|This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.|
Locked on 04/28/2010 11:54:24 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Per poster’s request
Skip to comments.Nifonging the Catholic Church
Posted on 04/18/2010 9:49:35 PM PDT by Judith Anne
click here to read article
Dingle is in extreme southwest Ireland, Derry (known to the Brits and Londonderry) is in the extreme southeast.
If you don't believe that (Protestant) government sponsored terrorism took place in Ireland then you are sorely ignorant. In 1800 the population if Ireland was nearly 9 million, fifty years later it was a third of that. Over 2.5 million died of starvation or starvation related diseases and 3.5 million migrated. All of this at a time when Ireland was exporting food from Protestant owned farms. Laws prevented Catholics from acquiring land or owning businesses. Even the fish in the rivers and ocean were declared property of the state and fishing was a capital offense.
In the midst of the famine many Irish were turned out (evicted from farms their ancestors had owned) so that the land could be converted to exportable cash crops. Their descendants still wander the roads of Ireland and are known simply as "Travelers".
It was ethnic cleansing on a on a major scale, but largely ignored because the victims were merely Catholics. Leon Uris, a WWII marine hero and Jew, wrote the remarkable novel "Trinity" about this era. While fiction, it is highly factual and reading it would do you a lot of good.
You totally missed what I was saying, as I should have expected.
I didn’t say the abbreviation or RC came before the meaning of the word arse.
I said that the meaning of the Roman Catholic for abbreviation RC, came before the meaning of arse for the abbreviation of RC.
Someone used the abbreviation RC to mean Roman Catholic before the opportunist added any other meaning.
And you know what? You can whine and complain and accuse and imply all you want and you are NOT going to control or manipulate my behavior with your temper tantrums.
You have been told repeatedly that people were not aware of the meaning attached to the abbreviation RC, until you *enlightened* everyone (complained about it vociferously) and that it was used as a matter of convenience with no intent to insult or demean.
If you can’t accept that and are going to continue to take offense where none is intended, then that’s your problem, not mine. But you WILL NOT manipulate my behavior, especially when you go as far as stooping to accusing people of being *unChristian* in your attempt to do so.
People are not going to bend over backwards to accommodate you and your delicate sensibilities over something that is only an issue because you insist on making it so.
If I ever make it to Ireland, I’ll keep it in mind. Otherwise, this is the United States and the abbreviation of RC, pronounced *arcee* is not the same as *arse* which is not even in common usage here.
What next? are you going to demand that Royal Crown rename it’s company so it’s not a bad reflection on its root beer and cola?
Get a grip.
And you're only surmising and wrong that people are using RC in a derogatory way. Matter of fact, you've been told different and are still beating that drum.
That is putting it in the category of bearing false witness because you have been clearly told different.
I don’t think its any big deal, you do.
It’s your problem, not mine.
Well, so far I think orange still works as well as purple.
Indigo seems safe.
Where's the outcry for this travesty?
Personally...I think it’s not worth the aggravation to even talk about it anymore. Some people have to be victims of persecution, it makes them feel special, but way too obvious.
Have a blessed night. I’m signing off.
I didn’t think Dingle and Derry were American.
Purple works for me. Will you tell Atlanta or shall I?
If that must include blue, so be it.
Agreed on all points.
Funny how people can play the victim or martyr all the while attacking others and manipulating their behavior.
All of this "RC really means arse" talk reminded me of a thread I'd posted back in 2008. Check this out!
Party song seen as having anti-Catholic overtones [The "Hokey-Pokey" - that's what it's all about!]
Critics claim that Puritans composed the song in the 18th century in an attempt to mock the actions and language of priests leading the Latin mass. Now politicians have urged police to arrest anyone using the song to "taunt" Catholics under legislation designed to prevent incitement to religious hatred....
....It was reportedly a Puritan backlash against Catholicism - hard though it is to imagine Puritans putting their right foot out and shaking all about.
A & W is the only root beer.
But since A could stand for Anthrax and W might imply Wickedness, I probably shouldn’t imbibe.
Haha! Yeah I think I messed up. I’ll have to go back and do more research in that Dan Brown scholarly guide.
Yeah, I figure it is a popularity contest/political chess game. Probably not much different than boardroom maneuvering or Capital Hill wheeling and dealing.
I think the common thought is that it is to decide who is the most “Christ like” among the world’s most “Christ like” people. But the Edifice isn’t Christian; and just look at the current Pope’s fruits, what with the furthering Satan’s global government and all. Plus, it is impossible to be a leftist and to be a Christian at the same time.
Sure. That doesn't mean he was God. The Jewish meshiyah (anointed) was a man of God, a king sent by God. Not divine.
