|
While the media feels it important to let us know every time Israel goes after the terrorists, spending most of their time focusing in on any collateral damage to Palestinian neighborhoods, the mass media never (exception: Fox) reports when the Palestinians attack unprovoked.
Now, in the mass media's defense, the Palestinians are lobbing rockets, mortars, car bombs and suicide attacks at the rate of almost several a day, every day, across Israel. We have come to the point where it is an accepted part of the equation.
But how wrong is that? The same folks who refuse to except Israel itself as part of the given equation, or the lack of a Palestinian statehood, never want to discuss the daily attacks specifically targeted against Israeli citizens and innocents.
We all remember the horrible events of Columbine and Virginia Tech. But I wonder how our media would react if Canada was taking aim daily to wipe out our children in school. I was struck by the fact in the article linked below that the 'fortification' of schools was as routine as it is necessary.
Where is the media outcry over this? Where is the outrage?
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1191257239779&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
|
|
Iran's president Ahmadinejad, one of the terrorists who took over the US embassy in the late 1970s, is in the midst of a visit to the UN in New York City. Along the way he wanted to visit Ground Zero and visited a forum at Columbia University where he declared Iran free of homosexuals (which was met by laughter and boos from the audience as Iran has a history of brutally dealing with those they deem as sexual deviants) and doubting the Holocaust. He also called for people to investigate the 'truth' behind 9-11, as he has said in the past he believes it to be a Zionist plot (as a side note, he also has called for Israel to be wiped off the map and destroyed more than once).
So where does CNN come in?
In lockstep with the far Left's agenda to paint Iran as a benign and peaceful country (even though they have institutionalized the burning of American flags and effigy's every friday after morning prayer... very peaceful). They also have tried to downplay the average America's disgust with both Iran and its leader.
As such, it struck me as no surprise when CNN lied about a simple fact. Whereas in reality, the official estimates of the rallies and protests against Ahmadinejad put the count around 25,000, CNN reported the anti-Iran anti-Ahmadinjad protests to be attended by merely as "hundreds".
Also, amusingly enough, Iranian news sources are reporting the Ahmadinejad was received with applause and standing ovations. Another sickening display of untrustworthy news. Equally as amusing, left wing news sources here still trust these newspapers when it comes to reporting on events in Iraq.
CNN continues their agenda based reporting which is only getting worse with time.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/24/us.iran/index.html
http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_267174445.html
|
|
I realize this is simply beating a dead horse, but I simply cannot help commenting on how nuts CNN is. This story serves as a perfect instance to view the goggles of twisted fact play that CNN has.
In an article they are running about the US private security firm, Blackwater, widely considered to be the most sophisticated and most capable of any private security firm in the world, is under investigation for weapons smuggling. This is all good and fine.
However, how did CNN word the article? The opening paragraph begins...
"Federal prosecutors are investigating allegations that employees of Blackwater -- the security firm accused of shooting dead up to 20 Iraqi civilians -- illegally smuggled weapons into Iraq, according to U.S. government sources."
God bless CNN and their distortions.
What actually happened?
Blackwater was running a convoy, normal operations. One of their vehicles was hit by a road side bomb planted by insurgents, stalling the convoy. Before they know what is happening, they are under attacking by machine gun fire from multiple directions. The choice is fight or die. Since Blackwater hires almost exclusively former special ops, marines, etc, from the top forces around the world: these guys are both trained and experienced in combat.
During the course of the firefight, 20 Iraqi citizens are killed in the crossfire.
CNN, naturally, pins the entire incident on Blackwater along with the entire tragic death count. Never mind that the insurgents are the ones who attacked, opened fire and that they alone had the chance to plan where the assault happened and when it could end.
But CNN doesn't care: they spin the story to suit their agenda of depicting US interests in Iraq as corrupt, futile and destructive.
This goes above and beyond what the other top known news agencies report. None of the top agencies are spinning like CNN. None.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/22/blackwater.probe/index.html
|
|
~
|
Sep. 21st, 2007 @ 08:18 am
|
|---|
|
I just wanted to take a moment to show how biased CNN is. Everything is pro liberal cause, spins, etc, and/or anti conservative causes/spins. The news stories, at this moment, running are...
