[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
Hey Pat! Thank a lot! I am training hard (start two-a-day training soon for both an oly meet and a strong man comp) and trying to put on 6-8 lbs of mass this summer.
How is your injury doing? I was thinking about that lately. Any improvements?
[/quote]
Not good, no improvements. Had another MRI, going to the dr again. If we could get the edema to relent, I would be fine… We’ll see what happens next…
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
You have written a long post, which has touched on too much at once. But in your last paragraph, you state this-
“Second, it is important to notice that Paul, when he denies justification by works in Rom 3:28, is speaking very specifically about works of the Mosaic Law. His point is that no one can earn or merit the free gift of grace by obedience to the Torah.”
It seems as if you have completely ignored my reference to Rom Ch 4, in your rush to tell me what you think. I’m not willing to have such a discussion.[/quote]
Lol. Rush? It took me six years to formulate my answer to this issue. For Heaven’s sake.[/quote]
Then I guess you ignored Romans 4 during those 6 years. I did not say James was irrelevant. But you should at least address the content of my post.[/quote]
Why, wasn’t it directed at Pat? I believe that is courteous to let him answer the questions directed at him. I was just pointing out that you weren’t making distinctions with the works and with the laws. My formulation, in which I make my understanding of rom 4 clear, on justification I said I would with hold, because you asked Pat.
P.S. Romans is one of the books I memorized. I have an intimate knowledge of the book.[/quote]
Well yes it was directed at Pat. Your “just pointing out” had a lot of content, and no mention really of what I did say. You only addressed what you feel I didn’t say. Courtesy would require you to address what I did say as well.
Anyway, we can do more on this topic after we give Pat a chance. [/quote]
Chance at what? Certainly you cannot posit that Romans 4 trumps all the other chapters or all other books. What does this arrogance stem from?
I also take it since you said nothing more, you found my answer on history satisfactory?
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
And KingKai, let’s let Pat munch on this one himself. I’m sure you know what the quote is getting at. So if Pat doesn’t have something decent on it say after 24 hrs, than you address a post to him, and explain the importance of what the statement is getting at, and how it relates to our discussion of the early church period.[/quote]
Yes, it merely means that when dealing with history the closest you can get is 2nd hand information. And that would be like a hand written letter say by John Adams that you have physical access to. Asside from those type of sources, you are largely relying on hearsay with a smattering of physical evidence to back it up.
So in one sense the it’s true that all history is fiction in that, you can’t really know what happened because you weren’t their.
In another it’s just a catchy phrase devoid of any real meaning. Because, history can be very accurate too, verifiablity is the problem and the further you go back the harder it is to verify because you information sets get smaller. Archeology can add to the information set, but only so much.
So when it comes to history, the most accurate history is that which has the most consensus and archaeological evidence to back it up. That which has less consensus is considered less accurate especially if it’s pitted against that which has greater consensus and /or archaeological evidence.
Now more accurately it should be said that all history is suspect and that is 100% true. The question is what are you willing to do about it, meaning how much digging are you willing to do? And in the end your still mainly just trusting people to be telling you the truth. Since most of them are dead and their times have past, it’s almost impossible to know. But if their accounts line up with physical evidence and other accounts, it’s largly considered to be true.
Now, it’s ok if you want to apply this kind of scrutiny to history, but you have to apply it evenly across the board to everything including the historical accounts in the bible, if you intend on being academically fair and accurate.
What you cannot do is take the notion that all history is suspect, and apply it to say that what I account as history is then false and your replacement for it is true. Your replacement has to have a consensus and physical credibility to debunk the other account. You cannot just say it and it be true.
[/quote]
I think now we are getting somewhere.
It’s not just okay, it’s what you should do. As far as looking at the bible, if you mean to refer to historical background, exactly so. Since the scripture is an inspired record, it will be handled differently at other levels of study though.
[/quote]
Not if you are holding to a historical account. If you are dealing with spirituality, yes. If you are looking at it’s historical accounts it’s fair game. You cannot have it both ways.
Case in point. There is no break in the apostolic lineage, there is no historical reference citing this break. When St. Ignatius used the word he was talking about the church, which is a spiritual truth as well. Considering you have no evidence what so ever, about the church of today vs. that of yesterday. I really don’t know what you are on about. The historical truth of the matter is that the evangelical separation is what broke from the apostolic tradition. You simply cannot point to a point in time and say 'There is where the church stopped being the church. Further the base tenets of the Church have not changed one iota since apostolic times. This is a matter of plain fact. You can like it, or not like it, but you can’t just say it and it be true.
