Posted on 02/28/2008 6:25:40 AM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
You're dodging the topic here, Steven. Are there any articles (not posts) posted on FR containing Catholics calling non-Catholics "whore of Babylon" or "anti-Christ?"
I agree those two charges seem to be exclusive to the RCC and/or the Pope. I wonder why you are now limiting your complaint to a very few selected "charges" while ignoring the myriad of charges against Protestantism.
It goes both ways my friend.
And I've never thought of "whore of Babylon" as a put down. ...
Well, let me see if I can help you with that. Whoring is probably the activity behind the word porneia. It's considered worse than regular old ,amateur fornication. While some have considered it inevitable, few have considered it good. Babylon was historically the city of the Jews' captivity and the Revelation suggests that it is not such a good place. So "Whore of Babylon", be it never so putatively Biblically based is not a turn of phrase likely to lower room temperature.
On the other hand "Brethren" is claiming a relationship, and used in Biblical or church contexts it claims a fellowship in being a follower of our Lord. So it is not a phrase which turns people away but which seeks to affirm some bond, some commonality. "Separated" refers to the differences in our ecclesiology and in other matters of theology and the resultant inappropriateness for us to join at the Lord's table. It is descriptive. And separateness is commutative. We are as much separated from you as you from us.
It seems to me that the phrase "whore of Babylon" carries its own put-down with it. "Separated brethren" by way of contrast is an attempt merely to assert a kind of unity hindered by division. Brotherhood, in natural terms, is life-long. But brothers can be separated from one another, but that need not last. to say brothers are "estranged" is not in itself saying which one is "right" and which "wrong". I'd be interested in a theologian who said "whore of Babylon -- NOT that there's anything wrong with that."
Can you tell me what is offensive in "separated brethren"?
It may be good, it may even be necessary that we be falsely accused. But woe to him by whom these offenses come.
And when the person giving the offense in a few posts first laments who he or she is abused and then tells those whom he or she abuses that words have no power, then something is up.
Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep. [Be] of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits.
Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but [rather] give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance [is] mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. – Romans 12:14-21
lol. You ignored the word "separated". Nice unity.
But we’re not united. We ARE separated, are we not? The situation may be offensive, I guess. But how are we to talk about it? Do you have a phrase you’d prefer we used?
Sure don't. But don't worry. If you feel persecuted by the Biblical phrase "whore of Babylon" be exceeding glad for great will be your reward in heaven. :-)
I thank God for the gift of you.
To God be the glory!
I would simply point to the 4th Lateran Council of 1215 which states:
Since we are dwelling on the 1215 Council, I would also point out that the Council from the chair of Peter, decided that Jews and Catholics should dress differently, taxes to the Church should be paid before taxes to the country, and prior to calling a physician one should contact a priest. If Catholics were to read some of these Council's infallible edicts, they probably would become Protestants.
lol, um, no. I said it is an act of obedience. Scripture commands us to be baptized. Nowhere does it command us to sprinkle children.
Are you going to tell me that every child that has been "baptized" is elect?
I said we have nations of unbelievers who were "baptized" at birth. Many have never made a confession of faith and never will. I do hold that they were never baptized in the first place though, as they should be old enough to know what it is and partake in it.
Nope. Only God knows the names of the elect. But we have His promise that our children are included in the new covenant. Was the promise made to us and our children, or not?
I said we have nations of unbelievers who were "baptized" at birth. Many have never made a confession of faith and never will. I do hold that they were never baptized in the first place though, as they should be old enough to know what it is and partake in it.
And that's where we differ. Cognition is not what makes one saved. That's an answer from Rome -- "Acquiesce to this and then you are saved." Christ's atonement is what has saved us. Which is why children were included in the promise in the first place.
Our love doesn't save us; His love saves us. And His love came first.
Were the children of believers under the old covenant included in the promise? Yes.
Were believers under the old covenant told to recognize their children as members of God's promise by circumcision? Yes.
Likewise, we under the new and better covenant are to bring our children to Him to be recognized as His possession, given to us by God for His safe-keeping.
Here's a great little Q and A from a former Baptist, now baby-splashing Presbyterian who offers an excellent defense of infant baptism which I don't think can be easily refuted...
Nope. Only God knows the names of the elect. But we have His promise that our children are included in the new covenant. Was the promise made to us and our children, or not?
I said we have nations of unbelievers who were "baptized" at birth. Many have never made a confession of faith and never will. I do hold that they were never baptized in the first place though, as they should be old enough to know what it is and partake in it.
And that's where we differ. Cognition is not what makes one saved. That's an answer from Rome -- "Acquiesce to this and then you are saved." Christ's atonement is what has saved us. Which is why children were included in the promise in the first place.
Our love doesn't save us; His love saves us. And His love came first.
Were the children of believers under the old covenant included in the promise? Yes.
Were believers under the old covenant told to recognize their children as members of God's promise by circumcision? Yes.
Likewise, we under the new and better covenant are to bring our children to Him to be recognized as His possession, given to us by God for His safe-keeping.
Here's a great little Q and A from a former Baptist, now baby-splashing Presbyterian who offers an excellent defense of infant baptism which I don't think can be easily refuted...
Certainly that bit about taxes to the church (and thus to Rome) before taxes to the state riled Henry VIII and assorted other sovereign nations.
1. The RC edifice was not given to the Roman politicians by Jesus The Christ in any form, shape or fashion. They cobbled it together 300-400 years later out of their own fleshy political maneurvers as they've been doing ever since.Of course Quix has ZERO facts to base this ignorant bigotry on, just CAPITAL LETTERS and colors. Say Quix, you have no authority, no facts, no credibility -- you are simply a small noise, like the buzzing of an insect. You knew that though, didn't you?2. It is more rife with heresy than . . . any other remotely Christian club.
Them's just the facts.
***Of course Quix has ZERO facts to base this ignorant bigotry on, just CAPITAL LETTERS and colors. Say Quix, you have no authority, no facts, no credibility — you are simply a small noise, like the buzzing of an insect. You knew that though, didn’t you?***
Oh come on, narses. You are going to hurt his feelings. We all know that it is not knowledge that counts, it is not history that counts, it is not being correct that counts. It only matters that one feels very strongly that one is right. We cannot allow friend Quix to be hurt by our attitude that there is a right and wrong that can be shown. We cannot allow friend Quix to be labeled with derogatory labels since his self esteem may be ruined irrepairably.
Off you go and before Lent is over, you MUST do a complete Way of the Cross with sorrowful heart, just to make up for the grief that you are causing for the heathens, heretics and apostate that infest the world like mosquitoes and sandflies. It is not their fault. You cannot blame them.
Wow, this thread has become a regualar non-Catholic group hug! I was feeling alone just reading it. Why don’t any of them refer to us as “Dear Brother/Sister in Christ”?
Glad I missed the majority of it.
The Chrisian charity that flows around here during lent is simply amazing!
God Bless the lot. Some will be really surprised the company they will keep when they get to heaven!!!!
“The Chrisian charity that flows around here during lent is simply amazing!”
The Evil One HATES Lent.
“God Bless the lot. “
Indeed, God Bless them, every one.
Quix has clearly demonstrated that he/she is an anti-Catholic bigot.
Quix, you and your ilk do a real disservice to Christian unity. I don't say that just because the way you attack the church I belong to, but because of the way you and yours relentlessly attack any legitimate Christian church at all and seek to disrupt relevant discussion.
I must say though, it has been a real eye opener. Before reading Free Republic, I had know idea the level of backward, bigoted ignorance existed in the United States.
800! Yes!
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.