Posted on 09/02/2011 9:07:47 AM PDT by 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.”
(Excerpt) Read more at religion.blogs.cnn.com ...
I am saying we do not know who wrote the Book of Hebrews. Because the author’s name is not on it. To credit it to anyone without Scriptural proof is wrong. You are using conjecture to tell us those things in Hebrews that PAUL COMMANDS. I am telling you that Paul commanded NOTHING in Hebrews. Because there is no Scriptural proof HE penned it.
Are you rejecting that Hebrews is part of Holy Scripture, if Paul didn’t write it? Or are you saying it doesn’t apply to YOU, if Paul didn’t write it? Or that the plain meaning of the verses is something else entirely?
Hmmmm....now you sound like a CATHOLIC.
Why is this important? Because Paul's Epistles and letters are about the middle wall of partition being removed during the dispensation of grace. That there is neither Jew nor Greek. And yet Hebrews shows that the middle wall of partition is back and operating. How do we know this? Who is the Book of Hebrews written to? THE HEBREWS.
http://www.fredsbibletalk.com/fb002.html
for a discussion of Protestant Church tradition supporting Paul as the author of Hebrews.
Do you disagree, then, with Fred’s Bible Talk?
Protestant Church TRADITION. I said SCRIPTURE. Not CONJECTURE.
So, you disagree with Fred?
Who is Fred and why would I agree with anyone who does not use Scripture as his final authority?
Fred is the author of the link I gave you, above. He states the case for Paul being the author of Hebrews. You appear to be unwilling to either accept or reject Paul as the author of Hebrews, based on the fact that you fear if you say he IS the author, Paul will be telling you that you have to do something in order to follow Christ (or at least Paul’s teaching.) You’ve made that clear, in your vociferous rejection of being told to do anything, even by Paul.
“Paul didn’t say it, and if he did, he was wrong.” Is that it?
If you use Scripture as your final authority, do you reject Hebrews as scripture?
I don't think so...It would be so remarkable to be completely unbelievable...And it is...
Jesus was first speaking of the Apostles and disciples who the Holy Spirit would reveal the truth to, that was then recorded in scripture...
After Pentecost the history of the church DID develop...And it was revealed to us in the scriptures what the church developed into...
The Holy Spirit leads all of us into truth in the scriptures; those of us who have put on the new man...You guys are the prime example how that works...
You guys read the scriptures thru the eyes of intellectual and as a result, 95% of the NT is a metaphor to you guys...An allegorical account of something that you have no clue what the metaphors are alluding to...
Your religion over the centuries has taken philosophers as its leaders and teachers who try to reason by and with the human mind what God is saying in the Spirit...Doesn't work that way...
And the OT is hardly more than a history book to you guys...
Most things in that book are written to the quickened spirit of the believer...And in those words of the metaphors and allegories as you guys call them is the truth that the Holy Spirit reveals to the believer...
1Co 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
That's why everything is an allegory to you guys...
1Co 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1Co 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
That's the crux of the thing right there...
We show you guys scriptures; and although never having never met we still agree on what the scriptures say, while those scriptures mean nothing to you guys...
And all you can do is give us links to philosophers of human reasoning to try to explain the position of your religion without the aid of scripture...
No, it would be well beyond remarkable that the Holy Spirit gave your religion any extra biblical revelations...
Sure it's easy to understand...It's just not true...
Let me try to make a few summary points here at the end:
I have obviously not resolved all the surface phenomena of the narratives, nor have I even attempted to do so.
I have shown that the methods used by thinking and conscientious evangelicals--harmonization and integrative narrative reconstruction--are legitimate and important.
I have argued that the Christian does not necessarily have to submit to external and foreign criteria for 'plausibility,' and that the historical student should be a critical thinker relative to those who would attempt to impose arbitrary criteria on the process.
I have given examples of appropriate harmonization.
In other words, unless you accept the Magisterium's authority to interpret, you are reduced to babbling about things. This authority never does explain why they are different. Things are as they are, or else they are not. The four Gospel narratives are different. This does not, and confesses after much babbling, fully address why.
The Christian Think Tank that you think is an authority is as much of a sham as any other Protestant entity.
You can bet Peter spins in his grave every time one of them calls a human sinner, Holy Father...
What plain meaning??? You guys are constantly telling us nothing in the scriptures can be understood except it be interpreted by you religion...
A gift is a gift.
We don’t have to earn it.
When someone gives you a Christmas gift, is it free and unconditional? A birthday gift? A wedding gift?
ANY kind of gift?
Are they earned and do you have to perform (or work if you will) to keep them? Or are they your possession by the virtue of the simple fact that they were given to you AS A GIFT?
Traditions: Jesus roundly condemned those traditions that contravened God's Truthful Word. They are there for anyone to read yet how many compare what they follow because it is “Our faith tradition” with Jesus’ words?
