Posted on 12/10/2014 6:32:20 AM PST by marshmallow
"Christian unity" is one of those terms that stir up a whole spectrum of—sometimes emotional—opinions.
On the one hand, we know that Jesus prayed to the Father concerning future believers "that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you" (John 17:21a, NIV).
On the other hand, charismatics know it is almost pointless to discuss the gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12, 14) with Baptists or most anyone else from a mainline denomination. And Protestants of just about any stripe get riled up when they hear Catholics talking about papal infallibility or their adoration of the Virgin Mary.
It's on this latter point that Rick Warren, senior pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, and successful author, has waded into a hornet's nest of controversy by telling a Catholic News Service interviewer that Protestants and Catholics "have far more in common than what divides us" and that Catholics do not "worship Mary like she's another god."
Regarding Warren's view that Catholics do not worship Mary, Matt Slick, writing on the website of the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry, goes into great detail with material from Roman Catholic sources that say Mary is "the all holy one," is to be prayed to, worshipped, that she "brings us the gifts of eternal life" and she "made atonement for the sins of man."
If that's not putting her in the place of Christ as a god-like figure to be worshipped, then what is it?
"We believe in Trinity, the Bible, the resurrection, and that salvation is through Jesus Christ. These are the big issues," Warren says. "But the most important thing is if you love Jesus, we're on the same team."
To Warren's point about being on the same team, Slick.....
(Excerpt) Read more at charismanews.com ...
Qualifiers are our friends; right Vlad??
3) No where in scripture.
4) No where in the Fathers.
Interesting how they feel the need to trot them out as some kind of trophy as if that's going to sway others.
They can’t even agree on where she spent her last days. We were told that she was so important that it was ridiculous to believe that no one claimed to have her remains. That’s one of their reasoning’s they use for their assumption of assumption. The comment is made “they have all those remains but none for Mary so that means there were none to have”. Yet they don’t even know if she died or if she did where she died. They don’t even know where she was living. She was evidently of so little importance no one kept track of her or recorded where she lived.
It's a cult mindset. Because they are so earth bound to man's leadership they have no concept of the things of the Spirit. They can't relate unless they assign earthly leadership to others.
Did you not see that the rate of abortion was higher for Catholics? Your arguments on abortion fail on many levels. First of all the rate is higher among Catholics who claim to be a monolithic belief. Second, to assign cohesiveness to Protestant is naive at best. Trying to group all Protestants together shows ignorance. Catholics cannot claim thousands of diverse beliefs amongst Protestants on one had then assign cohesiveness on the other.
Bwahahahahahaha! There is none so blind as he who will not see.
I’m for that.
I’m for that, too.
In the last year or two it has been proven that multiple priests have been guilty of paedophilia. It has also been proven that their superiors covered it up rather than removing them from their leadership positions. The evidence just presented about abortion comparisons show that Catholics typically lose the numbers game. Why continue to play them?
I was making milk kefir there for awhile, but I couldn’t keep up with it. It’s a Way of Life, like Sourdough. And when you let it get away from you, it gets..... eeeew.
Remember, we be friends now... :o)
Is it fussy?
Is it fussy?
I am getting better, thank you. Lot’s of projects I had started that I wondered if I would be able to finish will now be back on the schedule.
I trust you would not willingly or knowingly post things about other people which have no factual basis. So please don't post this kind of statement anymore. It is not true.
Thank you, CB.
“Got it. If you post a false claim with no back up, it is correct even if it is not true.”
No, what I post is correct. It is correct because it is correct. What is true is true no matter who posts it.
“Oh my that is just what was done to me by...oops can’t say it in the RF.”
No. That was not done to you. If I cut and paste one anti-Catholic’s nonsensical statement and applied it to another anti-Catholic’s post that is a mere mistake. When someone says (as in another case) a quote did not come from a particular place when it did and he is shown this and insists, repeatedly, that it didn’t come from where it did, that is something else. And that was just once instance.
“No I didn’t. That comment is false, in error, wrong and inaccurate.”
What? Did you not say it was a South Park video (when it wasn’t)? In post 1561 you wrote, “Debate via youtube?...Without backup for your claims, you post a south park video??” So you say it was a youtube video and you said it was a South Park video. Are you now denying that you wrote that? Seriously?
“As usual, I will not ask you for a link to where I “claimed” I watched it.”
Go back and look at #1561. I don’t see how you can deny that you wrote, “Debate via youtube?...Without backup for your claims, you post a south park video??”
“Plus you are right even when you are wrong. Got it.”
No, when I’m wrong I’m wrong - I’m just rarely wrong and almost never wrong about anything related to the religious issues discussed.
“My you certainly are on a roll with all the false, error ridden, wrong and inaccurate statements about what I did or did not do!”
Again, post # 1561: “Debate via youtube?...Without backup for your claims, you post a south park video??”
“I did NOT claim what the video was about, and I did not claim to have watched it.”
Again, post #1561: “Debate via youtube?...Without backup for your claims, you post a south park video??”
“If you want to see the truth, go back and read what I actually posted. Read slowly. You will see you fell for my wording so I could find out what the video was about. It worked quite well!”
Oh, so you’re saying you posted something that was worded in such a way that someone would believe its literal meaning when that was actually false? Is that how an honest person is supposed to act? Is that even close to Matthew 5:37?
“This bearing false witness towards me is getting old. Are you a Christian?”
Wow. What a stunning statement considering you just posted this: “You will see you fell for my wording so I could find out what the video was about. It worked quite well!”
“Well above are several of your false claims about what I posted.”
I mistakenly posted one anti-Catholic’s comment to you. But if you’re going to write statements with this basis, “you fell for my wording,” then whatever happens after I actually take you at your word is your responsibility.
“So now will you not be polite to yourself?”
I’m tougher on myself than anyone else. The difference is I never word something with this as its basis: “you fell for my wording”.
“This is also addressed to all, so if anyone out there is bored and wants to see how inaccurate vlad’s reading comprehension is, just read my post he seems to have mangled in his understanding of it...”
There’s nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. I took you at your word and I bet many here - even the anti-Catholics - would agree. You wrote, “Debate via youtube?...Without backup for your claims, you post a south park video??”
“To Protestantism False Witness is the principle of propagation.” (John Henry Newman, Lecture 4. True Testimony Insufficient for the Protestant View)
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.