Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $21,238
24%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 24% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by 7MMmag

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • ROBERT REICH: Get Ready For A Obama-Clinton Presidential Ticket

    12/29/2011 3:28:40 AM PST · 90 of 117
    7MMmag to Tench_Coxe
    Fort Marcy Park?

    Naah, frame the first Wookie. Frame her up good and tight. Can't you see how unhappy and disturbed she is?

  • How I Led Catholics Out Of the Church (And into Apostasy)

    12/29/2011 1:47:03 AM PST · 222 of 356
    7MMmag to rzman21
    Lack argument for what?

    I was speaking directly to you.

  • How I Led Catholics Out Of the Church (And into Apostasy)

    12/29/2011 12:36:55 AM PST · 217 of 356
    7MMmag to rzman21
      Frankly, I don’t.

    You don't? Hmmm, you otherwise seem pretty bright. That's ok, I know what the problem is. You display it everyday. It leaks out for those who have eyes to see it. It's called bondage.

  • How I Led Catholics Out Of the Church (And into Apostasy)

    12/28/2011 11:48:49 PM PST · 208 of 356
    7MMmag to rzman21
    Thank you for the additional information.

    But seriously, cannot you see how many here are suspicious? I could explain more precisely in a private message, to keep things from getting too personal, out in the open.

    I'm not sure you would understand, although there are those here (on this forum, on other threads) who sense much the same things concerning the subject, and of it's spiritual nature.

  • How I Led Catholics Out Of the Church (And into Apostasy)

    12/28/2011 11:29:13 PM PST · 203 of 356
    7MMmag to Iscool
      I don't believe you...I don't believe there's an ounce of evidence...Prove it...

    He said, the evidence suggests.

    So you ask for the evidence that suggests the possibility?

    That might be hard to digest. Which of course leaves it susceptible to those with agendas. Just look at the modern "scholarly" analysis of those in present day academia concerning the validity of the Gospel. They'll try to explain it all away, not believing (or not wanting to go on the record amongst their secular peers as to believing) the texts are accurate at all, when it comes to the various miracles.

    They cannot quite go so far as to say that the entire story was made up (although many appear to wish to!) for there is too much other other-than-biblical record of many persons, and events, including mentions of the Christ Himself, the circumstance of His death, the disputations of the Jewish religious authorities that the body was stolen away, etc.

  • How I Led Catholics Out Of the Church (And into Apostasy)

    12/28/2011 11:16:37 PM PST · 198 of 356
    7MMmag to D-fendr
      Being baptized into His Church is a darn good start...

    Is that why I never turned into a car? It was too late, I'd already become Christian? 8^)

    All joking aside;
    I hear the RCC accepts baptisms occurring in other churches as being valid? Not that I'm overly concerned...What occurred during my own was enough to convince me that the Lord recognized it to be good enough. I need nor could assent to another one.

    For someone else, that might not be the case.

  • How I Led Catholics Out Of the Church (And into Apostasy)

    12/28/2011 10:18:33 PM PST · 186 of 356
    7MMmag to rzman21
    Thank you. At least that is some sort of explanation. See, that wasn't so hard, now was it?

    Lurked for years, but never belonged or posted until recently? Then, all of a sudden, like a pent-up dam, it all comes bursting forth.

    I'm having trouble buying the story, but whatever.

  • How I Led Catholics Out Of the Church (And into Apostasy)

    12/28/2011 10:14:22 PM PST · 185 of 356
    7MMmag to D-fendr
      Teach them Once Saved Always Saved for the ultimate feel-good pride fix.

    Or you could teach them that belonging to the one Proudest and onliest church will make them a Christian, you know, sort of like how whenever I sleep in the garage, I turn into an automobile.

  • How I Led Catholics Out Of the Church (And into Apostasy)

    12/28/2011 10:09:46 PM PST · 182 of 356
    7MMmag to rzman21
      What gives you that silly idea?

    Ducking the question, as usual. It's been explained here before why many of us have reason to think what we do.

  • How I Led Catholics Out Of the Church (And into Apostasy)

    12/28/2011 9:56:26 PM PST · 174 of 356
    7MMmag to rzman21
      I interpret this as a relativist attack on the Catholic Church.

    Oh happy day for you then, huh? You get more justification for your daily and repetitive attacks on all other Christians not in your select cult group.

    What was your previous freep name -- or would it be better to ask what is your other handle here?

    You've been here before. Fess up.

  • Luther’s Doctrine of Imputated Righteousness: Nominalism vs. Aristotelian Realism

    12/28/2011 9:45:59 PM PST · 5 of 5
    7MMmag to rzman21
      This explains how Calvinism can say God’s justice is not the same as our view of justice. I.e., God’s actions can be what we would call an injustice.

    It appears you both possibly misunderstand, and misrepresent Calvin, or at the least, a great many others.

    It was written in the Mosaic Law that a son was not to be punished for the sins of his father, and the father not be punished for the sins of a son.

    If a father sins, should we kill a child of his for it? The Lord has done so (or ordained it to be, which is much as doing so, as the one who directs or hires an assassin is as culpable for the killing, as the one who commits the act). Yet it was needful & just, when He did so with King David's illegitimate son.