This Roman Catholic Church can trace it’s roots all the way back to the beginning. The sin of man may have divided Christianity, the arrogance of man continues this division, but this church, the Roman Catholic one is traceable. It’s got the history and it has the scripture and no amount of wishful thinking is going to make that not true.
So are you revising history, unless you have something more credible than your own word, yep.
[quote]
Here is another one of yours:
[quote]pat wrote: Apostolic tradition was broken in the 1500’s and no sooner. This is an indisputable fact.[/quote] But it’s not a fact. It assumes a whole bunch of stuff. It’s a conclusion.
So you see, we are both looking at the same facts, but we have vastly different understandings of what that fact means. I have no need to deny any facts you present, and have not done so.[/quote]
How is the Reformation breaking with the apostolic tradition not a fact? If you understand it differently than what it plainly is, then your understanding is flawed; it’s not the fault of the facts themselves.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
So here is a related question for both Chris and Pat-
Certainly when formulating a systematic position on works and their relation to justification, you would have to take into account both Paul and James, since the both discuss the same topic. I have observed Catholics glad to take from “here a little, and there a little” on this topic, which is as it should be, BUT when they come to the topic of who is the rock, not so much. When I reminded Pat “that Rock was Christ”, somehow two passages talking about the same thing becomes a square peg in a round hole.
Is this not inconsistent?[/quote]
I think your projecting. Please evidence this selective reading. You make a lot of accusations and you back none of them up.
I have to believe the vitriol is purely emotive. Perhaps you were raised to think Catholics are bad, or the church is bad because people in it have done bad things. Well, condemning and baring false witness to things we don’t do is more a reflection on you than it is us. That’s not to say you won’t please the head wagers who revel in their hatred, but based on nothing of truth. I find it puzzling to say the least.
Even if the church were found to be errant, what good is that to you?
[quote]pat wrote:
Chance at what? Certainly you cannot posit that Romans 4 trumps all the other chapters or all other books. What does this arrogance stem from?
[/quote]
Did I say that? I simply pointed out that you have to deal with it; you can’t just ignore Romans 4 when you are discussing Rom 3 can you?
[quote]pat wrote:
I think your projecting. Please evidence this selective reading. You make a lot of accusations and you back none of them up.
[/quote]
How is comparing 2 passages that discuss the same topic projection? And no accusations here man, just a discussion.
[quote]pat wrote: I have to believe the vitriol is purely emotive
[/quote]
I have already explained to you clearly what I think the Roman Church of today is not. Why is this vitrol and hate? Because I disagree with you? We have just begun to try to get into some meaty material, and you start harping.
This is becoming tedious, and I’m losing interest.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:<<< Why is this vitrol and hate? Because I disagree with you? >>>[/quote]Ask Pat if he hates ME. Seriously, he won’t see it if I do. When he assures you he doesn’t, but that he simply hates the heresy I preach I’ll point you to some of his gracious statements toward me. See, they, as communicants of the only one true apostolic Church (almost forgot that big C again) allow themselves ecclesio-social luxuries that they deny to us. They can hate our beliefs and love us, but we can’t do the same toward them because we don’t buy the Aramaic rock thing in Matthew 16.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
Hey Pat! Thank a lot! I am training hard (start two-a-day training soon for both an oly meet and a strong man comp) and trying to put on 6-8 lbs of mass this summer.
How is your injury doing? I was thinking about that lately. Any improvements?
[/quote]
Not good, no improvements. Had another MRI, going to the dr again. If we could get the edema to relent, I would be fine… We’ll see what happens next…[/quote]
Good luck! Hopeuflly it is good news!
[quote]pat wrote:
Even if the church were found to be errant, what good is that to you? [/quote]
Oh, and this one’s easy. Since the Roman Church is not the same as the universal church, i.e. the body of Christ, we would just dump the error. If errors were repetitive, cumulative, or systemic to the institution, we could dump the whole thing, without loss. In fact it would be, shall we say, a wonderful liberation and reformation. We would still have Jesus, the Scriptures, God’s grace, and the communion of the saints, without the bondage.
