Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Luther and Erasmus: The Controversy Concerning the Bondage of the Will
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal ^ | April 1999 | Garrett J. Eriks

Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 12,751-12,80012,801-12,85012,851-12,90012,901-12,906 next last
To: Forest Keeper
Isn't the definition of a martyr a person who gives his life for his faith? I don't see that type of connection here.

Technically, you are correct. The more proper term would be a "confessor" rather than a martyr. But the idea is the same, as we are commanded to give our lives for the sake of eternal life and to pick up our cross daily. Thus, we are called to sometimes do things that are "inconvenient" to our modern routines, like picket unfair laws such as abortion or partake in civil disobedience, even if it means being tossed into jail. This is the meaning of a confessor, while a martyr would literally be killed.

My understanding is that the legal system on this issue is in strong need of reform. There is no way for the current labor demand to be met through the normal process. I would be in favor of reform, once the borders are secure.

Well, perhaps with the new fence being erected, the border can be secured somewhat. However, there is no reason not to begin labor reform now.

What exactly is "unmitigated" about our capitalist system? Businesses are regulated to the hilt. When there is exploitation, the government moves in.

Wrong. The Government "moves in" rarely, and those who are actually caught are rarely prosecuted. Enron is a classic case of capitalism gone amuck, while thousands of people lose their pensions... That is the ugly face of capitalism that you just don't hear much about. Unless you have happened to have suffered from such greediness directly.

So, you don't like it that some people have more than others?

I merely note that some people have an extraordinary amount of resources compared to the typical person. It is no secret that God has created the world with ample sources to feed the world - yet millions DIE of starvation every year due to unequal distribution of these resources. I have no problem with people having what they have earned, but capitalism is not necessarily a Christian mindset. It breeds greed and tends to focus people on money to the detriment of people.

Who do you suppose should decide what a "fair" distribution of America's wealth is? Socialists or Democrats? :) You said you voted Republican, but these are all very liberal ideas. ...

I don't have the answer to that. And I would vote Democrat if they weren't so far to the left on so many issues. The Democratic Party has left the American people, as far as I'm concerned. It caters to special interest groups that are not representative of the American people, such as gay rights or feminists.

If everyone felt justified in disobeying any law they didn't like there would be anarchy, don't you agree?

Why the extreme? Why is it that if there is an unfair law, we must revolt against our nation and secede from the Union? The point is that man has the right to overthrow, if necessary, unfair governments, and certainly, to repeal unfair laws - since our government is BY the people, FOR the people. If the PEOPLE feel a law is unfair, then away with it!

Why do you think people come here "illegally"? Why would they pay the equivalent of 1 year's salary to be guided across the border? Because they want our money. Some are willing to work for it, some are not. Obviously, none of them have any respect for the laws of our country, so I cannot respect them.

They want "OUR" money? What makes it "OUR" money? That is hilarious... I live in a place where there is high unemployment - lots of homeless moving around through here. You think they want "OUR" money that a farmer is willing to pay? Whatever. They stand in line for taxpayer funded welfare, begging for money on the side of the interstate. They don't work for a dime of it. Meanwhile, "illegals" come here and work their ass off and you complain about "OUR" money? Quite frankly, if it weren't for "illegals", your vegatables would quadruple in price, if not more, because lazy Americans on welfare aren't going to go out in the fields. What did Paul tell the Thessalonians about "no work, no food"? Apparently, you are well shielded from the realities of a person in desperate need and willing to work for it.

That's interesting because it is so completely ANTI-scriptural. I suppose you'll also say that Jesus favors sin if the person decides it's for a good cause?

Please. Crossing a 'line in the desert' is not sin! I don't remember seeing that as one of the Ten Commandments, nor is it against the Law of Love. You are really reaching here. Now, in a case like "Les Miserables", that will always be a morally challenging issue. However, the Catholic Church does not consider stealing bread a major mortal sin, as the situation plays a part in determining the seriousness of the sin. In a parallel, Biblical situation, what did Jesus tell the Pharisees who complained as you do about gleaning wheat on the Sabbath?? Seems that we can apply this to the illegal alien situation, in my opinion. Lame laws are not above the basic human desire to earn a living and feed one's family. This is a basic application of the Law of Love and the dignity of man.

Regards

12,851 posted on 09/18/2006 6:06:22 AM PDT by jo kus (Humility is present when one debases oneself without being obliged to do so- St.Chrysostom; Phil 2:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12828 | View Replies]

To: wmfights
You have a questionable document from a source pretending to be someone else. The appearance of the document is at least 100 years after the fact. Only in our liberal universities today would this information be considered credible.

First, you are applying the "rules" of the academy of 2006 to 150 AD. It was accepted practice to write in the name of another person - it didn't automatically condemn the writing. Very few people believe that Peter actually wrote 2 Peter, and many scholars disagree that Paul wrote the Pastorals. This doesn't change the view that scholars have that these writings reflect the view and philosophy of Peter and Paul.

While I agree that the document has questionable material in it, that doesn't make the entire document false. And as I have labored to say, Marian doctrines don't originate with this document, so it is really a moot point to argue the document's historical value. Can anyone doubt that Mary's mother is correctly listed in the Gospel of James? My theory is that there was oral traditions floating around (just as there were BEFORE the Gospels were written) and the writer used the known ones, adding in legendary accounts to fill in the blanks. Thus, I would venture to bet that a lot of the background information is true - while the narratives and stories are of a different literary genre that "CNN reporting".

Regards

12,852 posted on 09/18/2006 6:15:22 AM PDT by jo kus (Humility is present when one debases oneself without being obliged to do so- St.Chrysostom; Phil 2:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12850 | View Replies]

To: jo kus

"While I agree that the document has questionable material in it, that doesn't make the entire document false."

Following this defense I suppose we should look at the Gnostic books as legitimate.
_____________________________________

"My theory is that there was oral traditions floating around (just as there were BEFORE the Gospels were written) and the writer used the known ones, adding in legendary accounts to fill in the blanks."

This is why those of us that are not RC refuse to consider "Tradition" as a reliable source. It can be added to or deleted from at will to fit the times. It's a shame that we don't have any reliable sources of information about Mary. She was obviously a very special woman and I think there were parts of her life that would have been inspiring to know about.


12,853 posted on 09/18/2006 7:14:37 AM PDT by wmfights (Psalm : 27)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12852 | View Replies]

To: wmfights
I wrote: "While I agree that the document has questionable material in it, that doesn't make the entire document false."

wmfights wrote: Following this defense I suppose we should look at the Gnostic books as legitimate.

I am speaking about the historical information found in the Gospel of James. You are jumping to conclusions. In analyzing ancient writings, we don't dismiss the entire book because we find POSSIBLY legendary accounts in them. You are going beyond what I am defending. The reason WHY we know that the Gnostic Gospels have false theology is because OF the Traditions passed down by the Apostles were not the same as what was found in the Gnostic Gospels, even those purported to be written by an Apostle, such as Thomas.

This is why those of us that are not RC refuse to consider "Tradition" as a reliable source. It can be added to or deleted from at will to fit the times. It's a shame that we don't have any reliable sources of information about Mary. She was obviously a very special woman and I think there were parts of her life that would have been inspiring to know about.

And this is where non-infallible traditions come into play. Apparently, there was such a demand in 250 AD, as there is today about the "hidden life" of Christ and about Christ's mother - undoubtedly, who knew more about Jesus then any other human. But we are arguing about "traditions", not INFALLIBLE teachings, such as the virginity of Mary, which are NOT based on this Gospel! If you refuse to consider "Tradition" (meaning legitimate Apostolic Tradition, not traditions that are subject to human falliblity) as legitimate, then you stand on sand. You can't even know that the Bible IS the Word of God WITHOUT an infalllible teaching authority to vouch for the contents of the Canon. It is special pleading without any evidence to say that "God guided the formation of the canon - but nothing else".

God established a visible Church to guard this deposit, giving it the Holy Spirit to infallibly transmit His revelation. The Apostles realize they are giving infallible teachings (see Gal 1:9) and the Apostles command their successors to continue to guard this sacred deposit with the help of the Spirit. Thus, I see no reason, from Scripture or common sense, to believe that God stopped giving the Church guidance on His revelation that He wants given, whether by oral transmission or word of mouth. If He gave it infallibly to the first generation, why not the second?