    He even sent His own Son to die, and for a brief time He separated Himself the Father, and removed His Holy Spirit too, taking that also from the Son, leaving him alone and despised to suffer for injustices and wrongs others had done, and would do.

    No fair! That was not fair at all. The Son had done nothing to earn such darkness, that the sun itself was darkened. He didn't do anything wrong.

    It wasn't for justice, save that there must be a penalty for sin.

    And why was this miscarriage of justice, this crime not only allowed to be committed, but this time an actual legitimate heir to the royal line was ordained to be slain, but for love?

    Where was "justice" when He stood in our place? Please, don't take this for granted, or you will entirely miss understanding those whom you here so frequently malign.

    It must be written upon your heart. Who can make such a writing?

    John 3:5

  • Italian study claims Turin Shroud is Christ's authentic burial robe

    12/27/2011 11:57:03 PM PST · 19 of 21
    7MMmag to 7MMmag

    I should have written multiple hundreds at a time, on more than one occasion, not “even on one day”.

  • Italian study claims Turin Shroud is Christ's authentic burial robe

    12/27/2011 9:51:32 PM PST · 18 of 21
    7MMmag to kearnyirish2
    Yes, I am aware of that portion or part of the explanation, using what can be gleaned from a wider view of history. But thank you, someone else might not have seen it before.

    Some time after Christ, the Romans crucified by the multiple hundreds, even on one day. It got so bad, there were no trees around, for they had all been cut down. They had to import wood just to nail many of those rebellious to the Roman authorities, to, or so I have read, though I have lost track of a good source for the information.

    The latter rebellion, and what happened to those Jews living there at the time, is quite grievous to contemplate.

    Some time I may look into it again, with questions in my mind like which specific legion did the dirty work, under which Roman authority, which field commanders, etc.

    I've heard from one source that the legion which was occupying Judea at the time of Christ, was getting near the end of their terms of enlistment. Poor memory cannot recall if it were 14 year terms, or less? Other sources tell us the set times for enlistment did change, becoming somewhat shorter(?) when towards the end of Empire or before, when it was plain the Romans were overextended militarily.

    One needs to be choosy in their sources, of course, using first those which most closely source the earliest, and or most reliable records.

  • Italian study claims Turin Shroud is Christ's authentic burial robe

    12/27/2011 9:15:36 PM PST · 17 of 21
    7MMmag to ducttape45
    I certainly could be wrong, but in regards to;
      but that he died from agony of mind producing rupture of the heart.

    I was under the impression that part of the reason for the rupture is that the body being bleed out to large extent, leaves the heart working hard, pumping on next to nothing, compared to a full or sufficient supply.

    Otherwise;
    One can image how agony of the mind, at the moment when he made the pronouncement was made, would be quite severe. As the scripture says, that is the moment He "gave up the Ghost", so perhaps the explanation you bring is the better one, even if large loss of blood was a contributing factor.

    Don't get me wrong... I was not taking a position one way or the other as to the shroud's authenticity. Although I would like to believe it, it's one of those things that for myself, must be categorized as uncertain.

  • Italian study claims Turin Shroud is Christ's authentic burial robe

    12/27/2011 4:33:41 PM PST · 13 of 21
    7MMmag to ducttape45
    I dunno...those folks argue for blood stains, as there is not enough so that disproves the thing?

    Whe know, or can pretty well assume that Christ bled to death? Then, the body was prepared for burial in haste, but might those whom did so have just enough time to wash the blood off?

    How much blood was there left?

  • Traditional Catholic Reacts to Blasphemous Poster of Our Lady by Destroying It-Was It Right Thing..

    12/26/2011 12:00:47 PM PST · 97 of 97
    7MMmag to vladimir998
      You have provided no logical argument at all dealing with how this is about Christmas - the Nativity of Christ - but is completely devoid of such imagery.

    That question has been asked, and answered. Quit lying about the what I have said or not said....

      You have yet to deal with the obvious problem of how the pregnancy test contradicts - both anachronisticly...

    Anachronisticly? That word doesn't make sense in context. In fact, since pregnancy test were not available back in the Gregorian year zero, or the year 2, or -5 or -6, whenever one wishes to set the date of the birth, it is painfully obvious that the image WAS NOT a representative example of just how she knew. It would be an impossibility. As I have explained, including touching upon why such was used as a prop, or device to invoke thought.

      and as a statement denying revelation - scripture

    That has all been asked and answered too. How many times do I have to say it, before you will drop the ridiculous lies that I didn't? One hundred times? When will you tire of your childish game?
    Perhaps you should ask yourself why you continue to deny, even lie about what I have said, or not? I think I already know...

    I would repeat and or rephrase the entire argument, but to what avail? Nothing so far I have said so far, has been acknowledged to have even been said at all. But all one has to do is scroll up, to find the answers you say do not exist.

    You still believe liberals.

    Well, that particular Anglican congregation doesn't have a record of lying to my face, and lying about what I myself have said or not, trying to create the impression that such lies are true, like SOME PEOPLE I know!

      You apparently will continue to fail.