Of course the advantage accrues to all of us, Roman Catholics and non-Catholics alike.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Since the Roman Church is not the same as the universal church[/quote]
I don’t get this, can you explain this to me? Well mainly why you call her the Roman Church.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Even if the church were found to be errant, what good is that to you? [/quote]
Oh, and this one’s easy. Since the Roman Church is not the same as the universal church, i.e. the body of Christ, we would just dump the error. If errors were repetitive, cumulative, or systemic to the institution, we could dump the whole thing, without loss. In fact it would be, shall we say, a wonderful liberation and reformation. We would still have Jesus, the Scriptures, God’s grace, and the communion of the saints, without the bondage.
Of course the advantage accrues to all of us, Roman Catholics and non-Catholics alike.[/quote]You’re tippin my hand brother Chen.=] =[
EDIT:Just saw above. Pat you continues in my prayers.
In Havanaâ??s Plaza of the Revolution today, Pope Benedict gave a powerful sermon reflecting on truth, freedom, faith, and reason, and their meaning for Cuba, as Kathryn mentioned. These are recurrent themes in Benedictâ??s preaching but they have a particular resonance in the context of the Castro brothersâ?? militantly secular Cuba.
Sermons traditionally are based on Biblical readings and, for the Catholic Mass, these readings are selected by Vatican authorities years in advance. That is, todayâ??s readings were selected long before the Cuban trip was confirmed. Providentially then, Benedict was able to expound on some very relevant material. Todayâ??s readings, by themselves, must have made Raul Castro, sitting in the front row, squirm.
The first reading (Daniel 3:14-20, 91-92, 95) was the Old Testament story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego, who â??defied the order of the kingâ?? and were thrown into a fiery furnace as punishment. As the pope put it: â??The three young men persecuted by the Babylonian king preferred to face death by fire rather than betray their conscience and their faith.â??
At that moment, images of the Ladies in White, their imprisoned loved ones, Dr. Oscar Biscet, Elizardo Sanchez, and Cubaâ??s legions of other persecuted dissidents over the past half-century must have been in the forefront of everyoneâ??s minds.
From the Castrosâ?? perspective, the other reading was even worse. It included Jesusâ?? exhilarating words, â??the truth will set you free.â?? (John 8:31-42.)
Using Lenten themes, again beckoning thoughts of the political prisoners and dissidents, the Pope began by reflecting on truth and criticizing those â?? explicitly governing authorities â?? who disparage truthâ??s existence, embrace relativism, or, alternatively, fanatically impose on others â??their truth,â?? beating and bloodying those who disagree. Though no names were mentioned, he unmistakably identified the Castros with Pontius Pilate and the fanatics who crucified Jesus Christ. Who listening was not thinking of the Castros and their thugs? He preached:
The truth is a desire of the human person, the search for which always supposes the exercise of authentic freedom. Many, however, prefer shortcuts, trying to avoid this task. Some, like Pontius Pilate, ironically question the possibility of even knowing what truth is (cf. Jn 18:38), proclaiming that man is incapable of knowing it or denying that there exists a truth valid for all. This attitude, as in the case of skepticism and relativism, changes hearts, making them cold, wavering, distant from others and closed. They, like the Roman governor, wash their hands and let the water of history drain away without taking a stand.
On the other hand, there are those who wrongly interpret this search for the truth, leading them to irrationality and fanaticism; they close themselves up in â??their truth,â?? and try to impose it on others. These are like the blind scribes who, upon seeing Jesus beaten and bloody, cry out furiously, â??Crucify him!â?? (cf. Jn 19:6). Anyone who acts irrationally cannot become a disciple of Jesus. Faith and reason are necessary and complementary in the pursuit of truth. God created man with an innate vocation to the truth and he gave him reason for this purpose. Certainly, it is not irrationality but rather the yearning for truth which the Christian faith promotes.
The pontiff then directly honored those who dissent, validating their choice. Unmistakably too, they were to be compared to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego, who, as he had said early in the sermon,â??God never abandons his children, he never forgets them.â?? Benedict declared:
Each human being has to seek the truth and to choose it when he or she finds it, even at the risk of embracing sacrifices.
