Posted on 06/23/2018 11:34:02 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
I think he wants to run for Governor in California.
Me too.
Although I know we would differ on our assessment of the Biblical.
Sigh. That’s what I meant, when I said the men are experts at bola bola. Since I rarely agree with you, My wife and I both thought your intention was to insult Philippine women. So, I took what you said literally, because I couldn’t detect your sarcasm, through your keyboard.
This is one of those rare occurrences, that I actually DO agree with you. Of course the women don’t irrationally implicate men. There is way too much bola bola (males flattering females) going on. I just wish more of them wouldn’t fall for it.
The first time I met my wife, she smiled, and said I could bola bola with the best of them, but she hung around, and married me. By all means, carry on. I will be in the area all day. By the way, feel free to congratulate my son. He is training to be an Air Force Global Hawk pilot.
By the looks of things, from when you visited us, you have done your share of bola bola too. 😁🎩👍
What about the alob alob (females flattering males)?
Now THAT is something most men can NEVER resist!!
Now THAT is something most men can NEVER resist!!
I could not resist being flattered by Philippine women either, and I didn’t. I married her. 😁 Most of them don’t care about age differences either. My wife doesn’t 👍 To them, age is just a number. I like that. 😊
He IDs as a (dissident) Catholic, and uses God and Allah interchangeably, and thus falls into the category of a liberal V2 RC. And which council basically affirmed God and Allah as being the same, since it states that they, "along with us adore the one and merciful God." (Lumen Gentium 16) And the god of Islam is not some unknown god," (Acts 17) but a theologically defined deity.
Inasmuch as anyone is a "dissident" "liberal" Catholic, he is, to that extent, a "post-Catholic" or even an "anti-Catholic." That goes for anyone, including Tío_Hagan_Lío@Rome.
But with reference to the Muslim thing, I'll go further.
Since you are a perceptive reader, I think that by reading further you may recognize that what you are offering here is an a fragmentary concept without context. As a stand-alone, it is a distortion.
The V2 documents, and the Catechism sections which reference them, make no statement on the salvation of Muslims as Muslims, but says that they (like Jews, non-believers, and all the rest of the human race who are discussed in this section of the Catechism) are "part of the plan of salvation," inasmuch as they are called to repent and believe the Gospel. This section includes with this important paragraph:
|
It ends up with this call to evangelism:
|
I used to teach a course called "Reading with Context for Comprehension".
You tried this before remember? And were shown that it is not your place/you have no authority to even pronounce that one is excommunicated when Rome does not, but manifestly treats such as members in life and in death.
But as usual, you just keep on posting what has been refuted.
Since you are a perceptive reader, I think that by reading further you may recognize that what you are offering here is an a fragmentary concept without context. As a stand-alone, it is a distortion. The V2 documents, and the Catechism sections which reference them, make no statement on the salvation of Muslims as Muslims, (like Jews, non-believers, and all the rest of the human race who are discussed in this section of the Catechism) are "part of the plan of salvation," inasmuch as they are called to repent and believe the Gospel. This section includes with this important paragraph: ..I used to teach a course called "Reading with Context for Comprehension".
And you as a a perceptive reader, who used to teach a course called Reading with Context for Comprehension," think that I charged Rome with saying Muslims as Muslims, were saved? Rather, I said that Rome states that they worship the same God as Catholics (like as Jews do, even if not salvifically).
Just what part of "the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God," do you not understand? The text clearly says Muslims worship the same God as you all, resulting in the unofficial Catholic Internet Magisterium scrambling to cover for their church-god (would you like to try your spin?), rather than admit V2 was the work of competing factions, and that the liberals won here.
In Nostra Aetate Rome also says Muslims the worship the same God as Catholics, "They worship God, who is one, living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth ." And "They strive to submit themselves without reserve to the hidden decrees of God, just as Abraham submitted himself to God’s plan , to whose faith Muslims eagerly link their own. " -Second Vatican Council, Nostra Aetate 3, October 28, 1965
And if you want to see (unlikely) further conformation that Rome did mean that Muslims are worshipers of the same god, read some of their papal professions given to Muslims, plus the prolix platitudes of your own bishops whom you are to follow:
We feel sure that as representatives of Islam, you join in our prayers to the Almighty, that he may grant all African believers the desire for pardon and reconciliation so often commended in the Gospels and in the Qur’an... We gladly recall also those confessors of the Muslim faith who were the first to suffer death, in the year 1848, for refusing to transgress the precepts of their religion.” — Paul VI, address to the Islamic communities of Uganda, August 1, 1969.