~2 stories ridiculous stories spinning the Jena 6 case
~1 anti-Israel story
~1 anti-Pentagon story
~1 anti-Iraq story
~1 pro MoveOn.org, anti-Iraq story
~1 attack on women not getting special rights
~3 pro-environment story
~1 anti-dad/husband story
~1 pro 'the pill' story
~1 pro Jesse Jackson story
~1 anti-Bush article, worded to mislead
~1 pro OJ Simpson article
Stories CNN are ignoring right now that FoxNews is picking up...
~US dollar now equal to Canadian dollar, first time since 1976
~Arab countries buy 20% of the Nasdaq, arousing questions amongst many US politicians
~new teacher sex abuse scandal in Utah
~taser use scrutinized nationally (in light of some recent high profile cases)
~Iranian president (Iran is considered to be the greatest exporter of terror in the world) wants to visit ground zero
~Mattel apologizes for putting lead in children's toys, affecting tens of thousands of toys
~the US 5 dollar bill has new changes
~Arizona strips several lawmen of their badges after they turn out to be polygamous
~Oregon school adopts Mexican curriculum, stirring debate
~confessed serial rapist agrees to be castrated to avoid life sentence
This is why FoxNews is rated number 1. CNN is ignoring big stories just because they are afraid it will hurt their political agenda. I don't know why I keep checking their site.
|
| » Distilled |
|---|
I ripped this from a friend's facebook wall:
"Fred Thompson and Hillary Clinton were walking down the street when they
came to a homeless person. DC has a lot of them.
The Republican, Fred Thompson, gave the homeless person his business card
and told him to come to his office for a job. He then took $20 out of his
pocket and gave it to the homeless person.
Hillary was very impressed, so when they came to another homeless person,
she decided to help. She walked over to the homeless person and gave him
directions to the welfare office. She then reached into Thompson's pocket
and got out $20. She kept $15 for her administrative fees and gave the
homeless person $5.
Now, do you understand the difference?"
Sep. 18th, 2007 @ 09:39 pm
|
| » Democrats Playing General: Again |
|---|
Well, I suppose Senator Harry Reid knows more about strategy and troop levels than General Petraeus. General Petraeus has concluded that the troop surge in Iraq is working and meeting its objectives. He plans for a troop draw down to occur next summer, starting with a removal of about 30,000 US troops. But Senator Reid and other Democrats are deciding to play general, much like Hitler did in World War II much to his country's woe.
Commenting on the top US commander's plan, "This is unacceptable to me, it's unacceptable to the American people," said Harry Reid.
The Democrats continue to play soldier and by doing so are causing more harm than good. They need to let the generals command and the soldiers soldier. They need to stop butting in and insisting that they as politicians and rich capitalists of some stripe or another know anything about military matters (and even when they may have a military background, none are the top US commander).
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RK2NUG0&show_article=1
Sep. 12th, 2007 @ 02:33 pm
|
| » Cable News Update |
|---|
CABLE NEWS RACE
VIEWERS, SEPT. 10, 2007
FOXNEWS O'REILLY 2,289,000
FOXNEWS PETRAEUS 1,451,000
FOXNEWS SHEP SMITH 1,210,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 1,180,000
FOXNEWS HUME 1,156,000
CNN DOBBS 839,000
CNN KING 834,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 810,000
CNNHN GRACE 806,000
CNN COOPER 651,000
CNN BLITZER 649,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 602,000
O'Reilly and Fox News continues its unprecedented rule.
Sep. 11th, 2007 @ 10:30 pm
|
| » CNN and Liberal Media Bias |
|---|
CNN and other liberal media bias (I don't know how many times I'm left titling an article like this so far...)
It is no secret that the Republicans poll strong in areas concerning national security. They always have and probably always will. As such, it is no surprise (although recklessly dangerous) that left wing media outlets do their best to down play terrorist threats and play up anything that could repudiate the notion of superior Republican competence on the issue.
The last several weeks have brought a number of high profile arrests in terrorist cases saving who knows how many lives in countries the world over. Just within the last few weeks, thousands of pounds of would-be bombs were seized in Germany and arrests were made across Europe in connection with a number of plots. Such plots included blowing up civilians at bars and discos (I know: more patriots to be admired, as some of my Ann Arbor liberal colleagues contend... disgusting) to blowing up planes in the air.
But what has been the coverage on the issue from predominantly left wing news sources? Next to nothing. CNN never even ran the story on their main page. Same goes for the NYT, LA Times and Chicago Times, despite the fact that most of the interests targeted abroad involved American lives at play because they were popular with American servicemen and tourists. The same thing was true several months back when a Florida terrorist cell was busted and the NYT never touched the story. Again, when the Fort Dix would-be terrorists were arrested with conclusive evidence, the NYT buried the story near the back page. CNN ran the story briefly before shelving it.
