Posted on 09/11/2016 4:48:33 AM PDT by detective
Problems cannot be rectified by ignoring them as it only allows the problem to become even worse. Or in the case of a virus, to spread even further which means it will then start spreading even faster. In fact we may have ignored it for far too long already.
Amen.
The funny thing is (funny meaning odd, not comedic) that most atheists, like Gregory A. Clark, claim not to believe there is a God (”Such is the human brain on religion. Christianity is not only ridiculous and repugnant. It is also deeply dishonest.”), yet they blame Him (”Put simply, God was either unable or unwilling to intervene.”).
They fail to realize the absurdity of their comments. Why blame someone who does not exist, at least in their opinion? You see those same fallacious comments, even amongst their ‘saints’, like Richard Dawkins. IF they TRULY believed there was no God, why would they even try to blame Him?
Obviously, they want a God made in their own image, a god who does what THEY want, a Santa Claus, NOT the God who is! While He loves us, He also allows us free will, allowing us to be as depraved as we can be yet, He is first and foremost, about moulding us to be holy, like Jesus. It is through trials that we grow (James 1:2-3). When refining silver, it is heated, the ‘dross’ rises to the surface and is skimmed off by the refiner. The process is repeated until the silver is pure. It is in the crucible of assault, loss and yes, even rape, that we are made more like Christ.
The ‘god’ that is preached by so many preachers like the ‘smiley Texan’ and his blonde wife, is not the God of the Bible. God is NOT about ‘your best life now’, He is about the joy of ETERNITY with Him. ‘Your best life now’ is about happiness, NOT joy! ‘Happiness’ is about circumstances, ‘joy’ is a state of mind and an orientation of the heart. Mr. Clark, and too many people, including too many ‘Christians’, understand and want ‘happiness’, rather than ‘joy’.
God asked us to love God and our neighbor as ourselves.
God wanted us to voluntary accept God and His love, so He does not force us to do anything. So each of can choose to sin and accept the modern culture/ morals (as this reporter has).
May all find God’s Peace and Love.
The author confuses HIS OWN perspective with that of God. While earthly life is a thing of great consequence to the small benighted writer it is less than shadows and light to God. No act by men upon the earth can triumph over the Reward that God can offer.
Anyone criticizing the Catholic Church must review the Catechism, which this writer did not do - If he had he would understand that (1) the Catholic Church teaches that everyone has free will. God cannot stop anyone from doing anything. Not even clergy .(2) that the clergy members are not necessarily saints and no one is a saint until after they’re dead and beyond their free will. (3) This is not heaven. Heaven is heaven. Catholics are not obligated to make this heaven and not by telling God what He’s doing wrong.
And they do not expect God to stop all evil on this earth.
To criticize something without reviewing its tenets is like reviewing a movie without having seen it.
But this major newspaper publishes it. It would be like, “I’m reviewing ‘Sully’ but I haven’t seen it” this paper would not print it.
This is just I the first sentence of this hateful article. Let him criticize any other faith and do so without reviewing what he’s talking about. But no. Catholicism remains the only entity that can be criticized in this culture. This culture hates truth, the media certainly does
Guess he didn’t get that red wagon he prayed for when he was a kid.
Yep, all the haters gotta hate.
Well said.
Except that I would replace your use of “Christianity” with “Judaeo-Christian Values”.
Cynicism is endemic in journalism, and in socialists generally.SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.Journalists knowingly (“If it bleeds, it leads” and “Man Bites Dog, not Dog Bites Man”) are negative - and yet they claim to be objective.” But the idea that systematic negativity is objective is a perfect definition of cynicism.Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others. - Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)
That is for sure! All Christians are under attack by these demon possessed meat heads.
The guy is deeply deceived....
Though he does have a point about human beings canonized based on miracles...
Mother Terersa was already a saint...doing the work of God...
Being his hands, his love, his hope...
I’m not sure what the point is in canonization of her....
So this person is a homosexual, but he’s beating up Catholics because some homosexual priests abused little boys. And I really can’t tell why he hates Mother Teresa so. Must be a demon possessed fool, hating the very God who made him and gave him the opportunity for salvation which he apparently has squandered thus far. Glad I’m not paying good money to send a kid to whatever leftish hellhole he teaches at.
Incorrect. Catholic theology teaches that God is the one who makes someone a saint. The Pope simply affirms this on earth after the Catholic Church investigates the person's life. There are many more saints in heaven that those who have been officially proclaimed as such on earth, including countless saints known only to God.
Well that is what Catholic theology teaches you, but in reality it takes a Pope to declare someone a Saint.
That would be news to all the other Christian churches who declared someone a saint without the Pope's permission, as well as all the first millennia Catholics who did so as well.
So show me the proof where God himself declared this person or that a Saint. We can show definitive proof that men/women have honored people as Saints. While other sects of Christianity may indeed proclaim someone a Saint, the preponderance of Saints, through out history, have been so proclaimed within the Catholic Church. Nor is it even limited to just Christianity, as the Jewish religion did the same, but were usually not referred to as Saints.
Thus I was speaking more in general terms rather than speaking in literal terms when I said the Pope. I did so because he is the most recognizable head of a church structure, and Sainthood is associated by most everyone as a Catholic designation.
If you can provide undeniable proof that everyone who who has been proclaimed a Saint, did so with direct communication through God, then I will acquiesce. Until then it is a function controlled entirely by mankind within the hierarchy of the church structure.
Your own link notes there is 'no definitive "head count"' of the number of people named a saint by the Pope. The Catholic Church didn't even keep exact records of canonizations until the Middle Ages, long after the Popes had started to proclaim saints. Also, several people "officially" named saints by the Catholic Church in the past, like St. Christopher and Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln, are no longer seen as such.
So whether you believe God or the Pope is the ultimate authority of who is considered a saint (I believe its God), you will NEVER get a "definitive list" of who is a saint from either method. Sorry to disappoint.
If you said that in a country like Russia, they'd be highly offended by the idea. It's home to a huge segment of Christianity and they've been naming saints for centuries without any input from the Pope or the Catholic Church, and sometimes in direct opposition to the Catholic Church's thoughts on the matter.
For example, St Herman of Alaska is widely recognized as a saint and has been named the patron saint of North America for Orthodox Christians. He's even been recognized as such by the U.S. Congress. But the Catholic Church, the Vatican, and the Pope had no say whatsoever in this process.
People who think designating sainthood is only exercised by Catholic Popes must not have a good understanding of Christian history.
I even stated that the Catholic church is not the only player in naming Saints, but rather the most prolific and again the church most recognized as doing so. While I never claimed to be an expert on Sainthood or the Catholic church, as that is not my religion of faith, is it not the Pope that makes that announcement?
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.