Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
In Christ Alone lyrics
Songwriters: Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;
In Christ alone my hope is found He is my light, my strength, my song This Cornerstone, this solid ground Firm through the fiercest drought and storm
What heights of love, what depths of peace When fears are stilled, when strivings cease My Comforter, my All in All Here in the love of Christ I stand
In Christ alone, who took on flesh Fullness of God in helpless Babe This gift of love and righteousness Scorned by the ones He came to save
?Til on that cross as Jesus died The wrath of God was satisfied For every sin on Him was laid Here in the death of Christ I live, I live
There in the ground His body lay Light of the world by darkness slain Then bursting forth in glorious Day Up from the grave He rose again
And as He stands in victory Sin?s curse has lost its grip on me For I am His and He is mine Bought with the precious blood of Christ
The only "vicious attacks" and "really nasty stuff" being "vomited out" on this forum lately has been YOURS. Pray tell, what could your possible motivation be? And, just for the record, please point out what specific posts here have so offended you by their vicious, vomity, nastiness that you came out from your lurking to respond? I would really like to know how bad it has to be. No, really.
So? Is there a law that says one must believe in your God?
What is the god of your creation?
Sorry, I don't create gods.
Why should any of us accept it?
Accept what?
While you are wasting time why don't you tell me what is God?
That is such a banal answer. Here is the difference: if God is a he then he is also something. The being versus the essence. The he and the what.
Is your god a thing?
I don't know. I don't even know what God is because you won't tell me. :)
However, I'll let God do the talking. I'll ask Him to prove Himself to you. He can present His case better than I
I agree wholeheartedly.
Everyone puts in faith in something, someone, even if it’s only their own self, their logic and reasoning, their standards.
As I wrote on another thread, “scratch the agnostic and you’ll find the atheist, scratch the atheist and you’ll find hurt feelings.
God should have done this or that, He’s not just or fair (according to their standards, of course), He just can’t have done this or that because they don’t understand, and yet the agnostic/atheist supposes they can read God’s mind (how is left unexplained).
So accordingly, the agnostic/atheist will tell us that Adam and Eve were victims, not of a rebel Satan, but of God who made them to fail and condemns them after sticking a foot out to trip them.
They have not so much disbelief or questions about God as contempt for Him.
Inflammatory language? Really? What posts were "tending to excite anger, disorder, or tumult : seditious"? Wouldn't they have to be something along the lines of encouraging yours or someone else's destruction to be called that. Because someone does not like the way you post and feels it is blasphemous and hurtful and they would like you to stop posting in that way, you would deny them the right to say so?
I WAS offended by GOML's attack on Metmom calling her a liar and all "Protestants" liars as well and also comparing us to Islamists. I think that is way out of line and I haven't seen anything come close to it in vicious, but silly, rhetoric. How would you know what offends me, do you follow my posting history? Whenever I do speak out about an improper post, I get trashed for trying to act like a moderator.
Lastly, I have rarely seen a non-catholic talk about a respectful disagreement with another poster in inflammatory ways and it is usually the other side that starts up with the fiery darts so I don't know where this "very common" behavior you are talking about is happening. One post in a 3000+ thread is hardly very common. Disagreeing over theology is the point of these discussion threads, I am nobody's mama.
Wow, so there IS something you call material evidence that you use to discern the existence of "God" who is NOT a certain way. Just what is it about that evidence that is so concrete that you can adamantly declare that, though? You did use the phrase "in my mind", so I take from that you have formed an idea of what God is not. Well, maybe that is a start. We can only hope! :o)
Are you serious? "Anti-Catholic rants", are those any different than the "Anti-Protestant/Reformation" rants that I see day in and day out? Whole threads even! Is it a rant if the thread is disputed with reasoned arguments? If it's an "Open" thread, all bets are off, right? Gotta have thick skin, right?
I think it is sad when some people are so attached to their religion that they cannot allow another view into their realm of thought. I see that attitude far more on the Catholic side even to the point where some refuse to accept that God can even be known by another outside their religion. I see far more acceptance of Catholics by non-Catholics than the other way around. If you haven't, you could not be paying attention.
Curiosity has to ask....why do you post on religious threads?
God never sets out to prove that He is. He simply is “I am that I am”.
AMEN!
Your posts in this particular discourse have been terrific, metmom.
Praise God that the Bible got into the hands of the people and they could read for themselves what God had to say and they were set free from the bondage the Catholic church would put everyone under again.
AMEN! Semper Reformanda!
LOLOL. How great is it when Roman Catholics agree with agnostics? A papist cheering section for the shoulder-shrug and the bewildered hunch.
