Posted on 01/25/2013 5:39:10 PM PST by Alex Murphy
The bishops are autonomous in most matters. IMHO, the local bishops should have acted as the bishop in Arizona did, when he sanctioned a hospital for getting out of line. The hospital argument is pure sophistry.
The bishops are autonomous in most matters. IMHO, the local bishops should have acted as the bishop in Arizona did, when he sanctioned a hospital for getting out of line. The hospital argument is pure sophistry.
I think you're spot-on. I haven't paid much attention to this case, and if all I had to go on were the headlines, I'd think the Catholic Church is being entirely hypocritical in this case.
But then, that's what the headlines WANT people to think.
So I stopped and read this article and the subsequent posts - and I'm glad I did. Your response makes the most sense of what I've read this morning.
Prayers for the father and daughter who must now find their way without their Wife/Mother and siblings. God bless and keep them both near to his heart.
The left and certain freepers too. Maybe they are one and the same, maybe not, but they are bed-fellows...
True, down to their statement that no work on sabbath, not even lighting fires
And even as the Adventists said in Patriarchs and Prophets, page 761, "...He (Jesus) was revealed to them as the Angel of Jehovah, the Captain of the Lord's Host, Michael the Archangel".
Though I find it strange that the Adventists don't mention that they believe that "Christ will place all our sins upon Satan, the originator and instigator of sin...so Satan, bearing the guilt of all the sins which he has caused God's people to commit."
Maybe I wasn’t clear. The way it had been set up was a lose-lose scenario, at least how it was described by the media. What I was suggesting was that it could be changed into, if not a win, then a break-even for the church.
The way the media described it, either the church would denounce its own doctrines (which their lawyers did); or it would insist on its doctrines, and lose the case. In either case this would make the media, and the anti-Catholics, happy. As such from the media’s point of view, it was a lose-lose.
What I suggested was that the church could still insist that life begins at conception, upholding their doctrines, and yet this would *not* cause them to lose the case, since the case is based in Colorado law, which does not even consider the doctrines of the church.
Thus, the case would still be decided that the fetuses were not human beings, and thus the church does not have to pay, though it believed them to be human. Which decision would be a loss as far as the media and the anti-Catholics are concerned. And the church would not waver at all from its beliefs.
That wouldn’t be the same as saying Satan worked the Atonement, if it were true. It’s just saying that Satan gets all the blame in the end for the sin that he wanted to exist, namely all of it in the universe. Which many would believe logical, even though the bible does not spell it out explicitly. A controversial idea? It is truly yawnworthy.
Most Christians believe in pre-incarnational appearances of Christ, including some called the angel of the Lord, but wouldn’t agree necessarily to identify the angel Michael
as having been one of these. Like your other mention about a detail concerning sin and the devil, these are internal theological matters. Good Christians can differ on details or on the identification of vaguely defined biblical personages. The 7DA are typically quite bold about how to live a Christian life, mistakes or not.
No, these are not. If the SDAs say Jesus is an Angel, just an angel, even the highest one,that is saying that He is not God
That puts the group in the same category as it's sister religion, the Jehovah's Witnesses (they grow up out of the same mileu)
Christianity at it's basics is: There is One God, the Father is God, Jesus is God, The Holy Spirit is God. Jesus is 100% man and 100% divine. He died for our sins. Without His sacrifice we could not be saved by our own efforts.
That's it in a nutshell.
If one says that Jesus is not God, either just a holy man (Jehovah's Witnesses) or a super-angel (SDA), that is not Christian.
Neither is saying there is more than 1 God -- Mormonism -- that instantly cuts off the continuity with Judaism.
Neither is saying that Jesus was only Spirit or only man, either way negates the incarnation and eliminates the purpose of the incarnation and sacrifice as does the last (Jainism -- not even Pelagianism which acknowledges that the sacrifice was necessary)
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.