My Faith: Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), from Catholic to Muslim

CNN ^ | 9/1/11 | Chris Welch

[marshmallow]

Minneapolis, Minnesota (CNN) –Prior to 2006, few people even knew that then-Minnesota state legislator Keith Ellison was a Muslim. Because of his English name, he said, no one thought to ask.

But five years ago, when he ran for a seat in the United States House of Representatives - a race he would go on to win - word of his religious affiliation began to spread.

“When I started running for Congress it actually took me by surprise that so many people were fascinated with me being the first Muslim in Congress,” said Ellison, a Democrat now serving his third term in the House.

“But someone said to me, ‘Look Keith, think of a person of Japanese origin running for Congress six years after Pearl Harbor–this might be a news story.’”

Though Ellison's status as the first Muslim elected to Congress is widely known, fewer are aware that he was born into a Catholic family in Detroit and was brought up attending Catholic schools.

But he said he was never comfortable with that faith.

“I just felt it was ritual and dogma,” Ellison said. “Of course, that’s not the reality of Catholicism, but it’s the reality I lived. So I just kind of lost interest and stopped going to Mass unless I was required to.”

It wasn’t until he was a student at Wayne State University in Detroit when Ellison began, “looking for other things.”

[metmom]

I do see *religion* as a big part of the problem.

God wants a relationship with us, not performance from us.

Anyone can perform. It’s meaningless ritual if not done with a heart towards God.

[Uri’el-2012]

Uri'el>It did not matter it in a foreign language unknown to all except the gnostics.

Would you care to restate that in English? Your insistance on style over substance in your postings is obstructing whatever point it is you were trying to make.

Sorry I missed the verb is

[Quix]

My observation is that we Proddys correct each other on average probably several hundred percent more than RC’s do.

[CynicalBear]

>> Heretical works and unauthorized translations with unauthorized marginal glosses were indeed prohibited<<

Are you even reading what you write? You say I lie when I say the RCC wanted to control the way the Bible was interpreted then you agree that “unauthorized translations” and “unauthorized margian glosses” were prohibited. Give us a break.

I said, “they only prohibited reading scripture apart from the teaching authority of the Church."

What do you think “unauthorized translations” means? It means translations “under the authority of the RCC. If a translation disagreed with the RCC it was considered heresy and “unauthorized” and they were prohibited from reading it.

The problem they have today is proliferation of information. If it were up to them I’m guessing they would somehow include the assumption of Mary in their "authorized" version of scripture but alas it’s too late.

[metmom]

That's because our churches to not require blind adherence to their statements of faith as a condition of salvation.

Acts 4:11-12 11 This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. 12And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.""

It's all about Jesus. He's all we need to be saved.

Differences in worship style, church government, baptism by immersion vs sprinkling, whether women should be pastors or not, even the manifestation of certain gifts of the Spirit, etc, are not essential to one being saved.

[Iscool]

showing that we do not think Jesus is "here." as in a place so tht one might say, "lo, here."

Doesn't matter whether you think Jesus is there or not...Notwithstanding your philosophical charge, you guys publically proclaim, 'Jesus is here'...Come into his presence and worship and eat him...

Whether the intellectual portion of your religion studies Aristotle or not would seem to make no difference...The average Catholic walks into the room expecting to see and eat a cracker which they are told has turned into the body of Jesus Christ...

[marbren]

Differences in worship style, church government, baptism by immersion vs sprinkling, whether women should be pastors or not, even the manifestation of certain gifts of the Spirit, etc, are not essential to one being saved.

IMHO, I actually think God likes variety. Look at how every person is unique! even snowflakes are unique and Quix is very unique! :)

[Iscool]

Your side ludicrously complains that an answer to one of your objections fails because it doesn't answer all your other objections.

I don't always agree with 'my side' and they don't always agree with me...I am not looking for the exception to prove that always does not mean always....

The point is that your magisterium knows exactly what co means 95% of the time and they use it anyway instead of correcting it with the actual Latin translationj...

And of course let us not forget that group of Catholics, what is it, about 4 million strong, who have a permanent petition with the Vatican to include Mary into the Trinity making it a Quadrinity...

[smvoice]

I’m starting to think they’re spreading something, but it ain’t the Gospel.

[OLD REGGIE]

Now I'm in a state of total confusion

(That's okay, I'm entirely at home here...)

I quoted "Great is the mystery of our religion" from memory in answer to someone saying there was only one use of"mystery" in the NT.

My contender said the word was not used in that verse.

I went to http://www.biblegateway.com and found that they say that the KJV says: ... great is the mystery of godliness:...

They present the Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA) as: great is the mystery of godliness,...

biblegateway doesn't seem to have an RSV. And mine is packed up.

But after much Googling and gnashing of teeth I find

Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion:.... here

It gets confuseder and confuseder! :-)

My now meaningless comment was based on my (mis)understanding??? that you were stating the quote was from the RSV, "NOT a Catholic translation". The quote is in fact from the KJV.