    If expecting anything like an honest discussion from you was part of things, I'll need to wait for another day. That much is abundantly obvious, but was not unexpected.

    One thing I have not failed at, is bringing to light the underlying pathology which lead many to be so immediately offended by the image. You'll have to go re-read my admittedly too lengthy comments to ferret out what I mean by that. Thank you for your assistance. It has been invaluable.

  • Obama urges smokers to follow his example and quit

    12/26/2011 12:20:15 AM PST · 46 of 49
    7MMmag to POWERSBOOTHEFAN
    Had the windows open a bit to let out the smell, eh?

    The smell on the clothes and breath is a dead giveaway.

  • Obama urges smokers to follow his example and quit

    12/25/2011 11:24:37 PM PST · 42 of 49
    7MMmag to POWERSBOOTHEFAN
    I haven’t in a while and it gave me a buzz.

    Did you drive 5 MPH so you wouldn't look conspicuous?

  • Traditional Catholic Reacts to Blasphemous Poster of Our Lady by Destroying It-Was It Right Thing..

    12/25/2011 9:14:59 PM PST · 95 of 97
    7MMmag to vladimir998
    What evidence would satisfy you? Would yet another quoted comment from someone else, whom had a different reaction than you and a few others here, and other Catholics elsewhere do it?

    I doubt it. So far, I've heard no refutation. There are those whom understood it to mean other than you dully insist, which flatly disproves your own claim. I even took pains to underline key points, provided links where the quotes came from, etc.

    For all the trouble I've taken with you in this, apparently it has all just dinged off your forehead. What's the problem? Is it like some set of thoughts foreign to you may jeopardize salvation or something?

    What evidence have you brought? Other than mere opinion, formed by your own subjective reaction You Haven't Done Nothin'.

    Not that any of that stops the little choo-choo train of your own immaculate projection, it keeps going around in the same small circles, on the same small track. You can even blow the horn.

    Merry Christmas! Some little boy just got himself a new train set, to go along with his small boy's Sunday trousers

    Here, try this link

    and maybe, just maybe you might be able to put what I highlighted there, into context that would fit here, and actually understand, just where it is I'm coming from.

  • Elisabeth’s Barrenness and Ours [Europe: Not Run Out of Other People's Money, Run Out of People]

    12/25/2011 7:36:58 PM PST · 11 of 14
    7MMmag to Steelfish; FourtySeven
    Hear hear!
      If you read Luke, the virgin birth seems a logical extension of the earlier miracle — the pregnancy of an elderly lady. The physician-author had no difficulty accepting both. For Matthew, Jesus’s birth is the miracle; Luke leaves you with the impression that all birth — all life — is to a degree miraculous and God-given.
  • Traditional Catholic Reacts to Blasphemous Poster of Our Lady by Destroying It-Was It Right Thing..

    12/25/2011 7:15:00 PM PST · 93 of 97
    7MMmag to vladimir998
    Call the helicopter. There aint' many ladders tall enough to keep up the rate of digging.

  • Traditional Catholic Reacts to Blasphemous Poster of Our Lady by Destroying It-Was It Right Thing..

    12/25/2011 7:08:49 PM PST · 92 of 97
    7MMmag to FourtySeven
    No worries about the double post.

    As far as that previous image goes, I don't know what they were thinking. Someone there had to know THAT one would undoubtedly offend, and for what purpose would they risk it, what good things would be gained? I have no idea. I really can't see much good coming from that previous one, if at all.

    Yet that image leaks over into this one, since it came from the same sponsors. I'm not enough of an art expert to determine for a certainty if was a different artist, even if I had not but briefly glanced at it, which is the case. It looked like a different artistic style, but a similar editorial style, if you will allow.

      but I can assure you she wasn't pondering whether or not she was pregnant;

    Even if you, I, or others could take that for granted, I will submit again that that thought is provoked by our own personal knowledge and points of view, ie., what we know of it in scripture (in my case) and what other "stories" are commonly told and associated with the facts of her pregnancy, thus our responses are subjective in nature.

    Since Mary had nothing to compare things with, as I spoke of previously, which remember she asked "how could I as I know not yet a man?" then we are left ASSUMING she had no doubt whatsoever, no wondering "is this what I think has been happening, really happening?"

    The scripture does not go into that much detail, telling us explicitly that was the case or not, at least for that brief span of time before she met with Elisabeth, and before Elisabeth could break the news, make the announcement as to Mary's condition, and particular circumstance herself. We see in the Word that Lord moved upon Elisabeth and the child in her womb, with Elizabeth miraculously receiving the Holy Ghost right then when the as yet unborn John leaped in the womb, and prophesying that which would not only give confirmation to Mary, but place herself in the position of also knowing the truth, thus helping to equip them both with what they needed to know.

    Modern women, in the course of their own lives, do not always receive such inner knowledge. Nor have their relative be filled with the Spirit prophesying to them what the condition is. (although there are bound to be exceptions to that statement).

    And that is who the poster was designed to reach, to provoke thought, but those whom otherswise know of the story, but have never thought much on what Mary herself may have thought or felt, beyond what little scripture has to say?