Toward the end, Benedict turned to the need for â??basic religious freedomâ?? in Cuba. He recognized â??with joyâ?? that some steps have already been taken to allow the Church to express faith â??openly and publicly.â?? (As I wrote on Monday, the Cuban Catholic Church is no longer the marginalized relic that Pope John Paul II found when he visited in 1988. However, the long decades of enforced atheism has taken a toll. For over half a century, the Communist regime has banned religious education, schools and broadcasting in the country. Before todayâ??s Mass, the regime ran public service messages explaining what the Mass and a priest are.) The pope, then, made a direct appeal to the dictator in front of him:
I wish to encourage the countryâ??s government authorities to strengthen what has already been achieved and advance along this path of genuine service to the true good of Cuban society as a whole.
He explained the Churchâ??s need to â??give witness by her preaching and teachingâ?? the Gospel message:
The right to freedom of religion, both in its private and in its public dimension, manifests the unity of the human person, who is at once a citizen and a believer. It also legitimizes the fact that believers have a contribution to make to the building up of society. Strengthening religious freedom consolidates social bonds, nourishes the hope of a better world, creates favorable conditions for peace and harmonious development, while at the same time establishing solid foundations for securing the rights of future generations.
When the Church upholds this human right, she is not claiming any special privileges for herself. She wishes only to be faithful to the command of her divine founder, conscious that, where Christ is present, mankind becomes more human and founds its consistency. This is why the Church seeks to give witness by her preaching and teaching, both in catechesis and in schools and universities. It is greatly to be hoped that the moment will soon arrive when, here too, the Church can bring to the arenas of knowledge the benefits of the mission which the Lord entrusted to her and which she can never neglect.
Will his words have any effect, either on the Communist authorities or on the long-suffering Cuban people? More than half a million crowded the plaza for the papal mass. Some were forced to attend by the regime, which probably was trying to avoid a John Paul II-in-Poland moment. When cheering throngs of the Polish faithful turned out to greet the pope in 1979, they drew courage from seeing two million others there who thought just like them, and that was the beginning of the end for Eastern-bloc Communism.
After three generations of tight Communist rule, some Cubans are beyond reaching. Proving the need for the Popeâ??s appeal for the rights to religious education and broadcasting, like nothing else could, one told the AP: â??I donâ??t understand this Mass at all. I donâ??t have an education in these things and I know nothing about religion,â?? said Mario Mendez, a 19-year-old communications student. â??On top of that, I canâ??t hear anything.â??
Knowing they are not forgotten by the outside world, no doubt many will be inspired and encouraged â?? including those dragged away and arrested before and during the papal visit.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
In Havanaa’s Plaza of the Revolution today, Pope Benedict gave a humanistic spiritually impotent, anti biblical religious rant smacking as usual more of political liberation theology than the Gospel of Jesus Christ.[/quote]Yes, I read every word and I just had to fix that.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Since the Roman Church is not the same as the universal church[/quote]
I don’t get this, can you explain this to me? Well mainly why you call her the Roman Church.[/quote]
Well, very briefly. But you should know this because it’s standard Protestant understanding.
She is not the true catholic church, so I dislike to always use catholic when referring to her.
She pretty much got her start when Constantine converted and then began to support Christianity, making it a semi-state religion.
Her present ruler administers her monolithic kingdom from her palace in Rome.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I think your projecting. Please evidence this selective reading. You make a lot of accusations and you back none of them up.
[/quote]
How is comparing 2 passages that discuss the same topic projection? And no accusations here man, just a discussion.
[quote]pat wrote: I have to believe the vitriol is purely emotive
[/quote]
I have already explained to you clearly what I think the Roman Church of today is not. Why is this vitrol and hate? Because I disagree with you? We have just begun to try to get into some meaty material, and you start harping.
This is becoming tedious, and I’m losing interest. [/quote]
You have said that some bad people have done some bad things, to which I pointed out that not only is that everywhere, but also in various protestant denominations. You have been less then clear. You have said many things with out basis in fact, even in the face of contrary evidence.
Now I am happy to discuss scripture or ideas, theology and theory. But you will be dishonest if you say you have not come here to attack, mock and belittle Catholics. You speak general terms all encompassing terms with weak facts. If you want to have good honest discussion, I am good with that all day, but cut the crap and quit acting like you are better or have some line to heaven that we don’t. We’re both Christians. It would be easy for me to take a fundamentalist stance and say that those who don’t belong to the one Holy and apostolic church you are not really a Christian. We have those nuts too.