Regards

12,854 posted on 09/18/2006 7:49:26 AM PDT by jo kus (Humility is present when one debases oneself without being obliged to do so- St.Chrysostom; Phil 2:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12853 | View Replies]

To: jo kus
Thus, we are called to sometimes do things that are "inconvenient" to our modern routines, like picket unfair laws such as abortion or partake in civil disobedience, even if it means being tossed into jail. This is the meaning of a confessor, ...

I have no problem with lawful picketing, and I can even have sympathy for exhibits such as an "unlawful" sit-in, which results in arrest. In these cases no harm is or can be done to others. I do draw a bright line, though, between that and such things as harboring illegals. In this case the harborer decides on his own to extract potentially thousands and thousands of tax dollars away from benefiting Americans and transferring those monies to benefiting those the harborer thinks are more worthy. This obviously takes the form of all the social services that are provided free to illegals. In the truest sense, this is vigilante income redistribution. I don't think Jesus ever taught that. :)

Well, perhaps with the new fence being erected, the border can be secured somewhat. However, there is no reason not to begin labor reform now.

Theoretically yes, but politically no. The only guys on my side on this issue are the House Republicans and I see what they see. By "labor reform" what most of the rest of them want is full amnesty leading to full citizenship. By tying the two together, it will be either no border protection at all (status quo), or a fence with millions of people still getting away scott free with braking the law. Aside from this being morally wrong, House Republicans know their constituents will never go for it, so they are quite correct to separate the issues. Reagan got completely burned along these lines in the 80's. He tied together tax cuts with spending cuts. We got the tax cuts but only got spending increases. If we grant amnesty first, there will never be a fence.

Wrong. The Government "moves in" rarely, and those who are actually caught are rarely prosecuted. Enron is a classic case of capitalism gone amok, while thousands of people lose their pensions...

Well, what happened to the Enron guys? :) What about Adelphia, or WorldCom, or Tyco, or Arthur Anderson, or Microsoft etc.? These are all big fish that made national headlines for months at a time just in the last few years. I completely disagree if you are implying that big business is free to loot and pillage at will.

I have no problem with people having what they have earned, but capitalism is not necessarily a Christian mindset.

Any system can be corrupted, but when practiced honorably, I do believe that capitalism reflects Christianity. That's because it is based on freedom. Under what system do the richest poor people in the world live? Of course it is capitalism. With a free economy, more goods are produced and are more affordable to the poor. In addition, more money is free to be given to the poor. As we discussed before, capitalist countries are far and away the largest givers.

The Democratic Party has left the American people, as far as I'm concerned. It caters to special interest groups that are not representative of the American people, such as gay rights or feminists.

I agree. And just to show that I'm not overly partisan, I could see myself voting for a Zell Miller-type Democrat. :)

FK: "If everyone felt justified in disobeying any law they didn't like there would be anarchy, don't you agree?"

Why is it that if there is an unfair law, we must revolt against our nation and secede from the Union? The point is that man has the right to overthrow, if necessary, unfair governments, and certainly, to repeal unfair laws - since our government is BY the people, FOR the people. If the PEOPLE feel a law is unfair, then away with it!

I just said that I didn't think the DOI applied as you said. I am not leaping to the extreme you cite above. However, there would be anarchy because an "unfair law" is in the eye of the beholder. We agree that a "Christian" who thinks the abortion law is unfair is not justified in murdering abortion doctors. However, I do not know what you would say to a much lesser offense. What if a group of Christians decided to vandalize as many abortion clinics as they could? Not with bombs, but with spray paint and doing other damage to buildings, without injuring anyone. With the point being to frighten away abortion seekers, would that be justified to you? I really don't know how you would answer. We can assume that taxpayer money would be used for repairs so it would be another vigilante income redistribution.

Yes, if the people believe that a law is unfair it should be done away with. LEGALLY! In our country that can be done without overthrowing the government and without breaking any laws.

They want "OUR" money? What makes it "OUR" money? That is hilarious...

Not much of a nationalist, are you? :) However, the Bible does foretell of a one-world-government system that you imply you support. It will happen.

However, the Catholic Church does not consider stealing bread a major mortal sin, as the situation plays a part in determining the seriousness of the sin.

Ah, I honestly did not know that Catholicism supports situational ethics and the doctrine of justifiable sin. That is very interesting.

[continuing:] In a parallel, Biblical situation, what did Jesus tell the Pharisees who complained as you do about gleaning wheat on the Sabbath?? Seems that we can apply this to the illegal alien situation, in my opinion. Lame laws are not above the basic human desire to earn a living and feed one's family. This is a basic application of the Law of Love and the dignity of man.

I can't believe you are making this argument. :) You say this as if it were the same as Jesus telling the disciples to not pay their taxes because they needed the money. NO! It is completely different. This was about a religious law, not the law of a valid political government. For this purpose, Jesus WAS the valid political government and declared He was Lord of the Sabbath. When you and others declare that you all are "Lord of the law" in deciding which ones to honor, you are, in essence, claiming the authority of Christ.

12,855 posted on 09/18/2006 8:21:54 PM PDT by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12851 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; jo kus
Reagan got completely burned along these lines in the 80's. He tied together tax cuts with spending cuts. We got the tax cuts but only got spending increases. If we grant amnesty first, there will never be a fence.

You might recall Reagan also granted amnesty to all the illegal immigants in the country. The argument at that time was this would be a one time deal. Now here we are a few years later with 12 million (some estimate 30) illegal immigants. Amnesty will never work.

12,856 posted on 09/19/2006 5:48:03 AM PDT by HarleyD ("Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures" Luke 24:45)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12855 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
I do draw a bright line, though, between that and such things as harboring illegals. In this case the harborer decides on his own to extract potentially thousands and thousands of tax dollars away from benefiting Americans and transferring those monies to benefiting those the harborer thinks are more worthy.

How would I do that? I don't decide to give illegals free medical care. I don't give illegals Social Security. What is the problem with letting a person work if they want to work? Do you think unemployed American citizens are clawing at the farmer's door trying to get hired to harvest the fields? What money am I taking away from Americans?

In the truest sense, this is vigilante income redistribution. I don't think Jesus ever taught that.

Wow, a new term! I think Jesus had a lot to say about the rich and their inability to enter heaven. I think a meditation on the Good Samaritan would be of help here for you, as the Samaritan was an "illegal" in Jewish society during the time of Christ...

If we grant amnesty first, there will never be a fence.

The fence is already being built. Amnesty is not a solution to the problem, as amnesty has already been given and that didn't do a bit to solve the problem. No doubt legal entry reform is needed in this country.

Well, what happened to the Enron guys? ...These are all big fish that made national headlines for months at a time just in the last few years

Very little. A few years of jail time for stealing millions and millions of dollars. Boo hoo... I suppose their stock options are only worth 10 billion apiece as opposed to 15 billion. I feel for them... Meanwhile, people who have been saving for years and relying on a pension are out of luck. It is not a good situation - all because of the greed of a few people. People are exploited and those who do generally get away with it.

Any system can be corrupted, but when practiced honorably, I do believe that capitalism reflects Christianity

Ah, now your Calvinistic background is showing. Capitalism has no concern for those who are unfortunate or for companies who are perceived as having problems. Capitalism is the economic equivalent of Darwinism's "survival of the fitest". That's not a Christian idea at all. Community has no place in capitalism.

I agree. And just to show that I'm not overly partisan, I could see myself voting for a Zell Miller-type Democrat. :)

Heck, I'd vote for anyone who could bring valid change. It would be nice just to vote everyone out and start over...

However, there would be anarchy because an "unfair law" is in the eye of the beholder. We agree that a "Christian" who thinks the abortion law is unfair is not justified in murdering abortion doctors. However, I do not know what you would say to a much lesser offense.

I am not calling for an "eye for an eye" by killing others who perform abortion. That is hypocrisy. ALL laws are in the eye of the beholder. But man has enough common sense to judge as a community that some laws make no sense. There is no reason to believe that laws have some sort of force over mankind just because they were implemented by 5 or 7 people with an agenda. IF this country was truly democratic, then you could actually vote on such matters. But this is a republic where our "representatives" vote. I don't happen to agree with my "representatives" on many issues. Unfortunately, those I voted for didn't win. Thus, I disagree with much of my "representatives'" stands. Naturally, I will send letters or voice my opinion in contradiction to him. If necessary and if I feel strongly enough, I will take more drastic action. I do not feel embolden to obey a law merely because it is a law, esp. an unjust law. Yours is an American phenomenom (holding laws as "sacred"). The only way bad laws are changed is by people with conviction standing up and making a statement. Sorry if that rocks your world, but people are more important than laws.