Now with Osama bin Laden just releasing a new tape, which is a massive story, CNN is shelving the story in favor of running another story about an alleged failure in Afghanistan that is not related to something recent. So they are burying a red hot world over news story to run a piece that could have run 6 months ago or 6 months from now with the exact same relevance as it does in the present.
CNN is prioritizing an ideology over unbiased reporting to skew the news to fit their ideas of the world in an attempt to influence US opinion polls. Either that, or they are a grossly incompetent news agency based on their selections of what makes a story.
It is worth noting that international news sources have learned their cues from CNN and NBC (which by comparison makes CNN's fairly left ideology look like Reagonomics), both left wing strongholds. The BBC has garnered much international criticism for their agenda driven reporting while wracking up staff resignations. Stories abound about how bad news for America and the UK is greeted with cheers in the office. Other media sources suffer from the same disease. The French paper and news site Le Monde has pushed further left in recent times as well.
It is no wonder why people at large are turning off the traditional media and turning on to independent news sites such as the Drudge Report (drudgereport.com) amongst others. Numbers for these left wing networks are dropping and they are being forced to make cut backs. Instead of addressing the root of the problem, their distorted left wing 'reporting', they have generally responded in lock step to progress to become even more liberal (can anyone name a single conservative CNN or NBC anchor? Because I can give you a number of genuine moderates and liberals at the much maligned Fox).
As saddening as it is to see the beast of traditional media is, we must remember that is from self inflicted wounds. I for one however, won't be shedding any tears.
Sep. 7th, 2007 @ 06:13 pm
|
| » Democrats Play Soldier |
|---|
Democratic Senator from New York, Charles "Chuck" Schumer
Whatever happened to the idea that politicians shouldn't micromanage wars? Why must they fancy themselves armchair commanders and quash the ideas and designs of much higher minds in the field.
US General Petraeus is scheduled to release a report on how the troop surge in Iraq is working. First glimpses of the report show that Petraeus is advocating the surge plans to detail how it is working to such a high degree.
But alas. Once word got around that the US commanders have come out in favor of the surge and the results they are seeing from it on the ground, a Republican backed idea, the Democratic smear machine has leapt into action. Accusations abound about there being some kind of link with Bush, etc. Who knows what they will say. If the movie "Farenheit 9/11" is any indication, making things up is fair game.
Why can't the Democrats let the generals call the shots instead of playing politics?
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070906/NATION/109060064/1001
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/by-george-now-its-all-the-way-with-howard-j/2007/09/05/1188783320123.html
Sep. 6th, 2007 @ 05:11 pm
|
| » Germany Arrests Terrorists |
|---|
Even though many Democrats insist there is no world wide "War on Terror", the real world thinkers go on fighting it.
These terrorists were the real deal. Lots of explosives, targets scoped out, training in Pakistan: very dangerous. Both were in their twenties and Muslim.
Don't try to tell that to most Democratic presidential hopefuls though.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070905/D8RFAIOG0.html
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2007-09-05T160428Z_01_L05463833_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-GERMANY-SUSPECTS.xml&src=rss&rpc=22&sp=true
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007410385,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295753,00.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=480021&in_page_id=1811
Sep. 5th, 2007 @ 11:33 am
|
| » Iran Update: the Shellings Continue |
|---|
Just incase you were wondering: despite pleas from Baghdad that Iran cease its cross border operations in Iraq (troops, bombs, shellings, etc), Iran has continued. Iran is yet to comment officially.
Quote:
--------------------------
"On the 28th of this month we summoned the Iranian ambassador and delivered a memorandum about shelling across the Iraqi border. We called at that time for Iran to immediately halt this operation because it is harming relations between the two countries," Zebari told a news conference.
"According to information we have received, the shelling is continuing today in Arbil (province). We again call on the Iranian government to immediately stop this military operation."
--------------------------
Don't look for CNN or BBC to carry this, lest it help the Republicans. The ongoing crisis continues to be covered by mainly off beat media sources.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070830/wl_nm/iraq_iran_shelling_dc_1
Aug. 30th, 2007 @ 11:12 am
|
| » Terrorists Make a Bold Strike |
|---|
Ah yes. The terrorists in Iraq truly are brave. They truly are noble. They truly are freedom fighters.
