Posted on 10/08/2014 11:39:09 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
Why would intelligent, successful people give up their careers, alienate their friends, and cause havoc in their families...to become Catholic? Indeed, why would anyone become Catholic?
As an evangelist and author who recently threw my own life into some turmoil by deciding to enter the Catholic Church, I've faced this question a lot lately. That is one reason I decided to make this documentary; it's part of my attempt to try to explain to those closest to me why I would do such a crazy thing.
Convinced isn't just about me, though. The film is built around interviews with some of the most articulate and compelling Catholic converts in our culture today, including Scott Hahn, Francis Beckwith, Taylor Marshall, Holly Ordway, Abby Johnson, Jeff Cavins, Devin Rose, Matthew Leonard, Mark Regnerus, Jason Stellman, John Bergsma, Christian Smith, Kevin Vost, David Currie, Richard Cole, and Kenneth Howell. It also contains special appearances by experts in the field of conversion such as Patrick Madrid and Donald Asci.
Ultimately, this is a story about finding truth, beauty, and fulfillment in an unexpected place, and then sacrificing to grab on to it. I think it will entertain and inspire you, and perhaps even give you a fresh perspective on an old faith.
(Excerpt) Read more at indiegogo.com ...
Bears repeating. Tell ‘em.
And these were all in just TODAY’s paper!
Is it any surprise they demand their religious (nuns) wear burqas...
Appalling, yes, but perfectly consistent with the anthropo-cratic impulses of Rome. This lurch toward a spirit of murder is just the seed in full flower. The analytical shallowness of the attempt to justify these murders based on Scripture is breathtaking. The question of proper jurisdiction defeats every one of them. Easily.
The incestuous man Paul kicks out of the visible assembly? That’s a transfer from the jurisdiction of the Ecclesia of Christ to the jurisdiction of the world system, which is dominated by Satan. Paul nowhere advocates that the Ecclesia, by office or person, take the life of another. We release them to the jurisdiction that matches their moral choices.
Furthermore, the incestuous man is not a doctrinal dissident, he is committing an egregious sexual sin, which sort of sin very often is condemned under the near universal principles of natural law, and is classed with murder and theft and other evils that are already accounted for under both civil law and the law of natural consequences, which is usually where Satan catches up with bad men (and women).
And rightly you say that God took the lives of Ananias and Saphira. Again, note that Peter acted ONLY within his sphere of jurisdiction. The sin was identified, but Peter, unlike that time in the garden, was not reaching for a temporal sword, but handed the offenders over to God, a transfer of jurisdiction, and God DOES have absolute authority to take back any life He has given.
As for the two prophets of revelation, note their actions are justified as self defence. Their enemies are those setting about to harm them, and God gives them a means of self-defence that works until their mission is complete. Similarly, as I originally stated, it is NOT murder to protect one’s own life. But the blood on Rome’s brutal hands was not shed in an act of defence from physical violence, but mere doctrinal dissent, in which, even if it were the Ecclesia Christ is building (and it is not), it would still not have jurisdiction to take a human life.
As for the prophets of old, and under Moses, that was a theocracy, which by definition entails a temporal jurisdiction in combination with a spiritual jurisdiction. Jesus has specifically refused to give the Ecclesia temporal jurisdiction, so none of those OT examples are controlling. We may not do more and we must not do less than what is permitted to us in the jurisdiction created for us by the authority of Jesus and the apostles. Acting to end a human life outside that jurisdiction is not only physical murder, but spiritual suicide, as the soul that becomes accustomed to lawless killing may reach a point of reprobation from which there is no return. The wise will see the peril and will go another way.
Peace,
SR
It seems to me your post to me is an extreme overreaction. Hysterics aside, neither Peter nor Paul murdered anyone. Nor did Elijah or any other prophet of the LORD. Yet they certainly did kill them, and using removing the immoral brother from fellowship is a novel euphemism for delivering a man over to death. The prophets and apostles, upon whom the church is founded, with Jesus Christ the chief corner stone, have this authority and power. The scripture is never irrelevant.
Extreme overreaction?
That’s ironic coming from a Catholic whose religion has more than over reacted to dissent against itself with no Scriptural justification.
Hysterics?
No on both accounts.
It’s appalling that someone would use Scripture to justify murder.
This is clearly Catholicism exposed.
"Spirit of murder?" Are you claiming the deaths of Ananias, Sapphira, and the unnamed Corinthian at the word of the apostles Peter and Paul are murder ? Are you seriously suggesting that ?
Appears so and this is NOT the first time this bloodlust has been expressed.
As an aside, I’ve noticed that when Catholics are taking a beating on a thread, they push the envelope and post stuff so extreme, that the thread usually spirals out of control and gets locked by the RM.
I don’t want to see that happen with this thread.
These posts need to remain up for all to see.
Sadly, no.
Scripture can be used in a way that is irrelevant.
When it does not address the topic or is taken out of context to support something that it is no about, then it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
And Paul did not hand the Corinthian man over to death and Peter and Paul certainly did NOT murder them. *removing the immoral brother from fellowship* is NOT a euphemism for murder. That is nothing but rationalization for justifying the RCC policy of murder of dissidents.
God help you, because you’re going to need it.
Yes, on both accounts. My scriptural points are spot on. The prophets, the apostles, and the LORD Jesus himself have the power to kill (Revelation 3 for example). It is not murder. It seems to me you are confused about who I am discussing, which, it seems to me, makes your reaction to me in a post both extreme and hysterical.
We all do. It’s a learning curve.
Anyone has the power to kill.
No one has the RIGHT to kill.
And killing in the name of religion is MURDER. And those who support it also have blood on their hands.
If you read me carefully and in context you will not have any problem understanding my meaning.
Meanwhile, I leave it as an exercise to the reader to observe how AF is deriving a meaning exactly opposite to what I actually said. You, the reader, will doubtless find it instructive.
Peace,
SR
You had written, to me, "Appalling, yes, but perfectly consistent with the anthropo-cratic impulses of Rome. This lurch toward a spirit of murder is just the seed in full flower. The analytical shallowness of the attempt to justify these murders based on Scripture is breathtaking. The question of proper jurisdiction defeats every one of them. Easily. "
It is my understanding of your words that you accused me of a shallow attempt to justify these murders. Ananias and Sapphira, and the unnamed Corinthian were those I mentioned, with references to the prophets of Baal and those he, most likely, will kill in Revelation. And for this do you accuse me, and perchance God himself, of a spirit of murder ? Bad form.
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.