Posted on 04/26/2002 9:01:52 AM PDT by WhatNot
I didn't say it was a *command* to pray that way. What I am getting at is that the phrase "pray thusly" cannot be read in any way as a injunction *against* using those exact words. And as for 'after this manner", the Greek there is 'outws = "thus, in this way". "In this manner" is a bit of a soft translation and distorts the fairly direct sense of the Greek.
No one ever said the cry of a heart was not important. Of course it is. The question is, is there room as well in Christian life for fixed-form vocal prayer as well? And the answer is yes--Christ established the pattern right here. You can certainly read "pray in this way" as not a command to use the exact words--but at the very least it is a recommendation.
Appreciated but they shouldn't! ;) We have some of those people doing it during Mass now and us traditionalists are trying to put a stop to it.
"....especially since patent posted "patterns of abuse" and demonstrated to everyone what an absolute un-Christian I've been." (to the squeak squeak sound of thumbsucking)
Point #1: Why does Christ, after having used a more plain word like "phagete" ="eat", when the Jews propound difficulty with what he was saying, switches to use the word "trwgwn"--"gnaw/chew" which is much more vivid, much more fleshy, and is not a word that is used metaphorically in the NT.
Point #2. Someone asked the question how do we know that this statement is to be taken literally when other statements in the Bible "I gather you under my wings", etc. are clearly not. But in none of those cases did Christ say "I am a true bird" or anything like that, whereas here he *did* say my flesh is *true* flesh, my blood is *true* drink.
Point #3: If Christ's "gnaw" is to be taken metaphorically, and that's what he meant in verse 63 when he said "..the flesh benefits nothing", why, then, in line 66 do his disciples leave him anyway? There would have been no reason to leave if the literalness of the passage (which is clearly what the Jews had the problem with) was retracted.
As I said before -the emphasis should be on the 'correctness' of doc's theology. IF he is correct (which is the assumption he is most definately operating under!), then his descriptions are correct. Since that, as I mentioned, is the assumption he is operating under, then his intentions are certainly not hateful or malevolent. Remember this was done in private -it was not an attempt at a public rebuke.
As I've mentioned before, I will occasionally utilize a similar technique using similar words with the troubled youth I work closely with. In this example, I ~am~ correct. I've led a life of obeying the law, not out of fear, but out of the desire to do what's right. In this situation, when I tell a youth that if he continues down the path of crime and drugs that he's being a fool and just plain stupid, I'm intending to be blunt. I'm intending to give him a literary slap in the face in hopes of waking him up. My intentions are most certainly out of love and kindness. That I'm being 'mean' is not the issue. What is the issue is that I'm attempting to show the youth explicitly what he is doing that is wrong.
So, if doc's theology is incorrect, that still leaves his good intentions as he most certainly has strong convictions in his theology. He's not simiply trying to win a debate point. This stuff is of utmost seriousness to him. I would think you'd respect the passion he shows and the kindness (again 'tough love') he's employed to 'knock you to your senses'.
Correct, or incorrect, his intentions are the best although he employs a technique you may not care for. (The youths I work with typically don't 'like' the descriptions I utilize either, but in that case, they do know I am correct, and they respect my intentions as these kids are usually the one's I have the best relationship with.)
"So are you both willing to draw onto yourselves the prestigious mantles of "dorks", "idiots" and "demonically controlled", "Satanically screwed" fools?"
I'm assuming that there's a bit of a relationship between the two Dr's. I hardly see this issue as being one where the_doc read a post of Dr. Brian's and, without so much as corresponding with him before, hit him with that email in question. I'm assuming that there has been a good amount communication between the two prior to this email.
Now, if it was us who are wrong and are being rather obstinant about it, then yes, the descritions used would accurately describe our condintion.
We're 'big' people here. Why the inability to understand the_doc's motivation and intentions? You should here the insults and words I am called by some of these youths! And they intend malevolence! Yet, I am mature enough to simply 'laugh it off' (that bugs them the most!) and realize that the youth in question really doesn't 'know' my 3 year old daughter and hasn't really done all those nasty things to her. Imagine the look on my supervisor's face if I were actually to go and complain to him that I was seriously offended and bothered at the youth's comments. Come on, if the_doc's comments were so juvenile, why don't you rise above it. It seems to me that if his intentions were indeed ill, then it would bother him the most that you would ignore it. It seems to me that, if he intended malevolence, that bringing it public would cause him joy!
Sorry, the_doc is not that kind of person. His intentions were the best!
Jean
Jean - you arent even a good liar - heres what the post said -
First, note that it was to you to whom I posted it, bwahahah
second, note I did not say woody was humping my leg (that would make you a liar)
And what was my beef then you ask? - It appears I was asking to be swayed with brotherly love instead of a "hammer". Oh look, you hypers are accused of same again - there seems to be a pattern of behavior here that is all too apparent for anyone with a with an ounce of discernment and understanding. You unfortunately walk in darkness.