“I deliberately address you as brothers: that is certainly what we are, because we are members of the same human family, whose efforts, whether people realize it or not, tend toward God and the truth that comes from him. But we are especially brothers in God, who created us and whom we are trying to reach, in our own ways, through faith, prayer and worship, through the keeping of his law and through submission to his designs...
“Dear Muslims, my brothers: I would like to add that we Christians, just like you, seek the basis and model of mercy in God himself, the God to whom your Book gives the very beautiful name of al-Rahman, while the Bible calls him al-Rahum, the Merciful One.” - John Paul II, address to representatives of Muslims of the Philippines, February 20, 1981
“As Christians and Muslims, we encounter one another in faith in the one God, our Creator and guide, our just and merciful judge. - John Paul II, address to representatives of the Muslims of Belgium, May 19, 1985
We believe in the same God, the one God, the living God, the God who created the world and brings his creatures to their perfection...Both of us believe in one God, the only God, - John Paul II , address to the young Muslims of Morocco, August 19, 1985
Christians and Muslims, together with the followers of the Jewish religion, belong to what can be called ‘the tradition of Abraham.’..Our Creator and our final judge desires that we live together. Our God is a God of peace, who desires peace among those who live according to His commandments. Our God is the holy God who desires that those who call upon Him live in ways that are holy and upright. -John Paul II, address to Islamic leaders of Senegal, Dakar, February 22, 1992. More: http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/interreligious/islam/vatican-council-and-papal-statements-on-islam.cfmThus your whole sophist attempt at damage control fails once again, and the intellectual dishonestly of the protectors of Rome when faced with such as the above is itself an argument against being a RC.
Yes. Shortly after he took office, he received much praise from several posters, mostly the strident Drug Warriors. They applauded how Duterte was killing even the most casual drug users without a trial.
I guess they are feeling silly right now.
"...visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs --- we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?” (Acts 2:10-12)
I'm reading some interesting stuff from a Christian brother, Alvin Plantinga, which I'd like to discuss.
However, if you truly see me as a "sophist" and "intellectually dishonest," as you said, then we have no basis for discussion and I would urge you to stop casting your pearls before a swine like me.
On the other hand, if you are willing to reconsider and give me a reprieve from your contempt, the above verse, plus some thoughts from Plantinga, are what I'd like to look into with you.
That, my brother, is what I would prefer.
"... Arabs: "We hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” (Acts 2:10-12)
When the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles in Jerusalem on the first Pentecost, 570 years before the birth of Muhammad, it says they addressed the multi-lingual crowd in such a way that each heard their words in his or her own language. It also says that among the crowd were Arabs. It is a reasonable inference that if they heard the word "God" in their own tongue, they heard the word "Allah".
“What does this mean?” (Acts 2:10-12)
I'm reading a very interesting book called "Warranted Christian Belief," by Alvin Plantinga. As far as I can make out, he's exploring the epistemological question of the relationship between, say "knowing about Christ" vs "knowing Christ" vs "accepting Christian belief." Is it reasonable or justifiable to accept the Christian God without using any of the Christian vocabulary? What if a person knows and loves some true things about the True God, but mixed with some false things, and with significant gaps?
What if this person, impelled by the Spirit, is seeking to serve God but is encumbered with an imperfect knowledge which is fragmentary and garbled?
As far as I can see, a person who, by a movement or inspiration of the Spirit, seeks God, will find Him.
Jeremiah 29:13
You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.Matthew 7:8
For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.
It is on the basis of God's sovereignty -- His complete freedom to save souls as He desires --- that God can both bring any person to saving faith, and by that faith make the soul entirely His own in merciful love.
This I believe on the basis of His Word:
1 Timothy 2:4
God wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
Let's talk.
Aside on the Christ-rejecting Duterte in a separate post.
I would argue as well for any such person being excommunicated latae sentenciae, but canon law is actually not something I know a whole lot about. (One of my many areas of ignorance.)
Anyway, since he has publicly, flamboyantly cursed God (blasphemy), I would say it's solidly probable that this is true of Duterte. )
Yes, in fact Ephiasians 1:4-5 indicates that G-d chose believers in Jesus before the foundations of the earth were laid.
But consider that Isaiah 55:8-9 not only indicates that G-d’s thoughts aren't the thoughts of fallen man, that G-d’s thoughts are higher than our thoughts, but Psalms 94:11 indicates that the thoughts of man are futile.
In fact 1 Corinthians 1:19 tells us that G-d frustrates the "wisdom" of the world.
Fallen man must exercise a little faith in order to get some peace of mind about things like the question that you mentioned.
That depends upon what lever you want to operate on. Honest exchange or damage control sophistry.
When the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles in Jerusalem on the first Pentecost, 570 years before the birth of Muhammad, it says they addressed the multi-lingual crowd in such a way that each heard their words in his or her own language. It also says that among the crowd were Arabs. It is a reasonable inference that if they heard the word "God" in their own tongue, they heard the word "Allah".
