Now this is praying with, for, and to God... "In every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests TO GOD." – Philippians 4:6
This is 'something else' entirely
Posted on 10/03/2014 2:33:43 PM PDT by NYer
Only an attempt to disrupt the thread and get it locked. The same tactic has been used by the same poster on previous threads.
Now this is praying with, for, and to God... "In every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests TO GOD." – Philippians 4:6
This is 'something else' entirely
Well, just show us the teaching by the apostles or examples of them communicating with the departed.
I have to disagree with that. Jesus said that until heaven and earth pass away, not the least letter of the Law will pass away.
God's law defines who He is and points to Christ.
Sin is still sin. How it's dealt with has changed and since the perfect sacrifice of Jesus, who the law was foreshadowing, has come, there is no reason for the sacrifices that foreshadowed Him to continue because the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin.
So we are no longer obligated to live under the old covenant in that regard, but the moral laws have not changed and are not optional. They cannot be ignored.
Is it any wonder why many unbelievers see no difference between pagans and those self proclaimed Christians?
Because all of Mary’s virtue comes from a full embodiment of her humanity which is a gift from God.
Regardless of what translation of Luke 1:28 one chooses... whether one sees her as ‘highly favored’ or ‘made graceful’ her yes to God embraces her humanity and her creation in the image and likeness of God.
That is why she is venerated... Catholic’s love for Mary is rooted in the fact that she is the Mother of Jesus and she embraced her role to do the Father’s will.
In so doing... she embraced acting in the image and likeness of God in a greater way than anyone who is not part of the Trinity.
And yet Jesus says that among those born of women, there is none greater than John the Baptist.
Lots of people embrace their role to do God’s will. However, that specific one is taken, but that doesn’t mean that anyone else’s is less honorable.
It’s not the job we have to do that is important, but HOW we do it. Our obedience in doing what is our lot is what’s important to God, not the particular job God has for us to do.
It’s HIS determination who does what. It’s ours how we do it.
As Jesus was not predisposed to stone sinners, and had shown a willingness to bend the law on the Sabbath, I would have to conclude that there were conflicts between Jewish law, and God's Law, and He was referrencing God's Law. Look at His answer concerning divorce, when He flat out stated that the law as laid down by Moses was wrong.
So we are no longer obligated to live under the old covenant in that regard, but the moral laws have not changed and are not optional. They cannot be ignored.
I fully agree. The trick is to devine the difference between God's Law and what I see as old Jewish tribal custom/law. Thus, when there is a conflict, I look to the New Testament first.
I would love for you to consider John the Baptist.
For in Luke Chapter 7, there is no greater PROPHET than John the Baptist according to the KJV, and the context of Jesus’ statement indicates that his statement is reflecting on John the Baptist role as prophet.
John the Baptist’s prophecy starts very young, For in Luke 1:28 he leaps for joy in the presence of Mary because of the presence of Christ.
We Catholics are simply joining him in his leap of joy when we echo his actions and his mother’s words in veneration of the mother of our Lord.
Saying "FR Posters L through P are motivated by Satanic malice" would also be "making it personal" because posters L and P are specifically identified.
Guidelines concerning Hatred on the Religion Forum:
For example, a post or article that merely mentions Chick will be pulled.
Also do not compare another Freeper to a Nazi or a Westboro member or an Islamic Fundamentalist. That's flame baiting and a personal attack and may affect your posting privileges.
It is within the bounds of “open” Religion Forum town square style debate for a Freeper to express his hatred of a belief. But such posts are never allowed on RF threads labeled “prayer” “devotional” “caucus” or “ecumenical.”
It is never within the bounds on the Religion Forum for a Freeper to express his hatred of people who hold a particular belief when any Freeper is part of the belief group.
For example:
It is ok to express hatred towards CatholicISM on “open” Religion Forum threads. It is never ok to express hatred towards Catholics because some Freepers are Catholic.
It is ok to express hatred towards ProtestantISM on “open” Religion Forum threads. It is never ok to express hatred towards Protestants because some Freepers are Protestant.
It is ok to express hatred towards SatanISM and Satanists both because no Freeper is Satanist.
“No, I described the example provided by you as odious, dec. Do you see the distinction?”
That is a distinction without a difference, which makes a mockery of the very concept of rules.
What sort of person offers an “odious” example? What does it say about a person that the example he would choose would be “odious?”
This sort of “parsing” has allowed me to say things about some people that would have been quite insulting had they not been true, while your statement lacks even the saving grace of veracity.
Everybody knew what I was saying, and who I was saying it about, but it was still within the bounds of this nonsensical rule.
“Poor parsing on your part.”
Poor reading on your part.
“Haven’t encountered” is NOT the same as claiming ALL Catholics do such and such.”
I didn’t say “all Catholics.” When I said “Catholics disagree,” that implicitly excludes Catholics who do not disagree and Catholics whose status is unknown. Logic 101.
“Hold the snake by the HEAD; NOT the tail!”
You never saw anyone pop a snake’s head off by cracking it like a whip?
Fine. Play Don Quixote with the RM all you want if you’re so inclined. I suspect it will well, but I also suspect there may be others on different forums encouraging you. If so, it won’t be the first instance of refusing to grasp forum rules in order to engender controversy.
... will (not end) well.
“I read your stuff quite thoroughly...”
But your replies—not you, your replies—betray so little comprehension.
There. An insult whose only saving grace is that it is true, but which *should* pass muster, as it addresses your replies and not yourself.
"Open" religious debate requires a higher, scholarly, arms length approach.
“If the Catholics here did not say untrue, malicious, and downright despicable things about Protestantism and Protestants, these threads would not exist.”
Your statement is false. Mine was true.
“And actually, this thread in itself is an attack on Protestantism.”
Even if that were true, which it isn’t, it is within the rules because it addresses Protestantism and not any specific FR Protestant.
So maybe, as I’ve said all along, it is FR’s fang and claw protestant squad who have thin skin.
Well, truthfully, the “maybe” can be dropped without danger of wandering into error.
“For all the claims of not *Prot bashing* that Catholics make, threads like this belie that claim.”
Untrue, by forum rules. Untrue, on logical grounds. Just simply untrue. This article discusses history and theology, specifically the history of the abbreviation of the Holy Scripture by early Protestants several hundred years ago. It expresses disagreement with things that were done, but constitutes “bashing” in no way.
I believe that Luther and other early Protestants erred when they subtracted books from the Bible. If we apply the standard expressed your note, that would have to be seen as “Prot bashing.” But it is no such thing. It is a mild expression of a theological belief. And there we have it. The thin skins of the fang and claw squad will tolerate no expression of dissent, however civil, however mild.
If you think this article constitutes “bashing,” it is you who should be receiving the patronizing recommendations that you stay off open forums.
And if the word “Prot” is a slur, rather than just an abbreviation in this abbreviation-prone medium, why do you use 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.