Posted on 07/09/2012 4:28:17 PM PDT by Gillibrand
Relaxed and at ease, Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller returns a week after his appointment as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to the Diocese of Regensburg. A series of interviews for journalists are on the agenda for Friday: liberation theology, the SSPX and the situation of divorced and remarried. Minefields for an ecclesiastic, who has moved to third place in the Vatican's ecclesiastical pecking order.
Archbishop Mueller, first of all, congratulations on the new job. Since when did you know about your appointment?
I definitely knew it on 16 May, when the Holy Father has summoned me to his presence.
Did your commitment to the liberation theology endangers your appointment?
I do not know. If you know the Catholic faith, we know that to her essentially belong the social obligation, the responsibility for the world, the love of the poor. Liberation theology is a big word - but every Christian theology has something to do with the freedom of man. Also in South America in this context, it is about theological questions: Given the misery and indignity that many people around us can not imagine, given this glaring injustice, we can not simply go away with a pious raising of eyebrows about it. Faith and doing good go together. These are the two sides of a coin.
Are you then in agreement with the Pope?
(Excerpt) Read more at cathcon.blogspot.co.uk ...
:{) I’ll take that under advisement.
Logic? Go read the Life of St. Peter. The man who denied Christ, bolted from Calvary for fear of his life, and then having witnessed the Risen Christ in the flesh, this ordinary fisherman whose logic is experiencing the elements of nature, now gives himself up to execution and request that he be crucified upside down and that he not be dignified with the same manner of execution as his Master.
Or read Miracle at Lourdes. “For those who believe no explanation is needed, and for those who don’t no explanation is enough.”
I’m sorry to have upset you so. My viewpoint has been well documented within this thread. Be well.
OK, so are you saying you have no pattern of logic you can describe to me that would enable me to understand how you make life choices as an agnostic? (insert picture of Spock with raised eyebrow here).
Not to mention that the whole story is very reminiscent of the Gods of Olympus and the 'child' of a God and a Human Female being on Earth.
That's not to say that Jesus didn't exist, or that in some miracle beyond our understanding that God took his son up in a beam of light.
I just find it interesting how closely the two parallel each other.
No, I am saying that at all. Construct an argument and I will be happy to respond.
You mean the GOD you believe in, and the way YOU believe in him ?
Also if you tell us whether you were Christian, Mormon, LDS, Baptist, Methodist, Hindu, Chinese, Japanese, Jewish, or Muslim, it might help in understanding which God you are referring to.
I’m agnostic. Yet my formative years occurred as a Catholic...altar boy even. I have researched eastern religions. I consider myself as a dedicant to truth...and I am VERY strict as to what I will consider as truth. I expect everybody else to do the same.
But the documented record of Christ’s empty tomb was written during a time very close to the actual event.
This is the test of historicity. Not how long ago it occurred.
If the history was written within a few years, or a few decades, the historicity is considered accurate.
Consider what you will. I'm really not argumentative enough to engage you.
I think he exists, because I am a part of what he created (The Universe). If he doesn't exist, neither do I.
Now, exactly what GOD is , (other than IS) is a subject of much discourse.
No no, that is my point. You have declared your fealty to logic. Therefore I am asking you to describe how your logic has guided you in making life choices without the certainty of God. Only you can provide that data. I am not able to know your logic without you describing it to me, as unfortunately, I am not clairvoyant.
BTW, I will be offline for several hours, just so you know.
Peace,
SR
I exist and you, I'm willing to bet, exist. But the fact that either of us exist says nothing about the existence of a creator, unless I am missing something. I am more than willing to be enlightened.
My question is to gorush. You are free to look me up on my “about” page, and I have posted extensively so my theological positions are no mystery. But I have come to those positions by a path of discovery not unlike what gorush has described for himself, and that is why I am attempting to understand his logic.
I cannot assume assumptions that you are apparently willing to make. I will be happy to answer any specific questions you are willing to pose to me.
There is no disagreement that Julius Caesar lived and was emperor of Rome during the first century BC.
You can find countless items of history like this, about which there is no dispute.
The historicity of Julius Caesar’s life has been established based on the criteria used by historians. This same criteria—the same standards—has established the fact of Christ’s crucifixion and the fact that his tomb was empty. There is no reasonable explanation for the empty tomb, except the conclusion that Christ was resurrected.
Other established facts—established using criteria as rigorous as any other facts of history—include that the disciple’s behavior changed radically during the days and weeks following this event because of something they experienced, and that they were willing to suffer and die in order to share their experience with others.
Please don’t overlook the good here—that the Resurrection is very good news if true.
My logic has convinced me that a proof of the existence of a God is lacking...as is a proof to the contrary. Convince me.
Would you say that the 'resurrection' is kingpin of your faith in the Christian religion ?
I’m talking about the Big Bang, accepted as true based on the evidence and the equations, by atheist scientists and evangelist scholars alike.
The interesting point I was making is that the laws of nature were nonexistent then. The most common objection to miracles is to say that they violate the laws of nature.
But the Big Bang shows us the laws of nature are neither universal nor permanent.
People lied then as much as people lie now. It’s human nature. People of every age try to justify their beliefs. It’s human nature. I think that human nature is the same now as it was 10,000 years ago, but I can’t prove it...it is just what my (hopefully honest) reading of history is. I could be wrong, I certainly have been in the past. But there you have it.
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.