A perfect pairing. Neither is certain of anything.
"No man can be an agnostic who has a sense of humour." -- E. M. Forster
Sounds about right.
Your denial of the Apostleship of Paul does not seem to me to make much sense.
You are also in error about the inconsistent number of Jewish tribes as compared to the number of Apostles as they are quite consistent.
Though the ideal number is twelve of the tribes, on certain occasions when that the tribe of Joseph is split for some specific reason under the guidance of God there is thirteen as the counting of Paul would make thirteen apostles.
The fact that he was a specially chosen vessel is very plainly made in a number of places,by Jesus in Acts 9 and by God in Acts 22:14, and witnessed by Ananias who was visited by Jesus Of Nazareth In Acts 22:8.
Now I know that God/Jesus does not call Paul an Apostle but that Is being a little picky don't you think.
Paul says that he is one and his writing is under the guiding influence of the Holy Spirit the third person of the Holy Trinity, which by the way is not mentioned in the Bible either,so if he is not an apostle the he is a liar and "the truth is not in him " and we would have to disregard every thing he wrote,said and done.
This would eliminate most all of the New Testament especially the church of the Gentiles both past and present, it's organization and it's doctrines.
It would also reflect badly on the rest called the beloved brother and Peter himself affirmed his writings.
I guess what really bothers me about your statement that you won't accept Paul's word under the influence of the Holy Spirit (Who is God by the way) but you require that God say he is an Apostle is very unfair and unreasonable.
Because you see God nor Jesus never called Peter or any of the other twelve apostles either but they like Paul, called themselves apostles ( see 1Peter 1:1, 2 Peter 2:1)
I made no comment about his teaching, and am not calling them into question...
I found in scripture myself what he was called by Christ. I found in scripture what was necessary to be considered an apostle by Peter himself....
The whole thread was helpful to me finding out for myself what Paul's status really was...
Yes, that's called apophatic thinking.
And you are certian of what?
No, that is not a fact. I've been asking on this and every thread to give me one example. Invariably, one gives either something that is not in the scripture either way, or something where his interpretation is one in error, and the context and plain meaning bear out the correct Catholic interpretation. You can try again; till such time your statement is malicious slander, and loss of Christian faith on your part.
still ((crikets))
It was Holy Tradition all along. Facts of apostolic origin known to the Church are either the Holy Tradition or Holy Scripture. Tradition became scripture at some point, but nothing can become Tradition by definition of the word. One can, of course, develop everyday traditions, like when to fast etc. Further, since life goes on, lives of saints get incorporated in the traditions of the local Church. But since Mary belongs to the age of the Apostles, the facts of her life are part of the same deposit of faith given the Apostles as the entire Holy Tradition "once delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3).
Apparently it was germane to Matthew and so was mentioned [in Mt 1:24-25]
It is not in Matthew 24-25. In Matthew 1:24-25 we are told that prior to Christ's birth Mary had no physical relations with Joseph and that Jesus was the first male child that she had, the firstborn. It did not say that Mary subsequently had any physical relations with Joseph, or had other children, or retired in a condo in Florida, or anything else. You are adding your fantasies to the Holy Scripture.
Mary's sin against God in refusing the role of wife. (1 Corinthians 7:2-5; Matthew 19:5)
Neither is the idea that Joseph asked for something she did not give him is in the scripture. Again, like with the entire Protestant baloney on sticks, the scripture is not read for what it says, but rather isolated verses are twisted till they fit in the preconceived notion of what you think the scripture should be saying. The comical part is that this process of distortion is called "Scripture Alone".
that there are good words to use for "cousin". A relevant example is here the word 'άνεψιός' which, means "cousin", or if you are a 1611 KJV translator, means "nephew". (compare Col 4:10 between versions).
I don't think I said, or St. Matthew meant to say "cousins". Brothers is a correct term in the Greek of the period, for a collection of relatives who are close in age, whose precise relation is either not known or not important, or differs inside the group. To say, for example, "cousins" excludes step brothers, milk brothers adopted brothers and playmates.
wanted to convey the idea of actual brothers and sisters, what would they have actually said differently than what is already there?
If it were important, the would indicate who the parents were, like Mary Cleophas is indicated as the mother of some of these putative "brothers" (John 19:25, Mark 15:40).
Rome has no problems rewriting history and the Word of God.
What did Rome rewrite? I can tell you what Luther rewrote (Romans 3:28).
All Catholic is Roman Catholic in doctrine. Other Catholic Churches have different liturgy but their theology is still the same one Catholic theology, opposed to the Protestant theological fantasies.
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.