Our Lady is GOD HMMMmmm...
Posted on 10/30/2014 9:46:31 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
What are your reasons for quoting Matthew 23 in this post? I’m asking because I can imagine a few possibilities, and I’d want to understand your intent before I reply further.
(For one thing, the Religion Moderator profile uses Mormon-based examples that are parallel to Protestant-based and Catholic-based examples.)
[Elsie wrote,]
HMMMmmm...
I've missed these.
Could you copy and paste THOSE here?
Here's one place (the original indents these examples and emphasizes all four uses of "never"):
It is never within the bounds on the Religion Forum for a Freeper to express his hatred of people who hold a particular belief when any Freeper is part of the belief group.
For example:
It is ok to express hatred towards MormonISM on “open” Religion Forum threads. It is never ok to express hatred towards Mormons because some Freepers are Mormon.
It is ok to express hatred towards CatholicISM on “open” Religion Forum threads. It is never ok to express hatred towards Catholics because some Freepers are Catholic.
It is ok to express hatred towards ProtestantISM on “open” Religion Forum threads. It is never ok to express hatred towards Protestants because some Freepers are Protestant.
It is ok to express hatred towards SatanISM and Satanists both because no Freeper is Satanist.
A few more examples follow:
"Protestants are heretics" is not making it personal. "You are a heretic" is making it personal. "Catholics worship Mary" is not making it personal. "You worship Mary" is making it personal. "Mormons worship many gods" is not making it personal. "You worship many gods" is making it personal.
However, when a poster paints with a brush that accuses an entire religion of criminal behavior - his post will be pulled as flame bait. For example, posts that say "Protestants kill babies" or "Catholics molest children" or "Mormons kill non-Mormons" will be pulled. However, if the post is specific about a non-Freeper, I will not pull it. For example "Rev. Doe says abortion and infanticide are not sin" or "Father Doe was convicted for molesting those kids" or "Mormons killed non-Mormons at Mountain Meadows" would not be pulled.
(I may suppose that these examples are like this for a reason.)
“Jesus rebuked His mother”Are you aware of the rules of the Religion Forum?You actually think that Jesus dishonored his mother...
A statement like that is mindreading and personal.
You need to stop making up things about other posters and posting them as if they are facts.
Yes, Jesus rebuked ["checked", the definition you posted and the meaning of my use of the word] Mary.
He was telling her it wasn't time for her to reveal what she was revealing.
You have called Jesus a sinner?
The absolute absurdity of a statement like that, which by the way your just posting it is very DISHONORING to Jesus and is a low blow to both Christianity and Jesus. You should experience massive shame for that IMO[He is more important than Mary whether you believe it or not]
More of your words mangling scripture:
What Christ is saying then is “Mother, if I do this miracle for you and for this couple, thus manifesting my identity as the Messiah, my...road to Calvary will begin. Knowing that, do you really want me to do this?" In response, Mary tells the servants, "Do whatever he...[Jesus] tells you" (John 2:5).Amazing.
What a thing to hang on his mother, the Mary revered by Catholicism as the central figure in it's belief system.
Your "interpretation" of scripture seems to be saying that Mary saw that she was putting on fast track her Son's pain, suffering, and crucifixion, and wanted to have her way even at that cost?
And posters imbedded in Catholicism say non Catholics disrespect Mary? And she was without sin her whole life?
Non Catholics would never say anything even close to what you have stated.
We love and respect Jesus, and we love and respect Mary.
And you think I should be slapped.
Jesus (the Truth) warned us followers about that type of reaction so I am not surprised a bit.
Interesting what “pesters” you.
1 Corinthians 1:18-21; 27-31King James Version (KJV)18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.
I guess it was to show howing 'turning the other cheek' is not universally applied; as some folks would have it done.
"Let this mind be in you...
Phillipians 2:5
We've made NOTHING up!
We've investigated the incident at Fatima and found it quite true!
--Wannabe_Catholic_Dude(Hail Mary! Appear again!!!)
{Not on toast this time...}
Just trying to help you understand Christianity and bring you around to the Truth.
your first post to me was in that category.