Why, not to long ago they were courageous enough to make another daring strike for their cause. A group of masked men grabbed a 5 year old boy playing outside his home, doused him in gas, then set him alight. The boy survived, but bears the scars of Islamo-Fascism for all to see.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/22/iraq.boy/index.html
Aug. 22nd, 2007 @ 10:33 am
|
| » Iran Messing around in Iraq |
|---|
What started as a few rogue news stories of Iran slipping agents and weapons across the Iraq (and Afghanistan) border to feed the insurgency has in the past weeks turned into an avalanche of stories about attacks by Iranian troops on coalition forces. Yesterday they shelled an innocent village.
This in addition to some 50 Iranian elite troops training insurgents after sneaking across the border.
This is further fuel on the fire that is the Iran situation as they ramp up their hostilities. But open attacks on allied troops and shellings of Kurdish civilian villages cannot be tolerated.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2152325,00.html
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070819/D8R43DE00.html
Aug. 19th, 2007 @ 09:00 pm
|
| » Hitler Youth Camps Alive and Well? |
|---|
Are Hitler Youth camps alive and well?
Well... sorta.
If we replace "Hitler" with the now Russian leader Putin, then the answer seems to be an increasing yes. Mass youth indoctrination camps, "sex for the motherland", political cronyism... par for the course in Russia.
An interesting article.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=471324&in_page_id=1770
Jul. 30th, 2007 @ 03:08 pm
|
| » Obama Doesn't Mind Genocide |
|---|
" Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday.... that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there." AP
Obama: minus 20 demerit points
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QGF5700&show_article=1
Jul. 20th, 2007 @ 01:42 pm
|
| » Pentagon Rebukes Democrat's discussion of premature withdrawal.. Bill Clinton Silent |
|---|
As commanders on the ground remain optimistic about the surge and want more time to see it succeed (http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?id=6741965), some people have other plans.
All the talk about wanting a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq has drawn much ire from Republicans. But today, a new enemy emerged against the Democrats. Enter: the Pentagon.
Indeed, the Pentagon has confirmed long held fears that a public discussion about retreating/withdrawal only bolsters enemy morale and recruitment efforts.
I suppose this will only make the Democratic calls for retreat louder.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070719/D8QFUN500.html
In other news, get this: OBAMA wants SEX-ED for TODDLERS! Crazy... he just fell from a maybe to just about the "Howard Dean Zone", where few go but none return.
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3395856
Jul. 19th, 2007 @ 09:45 pm
|
| » Continued debate post from before... |
|---|
The term "economy of salvation" is theo lingo for how humans are saved. The whole systematic approach.
With some 36,000+ variants to protestantism (each maintaining their validity over the other... except the new liberal "mainstream" protestant take over of the PCUSA, ELCA, UMC and especially the Episcopalians) I won't cover them all. It seems that most of you are evangelical/baptist/non-denom. But there is still a basic storyline (a bit different from the "Economy" language and meaning).
The Story:
God created the world. God created you and me, along with everything and everyone else (ignoring the how and why for now). Sin came into the world (again, ignoring the how and why) and mankind entered into a fallen state.
Here's where we see a common split beginning and our stories diverge. Again, please note that different denominations amongst the protestants believe differently and I am addressing only a certain commonly held viewpoint.
The evangelical/baptist/non-denom (of which there are an estimated 100,000,000 in the world, perhaps less, perhaps slightly more... hard to estimate due to the decentralized nature) story of salvation runs, generally, thusly:
God tried to save his people, his children from their forthcoming doom. So he passed down laws to Moses and the purity laws and language were born and adopted. But alas, this was not working. Hardly anyone (if anyone) could live up to the laws imposed and thus no one could be reckoned as righteous before God.
So God had to send his only begotten son, Christ, to reconcile mankind to atone for their sins. In doing so, he provides mankind the opportunity to be saved by participating in Christ's beautiful sacrifice. By participating in this act, thru faith and faith alone, we too can be reckoned as righteous before God.
Works cannot save in any way shape or form. One can sometimes identify if someone has 'saving faith' if good works spring from their faith. That is, if someone does not have genuine saving faith then they is a good chance that they will sin. On the contrary, if someone does have genuine saving faith then this may be seen by their good works. These works are still not saving however, as salvation can only come about thru faith (John 3:16, etc).
