So true. What do you see here?
| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 10/27/2009 12:40:43 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Childish behavior. |
Posted on 07/25/2009 2:40:04 AM PDT by Quix
I imagine there are many liberals who took no offense at the black journalist's coining the term but then took great offense at the term being repeated by a person they loathe. In which case the offense was not the term but the very existence of someone hated.
I cannot judge offense taken as right or wrong. It is what it is.
But I can and do judge hate as wrong.
Indeed, the very sight of Bush waving and smiling might be an offense to those suffering from "Bush Derangement Syndrome." Hate in their case was making them sick.
Of a truth, not many have a judicial temperament allowing them in the normal course of a day to separate the matter from the person as we Christians learn to do (I Cor 6:1-8, Matthew 7).
Without a better picture, I don't we that we can be certain of that. It looks as if some of her fingers might be on the top of the cross, but that could also be the angle. As I said before, other than the photographer's title we have no actual way of knowing WHO is even being depicted.
So true. What do you see here?
Well that doesn’t really answer this question...
“And is it correct to come into a discussion on Rush’s bigotry and use “Barack the Magic Negro” as an example of it?”
Qualia is only a theory. It is not an absolute. There are many critics of it. So let’s put that aside for a moment.
If one is offended by a idea, with no explanation of the intent of that idea, should it be used as an example of a way to prove something?
In otherwords, is using “Barack the Magic Negro” as proof that Rush is a racist correct understanding that the song was a parody of one person rather than any black?
Simply, I’m not seeing proof that this was carved by a Catholic nor that it is on a Catholic grave and especially the context of the carving. We don’t even know that this was “Mary” and not the woman burried there. There is nothing but a title on a photograph by Ivan.
Yet, it was brought onto a thread with a heated discussion about “Catholics” putting Mary on a cross. Could it be that a Presbyterian carved it? A Lutheran grave? Or would that just be silly?
And, as an aside, I find it odd that you attribute this to a location in New Mexico when the words abover her head are in German.
I see Mary standing in front of a cross that is mounted on the Earth.
I’m not seeing Mary “on” a cross. If you are seeing Mary “on” a cross, you would totally freak out at the pictures of my girls standing in front of the cross at my church.
It’s from a cult.
Vatican rejects prayer to “Lady of All Nations”
The Vatican City’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith does not permit any Catholic community of Christ’s faithful in the country and throughout the world “to pray to the Mother of God” under the title of ‘Lady of All Nations’ with the added phrase ‘who was once Mary’.
(gotta love Unity Publishing)
Here's a better question, how did this subject even come up on a Pentecostal End Times thread?
Oh yeah, because whenever arguments between anti-Catholic get too uncomfortable they can do one of two things:
A. Face the reality that the man-made invention of "sola scriptura" is inherently flawed, otherwise ALL Christians would reach the same conclusion about EVERY verse.
or
B. Unite around their mutual hatred of Catholics and change the subject.
It seems that they invariably choose option B.
I also do not think an artist's rendering depicts Church dogma or teaching - unless of course it is done by commission for the Church, according to it's specification and approved by it's authority.
All that we know of this is the image itself and the photographer's description: "Mary's Sacrifice, Granada, Nicaragua."
He doesn't appear to have any motive other than to make money from prints, so I deduce his description is sincerely written.
Interesting. I wonder what would happen if I started posting pictures of men with white hoods circled around a burning cross and asked if all Protestants prayed this way.
Then again it's entirely possible that the cross was once upright and fell during the wars there during the 1980s and the people in charge of the cemetery decided to leave it the way it came to rest.
It is the clothed figure on a raised platform with cross to the left and the back. Sadly, there's not much detail, so I'm not sure: nicatour
>>Here’s a better question, how did this subject even come up on a Pentecostal End Times thread? <<
Good question!
If you ever visit Massachusetts, I recommend the cemetery in Concond. It is exceptionally lovely.
http://www.concordma.gov/pages/concordma_cemetery/sleepy
Excellent points.
****************
LOL! Good point!
>>I don’t recall ever saying it was a Catholic graveyard though in Nicaragua that would be likely.<<
No one should think a thing of it. And their offense should be their own.
In fact, when you state that you know that it’s Protestant because you’re sure that Catholics never pray that way AND say how Anti-scriptural it is, make fun and belittle anyone who disagrees with you all the while quoting scripture.
Because it isn’t the facts, it’s the accusation that counts.
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.