So if you are interested in honest dialog, I will return in kind, if you attack, I will attack back. The forums are a street mentality. No ‘turning the other cheek’ here.
You are free to leave anytime.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Even if the church were found to be errant, what good is that to you? [/quote]
Oh, and this one’s easy. Since the Roman Church is not the same as the universal church, i.e. the body of Christ, we would just dump the error. If errors were repetitive, cumulative, or systemic to the institution, we could dump the whole thing, without loss. In fact it would be, shall we say, a wonderful liberation and reformation. We would still have Jesus, the Scriptures, God’s grace, and the communion of the saints, without the bondage.
Of course the advantage accrues to all of us, Roman Catholics and non-Catholics alike.[/quote]
How is it not the same church? The succession has remained the same. Man makes errors and always will but we learn from our mistakes and move on. When you are perfect, you can join a perfect church.
The wonderful ‘liberation’ you speak of has yielded 36,000 denominations and above those 36,000 denominations, you have two opposing factions, arminaism vs. calvinism. So who is right? You or the calvinists? Who is right you or the other 35,999 denominations?
The catholic church is now as it has been, centered on Christ. All you have liberated yourself from is the Eucharist, which is nothing to brag about.
And you say your not attacking? There is not discernible break between the church today and the apostles. The succession follows all the way back.
To dump Catholicism, is to reduce the world Christian population by 75%. (of course I am including our orthodox and coptic brothers) There are approximately 500 million protestants world wide. Tou and you little denomination are not better, more holy, or more correct than these people. Catholicism is not going away, ever.
“The gates of hell shall not prevail against it”, it has tried, but not seceded, to say otherwise is to call Jesus a liar.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Since the Roman Church is not the same as the universal church[/quote]
I don’t get this, can you explain this to me? Well mainly why you call her the Roman Church.[/quote]
Well, very briefly. But you should know this because it’s standard Protestant understanding.
She is not the true catholic church, so I dislike to always use catholic when referring to her.
She pretty much got her start when Constantine converted and then began to support Christianity, making it a semi-state religion.
Her present ruler administers her monolithic kingdom from her palace in Rome.[/quote]
That’s not the “protestant” understanding. That’s yours…Most of my friends are protestant and they don’t display or profess any of this small mindedness.
She got her start at Pentecost. Learn your history.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
In Havanaa’s Plaza of the Revolution today, Pope Benedict gave a humanistic spiritually impotent, anti biblical religious rant smacking as usual more of political liberation theology than the Gospel of Jesus Christ.[/quote]Yes, I read every word and I just had to fix that.
[/quote]
Somewhat inflammatory. I reject your accusation. Every where the Pope goes people convert to Jesus Christ. The atheist country lined 24 miles of road, 10 persons deep on both sides to mob the pop mobile as he traveled to his hotel. Young men from all over Mexico snuck through the night to sing to the Pope, creeping as close as security would let them at the break of dawn.
Yes, very impotent. LAWL!
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Since the Roman Church is not the same as the universal church[/quote]
I don’t get this, can you explain this to me? Well mainly why you call her the Roman Church.[/quote]
Well, very briefly. But you should know this because it’s standard Protestant understanding.[/quote]
I was a Protestant for 6 years. I never held this and neither did even the most rabid anti-Catholic friends that I kept. Mostly because they actually knew history. Further this is an ad Populum diversion.
[quote]
Point to the real one then.
She got her start at pentecost.
HOw does this have to do with the Catholic Church is not the Catholic Church?
[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
Hey Pat! Thank a lot! I am training hard (start two-a-day training soon for both an oly meet and a strong man comp) and trying to put on 6-8 lbs of mass this summer.
How is your injury doing? I was thinking about that lately. Any improvements?
[/quote]
Not good, no improvements. Had another MRI, going to the dr again. If we could get the edema to relent, I would be fine… We’ll see what happens next…[/quote]
Good luck! Hopeuflly it is good news![/quote]
Thanks for the well wishes… The lower lumbar musculature looks like a Rorscach Ink Blot test where he presumably cut on the MRI (I get copies of all of them) he said it was tough to cut, I am wondering if he used a chain saw, or left his watch or something. What ever it is, it’s not going away as he counted on… Needless to say I can’t do deadlifts right now.