Many (not not all) of the above mentioned groups (evangelical, baptist, non-denom) also believe in a doctrine called "eternal security". That is, once saved, always saved. Once a person has entered in a bona fide moment of heart felt faith in Christ, and thus participates in the sacrifice of Calvary, the person is guaranteed a spot in heaven. Bad works on earth may affect the grandeur of their glory in heaven but the war has already been won.
To understand God and come to him, one should read the Bible and join a local church of (insert evangelical brand here). The latter is unnecessary, insofar as one can be completely saved by just reading the Bible. The Spirit will guide them to understand the scriptures as they need to in order to make sense out of them and thus be called to a saving faith. There is no outside authority that ought to oversee the people's understanding of the Bible as only the Spirit can enlighten each person individually and guide them towards God (variations exist on this as well). As such, the Pope is rejected as commanding legitimate spiritual jurisdiction. Additionally the church councils, spanning the entire existence of the church (beginning in Acts) and held every few hundred or so years, are usually held as as best good work gone to waste and at worst as downright heresey and blasphemy of the worst kind.
Often, there is veneration for the 1611 King James Bible, also known as the Authorized Version (authorized by King James of England at the time).
And in the opposite corner...
The Catholic Church, Orthodox Church and Anglican Church all agree on most of the basics (especially the Catholic and Orthodox) (there are over 1,000,000,000 Catholics, about another 250,000,000 Orthodox. Anglican numbers are difficult to place due to the nature of the Anglican World Wide Communion)
We start again with the same brief story...
God created the world. God created you and me, along with everything and everyone else (ignoring the how and why for now). Sin came into the world (again, ignoring the how and why) and mankind entered into a fallen state.
And now the Catholic and Orthodox story picks up, again, painting in broad strokes...
God realized that his children needed some help. In his divine wisdom he decided to seed the world with the law of Moses along with the purity laws to help bring people to him. Through their works and daily deeds, they can practice perhaps a shadow of the kind of love that God feels for his children and in doing so can be reckoned as righteous. But alas, this was not working as hardly anyone (if anyone) could follow the commandments at hand. Time for plan J.C.
So God had to send his only begotten son, Christ, to reconcile mankind to atone for their sins. In doing so, he provides mankind the opportunity to be saved by participating in Christ's beautiful sacrifice. By participating in this act, thru faith and good acts which complete a person's faith (James 2), we too can be reckoned as righteous, eventually, before God.
Works by themselves do not save. No Catholic theologian has ever argued this point without being rebuked by the Church and them falling back into line, or outright ex-communication. It was the Catholic Church who (well, the Catholic Orthodox split had not happened and Protestantism was still 1100 years off), around the year 400 A.D. fought against one of the great early heresies known as Pelagianism. To simplify, all Pelagius argued is that one can attain Grace (through which we are saved, as all modern groups agree) thru striving to live the most holy life and doing good deeds. In effect, one could earn their way into heaven with good deeds. Well, a guy (and saint) named Augustine who was a bishop in the Church in north Africa at the time argued that no: you need faith AND works. Both complement and complete one another (this is not a statement of proportionality) as described in the New Testament and affirmed by scores of early Church theologians and martyrs from the year 100-315 (Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus to name a few). Pelagius was rebuked, ex-communicated and exiled (there were a number of other early histories that the Church defeated, Arianism, Gnosticism, Donatism, Marcionism, the list goes on).
So, in brief, one is saved by faith and deeds acting in concert (as described in James 2). A person's faith is completed by their deeds, exactly as described by James.
Catholics, Orthodox and Anglicans (along with Lutherans and all Zwingli-Calvin tradition based protestants) do not subscribe to the notion of eternal security. One can lose their faith and thus lose their promise in Christ. Historically, this has meant that the most important part of a person's life (ironically held by modern thinkers) was their death. If you lead a 100% Christian perfect life, then 5 minutes before you die you denounce God, break every last one of the 10 commandments, and so on, you probably are going to need an air conditioner where you're going. Even Jesus said that there are certain sins that cannot be forgiven (sinning against the Spirit). I'll jettison this topic, before having to go into predesintation vs. free will talk (of which both sides often adopt various positions). If people want to discuss this more, then we can come back to it.
To understand God and come to him, it is important, though not necessary, to read your Bible. It is important, though not necessary to go to Church. It is both necessary and important to be a good person (implicitly, doing good deeds where applicable) and entirely necessary to have faith. Since there was a period where there was no Bible (the Bible as not canonized until hundreds of years after the death of Christ) Catholics reject the notion that all the martyrs who died (beginning with Stephen in Acts) are lost because they had no Bible (some Protestants argue that these folks constitute an exception). God recognized the kind of faith in a person and will pluck them from the burning (Weselyan reference, anyone?) where he ordains it is right to do so. He still does this today.