Yes, if the people believe that a law is unfair it should be done away with. LEGALLY! In our country that can be done without overthrowing the government and without breaking any laws.

So you have a problem with those who stand outside an abortion clinic and someone calls the cops on them and throws them in jail for "disturbing the peace"? You are overly concerned with laws. Does God tell us to love our neighbor or to worry about obeying unfair laws? Did not Christ heal on the Sabbath? I think you are not taking into account the teachings of Christ.

Not much of a nationalist, are you? :) However, the Bible does foretell of a one-world-government system that you imply you support. It will happen.

I'm Catholic, we are universalistic. I am not calling for a "one-world government", that is not feasible. I am calling for the repeal of unfair laws as judged by the people. That is our God-given right, says the DOI (and the Catholic Church). Man has a dignity about him, being made in the image and likeness of God. Laws are not made in the image of God and no one owes them such respect. Bad laws are to be eliminated. This has nothing to do with a "one-world government".

As to the "one-world government", I think this is a misinterpretation of the book of Revelation. More properly, this is merely the contrast between the City of God and the City of Man.

I honestly did not know that Catholicism supports situational ethics and the doctrine of justifiable sin. That is very interesting.

Stealing is still sinful, it is just that the culpability is less in some situations. Not all sins are the same seriousness. And certainly, we do not believe that the ends justify the means. Thus, there is no "justifiable sin". There is a difference in being an Enron executive and an old lady who shop-lifts a bar of soap because her pension fund was raided and she is broke. Both are sins, but they are not the same. Some may consider the former to be a mortal sin...

You say this as if it were the same as Jesus telling the disciples to not pay their taxes because they needed the money. NO! It is completely different. This was about a religious law, not the law of a valid political government. For this purpose, Jesus WAS the valid political government and declared He was Lord of the Sabbath. When you and others declare that you all are "Lord of the law" in deciding which ones to honor, you are, in essence, claiming the authority of Christ.

Several things here need to be addressed.

Religious law of Jewish theocracy means much more than today. There was no distinction between "religious" law and "political" law in the Jewish mindset. Certainly, the Romans had their own laws, but killing someone was considered a breaking of a religious law, as was commiting usury. Times have changed between now and then. Thus, we CAN make the comparison today with Jesus' teachings of gleaning wheat or curing on the Sabbath.

Secondly, Jesus NEVER claimed to be a political power, so I am not sure what you are saying by that statement. When He said He was "Lord of the Sabbath", He was saying that the needs of man come before the ritual rules invented by the Pharisees - such AS helping a person in need on the Sabbath. Again, I see the same rules applying today in our situation.

And finally, I am not claiming the authority of Christ by judging laws that are unfair. The Holy Spirit enables me to judge unfair laws to mankind. I stand to gain nothing personally by pushing for the elimination of this law! This is out of recognition that my fellow man (since ALL are our neighbor, says Christ) is in need. The Law of Love demands that I feed the hungry, etc. Your stance in defense of such a law appears more Pharisaical the more I think about it. You defend the law at the expense of a person who has not broken a law against humanity.

Is this much different from holding to the tithes of mint and dill, while forgeting mercy and forgiveness? We are to do the latter while not forgeting the former. Thus, we should obey the laws of the land UNLESS they are deemed unfair by the Spirit-led community. At that point, civil disobedience is a valid response. I would say your stance is not biblical.

Regards

12,857 posted on 09/19/2006 6:33:41 AM PDT by jo kus (Humility is present when one debases oneself without being obliged to do so- St.Chrysostom; Phil 2:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12855 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; Forest Keeper
Amnesty will never work.

Agree. I doesn't solve the problem long-term, nor does it address what caused the problem in the first place.

Regards

12,858 posted on 09/19/2006 6:35:04 AM PDT by jo kus (Humility is present when one debases oneself without being obliged to do so- St.Chrysostom; Phil 2:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12856 | View Replies]

To: jo kus; Forest Keeper

Didn't our Lord say, "You will always have poor with you." As heartless (and as un-Calvinistic) as it may sound, we'll never solve the world's problems.


12,859 posted on 09/19/2006 11:52:32 AM PDT by HarleyD ("Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures" Luke 24:45)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12858 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; jo kus
You might recall Reagan also granted amnesty to all the illegal immigrants in the country. The argument at that time was this would be a one time deal. Now here we are a few years later with 12 million (some estimate 30) illegal immigrants. Amnesty will never work.

Yes, exactly. It was surely one of the biggest mistakes he ever made as president, along with O'Connor. :) It seems the Dems want amnesty now to grow social dependence programs and create new voters. Some Repubs want amnesty to provide cheap labor for businesses and to not offend current Hispanic voters. It really is a lose-lose for the country.

12,860 posted on 09/19/2006 11:56:00 AM PDT by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12856 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
Didn't our Lord say, "You will always have poor with you." As heartless (and as un-Calvinistic) as it may sound, we'll never solve the world's problems.

Is that your rationale for ignoring the poor?

Regards

12,861 posted on 09/19/2006 12:54:57 PM PDT by jo kus (Humility is present when one debases oneself without being obliged to do so- St.Chrysostom; Phil 2:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12859 | View Replies]

To: jo kus

You can't ignore the poor. You can't feed them all either.


12,862 posted on 09/19/2006 4:01:34 PM PDT by HarleyD ("Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures" Luke 24:45)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12861 | View Replies]

To: jo kus; HarleyD
FK: "In this case the harborer decides on his own to extract potentially thousands and thousands of tax dollars away from benefiting Americans ..."

How would I do that? I don't decide to give illegals free medical care. I don't give illegals Social Security.

You are not a harborer, so you are not doing it. However, those who are harborers know that liberal states and courts are requiring that billions of dollars be spent on the care, education, and benefits of illegals. That makes harborers part of the problem.

What is the problem with letting a person work if they want to work?

Nothing, if they do it legally. Drug dealers and prostitutes work too, you know. :) While in most cases they are not morally comparable, they are comparable in that they are lawbreakers earning a living while cheating the rest of society out of their fair share in taxes, etc. Do you really think the vast majority of illegals pay taxes in the U.S? No way.

Do you think unemployed American citizens are clawing at the farmer's door trying to get hired to harvest the fields? What money am I taking away from Americans?

Your philosophy takes plenty of money away from Americans. US citizens cannot afford to live on the $3 an hour that illegals will work for. The poor are shut out of that labor market and are forced onto welfare. The argument that illegals do jobs Americans won't do is BOGUS!!! In the farm industry, where there is the greatest share of illegals, they still only represent 24%. That means those same jobs are being currently done 3 to 1 by Americans. Your policy greatly helps the illegal poor person, and greatly hurts the American poor person. If a market wage was offered for those jobs, Americans would take them. Yes, our vegetables would cost more, but I would gladly pay that difference knowing that Americans would be employed, paying taxes, and their kids would then be able to go to college, etc.

Ah, now your Calvinistic background is showing. Capitalism has no concern for those who are unfortunate or for companies who are perceived as having problems. Capitalism is the economic equivalent of Darwinism's "survival of the fittest". That's not a Christian idea at all. Community has no place in capitalism.

I've heard of being anti-business, but you take it to an extreme. Are you aware of how many billions of dollars are given away each year by American corporations? Gates by himself gives away nine figures. Pharmaceutical companies give away free medicine to the poor. Power companies give credits. Beverage companies give zillions of gallons of water to disaster victims. I could go on for a week. Why would they ever do this if they had no sense of community? Even if you want to take the cynical view, which I'm sure you will :), charity is good business. That is just as much a part of capitalism as anything else.

ALL laws are in the eye of the beholder. But man has enough common sense to judge as a community that some laws make no sense. There is no reason to believe that laws have some sort of force over mankind just because they were implemented by 5 or 7 people with an agenda.

Man has enough common sense, huh? Would these be the same men (all men) that God gives sufficient information to in order to choose Him, and yet they don't? Is that the common sense of man you are talking about? Oh yeah, I think, as you do, that all men should just use their common sense to decide which laws to obey. Come on. :)

So you have a problem with those who stand outside an abortion clinic and someone calls the cops on them and throws them in jail for "disturbing the peace"?

No, this is just like a sit-in that I already told you I was fine with. That doesn't hurt anyone else in any way. I said I see this as being different from hiding a fugitive from justice. Your philosophy actively hurts Americans to help those others you deem more worthy.