It is no mere truism that John voices when he insists that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh
No, of course not. The whole purpose of John's Gospel was to portray Christ as divine. But he could do that given the break that occurred between Judaism and Christianity by that time (cf Jamnia), and that Christianity needed to establish a firm divine authority outside of Judaism.
At the end of the 1st century, John's aim was to show that Jesues was no longer considered a Jewish messiah, but God incarnate, a temple who raised himself rather than an anoninted Jewish wariror king whom God raised.
Paul speaks of God as sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh
The term "son of God" did not imply a divine creature in Judaism. It is encounters on numerous occasions in the Old Testament as a title bestowed on mortal or angelic beings (Adam, angels, kings, David, etc.).
Also the verse doesn't say "his own" but of himself. The reflexive nature of the verb doe snot imply "own." In has been lost in English to a large extent where it used to be used more often as in other European languages. Thus Newton writes "I procured myself a prism."
Paul's' suggestion that Christ only appeared in the "likeness" of sinful flesh must have really scored him points with the Gnostics big time.
1Timothy 3:16, , believed on in the world, received up into glory
This verse is well known because it is one of those verses where fraudulent alteration of the Bible is evident. The fraud was actually discovered by an English Protestant Bible scholar in the 17th or 18th century. He noticed that in the 5th century Greek manuscript the ligature for God (in Greek Θς) has a line through "O" of a different ink. Closer examination show this to be true.
Apparently someone changed the Greek word for "he" (in Greek Oς) by penning a line through "O" and making it into a ligature for God. Naturally, the meaning of the whole verse changes drastically when one reads:
Paul writes of Jesus in Colossians 2:9, In him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily
"Who is the image (Greek: icon) of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature" (Col 1:15). An image is not the thing.
In addition, when Jesus contemporaries called him Lord; they were employing a term that was used over six thousand times in the Greek translation of the Old Testament to refer to God or the Lord.
The word "Lord" (Gr: kyrios) is also used for non divine beings. Anyone who is superior in rank is called kyrios.
When asked if he had seen Abraham, Jesus responded by saying, Before Abraham was, I am (John 8:5758)
Of course John would do that. The context in which his Gospel was written at the end of the first century is consistent with his attempts to equate Christ with God. I just find it curious that the other Apostles didn't notice that "minor" statement (for which Jesus wouldhave been stoned).
But that was not one of the charges brought up against Jesus. In fact, John omits the whole going before the Sanhedrin part.
The prophet Isaiah affirms Jesus as the king who reigns forevera role only God could fill: Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end (Isa. 9:7).
Jews will disagree, based on the context, that it has anything to do with Jesus. Also, the Septuagint has nothing even close in Isa 9:6. It reads as follows:
"For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him"
No God, no mighty Father, nothing.
John 10:30, I and my Father are one.
John 14:28 "for the Father is greater than I.
Heb. 1:1-4, God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son
Again, here God spoke by the prophets and by his Son...again the title "son" of God (common in the OT) does not imply divinity in Judaism, but a favorite of God, and the Book of Hebrews is addressed to the Jews, as they understood the terms.
Using your own quote "(Luke 2:52), And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man." God owuld nto have to increase in favor of God.
I will add also that Jesus calls the Father his God (cf John 20:17) God calling God God?
2. Closely connected with this explicit claim of unity with God is the expression of limitations upon this relationship. John 5:19..."
There goes your whole "economic subordination" theory out the window.
The doctrine of kenosis emphasizes the divine initiative
As regards kenosis, the orthodox Church sees it in a different light (interpretation) form the Portestant world.
In fact, the Protestant version of the doctrine is heretical in the eyes of the Church because it states that Christ gave up some of his divine attributes in order to beocme man.
The Protestant version was specifically condemned by the Catholic Church in 1951, as denying Christ's divinity while on earth, and compared it to Docetism.
But then, in my opinion,the Pope should have condemned St. Paul for Docetism as well (see Rom 8:3). :)
So that's what it's all about.
Molim lepo. :)
There's that doe snot term again. I somehow think BD and MM have a great deal more knowledge and overall understanding about Christian doctrine - doe snot not withstanding. You're a broken, offkey record Kosta pal. Might be time for lights-outs. Nite nite.
lol, I’m going to prison, we played it at camp in the Michigan woods. And “Capture the flag” my favorite. I suppose that was from the 15 th century when hooligans in Derbyshire stole the bishops hat.
Please close the thread, the original issue and the major sidebar have been fully discussed.
The fish hat?
yes, steal the fish flag hat and you must do pennants
Since when does someone, even the originator of the thread, have the right to just close a thread that's not breaking the rules?
Every thread ever posted on FR eventually gets side-tracked at times.
Ever hear of "the neeners?" But that's no reason to end the thread.
Sign off, maybe. Put the house on the market. Change your phone number. Leave the country.
But not end the thread.