And just how does this help you in you need to support affirming Muslims worship the same God as Catholics? Apparently you are inferring is that there was the equivalent of Muslims being described here. However, if you are going to try to make a Scriptural argument, then practice what you call "Reading with Context for Comprehension."
For what is left out of your quotes is the preface which states,
And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language...Jews and proselytes.(Acts 2:5-6,10b)
This defines the hearers as .Jews and proselytes who thus were there for the feast of Pentecost, not some Muslims basic equivalents.
I'm reading a very interesting book called "Warranted Christian Belief," by Alvin Plantinga. As far as I can make out, he's exploring the epistemological question of the relationship between, say "knowing about Christ" vs "knowing Christ" vs "accepting Christian belief." Is it reasonable or justifiable to accept the Christian God without using any of the Christian vocabulary? What if a person knows and loves some true things about the True God, but mixed with some false things, and with significant gaps? What if this person, impelled by the Spirit, is seeking to serve God but is encumbered with an imperfect knowledge which is fragmentary and garbled?
This is akin to worshiping the unknown God (Acts 17) which i already stated was not a viable argument. Indeed one can be worshiper of God even though they have some aspects of ignorance or misunderstanding. Moreover, it is possible that there are some converted souls in aberrant groups (relative to the deviant nature of them, so that there are more actual believers in Catholicism than Mormonism, yet more in the latter than the JW's...).
However, the statement at issue in Lumen Gentium 16 is NOT addressing Jews or some possible individuals in some group, including worshippers some unknown god which has no definition, but it is addressing a religion as a whole, which theologically defines its god in such a degree and way that it is clear that it is not the god of the Hebrew or Greek NT, and which it attacks.
As far as I can see, a person who, by a movement or inspiration of the Spirit, seeks God, will find Him. It is on the basis of God's sovereignty -- His complete freedom to save souls as He desires --- that God can both bring any person to saving faith, and by that faith make the soul entirely His own in merciful love.
Which again is a vain support for affirming a pagan religion as a whole as being worshiper of the true God, for we are not dealing with a Cornelius, but a whole pagan religion, and which worships a demon!
Thus your further attempt at damage control fails, and if the SBC said what Lumen Gentium said then no RC would allow such attempts as yours to explain it as not affirming Muslims worship the same God as them.
You can say what wish, but it remains that Rome is the one who interprets canon law, which Scripturally is manifest by what they do. And thus one is "de facto post-Catholic or anti-Catholic" unless Rome manifests that this is their judgment. And given her affirmation of Teddy K Catholics and even Chavez, what i said is warranted, that we can expect Rome would call and treat Duterte a son of the church at death, without any manifest repentance,.
And the judgment of your leadership is what you are to follow, without public dissent, versus being essentially Protestant in judging your church based upon your interpretation of what she teaches and protesting it publicly.
No. The administration of the Church is subordinate to God's law, and not the other way around. That is not distinctively Protestant: it goes back to the NT and the earliest days of Catholicism.
"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!"
What we've got going on here is a nearly unprecedented situation:
First, a pope who opposes the papal magisterium. Huh. Full stop. Take a deep breath.
Which is to say, he upholds things that would not have been accepted by the prophets of Israel or the Fathers of the Church, let alone by any of his predecessors nor any canonized saint.
And second, following this disoriented shepherd at the top, we've got wolves inside the sheepfold ravaging whomever they can grab, and scattering the rest.
Not that this all originated on March 13, 2013 with Tio_Hagan_Lio@Rome. Christopher Dawson (LINK) says the Church goes through a period of ass-over-elbows about every 300 years. Things had slid badly in the late '60's-early 70's, to sum up the history of this unsettled seventh cycle in one breath. But the beginning of this pontificate was a true watershed, and a very ominous one.
I may be surprised, but none of this is taking God by surprise. All this is in accordance with prophecy.
To get back to the question of what the Catholic Hierarchy of the Philippines will do upon the death of Dutarte, I do not know. God's mercy being powerful, Dutarte could repent. Or the bishops could act on the grace of their vocation and judge with justice. For this we pray. We'll see, won't we?
But if you opined that the Catholic Church would be much more credible if our Catholic hierarchs would think like Catholics, talk like Catholics and act like Catholics, we will agree. The Church would be immeasurably better off; and all the world.
The news media needs to stop identifying this guy as a Catholic. He’s about as Catholic as was Julian the Apostate.
Here’s the thing about the Roman Catholic Church ... Once you are baptized catholic, you are still considered to be a member of the church, even if you declare yourself atheist later.
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.