Does God tell us to love our neighbor or to worry about obeying unfair laws?

God never said we can't do both at the same time.

Did not Christ heal on the Sabbath? I think you are not taking into account the teachings of Christ.

Who did Christ hurt by healing on the Sabbath? You are comparing apples and oranges. But by all means, prove to me that you are serious. Look at where your taxes are going. You must disagree. I fully encourage you to skip your next return in protest. As you said, that's how unfair laws get changed. Don't worry, God will protect you from any consequences because He healed on the Sabbath. As your argument goes, that gives you the right.

Stealing is still sinful, it is just that the culpability is less in some situations. Not all sins are the same seriousness. And certainly, we do not believe that the ends justify the means. Thus, there is no "justifiable sin".

I respectfully disagree that this reflects anything like what you have told me so far. Your whole position so far has been predicated on your righteousness in determining which laws you will condescend to obey and which you find unacceptable, and thus, feel free to disobey (with God's blessing no less). You argued that if a silly and unfair law, such as against stealing, got in the way of a hungry person, then he had the RIGHT to steal, with God's approval. And, God would think it nothing because of the circumstances. Now, it sounds like you're taking it back. The weight of evidence is that your above paragraph is an anomaly. You have showed me very little respect for the laws of the United States.

Religious law of Jewish theocracy means much more than today. There was no distinction between "religious" law and "political" law in the Jewish mindset. ... Thus, we CAN make the comparison today with Jesus' teachings of gleaning wheat or curing on the Sabbath.

No, there is no comparison. Jesus completed the law as was His right and mission. He did not give this right to you. Show me where Jesus teaches that each of us writes his own law under a valid political government. Of course, He does not.

The Law of Love demands that I feed the hungry, etc. Your stance in defense of such a law [defending the borders] appears more Pharisaical the more I think about it. You defend the law at the expense of a person who has not broken a law against humanity.

And you defend an unlawful action which includes jeopardy to the safety and security of your own countrymen. While I am sure that you will vouch for the non-hostility of 15 million illegals, some of the rest of us can't take your word for it. :) I really did think you were kidding with all of this, but now you have convinced me. Your views of our sovereignty as a nation, the Constitution, and the laws of the United States, are clear to me now. :) I guess that is what universalism is.

12,863 posted on 09/20/2006 1:23:21 AM PDT by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12857 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; jo kus
Your philosophy takes plenty of money away from Americans.

Absolutely correct. There is only a finite amount of resources. When you take money away from one, it goes to another. Allowing illegals into the country only exacerbates the health care system that our elderly depends on.

So who would you like to have health care jo kus? The elderly who worked all their lives and lived in this country legally or the illegals? You can't have all of the above.

jo kus-That's not a Christian idea at all. Community has no place in capitalism.

This was tried in the Soviet Union. It didn't work. If the Catholic Church is so intent with giving money away, perhaps they should sell off their billions of dollars worth of art and convert the Vatican into timeshares. What you are spouting is the philosophy of Thomas More and one that the Catholic Church tried unsuccessfully to implement. It's nothing more than communism in my mind.

The early Christians shared things with other Christians. That didn't mean they gave up all their wealth to one another.

12,864 posted on 09/20/2006 2:19:26 AM PDT by HarleyD ("Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures" Luke 24:45)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12863 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
You can't ignore the poor. You can't feed them all either.

God doesn't mean for me to feed all the poor in the world. Christ expects us to feed those who come into contact with us, as He tells us in Mat 25:31-45...

Regards

12,865 posted on 09/20/2006 6:26:37 AM PDT by jo kus (Humility is present when one debases oneself without being obliged to do so- St.Chrysostom; Phil 2:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12862 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
Your philosophy takes plenty of money away from Americans. US citizens cannot afford to live on the $3 an hour that illegals will work for. The poor are shut out of that labor market and are forced onto welfare.

What a crock. There are numerous jobs in the newspaper, yet, unemployment is high here and there are a number of homeless AMERICANS who refuse to work, prefering to milk the welfare system. And why can illegal aliens work on three dollars an hour (or whatever) while living in America? What magic do they employ to be able to make ends meet while Americans cannot?

The argument that illegals do jobs Americans won't do is BOGUS!!! In the farm industry, where there is the greatest share of illegals, they still only represent 24%.

I don't know what you are talking about. Every field that I drive by is full of Mexican laborers. I don't see any Americans out there...What your statistics are not taking into account is the very broad number of types of jobs. Sure, Americans will take the job of driving tractors or managing laborers. But who do you think is cutting the lettuce? In labor-intense jobs, there are very few Americans.

Are you aware of how many billions of dollars are given away each year by American corporations? Gates by himself gives away nine figures. Pharmaceutical companies give away free medicine to the poor. Power companies give credits. Beverage companies give zillions of gallons of water to disaster victims. I could go on for a week. Why would they ever do this if they had no sense of community?

Well, Gates is not the norm! But the rest is based on tax credits. The owners of these companies are NOT in the business of giving money away to the community, but in making money for their shareholders. Anything given away is a drop in the bucket and is received back in tax credits...

Man has enough common sense, huh? Would these be the same men (all men) that God gives sufficient information to in order to choose Him, and yet they don't? Is that the common sense of man you are talking about? Oh yeah, I think, as you do, that all men should just use their common sense to decide which laws to obey. Come on. :)

God gives us free will, so He doesn't overwhelm us with His power and force us to choose Him. Our choice in Him is based on faith, not certainty. Anything that happens in our lives that we attribute to God COULD be attributed to blind luck, coincidence, or our own natural abilities. We believe that God acts in our lives, not random events. But this is a matter of faith. Thus, yours is a false argument, since God is not based on empirical evidence.

No, this is just like a sit-in that I already told you I was fine with. That doesn't hurt anyone else in any way.

Oh, but they do... Those who fight for the "right to choose" are bothered by any type of display that gives a person the right to choose life. Thus, they may call the police to have peaceful demonstrations dispersed.

Who did Christ hurt by healing on the Sabbath?

that is not the question you have posed to me. You have told me that because of its mere existence, I should obey a law. I disagree with that idea.

But by all means, prove to me that you are serious. Look at where your taxes are going. You must disagree. I fully encourage you to skip your next return in protest. As you said, that's how unfair laws get changed. Don't worry, God will protect you from any consequences because He healed on the Sabbath. As your argument goes, that gives you the right.

That certainly is an option, but my convictions are not so strong on this subject to do such a thing. My conscience is not offended as greatly to take such action regarding my taxes, because I am told to pay to Caesar what is Caesar's...

Your whole position so far has been predicated on your righteousness in determining which laws you will condescend to obey and which you find unacceptable, and thus, feel free to disobey (with God's blessing no less). You argued that if a silly and unfair law, such as against stealing, got in the way of a hungry person, then he had the RIGHT to steal, with God's approval. And, God would think it nothing because of the circumstances.

Could you please quote me where I said anything to that effect? I merely said that a person's culpability in stealing is less, not non-existent, when stealing. Stealing is ALWAYS a sin! The circumstances will effect the "level" of sin against God. However, feeding a person who is defined as an illegal (a Samaritan?) is not against the Ten Commandments, but against the laws of men. My conscience dictates that I obey God's Law first, since He has given precedent for disobeying the laws of men so as to obey the Law of Love.

You have showed me very little respect for the laws of the United States.

When they are in contradistinction to the laws of God, they deserve no respect. Abortion is a horrific law, I don't give a crap if it is an "American" law. Sending Jews to labor camps because they are Jews is a horrific law, I don't care if it was a "German" law. We judge man's law through the lenses of Jesus Christ.

I thought a Christian would know that we answer to God first, not man. If we all thought as you did, there would be not a single martyr or confessor in the Church's history. Meditate on that for awhile, FK. Ask yourself WHY they gave their lives - in defiance of man's "laws"...

Regards

12,866 posted on 09/20/2006 6:59:44 AM PDT by jo kus (Humility is present when one debases oneself without being obliged to do so- St.Chrysostom; Phil 2:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12863 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
The early Christians shared things with other Christians. That didn't mean they gave up all their wealth to one another.

So sharing what I own with the community is not giving up my wealth to others? I had never thought of it that way!

Regards

12,867 posted on 09/20/2006 7:02:09 AM PDT by jo kus (Humility is present when one debases oneself without being obliged to do so- St.Chrysostom; Phil 2:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12864 | View Replies]

To: jo kus; HarleyD
And why can illegal aliens work on three dollars an hour (or whatever) while living in America? What magic do they employ to be able to make ends meet while Americans cannot?

