Posted on 12/15/2010 5:09:09 PM PST by RnMomof7
You raise a good point here. It is indeed how we look at an issue, that can color our opinion of it, sometimes negatively.
Where I would disagree is with your implication that Catholics aren’t Christ centered. Let’s take the issue Dr. E brought up, the title of “Mother of God” for Mary.
This title wasn’t given to her because of some “Mary centric desire”. It was to counter a heresy quite present at the time that asserted Jesus was not both fully God and fully Man. Some at the time were asserting Jesus was only a Man, because how could Mary give birth to God? (sound familiar? It should. It’s the exact same argument those who reject the title Theotokos still use today. Indeed, there truly isn’t anything new under the sun! Those who refuse the lesson of history are doomed to repeat it. But I digress. )
The point is, that the title “Theotokos” is NOT “Mary centric”, but is actually “Christ centric”, because it correctly forces one to realize a truth about Christ, to whit, that He is fully Man and Fully God.
So yes, it is critical to approach an issue with the correct frame of mind. I believe this is why one of the Beatitudes is, “Blessed are the poor in spirit”. I believe a devout meditation of that passage would be very helpful for many on the Religion forum.
The Catholic church is the one teaching transubstantiation, that the host becomes the literal body and blood of Christ and that one must eat of that to be saved. The FRoman Catholics on FR even quote from John 6 to support that doctrine.
If you have a problem with the claims that Catholics drink blood, you need to take that up with the church and other Catholics. They’re the ones telling us that’s what Jesus and His disciples did at the Last Supper and that’s what Catholics do at every mass.
But I see that this is getting back to the usual it’s OK for a Catholic to state something about Catholic doctrine, it but not for a non-Catholic to state something about Catholic doctrine.
Since you now seem to be denying it, does that mean you’ve finally come to your sense and recognize that it’s a SYMBOLIC gesture?
That would be an improvement.
Cronos, is that the best argument you can muster, that someone reads the Book of Acts and understands that the disciples (as well as Jesus who kept the Law perfectly) were Jews under Jewish Law, a law that forbade the eating of blood of any kind, certainly that of another human?
“
Cronos, is that the best argument in favor of Catholic doctrine you can muster, that someone reads the Book of Acts and understands that the disciples (as well as Jesus who kept the Law perfectly) were Jews under Jewish Law, a law that forbade the eating of blood of any kind, certainly that of another human?
“Jehovah’s Witnesses say that Jesus’ commands to eat his flesh and drink his blood in John 6 could not be literal because Jesus would be advocating something against God’s law by commanding us to eat blood.”
You, metmom and others may find the following useful:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/Jehovahs%20Witness
Note the quick question that states, “Q:“
Jehovah’s Witnesses told me that Jesus’ commands to eat his flesh and drink his blood in John 6 could not be literal because Jesus would be advocating something against God’s law by commanding us to eat blood (cf. Gen. 9:4, Acts 15:28-29). What can I say to this?
””
Was eating/drinking blood forbidden by the Law and were the disciples under the Law?
Does saying that the wine is (estin in Greek) mean the wine was or became blood at some point? Or can estin mean the wine was a symbol of or represented his blood?
That would be a fair start.
Yeah, real hilarious.
Kind of like Catholics pulling an odd verse out of John 6 to support their doctrine of transubstantiation.
Or pulling a verse or two out of Matthew 16 to support the entire papacy.
Or pulling one verse out of James 2 to justify claiming that works save you.
Or pulling a verse out of John 20 to somehow support the idea that Jesus was born without compromising Mary’s virginal integrity.
Or a verse or two out of John 20 to support the church’s claim of authority in determining who gets into heaven and who doesn’t along with the entire priesthood.
Or pulling a verse out of who knows where to support the immaculate conception, the perpetual virginity of Mary, and her alleged assumption.
Yes, I’d say the Catholics are experts in recognizing taking verses out of context since the Catholic church is so adept at it.
What’s hilarious is criticizing someone for not reading the Bible when coming from a background that places tradition at or above Scripture itself, so there’s not even any NEED to read it.
And for criticizing someone for not reading the Bible for themselves when the Catholic church tells its adherents that they can’t interpret Scripture for themselves but must believe the officially sanctioned Catholic hierarchy interpretation.
Yesirree, it’s hilarious to see the hypocrisy of the Catholic position.
ABSOLUTELY INDEED.
That’s worth archiving.
Blessings,
1. Da ya go displaying your ignorance over the biblical use of the word “wine.” No, Jesus never drank strong drink and He didn’t create 150 gallons of rotten juice to throw a drunken party. Jesus Christ never created "http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2634145/postsanything tainted, and fermented juice is tainted. What He created was good and pure — not purtrid and corrupt! It’s down right blasphemous to suggest such a thing.
2. anyone reading any version besides the KJV is reading heresy.
3. Anyone dancing with a partner other than their spouse is intrinsically evil
4. Belief in "soul sleep" for the saved (i.e., no conscious existence from the time of death until the resurrection), and annihilation for the wicked (i.e., the body and soul are destroyed at death rather than experiencing everlasting torment).
5. Belief that "Christ took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature ... Christ took human nature and bore the infirmities and degeneracy of the race. He took our nature and its deteriorating condition"
what is hilarious is these folks saying they bring a Bible to their little group meetings as if it signifies their upper-caste status when really they do not read it.
Check out any of their meetings, what happens is that their paster reads out random verses from the Bible. Everyone quickly shuffles from one verse to another, while the paster talks fast and shuffles again.
none of them have time to ponder or reflect and since the verses are completely random, the meaning can be twisted to anything the paster wants.
they may carry their bibles to their 'meetings' but they do not read it as much as shuffle it across. Their pasters spend more time preening and talking about themselves rather than reading the word of God.
Check out ANY of this groups pasters and you will see no long reading of even a chapter, but random, stray verses from here and there.
There is a difference between knowing and what these groups have, name rote-memorisation. You ask any of these cult-members to recite from the Bible and they can quote random excerpts but they do not recite chapters. They do not seek to understand but to rote-memorise specific texts.
what is hilarious is these folks saying they bring a Bible to their little group meetings as if it signifies their upper-caste status when really they do not read it.
Check out any of their meetings, what happens is that their paster reads out random verses from the Bible. Everyone quickly shuffles from one verse to another, while the paster talks fast and shuffles again.
none of them have time to ponder or reflect and since the verses are completely random, the meaning can be twisted to anything the paster wants.
they may carry their bibles to their 'meetings' but they do not read it as much as shuffle it across. Their pasters spend more time preening and talking about themselves rather than reading the word of God.
Check out ANY of this groups pasters and you will see no long reading of even a chapter, but random, stray verses from here and there.
There is a difference between knowing and what these groups have, name rote-memorisation. You ask any of these cult-members to recite from the Bible and they can quote random excerpts but they do not recite chapters. They do not seek to understand but to rote-memorise specific texts.
Pasters are one problem; cutters are another.
Pasting and cutting, or cutting and pasting, the ignorant go through this life unable to grasp the totality of it all.
Go, Cronos!
(muttermutternutcasecoloredfontlunatic)
you seem to be posting to me for some reason speaking utter nonsense
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.