    I brought evidence here that at least for one catholic poster, it did prompt deeper contemplation (as she? said in her own words).

    The argument that she wouldn't have needed to have a test to confirm her condition, is immaterial, as far as this art work is concerned. The rather obvious purpose was not to give a "bible lesson" or attempt to accurately portray the record, (as I have previously stated in other comments, not addressed to you).

    To continue to completely discount the sponsor's stated intent, is to confuse the issue, mixing it in with the previous (regrettable?) image.

    Perhaps women viewing the image, whom may have otherwise been living too loosely which is ALL TO COMMON nowadays, may take their own reproductive powers a bit more seriously, too? Some might, others would just keep going on with life as they had been living it, thinking that they too will one day birth someone significant, even if on accident. There's not much reaching and getting through to this latter category...they'd need something more than a single image poster to help prompt them reconsider their own ways (in light of the wider reality, including Christ).

      Otherwise, we just have no sense of humor if we don't, right?

    Who said this latest art work was planned as a joke?

  • Traditional Catholic Reacts to Blasphemous Poster of Our Lady by Destroying It-Was It Right Thing..

    12/25/2011 5:10:39 PM PST · 87 of 97
    7MMmag to vladimir998
    It is you who bring nothing. No proof whatsoever, other than a bunch of offended, and previously offended sensibilities, which you wish to subject all others in also sharing as being the only possible truth in this matter.

    So far, all you've brought is your own say so. Others may agree, but they too share the same "stop" along the road of contemplations, and it a subjective one.

    I think it could be what has been previously referred to on this forum as one of the Stations of The White Hanky

    • Station of the church of the perpetually offended if all others do not fully submit to us, our on views, opinions, even nomenclature and definitions.

  • Traditional Catholic Reacts to Blasphemous Poster of Our Lady by Destroying It-Was It Right Thing..

    12/25/2011 4:57:02 PM PST · 86 of 97
    7MMmag to FourtySeven
      There's nothing to ponder there.

    Mary had nothing to ponder? Really? The scripture tells us differently. Throw that card in the discard pile. It's out of play, permanently.

      Now, given the same group has also made a poster apparently depicting Mary and Joseph in bed "after sex", I think it's reasonable to conclude their intentions are hardly pure in nature.

    Now we are getting to the real heart of the matter, one I wished to address previously.

    "The same group". Yes, and boy howdy did folks howl sat that previous one. Hardly "pure"? That assumption is based on what? That poster strongly hinting at Mary not being perpetually a virgin? Ok, it offends Catholic sensibilities. Big whoopedee do. It doesn't mean that the one and only possible interpretation of this latest (coming some YEARS later, I take it) should immediately be interpreted to have meant the worst one can imagine of it. To take the memory of the response of that previous billboard, tacky as it was, and to project that completely upon this newer one, is all from the subjective viewpoint & opinion of the viewer.

      It seems to be yet another sad group of "modern" Anglicans pathetically trying to garner some attention and "relevancy" by commissioning "art" on the "edge".

    There could be some of that, some of them wanting to be "edgy" as opposed to stuffy & stodgy. Lord knows we've all been subjected to reams of stodginess. So much so, many folks just walk right on by, taking in images or views expressed in traditional "religious" manner only superficially, if at all.

    But then again, remember, what are we talking about here, but our own subjective responses to the poster?

  • Traditional Catholic Reacts to Blasphemous Poster of Our Lady by Destroying It-Was It Right Thing..

    12/25/2011 4:24:54 PM PST · 82 of 97
    7MMmag to vladimir998
      If you find any actual evidence for your assertions, let me know.

    Do you come by such immaculate projection naturally, or did you have to go to catechism school to learn it?

  • Traditional Catholic Reacts to Blasphemous Poster of Our Lady by Destroying It-Was It Right Thing..

    12/25/2011 4:21:48 PM PST · 81 of 97
    7MMmag to vladimir998
      You are still believing liberals...

    I had my own subjective response to the image, but yes, along with that, and the testimony of another's response which I pointed out again (and you say is nothing?) I will take into account also, the sponsors explanation of their own intent.

    If you were to create an image, should I simply dismiss your own explanation, if it were to some how challenge some position I had previously & hastily taken?

      ...denying the import of the imagery of the pregnancy test...

    That is just so much more unintelligible hand-waving denial. I addressed that point. Quit pretending I didn't. If there is some way you could logically refute it, the by all means say so.

      ...and ignoring the fact that there is no Christmas imagery in the poster....

    Uh, Vladi. Check again. I addressed those points you claim I ignored. Your statements suggest to me that either you are being completely dishonest, or you didn't bother to read.

      Also, another poster’s views do not represent evidence for your own.

    The "other poster views" which I quoted, were found at the link at the heading of this thread. http://areluctantsinner.blogspot.com/2011/12/traditional-catholic-reacts-to.html

    It is evidence that there is not as you say "only one possible" interpretation. To dismiss that out of hand is just so much more dishonesty, while insultingly claiming I'm desperate. It's me that's desperate here? Ok Vladi. I'm desperate. Desperate for guys like you to have anything other than a reactionary, "me and my religious views have been offended" discussion of the issues.