The cross: A symbol, but of what? Posted by Revelation 911 to Jean Chauvin; ward smythe On Religion Mar 27 12:17 PM #322 of 415
Jean stated: This, my friend, for all the world to see, is quite juvenile arguing tactics. Obviously, you had not the FACTS to counter OP's statements regarding the intentional Jesuit deception on which Arminianism is based, so you resorted to name calling. How profound. It seems to me, that you have demonstrated you willingness to uses any attempt to change the subject of a discussion which is not going the way you wish it to go. I must, therefore, conclude that you have also intentionally misrepresented Mom's and OP's comments when you know full well, they have been explained in context
I replied: - Hey - he knows where Im coming from - Free Grace baby - Wesley made it quite clear - why I need to rehash it with a hammer wielding "christian" eludes me - but if you want to go there - we CAN play that pissing game all day if you want... in the end solving NOTHING - as he - (and apparently you) have no desire to discourse calmly and in a demeanor befitting the subject matter. As for misrepresenting thier comments - Its plainly apparent to all (with open minds) exactly what is happening here. - I came into that topic with an open mind, got dusted up a bit and ended by offering prayer - just as I did throughout the discourse.
Ive yet to see any real Christ like attitudes in trying to sway me as a "lost" brother - Instead the leg of Calvinism is humped like a frothing pinscher. C'mon - sway me with brotherly love - point being you can't - and for that I'll pray.
Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time ;)
You owe me an apology for misquoting me
just ignore the naughty lass and spare him the rebuke - glad hes not raising my kids - he sounds like a demoncrat.
Your correct, and I apologize.
Your actual words are so much 'nicer' -'pissing' and all!
Jean
I'd think you, of all people, could be more 'original' than that -especially considered that was pretty much the line I used yesterday. ;)
Jean
actually, pretty tame to what Ive seen sold as Christianity, which is the larger blaspheme?
P.S. - youre feet are wet - zzzzzzip
and thanks for the apology - you at least have stones enough to admit an error, now if youd only disavow docs comments, all would be right in the world and we could all sleep better
...by telling everyone to "gnaw his kidney and suck His carotid artery" - no wait - that was OP wasnt it? -
...If you have to silence your critics..you need to check your message..:>))
...and when they cross the line of decency and intentionally inflame, play whackamole with the abuse button. Our message is fine, it is "foamy" the dog that concerns us.
good mornin ma !
I referenced the original post which said: Ive yet to see any real Christ like attitudes in trying to sway me as a "lost" brother - Instead the leg of Calvinism is humped like a frothing pinscher. C'mon - sway me with brotherly love - point being you can't - and for that I'll pray.
Jean responds:
To: Revelation 911 Your correct, and I apologize. Your actual words are so much 'nicer' -'pissing' and all! 210 posted on 4/30/02 8:56 AM Eastern by Jean Chauvin
not sure if everyone caught this since they didnt feel a need to flag you despite having wrongly accused me before everyone on the thread
Good advice. I have been praying for him and his defenders earnestly since this mess started.
You assume far too much. Unless your screen name is simply a second screen name that the_doc hides behind (your styles are strikingly similar, but then ago so are all you OPies) you have nothing on which to base this assertion. We have exchanged posts on another thread, and we may have crossed paths elsewhere on this forum, but there is certainly no relationship between us.
"You are a disgrace to your profession, of course."
As to the above quote -I'd assume that is Dr. to Dr. -you'd have to have doc clarify that one. I'm not a Dr.
Your defense of the_doc's sins makes you guilty of the same sins. The-doc doesn't know me at all, neither does he know the quality of the medicine I practice. We have exchanged posts on one or two threads, but there is certainly no basis for this personal attack.
Of course, we can't ask the_doc about his intent. He is too much the coward to return to this thread to defend his indefensible words.
He lets folks such as you and RN do it for him.
That you have exchanged posts on another thread and that you have crossed paths elsewhere on this forum means precisely that you do have a relationship -a history with each other. My point was not that the two of you know each other as friends, but that the_doc didn't simply read your posts and having never communicated with you at any time before -then fired of his FRmail. That was patently obvious!
"Of course, we can't ask the_doc about his intent. He is too much the coward to return to this thread to defend his indefensible words."
Quite frankly, I haven't heard from the doc privately in some time (last saturday). I suspect he's rather busy for FR at this time. The reason I suggest this is that I personally FRmailed him yesterday regarding a personal (unrelated) concern of which he was well aware of and which he had expressed deep concern in the past. So far, I have yet to hear from the_doc regarding this matter. If the_doc had been on line, he most assuredly would have communicated with me regarding this issue in due time. That he hasn't tells me he's not around currently.
Jean
I went to last to New Orleans last weekend. I love going there in the spring. Anyway, whenever I visit, I always attend 7:30 AM Mass at St. Jude's on Rampart street. You would think that it wouldn't be crowded at that time of the morning, but it has been packed everytime I've been there. They have a preacher named Father Tony Ricard, and he really gets people participating in the mass. He really draws people in by his personality and intellect.
During the Our Father, the entire congregation holds hands and puts the words into song. People stretch into the aisles to hold the hand of the person in the pew across from them. I really enjoy it. I find it very spiritual!
***g***
That was supposed to say, "I went to New Orleans last weeked."
Well, Mom, that has to be among the biggest, most blatant lies you have ever uttered.
You, of course, forget one "Ward Smith of Virginia" whose freepmail you sent to a number of people: OP, Jerry, Woody, Xzins, Doc, others. And then you EGGED them to POST it.
And finally, you posted it yourself.
"Fickle....thy name is WOMAN!" "Vanity...yada, yada, yada!"
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.