Because they are willing to live in squalor, 20 to a shack. Your philosophy says "why shouldn't Americans live like that?". Mine says "Why should they?". It comes down to valuing one group of people over another. For whatever reason, it seems clear you value illegals above Americans. My loyalties are to my countrymen above illegal aliens when scarce resources are at stake.

Plus, illegals don't have the expenses that other poor Americans have because social services are provided for free (stolen). American working poor have to pay their taxes and contribute to their medical care from their paychecks etc. Illegals have none of these expenses, by and large.

Sure, Americans will take the job of driving tractors or managing laborers. But who do you think is cutting the lettuce? In labor-intense jobs, there are very few Americans.

If there are very few Americans it is because they have been priced out of the market by illegals. This is Economics 101. The free market is being disturbed by the illegals. The only justification I have heard is the preference of one people (illegals) over another (Americans).

Well, Gates is not the norm! But the rest is based on tax credits. The owners of these companies are NOT in the business of giving money away to the community, but in making money for their shareholders. Anything given away is a drop in the bucket and is received back in tax credits...

You're unbelievable. :) Are you a tax lawyer? Where in the world do you get that charitable contributions are all made back in tax credits? That's nonsense. If that was true then every corporation would give enough away (to earn the good will) to pay no taxes at all. Do you think big companies pay no taxes? I don't even understand your complaint. American corporations give away billions of dollars to worthy causes every year and that is bad BECAUSE ...? This is free market capitalism, and you don't think this is compatible with Christianity?

God gives us free will, so He doesn't overwhelm us with His power and force us to choose Him. Our choice in Him is based on faith, not certainty. Anything that happens in our lives that we attribute to God COULD be attributed to blind luck, coincidence, or our own natural abilities. We believe that God acts in our lives, not random events. But this is a matter of faith. Thus, yours is a false argument, since God is not based on empirical evidence.

We were talking about your assertion that man has enough common sense to decide which laws to obey and which to ignore. I pointed out that under your theology, most people have little or no common sense (as you said because they do not have faith), therefore with all information necessary (under the Catholic view) they still choose satan over Christ. I do not see how your above responds to the issue. If you agree that most people do not have faith, and therefore common sense, then how is the result NOT anarchy when according to you everyone should decide for himself which laws he should obey?

FK: "No, this is just like a sit-in that I already told you I was fine with. That doesn't hurt anyone else in any way."

Oh, but they do... Those who fight for the "right to choose" are bothered by any type of display that gives a person the right to choose life. Thus, they may call the police to have peaceful demonstrations dispersed.

No, when I said "hurt" I meant physically or financially. Americans have the right to protest, even if it hurts someone else's feelings. If the demonstration was truly peaceful, and the organizers had their permits, then there is nothing the cops can do. ... You are defending harboring illegals which, if systematically adopted by other clergy, absolutely WILL lead to the physical injury or death of law abiding Americans AND the physical draining of American financial resources. While I already know you have no problem reaching into the wallets of law abiding Americans to finance your pet projects, I wonder what those clergy and you will tell the families and victims of violent crimes committed by the illegals you have decided have a right to be here in defiance of the Constitution.

You have told me that because of its mere existence, I should obey a law. I disagree with that idea.

No, I have said that you should obey a law of a valid political government, when such law does not separate you from God. That gets rid of Daniel-type comparisons. You have also disagreed with THIS idea. I do not see Christ approving of any person today, who picks and chooses, based on his own judgment, which laws he shall obey and which laws he is above in his own mind. This is especially true when the breaking of the law directly harms others, as is the case here. Such a person is anarchistic and anti-social towards an ordered and civilized society. IOW, not a very good Christian example. :)

Could you please quote me where I said anything to that effect? I merely said that a person's culpability in stealing is less, not non-existent, when stealing.

You have said, in effect, that you do not feel honor bound to follow any law you think is unfair, or is unjust. Is that not accurate? When you labeled stealing "in special circumstances" as being a non-mortal sin, I instantly knew that such a sin need not even be confessed. IOW, wink wink, not a big deal even though it's straight from the Ten Commandments.

However, feeding a person who is defined as an illegal (a Samaritan?) is not against the Ten Commandments, but against the laws of men. My conscience dictates that I obey God's Law first, since He has given precedent for disobeying the laws of men so as to obey the Law of Love.

It proves you are scrambling when you keep raising an undisputed issue. I have never used whatever California law you are referring to in my arguments. Feeding is fine, harboring or obstructing justice is criminal. Your "Law of Love" protects some small percentage of illegals who WILL go on to murder and otherwise hurt Americans. ALL of those you protect take food off the table from all Americans. Where does God teach us to individually TAKE from our neighbor to help the poor?

When [American laws] are in contradistinction to the laws of God, they deserve no respect. Abortion is a horrific law, I don't give a crap if it is an "American" law. Sending Jews to labor camps because they are Jews is a horrific law, I don't care if it was a "German" law. We judge man's law through the lenses of Jesus Christ.

First of all, the German government is different because it COMPELLED the murder of innocents. For comparative purposes, this would be like Daniel's situation, a compulsion to disobey God. In this case American law doesn't do that, it offers to allow people to break God's law. Nobody requires our women to get abortions. Big difference.

Second of all, if your philosophy grew in popularity then it is an absolute certainty that Americans would be killed by some of those harbored by clergy. According to you, God approves of illegals having a better quality of life, AND that is worth the trade of some Americans dying (a statistical certainty since the clergy cannot possibly promise that none of their fugitives will murder in the future).

Now, using this as a base, do you approve of people shooting abortion doctors as a protest? American lives WOULD be saved with every less abortionist out there, no? Legalized murder is an unjust law, no? God must approve of this because in comparison, while still some American abortionists are killed (but God was fine with that before), in this case more American lives are saved. This sounds like a much better deal than what you are advocating, because with your philosophy there is only the death of Americans, no lives are saved because all the illegals face is deportation. On the one hand, by supporting harboring you de facto approve of some deaths of Americans to further the quality of life of illegals as a whole. If so, then you must also approve of the deaths of other Americans, if it actually saves more lives. This entire argument is possible since you freely admit that you have no respect for laws you do not like.

12,868 posted on 09/20/2006 9:27:29 PM PDT by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12866 | View Replies]

To: jo kus; Forest Keeper
So sharing what I own with the community is not giving up my wealth to others? I had never thought of it that way!

Well that was poorly worded. It doesn't negate the fact that Christians aren't called to take a vow of poverty nor does God require people to give 10% as many suggest. God wants us to give freely as He has given to us freely.

That being said if everyone in America gave away their wealth tomorrow, do you honestly think it would solve anything? And who do you give it to or classify as "poor"? Are people who can't afford vacations and piano lessons for their children poor? Are those who live in low income housing and have no health insurance in Alabama poor? Are those who live in grass huts with no sewer or clean water systems in Africa poor? In the end they could all be deemed poor. It never ends as Christ stated.

It's very nice people would like to give my tax dollars to help those who THEY think are most needy. This isn't Christian charity but simply rendering on to Caesar. I don't mind supporting those who have worked and are in the country LEGALLY but Paul stated that if a man does not work, he should not eat (2 Thess 3:10). Rather a harsh statement from a godly man.

12,869 posted on 09/21/2006 1:37:06 AM PDT by HarleyD ("Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures" Luke 24:45)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12867 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; jo kus
I haven't read all this exchange but I believe you're absolutely right FK. Personally, I do not believe Christians should be engaged in "civil" disobedience. I believe it to be unscriptural. The ONLY exception is where it conflicts with the word of God.

Paul lived in one of the worst times. He didn't incite the Corinthians to rally against the corrupt times. Christians are not called to change society. We are called to be lights to the world. This light will change society if He sees fit.

12,870 posted on 09/21/2006 1:48:52 AM PDT by HarleyD ("Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures" Luke 24:45)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12868 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
For whatever reason, it seems clear you value illegals above Americans. My loyalties are to my countrymen above illegal aliens when scarce resources are at stake.

Not at all. I think you are taking my argument way too far (why am I not surprised...). I am merely saying that a law should not prevent us from aiding a person in desperate need. This country does NOT have "scarce resources". This nation has enough resources to feed the entire world by itself... The problem is vastly unequal distribution. Consider how the middle class in this country is shrinking. I do not hold any law as sacred if it interferes with my duty as a Christian. Nor do I rationalize that because a man is an illegal alien, I shouldn't help him. That is exactly that attitude Jesus condemns in the story of the Good Samaritan. My loyalty is to God and His Laws, not the man-made laws of this Country. If they coincide, I obey. If not, then I follow Christ. And you?