    All the while all you have is the wind of your own puny, subjective opinion.

    What proof of your firmly stated opinion do you have, other than continuing to try to double-down on an empty, busted hand?

    Anti-protestant bigotry, like most all other forms of bigotry, if one keeps it up long enough, will result in blindness.

    Is it too late?

  • Following The Truth: What If Mary Said “No”? (Catholic or Open)

    12/25/2011 3:42:25 PM PST · 66 of 69
    7MMmag to vladimir998
      Humorous material would have import in this matter? This was not a discussion about humor.

    When it comes to helicopters, or bags of steel cut oats it does, in the context of the discussions here! lol.

  • Traditional Catholic Reacts to Blasphemous Poster of Our Lady by Destroying It-Was It Right Thing..

    12/25/2011 3:28:37 PM PST · 79 of 97
    7MMmag to vladimir998; Salvation; Alex Murphy
      You did not explain it. You failed to account for how Mary would need a pregnancy test after being told by God that she would conceive.

    The had pregnancy test kits back then? Who knew? Of course there were no test kits available then, that's the point! What else could the image point towards other than her having confirmation beyond any possible doubt, that it was in fact occurring, just as she was told?

    After being told by God? She was told by an angel.
    Did she have prior long experience hearing angels tell her a fantastical thing? Was there anything in the Jewish tradition that would strongly enough match up with what she was told, that she would not at all wonder?

    Let me put it this way...
    You have no solid justification for your position, based as it is on imagined offense to dogma which you and others read into the poster. But then again, the poster was meant to be suggestive...not explicitly a portrayal of events. That is were you err, sir; in taking your own subjective reaction to the image, as being the only possible interpretation of the meaning and intent of the thing.

    And that's what we are talking about, the "offensive" poster, not some undefined theory of how Mary was beyond receiving confirmation of what she was told, what she experienced, that it was all very real.

    When the Lord gives us message, a word, a teaching, a prophecy, whichever; He just about always give confirmation. He does not leave us twisting in the wind, wondering if we heard rightly, or it was just some dream, or worse --- that we were being mislead by some imposter spiritual agency. It's a-ok to seek confirmation, it's ok to ask for it, according to biblical record. Strong doubts of course, can have their own consequences, such as Elisabeth's husband, the priest, being struck dumb before and during the length of her pregnancy term with that child whom would be named John, as in John the Baptist.

    Mary did, shortly after the spoken message from Gabriel, and the following visitation, the overshadowing of her by the Holy Ghost, receive confirmation from her great-aunt Elisabeth, in such a way as to strengthen her. Mary also later experienced the pregnancy in a very real, earthly, physical way, which in and of itself, cannot but help to have served as yet more confirmation. During the early stages of her pregnancy she had more than a friend in Elisabeth, she had protection & trust from about one of the only people on the face of the earth that could believe what was occurring with Mary, at that point.

    The poster was intended to invoke deeper thought or contemplation upon what her pregnancy meant, for her first. From there, what one associates with the image is entirely subjective.

    According to the comments of one Catholic witness, it succeeded in that. I had provided that info in post #45, but obviously you must have missed that? For you have claimed I have brought nothing to back my own claims.
    Here it is again;

      Marsh Collins said...

      Sorry I am still trying to understand how that picture was blasphemous. I believe it shows Mary in a modern light and allows all of us to better appreciate the possible thoughts that could have entered her mind during Annunciation. It didn't change the story outcome nor assume she sinned. Pardon my Catholic immaturity I guess.

      Honestly this picture was the catalyst of long reflection on Mary; I have a deeper more complex appreciation for the Holy Mother thanks to a different perspective.

      One man's blasphemy in another man's spiritual lesson

    Well, so much for it being a flat denial of the Annunciation. It wasn't with one Catholic commentator, nor was it with me.

    The poster was designed to invoke thought on "how did she know?" It's target audience were the sort of folks whom would walk right on by yet another Nativity scene such as you yourself have described you were expert at making.

    I have no confusion (as you have previously here alluded to) as to not knowing the difference between the visit of the angel, and the birth itself. I do wish you would drop that insulting "Protestants are ignorant" theme. But if your intent is to be insulting, to make it personal, than I'd have to day it's working. Excuse me in objecting to such as;

      It might as well be in your world since you see Christmas in a poster without Christ, the Nativity, Wise Men, the manger, the Star of Bethlehem, the stable, etc. Imagine whatever you like. And keep buying the word of liberals too just as you admitted you do.

    What an insulting tone. In my world? Oh, and I listen to liberals, too, rather than allow you to browbeat me into submission.
    But hidden among the insults of your comments is yet more proof as it were, that the poster, put up during the Christmas season (not during Advent) was meant to prompt a viewer to think about, and reflect upon what Mary's pregnancy meant to her, and by normal extension, meant for us, with Mary's role being front & center.

    It is only natural for one to have thought associations, one idea leading to other things one holds in memory.
    It was that very tendency of the human mind to do so, which the sponsors of the poster intended to exploit by design. They knew too, that the "thought associations" among one group, would cause that group (of which you are a part?) to misunderstand their intended meaning, as a spokesman remarked.