I'll post the link here for your review but let's agree that my comment isn't worthy of further discussion. :-)

The beginning of the trail of confusion.

[Natural Law]

"You say I lie when I say the RCC wanted to control the way the Bible was interpreted then you agree that “unauthorized translations” and “unauthorized margian glosses” were prohibited. Give us a break."

I did not accuse you of lying. I have no doubt that you believe that lie to be true. You have been duped by 500+ years of Reformationist propaganda. Its actually pretty sad that you would spend so much personal credibility on a falsehood and indirectly supporting 2000 years of heresies.

[Iscool]

Now call me suspicious, but that sounds an awful lot like Co-redeemer, meaning Co-operating in our redemption and by praying for our salvation, obtaining our salvation. Not a "with", but an "equal". That's my opinion, anyway.

I agree...

"The Blessed Virgin Mary is to be called Queen not only on account of her divine motherhood but also because by the will of God she had a great part in the work of our salvation...

If Jesus however, had been accepted by the Jews as their Messiah, we Gentiles as Christians wouldn't exist...And that would have been Mary's fault as well...

So why wasn't Mary hung on a cross beside Jesus...

So if that's true with Mary, it must be true with every Mother concering her children...If your son goes to jail, you go with him...

[stfassisi]

That would make her a CO-redeemer. An equal redeemer to Christ

Co-Redeemer yes,Mary is Co-Redeemer ,but not equal to Christ

Try looking at it this way,dear friend...

If I say there are two co-captains then I imply equality. But, if I say there is a Pilot and Co-pilot in the cockpit of a plane then I am implying a hierarchical structure where the Pilot is clearly superior in both rights and responsibility as to what happens on the plane, so too with Co-redeemer. We are not saying that Mary and Jesus are two Co-redeemers but Jesus is the Redeemer and Mary is the Co-redeemer.

[CynicalBear]

Ok, so it appears you don’t read or comprehend what you write.

[marbren]

If I say there are two co-captains then I imply equality. But, if I say there is a Pilot and Co-pilot in the cockpit of a plane then I am implying a hierarchical structure where the Pilot is clearly superior

Did I hear this before?

[OLD REGGIE]

I do NOT "detest" the Eucharist, only the mistaken belief that a priest can change the very substance of bread and wine into physical flesh and blood rather than a spiritual recognition.

Umm, that is a rejection. And, by the way, it is not the priest; it is the Holy Spirit. Will I never be able to educate you on this?

My father used to frighten me by telling me the Priest could change me into a Billy Goat. I know he was only an uneducated Newfie but I'm certain he thought it was the Priest who changed the bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Jesus.

I'm afraid you have a big job on your hands educating 100's of millions of "uneducated" Catholics, including Priests.

[stfassisi]

“”Did I hear this before?””

Yes,it has been repeated many times in the Mary Co Redeemer arguments on these forums

[Iscool]

Again, we take Col 1:24 to imply that there IS a way that we can co-operate or contribute to Christ's redemptive work.

Problem is, there are far too many other verses that say you can't...

But what is it specifically that you can suffer that Jesus was behind in that will contribute to your own salvation???

I don't see how you even get that from reading the verse...

Col 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:

Paul is not saying that Jesus didn't receive enough afflictions so Paul had to make up for it...

Paul is saying he rejoices in his suffering because what little suffering he has in his flesh is nothing compared to what Jesus suffered...And this can and is verified by numerous scriptures...

Mat_5:11-12; Act_5:41; Rom_5:3; 2Co_7:4; Eph_3:1, Eph_3:13; Phi_2:17-18, Jam_1:2, 2Co_1:5-8, 2Co_4:8-12, 2Co_11:23-27; Phi_3:10; 2Ti_1:8, 2Ti_2:9-10

[Uri’el-2012]

We are not saying that Mary and Jesus are two Co-redeemers but Jesus is the Redeemer and Mary is the Co-redeemer.

What utter blasphemy !

Deuteronomy 16: 21 “You shall not plant for yourself an Asherah of any kind
of tree beside the altar of YHvH your God, which you shall make for yourself.

Asherah from wiki:

The Book of Jeremiah written circa 628 BCE possibly refers to Asherah
when it uses the title "queen of heaven" (Hebrew: לִמְלֶכֶת הַשָּׁמַיִם‎) in Jer 7:18
and Jer 44:17–19, 25.
(For a discussion of "queen of heaven" in the Hebrew Bible, see Queen of heaven.)

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[Iscool]

Geez, you're parsing this based on imagery to extricate yourself from a difficulty posed by the doctrine of a pre-trib rapture. You really should look at what the origin of parousia is. If you did, you wouldn't be engaged in this silly, "Oh, but he hasn't actually returned to the Earth because he didn't touch down" punt that has been around since at least the early 1970s. The parousia refers to the practice of people going out of town to meet the visiting ruler and accompanying him back into town for his visitation.

Obviously then, we and the scriptures are not discussing parousia...

Jesus is not coming to earth for visit at the Rapture...Your parousia does not apply...Jesus is not concerned with fulfilling a Jewish custom...