Plus, illegals don't have the expenses that other poor Americans have because social services are provided for free (stolen).

Stolen? They are freely given. There are numerous charities and governmental programs that give to people in need. They don't "steal" social services from anyone. It doesn't make a difference to charities WHO comes to them, as long as they are in need. If you feel resources are too few, that is because we live in a country that has little care for the community.

American corporations give away billions of dollars to worthy causes every year and that is bad BECAUSE ...? This is free market capitalism, and you don't think this is compatible with Christianity?

You have an uncanny way of putting words into other people's mouths. Slow down! I never said that companies giving money to charities is bad... I am saying that they are not in the business of giving money to the poor. Isn't it rather obvious that at the corporate level, there is a huge unequal distribution of wealth? I am sure that the CEO of a faltering company is really worth that 20 million dollar golden parachute...As to "giving away billions", perhaps you should read a company's financial report someday and see how much IS charitable contributions...it is minute.

We were talking about your assertion that man has enough common sense to decide which laws to obey and which to ignore. I pointed out that under your theology, most people have little or no common sense (as you said because they do not have faith)...

I don't think one must have faith to have common sense. Even before my conversion, I had enough "sense" to know that murdering an unborn infant was morally wrong, that sending Jews to prison for being Jews was wrong, and so forth. The Bible clearly tells us that God has written a Law unto people's hearts - even on pagans. Thus, it isn't absolutely necessary to be a Christian to have common sense on the morality of a law, as you are saying.

No, when I said "hurt" I meant physically or financially. Americans have the right to protest, even if it hurts someone else's feelings

As long as it has nothing to do with feeding a starving illegal alien, because then I would be helping a person steal from a poor American...

You are defending harboring illegals

I am? I said I understand the good Cardinal's view, but I also said I didn't condone it. My concern is against laws that charge me with a misdemeanor for helping someone who is hungry or thirsty. What would Jesus do? Would he obey such a law?

Feeding is fine, harboring or obstructing justice is criminal.

By feeding and giving drink, apparently, I am aiding and abetting a "crinimal".

Your "Law of Love" protects some small percentage of illegals who WILL go on to murder and otherwise hurt Americans. ALL of those you protect take food off the table from all Americans. Where does God teach us to individually TAKE from our neighbor to help the poor?

That is terrible rationalization. Because "15%" of illegals are criminals, that excuses you from not doing ANYTHING to help a neighbor (as defined by Christ, not the American government) in need? Potentially, ANYONE who holds out a hand is a criminal (as defined by God's Law) in this country, so your argument is worthless and an poor attempt to justify yourself.

To be perfectly and brutally honest, I am beginning to question your idea of comfortable Christianity. Is this the result of your self-proclaimed salvation? Is this your faith in action?

ALL of those you protect take food off the table from all Americans. Where does God teach us to individually TAKE from our neighbor to help the poor?

It teaches us to take food off OUR table and give to the poor. Or were you not aware of that teaching, either?

First of all, the German government is different because it COMPELLED the murder of innocents. For comparative purposes, this would be like Daniel's situation, a compulsion to disobey God. In this case American law doesn't do that, it offers to allow people to break God's law. Nobody requires our women to get abortions. Big difference.

I think you need to read up on the rise of the Third Reich, because you don't know what you are talking about. The attitude towards the Jews preceded the rise of the Nazi Party and Adolph Hitler utilized this. Jews were placed in concentration camps BEFORE World War 2. They were treated as second class citizens by the general population BEFORE World War 2. And we are talking about a first-world Christian nation! Considering your attitude towards the sacredness of law and illegal aliens as second class folk, I see similarities between your excuses and the German people's excuses for not helping a neighbor in need. "It's the law. I can't help a person hungry. He is an (illegal/Jew)"... This is NOT the Christianity of the Bible. "There is no Greek or Jew, man or woman, slave or freeman",... illegal alien or legal citizen...

I seriously doubt that Christ would cast out an illegal alien, since He had no problems going to ALL members of society, Samaritans, pagans, Pharisees, tax collectors, etc...

According to you, God approves of illegals having a better quality of life, AND that is worth the trade of some Americans dying (a statistical certainty since the clergy cannot possibly promise that none of their fugitives will murder in the future).

When did I say I favor harboring illegals, especially who were criminals? And of course, your logic is quite silly, because it leads to the rationalization that one should not give to ANY charity, because some of that money might find its way into the hands of an AMERICAN criminal... That is why the Bible doesn't tell us to judge a person's exterior and we are to give freely, regardless if the person is a sinner or a taxcollector.

Now, using this as a base, do you approve of people shooting abortion doctors as a protest?

I already told you "no". It is never "OK" to commit a crime against the Ten Commandments, nor does the end justify the means. The rest of your argument depends on a "yes", so I won't bother with it.

I must admit, your "comfortable Christianity" is cause for concern. Is this a common thing in Protestantism? Are there Protestants who are willing to obey God before man?

Regards

12,871 posted on 09/21/2006 6:39:37 AM PDT by jo kus (Humility is present when one debases oneself without being obliged to do so- St.Chrysostom; Phil 2:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12868 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
if everyone in America gave away their wealth tomorrow, do you honestly think it would solve anything?

Yes, for those who receive it. I do not believe God wants us to give away our wealth, at least all of us generally (though He may call specific persons to do that). God DOES appear to us through other people in need - and it appears our salvation will depend, to a degree, on how we treat people in need (Mat 25:31-45). Giving a cup of water to one who is thirsty is an act of kindness that should not be done away with merely because it won't solve the ENTIRE WORLD'S problems. God gave me limited resources, so He certainly does not expect me to solve the world's problems. But people who come into my path and am able to help, God willing, I will help.

And who do you give it to or classify as "poor"?

That depends on the individual. We all must decide whom to give to. And secondly, God doesn't require me to give MONEY every time. There are other ways of giving if I cannot give money, for example, I can give encouragement or I can offer to pray for someone else. God doesn't expect me to become destitute financially. I give money when I feel it is appropriate. but I don't rationalize "because I can't solve the world's hunger problem, I shouldn't bother giving anything".

I don't mind supporting those who have worked and are in the country LEGALLY but Paul stated that if a man does not work, he should not eat (2 Thess 3:10). Rather a harsh statement from a godly man.

To my knowledge, the vast majority of illegals come here TO WORK. This is unlike many Americans who have been on welfare for years and REFUSE to get a job because then the free money would stop. I am not condoning that we shouldn't attempt to keep people out of this country illegally. But this nation does need to reform legal temporary visas and worker permits and cracking down on businesses that illegally employ them. I have no problems building a fence to protect us. But this country does need more laborers willing to work in the fields.

Regards

12,872 posted on 09/21/2006 6:50:07 AM PDT by jo kus (Humility is present when one debases oneself without being obliged to do so- St.Chrysostom; Phil 2:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12869 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
Personally, I do not believe Christians should be engaged in "civil" disobedience. I believe it to be unscriptural. The ONLY exception is where it conflicts with the word of God.

That is EXACTLY my argument, Harley...

Laws of men are not above laws of God. IF Christians obeyed the law of men without consideration to offending God, there would be no martyrs, no confessors, and likely, Christianity would have long ago died.

Paul lived in one of the worst times. He didn't incite the Corinthians to rally against the corrupt times. Christians are not called to change society. We are called to be lights to the world. This light will change society if He sees fit.

I detect a contradiction above...We are to be the light of the world with the EXPRESS PURPOSE to change the world. God obviously works THROUGH us to bring about the change He desires. If no one questions unfair laws or practices, they won't ever be changed.

Regards

12,873 posted on 09/21/2006 6:55:43 AM PDT by jo kus (Humility is present when one debases oneself without being obliged to do so- St.Chrysostom; Phil 2:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12870 | View Replies]

To: jo kus
God DOES appear to us through other people in need - and it appears our salvation will depend, to a degree, on how we treat people in need (Mat 25:31-45). Giving a cup of water to one who is thirsty is an act of kindness that should not be done away with merely because it won't solve the ENTIRE WORLD'S problems. God gave me limited resources, so He certainly does not expect me to solve the world's problems. But people who come into my path and am able to help, God willing, I will help

Well said Brother. I do believe this is the attitude that Christ expects from us.