    It is no crime, no moral failing of my own that such natural thought processes occur in my own mind, searching for and finding meanings differing from those whom found offense. Nor is it a crime I and others had different inward response than some. The same thing, the subjectivity of the interpretation of possible meaning and intent of the image, what it was designed to provoke, does however point also to the prejudices and religious pride, if not bigotry, of those whom were offended.

    Also once again, they claimed;

      "Our agenda is to get people to think about Christmas a little more deeply. Some people chose to be offended, but that's not our intent. But there are those who can get past that and reflect on Christmas,"

    Luke 2

      19 But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.

    Yeah, she pondered upon it, and who wouldn't? "Pondered upon it" even after the child was born, after the shepherds showing up telling her about the angelic visitation and message they saw and heard... The Wise Men bringing gifts...the whole scene from start to finish, she "pondered", thought about, contemplated.

    None of her later contemplations in any way suggest some shortage of faith on her account, if that is what you and others are insisting is part of the only possible interpretation of the poster(?), as in Mary either didn't hear from the angel, or believe what she heard, or lack of "faith", etc.
    Nor does the poster explicitly suggest that the Annunciation did not occur, but that is what you are claiming is the only possible (and you put those two words in caps!) meaning.

    I am trying here, to persuade all to look objectively, at what was designed to be at first, taken or understood subjectively.

    This is only about the thoughts & ideas which an image provoked, and various reactions which followed. As such, it ethereal, and will pass. As will eventually, all the mis-communication, and bitterness.

  • Following The Truth: What If Mary Said “No”? (Catholic or Open)

    12/25/2011 11:44:43 AM PST · 63 of 69
    7MMmag to vladimir998

    Take any reply to the other thread please.

  • Following The Truth: What If Mary Said “No”? (Catholic or Open)

    12/25/2011 11:43:30 AM PST · 62 of 69
    7MMmag to vladimir998
    All you did was make opinionated claims, backed by wind, to which you then added attempt at insult.

    Did you ever look at the links I provided to the quotes? How about the links to the humorous material another provided?

  • California atheists block out nativity scenes

    12/25/2011 2:48:52 AM PST · 13 of 20
    7MMmag to 2ndDivisionVet
    Where's the Christian 'occupy' when you could use it?

    Find one of those plots or spaces that has been allotted to an anti-theist who loves 'occupy'.

    A few hours each evening, from a local diverse church group, bring real live people to play all the parts and sing songs. A Hispanic baby Jesus. Three Wise men, from China, India, even Iran etc. Have fun singing Christmas songs for an hour or so. "We Three Kings" could be funny. Ham it up. Spoof whatever one can, tweak their atheist little noses in such a way they would be embarrassed to complain. Then, once you've gotten their attention, sing the best, most worshipful stuff one can, with all your heart.

    Create a mild ruckus. If the act was good enough, get the news cameras down there, hehheh... Occupy! THERE WAS NO ROOM AT THE INN FOR THE BABY, so we were forced to occupy this space!
    Mary & Joseph, or one of the shepherds to atheists, "what do you have against poor innocent mexican babies?" "what are you, some kind of anti-immigrant racist bigot?".

    It could be fun. Maybe next year...

  • What Do Jews Do on Christmas?

    12/25/2011 2:20:30 AM PST · 76 of 114
    7MMmag to LetMarch
    Salvation is of the Jews. Says so, right in the book.

    Merry Christmas, if I may say so with no offense.

  • More tiny, but harmful, frogs showing up in Hawaii

    12/25/2011 2:08:43 AM PST · 12 of 14
    7MMmag to WKUHilltopper
    Here's to hoping they start hopping, like right into his golf bag so he can take them back with him to that high-dollar rental house he's staying at (on the taxpayer's dime, I assume).

    Merry Christmas, Bammy. Hope you & the missus croak.

  • Following The Truth: What If Mary Said “No”? (Catholic or Open)

    12/24/2011 11:19:35 PM PST · 60 of 69
    7MMmag to vladimir998

    prove it. on the other thread.

  • It's A Christmas Wreath... 1,000 Light Years Away: Nasa Discovers Amazing Nebula

    12/24/2011 12:18:09 PM PST · 11 of 14
    7MMmag to MestaMachine
    What are they gonna do? Sue G-d?

    First, they must acknowledge He exists. Then, they must have his address. Lacking those, they will attack those they see as closest to Him or His address.

    Who in America hates Christians the most, and speaks out the most against Israel? (they tend to keep the naked hatred of Jews under wraps).

    I'm not qualified to be a named defendant for God's nebula fiascoes (frescoes?)...He did that all on His own. But I would pitch in what I could, to pay for a launch vehicle to help send the most determined of the plaintiffs on a path towards the offensive Nebula. A launch, with enough juice to get them far enough out of Earth's gravity...then they can break out their own paddles and row the rest of the way. Maybe they could find the named defendant so they could serve their papers outlining the grievances, including His past history of polluting an otherwise pristine universe with various dusts & gases, conglomerations of which have even dangerously self ignited(!).