Jesus said among those born of women there was not a greater one than John the Baptist yet a lesser one in he Kingdom of the Heavens would be greater than he.
What could that mean? John was not going to be in that Heavenly Kingdom having died before the opportunity was opened up. None greater than John born of women yet a lessor in that kingdom would be greater than he.
But what about Enoch and Elijah?
Genesis 5:24 says Enoch was faithful and “God took him”.
Paul used a word that means “transferred” in Hebrews chapter 11. So was Enoch carried off to life in heaven? Was Elijah?
Remember Jesus’ words, “None born of women...” That would be inclusive of Elijah and Enoch as Paul said “Flesh and blood cannot inherit God's Kingdom”.
And Elijah was sill writing letters after his ascension into the heavens. He hadn't gone to heaven to live.
The Catholic church has a tradition that Mary, Jesus’ mother, was “assumed” or removed bodily into heaven and the basics of that tradition can be found in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Does this tradition fit God's word?
Recall Paul's discussion of the resurrection at 1 Corinthians, chapter 15. He said flesh and blood cannot inherit God's Kingdom (vs. 50) and those that did would have to wait for that trump's upward call. (vs. 51) just as Jesus had said that all those in the memorial tombs would have to awaite his summons. Therefore:
No matter the tradition, God's Truthful Word is clear, No assumption of Mary bodily into heaven. The tradition contradicts God's Word and is therefore to be rejected as Jesus reject contravening traditions.
Does it matter if a tradition and Scripture conflict? What harm can it really do?
We can only worship the Father in truth (John 4:24) and can only be holy by means of the truth said Jesus. (John 17:17)
They NEVER conflict, ever. There is, however, a tendency for Protestants to imprint Catholic doctrines with their own perceptions and misunderstandings of what they think or want the Church to be. No area is greater than the topic of Apostolic Tradition. Protestants carry on like Catholics believe that the Tradition is another Gospel or an alternative to Scripture. Recall that it was this Apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the Bible.
Tradition only explains, clarifies, and augments Scripture, filling in the blanks and connecting the dots. It resolves apparent conflicts. It never contradicts Scripture, ever.
To think that Protestantism is without its own traditions is either naive or disingenuous. Protestant arguments that Scripture Alone is the ONLY thing that must be considered is negated by the myriad of Protestant books, sermons, catechisms, and websites. Protestants do not reject Tradition, they only reject the authority of the Church.
- Mark Twain's Own Autobiography: The Chapters from the North American Review
The millions of deaths figure attributed to the inquisition is by all appearances way over the top unless the intent of whoever visualized the number was to include all direct and indirect deaths from forced conversions to Christianity in both the old and the new world for as long as the practice continued.
And likewise, the claim from the Vatican that the inquisition wasn’t that bad is self-serving. Notice the careful wording (emphasis mine:)
If we did, there would be no accountability for indirect deaths caused by the deplorable conditions of the death camps or the incarceration itself, the loss of life due to people being moved out of their homes etc.
Also whether one is looking at forced conversions of Jews and Muslims in Europe or Indians in Mexico or Aztecs, etc. – one must question the statistics per se since people of color and abhorrent beliefs were often not considered people at all but savages or pagans or something less than a person.
So if a local arm of the government or military unit slaughtered a village of savages, or indirectly killed them by merely burning their village and livestock - would they have reported it? Would they have considered them animals? How many of them would have been counted in the first place?
Jeepers, one of the big problems with nailing down the true damage of man-eating tigers in the past was that the villagers themselves did not keep records.
Remember that Rummel's PhD is in Political Science. His interest is in the deadly nature of centralized political power, e.g. communism.
Rummel considers all such things and lays the blame on the government authorizing the death whether directly, indirectly. In the case of the inquisition, he includes both Catholic and Protestant inquisitions (inquisition in Spain, Portugal, Netherlands and New World) from the 16th to 18th centuries. And Rummel puts the deaths of Aztecs, American Indians et al in separate categories on the same table even though many would reasonably argue that it was part of "winning" the world for Christ, i.e. forced conversions.
To account for this less-than-human valuation of certain peoples, in estimating deaths he is known to take the estimated population before versus after an event in question.
I have no idea at all what if anything Rummel thinks of the findings of these newer studies – or how he would weight the documents offered by the Vatican. But I’m fairly confident, if he believed the numbers to be better than his own, he would want to update his own statistics as he has done before. If nothing else, it could affect the "minimum" on the table.
As his website says, contact him at Hawaii.edu. His eaddy is at the bottom of his C.V.
Natural Law and vladimir998, I am pinging you only as a courtesy. I choose not to reply to ad hominems whether directed at Rummel or me.
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.