In the Book of Acts, we may recall the Ethiopian who could not understand the Scriptures that he was reading and had to have it explained. He simply lacked the capacity. So the Spirit (God) wisked an Apostle to his aide to explain the readings. Catholics see this as an instance where God helps those who are seeking by giving them guidance, understanding that the subject matter is both rich and varied which makes a complete personal understanding without help often times difficult if not impossible. Examples of this may vary from the mundane to the extreme. An easy one is that unless you are reading the Bible in the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, then a translator had to help you already. A more advanced one may be to pick out all the obscure Old Testament allusions in Jesus's words. While understanding such advanced intricacies may have no bearing on a person's salvation, it underscores a point that just as the Ethipian needed help, so do we. If you notice the beginning of Paul's letters, he often starts by expressing frustration at the receipients of his letter for simply not understanding the Message. If Paul himself could not keep the Bible? Catholic answer: with few exceptions, we cannot.
Enter the Pope and the Councils. The Pope is one of the most misunderstood elements within the Church. Simply, he is the successor to St. Peter who was the 1st century bishop of Rome. Peter was martyred sometime around 67 AD along with Paul in Rome. Peter was an important figure. Jesus himself gave Peter, as described in Matthew 16, the keys to the kingdom of heaven to "bind and loose" on earth as he so chose, and it would also therefore be done in heaven. Peter, being the head Apostle, held a position of primacy amongst the rest. He was the leader. It was only natural then that he should become the leader of the Christian community in the most important city in the world at the time, Rome. Just as naturally,
when he died someone had to succeed him to lead the Christians in Rome. So the next Pope, St. Linus, followed him into what would become known as the chair of St. Peter. After St. Linus, St. Anacletus, then St. Clement, and so on until the current Benedict XVI.
The Pope has a number of powers, legally speaking. Without digressing into cannon law at length, it is sufficient to call him the most important person in the Church as the successor of St. Peter. He has the power to declare Dogma, summon a Council, and excommunicate amongst others. The Pope is not always right. No one has claimed this, nor is this the definition of infallibility (if you've heard the term...). What Catholics do hold is that no Pope has ever spoken incorrectly, or contradicted another Pope, on an issue concerning faith and morals when speaking as the Pope.
Simply, the role of the Pope is to guide the Church and speak to the people in order to both lead and clarify.
A Council, first seen in the Book of Acts and held as binding, is a call to the world wide Church to convene and resolve perhaps a particular problem or issue at hand. Apart from the one with Peter, Paul and the other Apostles in the Bible, other famous ones have included the Councilf of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and so on. In these Councils the Church has rejected heresey, agreed upon a Creed and advanced theological and ecclesiastical understandings of both God, Mankind, and various relationships between the two and amongst themselves. Just as the first Council was respected and held as binding, so too do Catholics hold that all other Church Councils have been binding.
The Catholic Church does not venerate any particular translation of the Bible as some Protestants do the King James Version. The Catholic Church sanctions a small number of english translations as legitmate, amongst those are: The Revised Standard Version, the New American Bible along with a few others.
So what does all of this mean? What is the readers digest?
Importantly, the term "faith" (As I have found during some speaking programs I've given) has a different meaning when used by Catholics and Protestants. Often for some Protestant groups (typically the ones discussed here, though not many others) the term includes a notion of certainty. That is, one must know you are saved in order to be saved. You have must both have faith that there is a God and that you are going to be saved because of the blood shed for you on Calvary. Catholics instead take the word to mean, as literally pulled from Hebrews 11, the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. So you believe in God, you believe in Christ, in his work and that it was for you. You do not presume your salvation, as this would be an presumptuous. If God wants to save you as you work out your salvation with fear and trembling (Philipians), he will. But in the mean time, have faith, complete it with works of charity (James 2).
The essence of the arugment can be desconstructed to the Protestant understanding (or mis-understanding depending upon one's viewpoint) of the definition of faith, as inclusive of personal assurance or not in addition to whether works are to be held as inclusive of the work of salvation. Catholics say yes (James 2), Protestants say no (exception: Anglicans).
Jul. 5th, 2007 @ 02:41 am
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
neoinarien's journal