    Obviously, whoever did all that stuff is out-of-control, and has callous disregard for how the patterns left by His off-hand, careless, polluting ways disturb the sensibilities of that most elite group that has ever existed upon this planet, the present day dialectical materialist. They must not be challenged, even by hint of shadow of dusts, left behind centuries ago, many light years distant.

    I would hope that they find that Guy, and give Him what He deserves!

    [Jest' trying to be charitable...]

  • Traditional Catholic Reacts to Blasphemous Poster of Our Lady by Destroying It-Was It Right Thing..

    12/23/2011 11:29:12 AM PST · 73 of 97
    7MMmag to vladimir998
    Ok, you don't see. It is clear that you insist upon it, even after I explained it, as you insisted I do.

    Check out Murph's links. They are a hoot, and you are the caped crusader. The hole is getting deeper. Every time this thread get's bumped, more will see it.

    Hint: the answer is not "helicopter".

  • Traditional Catholic Reacts to Blasphemous Poster of Our Lady by Destroying It-Was It Right Thing..

    12/23/2011 11:04:29 AM PST · 71 of 97
    7MMmag to vladimir998
    Vladi, when you are in a hole, stop digging!
  • Traditional Catholic Reacts to Blasphemous Poster of Our Lady by Destroying It-Was It Right Thing..

    12/23/2011 10:58:30 AM PST · 69 of 97
    7MMmag to Alex Murphy
    Those links were hilarious. The caped "crusader" no less, lol.
    ...pur'fect!
  • Traditional Catholic Reacts to Blasphemous Poster of Our Lady by Destroying It-Was It Right Thing..

    12/23/2011 10:31:59 AM PST · 68 of 97
    7MMmag to vladimir998
    In an amazing post, you post a lot of nothing, and disprove not a thing I said. And that’s the way it will probably remain.

    A lot of nothing? Actually, I've shown proof that just about everything you've said, is wrong.

    The creator of the billboard knew there would be people whom would be offended by it, such as yourself.

    Others were prompted to think, such as the example of the woman I gave.

      I said that the image they were using denies the Annunciation. That’s what the image does.

    The pregnancy test indicator was showing positive, that she was pregnant. Now how in the world did that virgin get pregnant? It's a shocking, out of the ordinary thing when an actual virgin becomes pregnant. The test indicator was used to point towards the annunciation, to prompt viewers acquainted with the story to think about it, how it happened, what it means. Not to deny it.

    You have it backwards, but that is due to your own pride and prejudices, regardless of how "expert" you think yourself to be in the promoting of religious imagery. In fact, I dare say the image was aimed towards those whom would take in superficially if at all, yet just another manger scene, such as imagery you describe yourself making.

    The pregnancy test strip was used as a prop to get people to think on what Mary experienced, and that Christ's birth in itself was a miracle. It happened to a real woman, had real and actual consequences & personal meaning. First, for Mary, as she lived through the pregnancy (as foretold by the Angel, for those whom know the story) and the birth in due time.

    The billboard was put up during the Christmas season, the time celebrated as his birth. Manger scenes? We've seen 'em by the hundreds. At Christmas time, the image was put up to get people to think about when Mary first knew --- that is was all real.

    Now do you see?

  • Traditional Catholic Reacts to Blasphemous Poster of Our Lady by Destroying It-Was It Right Thing..

    12/23/2011 9:23:00 AM PST · 66 of 97
    7MMmag to Alex Murphy
    ANSWER THE QUESTIOns! Now that you've passed the float test, and thus proved yourself to be a witch. We knew it all along...

    It's just a matter of time before we get our Inquisitional hands on you, stretch you out on the rack to dry, so that you'll burn better. Your fate is sealed. God and the Angels are on our side!

  • Traditional Catholic Reacts to Blasphemous Poster of Our Lady by Destroying It-Was It Right Thing..

    12/22/2011 11:48:12 PM PST · 60 of 97
    7MMmag to vladimir998; Alex Murphy
    You think your own interpretation is the only one possible?

    You use the word "logically". Would it not be logical to go to the originators of the billboard to see what THEY were trying to say?

    Here, I'll do it for you, from an article at New Zealand Herald;

    Virgin Mary billboard vandal would do it again
    >

      Yesterday St Matthew-in-the-City Anglican church, which was responsible for the image, told Mr Skinner they would not be replacing the billboard and police had confirmed they would not be laying charges in relation to the incident.

      The Christmas billboard was erected last week to raise discussion about Mary's circumstances coming into Christmas.

      [snip]

      In a statement St Matthew-in-the-City spokesman Reverend Clay Nelson said the Catholic Action Group had vandalised the billboard to gain publicity for Mr Skinner's point of view and to further his supposedly Catholic organisation's agenda.

      "Our agenda is to get people to think about Christmas a little more deeply. Some people chose to be offended, but that's not our intent. But there are those who can get past that and reflect on Christmas," Mr Nelson said.

    underlining for emphasis, my own.

    The above indicates you have jumped to conclusions, and read into the sign what it is you claim to have seen as the only meaning, for you did say;

      That is THE ONLY POSSIBLE interpretation.