12,874 posted on 09/21/2006 7:15:34 AM PDT by stfassisi ("Above all gifts that Christ gives his beloved is that of overcoming self"St Francis Assisi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12872 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi
I wrote: God DOES appear to us through other people in need - and it appears our salvation will depend, to a degree, on how we treat people in need (Mat 25:31-45). Giving a cup of water to one who is thirsty is an act of kindness that should not be done away with merely because it won't solve the ENTIRE WORLD'S problems. God gave me limited resources, so He certainly does not expect me to solve the world's problems. But people who come into my path and am able to help, God willing, I will help

Stfassisi wrote: Well said Brother. I do believe this is the attitude that Christ expects from us.

Thank you. I am at a loss to understand the rationalization behind not giving to people because I can't solve the entire world's problems. I am not familiar with this so-called "Christianity"

Regards

12,875 posted on 09/21/2006 8:14:20 AM PDT by jo kus (Humility is present when one debases oneself without being obliged to do so- St.Chrysostom; Phil 2:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12874 | View Replies]

To: jo kus; Forest Keeper
That is EXACTLY my argument, Harley... I detect a contradiction above...

You've misunderstood my point. I do not believe that Christians should be breaking laws just because they "feel" what the government is doing is wrong. If abortion is the law, God will judge that nation. If I go in and disobey the law, destroying abortion clinic equipment, then God will judge me. I'm supposed to be His light to proper behavior and this would not be proper behavior. If the government passed a law tomorrow that said Christians could not meet; then I would say that a Christian should do what their heart tells them. However, if the government declared that Islam was the only official religion and that we have to pray to Mecca 5 times a day, I think that would cross the line.

We can legitimately protest for those things we feel strongly about; but I wonder if we understand that the people we're "In your face..." today over a particular issue are the same people we may wish to share the gospel with tomorrow?

12,876 posted on 09/21/2006 1:03:24 PM PDT by HarleyD ("Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures" Luke 24:45)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12873 | View Replies]

To: jo kus; HarleyD
I am merely saying that a law should not prevent us from aiding a person in desperate need.

The problem is that your idea of "aiding" hurts other people, specifically law abiding Americans. You still haven't explained the scriptural basis for hurting the disfavored (Americans) in order to help the favored (illegals).

This country does NOT have "scarce resources". This nation has enough resources to feed the entire world by itself...

ALL resources are scarce. Any resource that is not scarce would be valueless, and thus free. Since some food is relatively cheap, that only means it is less scarce than other things, but since it still has value it is scarce. "Scarcity" is a basic concept in Economics.

I do not hold any law as sacred if it interferes with my duty as a Christian. Nor do I rationalize that because a man is an illegal alien, I shouldn't help him.

How is it your Christian duty to support those who are taking away from me and my neighbors to give to a favored people? You keep using this cloak of "help" as if it doesn't hurt anyone else. In this case, it does. Dollars are a scarce resource.

My loyalty is to God and His Laws, not the man-made laws of this Country. If they coincide, I obey. If not, then I follow Christ. And you?

Since you favor illegal immigration and the harboring of them by clergy, you obviously see a conflict between God's law and man's law of a sovereign border. You have yet to explain to me how God supports your position. You are free to go to Mexico and help all the poor people you want. You are free to send all the money you want down to Mexico for the same reason. You (or your clergy) are not free to harbor criminals and hurt Americans because you have a pet project. The Samaritan story does not apply at all to what we are discussing.

[Social services are] stolen? They are freely given. There are numerous charities and governmental programs that give to people in need. They don't "steal" social services from anyone. It doesn't make a difference to charities WHO comes to them, as long as they are in need. If you feel resources are too few, that is because we live in a country that has little care for the community.

As Harley indicated earlier, you are advocating communism. It has been tried before. It doesn't work. Interestingly, when the Puritans first came over they tried communism for a brief time. When they discovered that no one had any incentive to work, and the society was under-producing, they dropped it.

But getting back to your comment, yes, social services are being stolen by the illegals. I'm not talking about free charity, I'm talking about stolen from the taxpayers. Are you not aware that hospital emergency rooms are being closed all the time in your part of the country because no one is paying? Those charities are not paying, the illegals are not paying, and there isn't enough money in state budgets to pay. Now more and more Americans will not get the health care they need SOLELY because of illegals.

You have an uncanny way of putting words into other people's mouths. Slow down! I never said that companies giving money to charities is bad... I am saying that they are not in the business of giving money to the poor.

Well then why are you mentioning it? I am presuming you are trying to make a point of some sort. :) I "thought" you were trying to say that they don't give enough for your liking and I was saying that they give billions.

Isn't it rather obvious that at the corporate level, there is a huge unequal distribution of wealth?

Yes, do you think it should be equal? That is communism. I am not calling you a "Communist" with all the associated negative connotations. :) I am just saying that your words happen to coincide with a communist style of government (minus the violence).

FK: "No, when I said "hurt" I meant physically or financially. Americans have the right to protest, even if it hurts someone else's feelings."

As long as it has nothing to do with feeding a starving illegal alien, because then I would be helping a person steal from a poor American...

No, when you buy food yourself and give it away, you aren't hurting Americans. If anything, you are helping them. Every American's wage that was derived from the preparation of that food for sale was supported by your purchase. Buying food to give to the poor is good for America. It is when one reaches onto the plate of his neighbor and takes away food, like the Cardinal is doing, to give to the poor, that it becomes wrong.

I said I understand the good Cardinal's view, but I also said I didn't condone it. My concern is against laws that charge me with a misdemeanor for helping someone who is hungry or thirsty. What would Jesus do? Would he obey such a law?

You don't condone it??? THIS is what we have been talking about. :) Alright, without me putting words into your mouth, WHY do you not condone what the Cardinal is doing?

In addition, I really do not think you should be at all concerned about that California law. The FIRST time any agency attempts to enforce it will make national headlines. If some idiot prosecutor actually tries it, it will be his funeral. :) If anyone gets in trouble, it will not be for feeding a hungry person, it will be for the other things he does to help an illegal evade the authorities. You and I and Harley and Jesus would all give food to a starving person right in front of us, regardless of the California law.

To be perfectly and brutally honest, I am beginning to question your idea of comfortable Christianity. Is this the result of your self-proclaimed salvation? Is this your faith in action?

I don't know what comfortable Christianity is, so I don't know my idea about it either. :) I do not think Christianity is playing Robin Hood and individually taking from some to give to others, such as what the Cardinal is doing.

It teaches us to take food off OUR table and give to the poor. Or were you not aware of that teaching, either?

I said that was good in my first post on this subject. We are talking about what the Cardinal, and others, are doing. The Cardinal is not only taking food from his own table, but also from all other Americans. You have been defending him, and I disagree. I have used some form of the word "harbor" 100 times, and been clear in what I'm talking about. This is not about giving a glass of water.

I seriously doubt that Christ would cast out an illegal alien, since He had no problems going to ALL members of society, Samaritans, pagans, Pharisees, tax collectors, etc...

That is debatable, as Christ would have the advantage of knowing the person's heart. He certainly would/did send away false seekers. I am sure that He would not support the Robin Hood justice that the Cardinal is practicing.

When did I say I favor harboring illegals, especially who were criminals?

The Cardinal favors harboring any illegal without having any idea if they are criminals, so some must be. You have been defending him throughout this conversation so I assumed you had like views. In this post you are singing a different tune.

12,877 posted on 09/21/2006 1:21:10 PM PDT by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12871 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
abortion is the law, God will judge that nation. If I go in and disobey the law, destroying abortion clinic equipment, then God will judge me.

First of all, God's revelation is that He judges individuals and that we are not held responsible for our ancestors. Secondly, I am DEFINITELY not saying to destroy equipment. I am calling for civil disobedience against laws that we Christians deem as against God's Law. I certainly am not saying we are to sin - "the ends do not justify the means" is a Catholic teaching.

If the government passed a law tomorrow that said Christians could not meet; then I would say that a Christian should do what their heart tells them. However, if the government declared that Islam was the only official religion and that we have to pray to Mecca 5 times a day, I think that would cross the line.

In either case, we are to obey God's Laws, not man's. In both cases, man's law breaks God's Laws and disobeying man's law is not (in either case) against God's Law. In both cases, we are to hold to God's Law because there is a clear choice of following one or the other.

We can legitimately protest for those things we feel strongly about; but I wonder if we understand that the people we're "In your face..." today over a particular issue are the same people we may wish to share the gospel with tomorrow?