In your first post to me you accused me of calling some one a liar, you were wrong but my post back to you was civil, I said any one can be mistaken, and you were mistaken.
Instead of admitting you were mistaken you just continued the attack.
I think it is a mistake to start taking sides in an argument unless you know for sure what the contention is about.
Then give your opinion on the issue, not start trashing some one.
Any one is welcome to give their point of view of scripture to me, but this had nothing to do with scripture.
Some one making an assumption that I was lying is what started it.`
Well if that is what I did, I was mistaken.
Mea Culpa.
What it was actually an accusation that a poster called you a liar: "maybe you should read it and then you can call James a liar instead of me"
Clearly cleverly stating that you were called a liar.
Against the rules, apology still needed.
All of my posts to you have been civil.
Nothing ever said can be a literal physical slap.
That's pretty obvious, but it was still a slap even if with a 50 cent word as a qualifier.
Some one making an assumption that I was lying is what started it.`
Yes, in my haste I got it turned around, explained in my last post to you.
It seems you saw someone calling you a liar.
All of my posts to you have been civil.
Yes, in my haste I got it turned around, explained in my last post to you
Clearly cleverly stating that you were called a liar.>>>>>>
Against the rules, apology still needed.
Any one can be wrong, I was wrong myself once when I thought I was wrong and then found out that I wasn’t.
Oh my you’re are a bit mixed up there.
It is you that broke the rules of the RF.
Clever of you to attempt to project it on others.
Yes I know you won’t make it right, never thought you would.
Which is why I was trying to help you accept Christianity.
It’s a free gift that costs you everything.
Clever of you to attempt to project it on others.
Thank you very much.
It's important to preserve the integrity of the Religion Forum, just doing my part.
Study the Rules (<----link) now that the thread has slowed down a bit.
Changing your name won’t help, Silly Sue.
I guess it was to show howing 'turning the other cheek' is not universally applied; as some folks would have it done.
Here I have a few thoughts.
One element of those thoughts is that the contexts differ. In other words, we're not playing Matthew 23 against Matthew 5:39--"...but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
The Religion Moderator profile does give the context of "[turning] the other cheek" concerning how we are to behave in the Religion Forum (emphasis in the original).
The demeanor of the poster says more about his own confession than the post says about yours. When he is being rude or mean it drives people away from his confession and towards yours. That is of course if you can resist the urge to meet fire with fire, in which case neither confession is appealing to the lurkers. The poster who “turns the other cheek” wins every single time.
I also don't suppose that Jesus was intending to be "rude or mean." Although I'm no expert here, I've also read explanations that such language, which may shock some of us in the 21st-century United States, had more of an acceptable place in 1st-century Jerusalem. A contrast appears in John 8, where the words "before Abraham was, I am" were far more offensive than they'd probably be for most crowds in the United States today, even crowds that know what the words mean.
I also noticed this part of the profile:
Another example, a poster may say on an “open” RF thread that a particular belief, diety, religious authority, etc. is "Satanic." But he must not say "You are Satanic." That would be "making it personal." The Bible is always a legitimate source on the Religion Forum, so a poster might quote the Bible where Jesus called Peter "Satan."
I personally interpret this part as saying, among other things, that we may quote Matthew 23 (your post, unlike others in this thread, has not been removed), but addressing another member here with the words "you hypocrites" would be a bit much.
Again, one difference could very well be that in our culture, "similar" words would be ill-advised as direct address to other people.
Not for nothing does the Religion Forum have detailed guidelines and plenty of missing posts. Now, I am not saying that forum policy is necessarily correct or holy, but look at what gets removed: by their fruits we shall know them.
In particular, the reference to "lurkers" in what I quoted earlier reminds me that the Religion Forum is publicly accessible, and I admit to being reminded sometimes of Romans 2:24. But how should we post? I've had some things in mind, including these:
[Colossians 4:5] Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time.
[6] Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.
[1 Peter 3:13] And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?
[14] But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;
[15] But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
[16] Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.
[17] For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.
[I hasten to add that "meekness and fear" should be understood in its original context: it is not cowering or being "afraid."]
"Let this mind be in you...
Phillipians 2:5
[5] Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
[6] Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
[7] But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
[8] And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
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.