    Well, since the makers had an intent that differs from your own interpretation of what you think they meant, I guess that makes you wrong not only as to the billboard's meaning, but that there could be more than one possible meaning, too. That makes 2 strikes for you, in one pitch. Swing an uh miss! Swing an uh 'nother miss!

    Why try to bully me into believing your own shallow, limited understanding and take of things, while also tossing off insult in my direction? As it turns out, it is not me who should be embarrassed, if anyone.

    You said;

      Ask yourself why you realize the obvious meaning of the image. That’s a better question.

    A better question you say?

    I was under the impression that they were trying to "get people to think" about Christmas, just is explained above, which is why in a previous comment on this thread, I quoted a Catholic woman's comments concerning the matter. Obviously, SHE got the intended message. I guessed about the same. What church would be saying that Jesus wasn't born of a virgin, whom is known as Mary? Well guess what? THEY WERE NOT TRYING TO SAY THAT. Period.

    I understood the general thrust of the message-- but you didn't. I don't need ask myself "why"? I already know why. Must I need explain that, also? Don't ask, for I series/moose/cheese doubt you'd like the answer!

  • Traditional Catholic Reacts to Blasphemous Poster of Our Lady by Destroying It-Was It Right Thing..

    12/22/2011 10:10:49 PM PST · 57 of 97
    7MMmag to vladimir998
    There's no reading into it.

    You read "denial of the annunciation" into it.

    To my own eyes, the billboard is sacrilegious, quite crass at the least, but were they really trying to convey "denial of the annunciation"?

    Why jump so hard at the WORST possible interpretation of what idea they were trying to convey? Ask yourself that.

    Has there been any explanation from the creators of the offending work, just what they were trying to say? You're probably the wrong guy to ask that question of, for you seem to have your own mind completely made up.

  • Traditional Catholic Reacts to Blasphemous Poster of Our Lady by Destroying It-Was It Right Thing..

    12/22/2011 7:07:02 PM PST · 52 of 97
    7MMmag to marshmallow

    So it depends on what the viewer reads into it.

  • Traditional Catholic Reacts to Blasphemous Poster of Our Lady by Destroying It-Was It Right Thing..

    12/22/2011 3:36:37 PM PST · 48 of 97
    7MMmag to Alex Murphy
    Registered trademark for the virgin birth? I'm not sure that's one of their own originating. In this instance, it occurred with a Jewish maiden. I accept the New Testament explanations of the event.

    The other stuff though, like the hyper-inflation of the remainder of the tenets of "Immaculate" they do hold ownership of. I won't argue that. It took a few centuries to become fully fleshed out.

  • Traditional Catholic Reacts to Blasphemous Poster of Our Lady by Destroying It-Was It Right Thing..

    12/22/2011 2:44:22 PM PST · 45 of 97
    7MMmag to marshmallow
    Blasphemy

    Did you read the article, view the pic there of the [adjusted] billboard, and the comments that followed?

    Here's one that touches upon the way the thing came across to me;

      Marsh Collins said...

      Sorry I am still trying to understand how that picture was blasphemous. I believe it shows Mary in a modern light and allows all of us to better appreciate the possible thoughts that could have entered her mind during Annunciation. It didn't change the story outcome nor assume she sinned. Pardon my Catholic immaturity I guess.

      Honestly this picture was the catalyst of long reflection on Mary; I have a deeper more complex appreciation for the Holy Mother thanks to a different perspective.

      One man's blasphemy in another man's spiritual lesson

    It doesn't enter my mind that abortion would have entered her mind, if that is what is found blasphemous. Otherwise, I'm not sure exactly what rises to the level of "blasphemy".

    If we look at the last two sentences of the woman's note, it appears possible that sort of reaction is what was intended? And that the church who displayed it did so as an anti-abortion statement? Like, "hey, ladies. don't do that. you may be interrupting something very important!"

    Was that church trying to say something else? Please, no rumor mongering, opinion based innuendo, or the like. Just plain facts if possible.

  • Mexico disbands Veracruz-Boca del Rio police force

    12/21/2011 9:53:18 PM PST · 1 of 8
    7MMmag
  • Cost of reaching for the sun will soar

    12/21/2011 12:10:43 PM PST · 21 of 22
    7MMmag to SmithL

    Governor Sunbeam!

  • St. Juan Diego's tilma: "completely outside" science

    12/21/2011 10:33:05 AM PST · 269 of 308
    7MMmag to johngrace

    She had never heard of Marcos the Indian.

  • Secret document reveals why BMW drivers are asshats

    12/21/2011 1:08:04 AM PST · 28 of 167
    7MMmag to mylife

    Try changing your aftershave. BeeGo would do the trick. A little dab ‘il do ‘ya.

  • Russia Ramps Up New 'Satan' Nuke After U.S. Talks Breakdown

    12/20/2011 3:47:32 PM PST · 18 of 38
    7MMmag to Just4Him
    I hate AOL. They are trying to force a sign up before allowing one to read the article. Did I already say I hate AOL?

    I gave them phony info, they sent me off into AOL jumble story land, with the story you have here not in view. A classic bait and switch.

    Freepers hate that stuff.

    Please, in the future, try out the access to an article, consider how you yourself arrived there, before bringing it here. Thanks