yeah, I was particularly concerned with the "contortions." I'd kinda like to see a sect filled with contortions. Maybe only once, but I'd like to see it.
So, Not, are you saying roamer_1 is, like, into yoga?
Hey, roamer, would you bust a move for us?
I'll tell you who's full of contortions is Obummer's press secretary, but I digress. Darned insomnia.
Night all, I hope.
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.