Tertullian said that the blood of the Martyrs is the seed of the Church. That is the point of being a martyr or a confessor. Others are SUPPOSED to see us taking a principled stand in defense of God's Laws. Whenever we reject man's law, we do it non-violently and "meekly" - those who burn abortion clinics are radicals that give non-Christians the wrong impression.

This all is quite interesting, because Scripture does relate without condemning both non-violent and violent response to those who attempt to destroy our faith. I find this highlighted especially in the books of Maccabees. The first book relates and praises active resistance to Hellenistic influences on Judaism, while the second book relates and praises passive resistance - martyrs and such. I think there can be a time for both. As you said, we must discern. I believe the NT condones non-violent disobedience - but their is the whole idea of Just War...

Regards

12,878 posted on 09/22/2006 5:50:18 AM PDT by jo kus (Humility is present when one debases oneself without being obliged to do so- St.Chrysostom; Phil 2:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12876 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
The problem is that your idea of "aiding" hurts other people, specifically law abiding Americans. You still haven't explained the scriptural basis for hurting the disfavored (Americans) in order to help the favored (illegals).

I disagree that "aiding" an illegal hurts American citizens. That is a long stretch. By the way, I will choose where and whom I will help, if that is alright with you. If it turns out that God sends an illegal alien across my path - and I feed or give them drink - that is the expression of my faith in Him. I am sorry, but if you pick and choose whom you will help, you are just like the Christians whom James chastizes in James 2.

ALL resources are scarce. Any resource that is not scarce would be valueless, and thus free.

There you go again, dealing in extremes. I fail to see your reasoning. Just because resources are plentiful doesn't mean they should be free. Perhaps they will be cheaper, as supply and demand dictates, but free? A bit over the top, don't you think?

How is it your Christian duty to support those who are taking away from me and my neighbors to give to a favored people? You keep using this cloak of "help" as if it doesn't hurt anyone else. In this case, it does. Dollars are a scarce resource. Again, you are presuming that I have set aside "x" dollars of money that I will give to charity, no more, no less. It doesn't work that way. An unplanned-for-opportunity may cause me to open my wallet and give MORE than I had initially planned at the beginning of the month. Also, perhaps I am giving food from MY table, which doesn't cost another charity anything! If I had never met that person, it doesn't mean I would have given it to one of the charities of FK's approved list!

Since you favor illegal immigration and the harboring of them by clergy

I see you are having a difficult time following my arguments. I have not said either of these two above, although you have accused me of this and I have denied it several times now...

Get back with me when you have actually read and understand what I wrote. I don't have time to be continually restating my opinions because you won't read them and prefer to set up a Joe-strawman that you can beat up.

Regards

12,879 posted on 09/22/2006 6:01:01 AM PDT by jo kus (Humility is present when one debases oneself without being obliged to do so- St.Chrysostom; Phil 2:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12877 | View Replies]

To: jo kus; Forest Keeper
I am calling for civil disobedience against laws that we Christians deem as against God's Law.

Why, jo kus, how very Protestant of you. ;O)

How do you determine what's against God's Law and what precisely is "civil disobedience"? I think we would both agree that abortion is against God's commandment not to murder, so what act of civil disobedience are you going to do since you know God's Law is being broken? If you handcuff yourself to the clinic doors, do you think that would make a difference or that God would be pleased?

I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything. I'm saying we need to work within the framework of society and pray for those who are in charge of us. God has put these people over us for our good. I don't think chaining oneself to the doors or throwing blood on ICBMs in war protests are the solution.

12,880 posted on 09/22/2006 9:03:55 AM PDT by HarleyD ("Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures" Luke 24:45)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12878 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
Why, jo kus, how very Protestant of you. ;O)

LOL!

How do you determine what's against God's Law and what precisely is "civil disobedience"? I think we would both agree that abortion is against God's commandment not to murder, so what act of civil disobedience are you going to do since you know God's Law is being broken? If you handcuff yourself to the clinic doors, do you think that would make a difference or that God would be pleased?

We are left to our conscience on such matters. The Church doesn't give us infallible statements on what we are to do when a nation rules that abortion is legal! Personally, committing felony acts are of the axiom "the ends justify the means", so I would rule out such things except in self-defense. Would passive resistance make a difference? Past performance does not guarantee future results, but it has worked in the past before - for example, on black civil rights in the 1960's. Is God pleased? I think He wants us to defend His commandments and teachings against worldly intrusions. God does desire that all men be saved, so I am presuming that He desires His Law to be observed by all men.

I'm saying we need to work within the framework of society and pray for those who are in charge of us. God has put these people over us for our good. I don't think chaining oneself to the doors or throwing blood on ICBMs in war protests are the solution.

I do not have a problem with someone who takes that stance. But I recognize that the framers of the Declaration of Independence noted that man has the right to overthrow unfair laws. How this is accomplished is up to the conscience of the individual. Being Christian, I do not intend on taking drastic and combative actions. But I can understand and see a biblical precedent for doing JUST what you have said (regarding chaining oneself to an abortion clinic door). Of course we should take non-violent actions that fall within the spectrum of lawful actions - writing letters to the editor or one's Congressman, etc. Often times, however, that is not effective. Thus, different action may be called for. I do not doubt that prayer is a part of the whole process. But God answers prayer through other people. He generally doesn't come down in His resurrected form and wave His hand to make all things better.

Regards

12,881 posted on 09/22/2006 9:35:54 AM PDT by jo kus (Humility is present when one debases oneself without being obliged to do so- St.Chrysostom; Phil 2:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12880 | View Replies]

To: jo kus; HarleyD
I am sorry, but if you pick and choose whom you will help, you are just like the Christians whom James chastises in James 2. ................. Get back with me when you have actually read and understand what I wrote. I don't have time to be continually restating my opinions because you won't read them ...

Of course it all depends on what you mean by "help". What would you have done in Dr. Samuel Mudd's position on that fateful night? I'm glad I remembered this story because it is a perfect example of two VERY different types of help. A man with a broken leg and his companion show up at Mudd's door in the middle of the night. Mudd treats and sets the leg, and orders his servant to make crutches. The next morning Mudd goes into town and hears the "news". Accounts differ as to whether he went back to his farm and ordered the two off his property, or whether they left before Mudd returned. In EITHER case, I found no record that Mudd notified the authorities when he KNEW what was going on WHILE he was in town. Mudd was convicted, but later pardoned, I think, because of lack of evidence.

Now, if we throw out the seriousness of the crime, I think this fits our discussion. In comparison, my belief is that we have never been talking about whether it was "Godly" of Mudd to have set the leg. Instead, we have been talking about whether it was right for Mudd not to have notified the authorities. Again, throwing out the seriousness of the crime, the Cardinal and others are doing now exactly what Mudd did then, hiding a fugitive. Presumably, the Cardinal is an illegal "sympathizer", so he is willing to disregard American law to further his cause. That's exactly what they said about Mudd, that he was a confederate sympathizer. I do not think either are/were justified in what they did and are doing now.

----------

You should know that I read everything everyone posts to me, in most cases more than once. If I misunderstand something, that is a mistake, but not for lack of considering the post. We have been talking passed each other. I have only ever been talking about the conscious decisions of some to hide illegals and protect them from the rightful authorities who would otherwise deport them. From your latest posts, you appear to ONLY be talking about "giving a glass of water". Since I made it clear very early that I had no issue with that, I assumed that you CONTINUED for the purpose of defending the Cardinal's actions. Was that really unreasonable of me?

FK: "ALL resources are scarce. Any resource that is not scarce would be valueless, and thus free."

There you go again, dealing in extremes. I fail to see your reasoning. Just because resources are plentiful doesn't mean they should be free. Perhaps they will be cheaper, as supply and demand dictates, but free? A bit over the top, don't you think?

No, not over the top and I'm not going to extremes. I'm an Econ. major so I'm using those terms. :) Here is a quickie from Wiki:

"Resources scarcity" is defined [as] the difference between what people desire and the demand for a good. Thus, a good is scarce if people would consume more of it, if it were free. Scarcity (S) can also be viewed as the difference between a person's desires (D) and his possessions (P). Mathematically, this can be expressed as S = D - P. If P > D, a state of negative scarcity exists which is abundance. For most people desire exceeds possession and this provides the spur to material success. In others an excess of desire over possession can also lead to conflict, crime and war.

Doesn't this match exactly what I said? If you are willing to pay even a penny for something, then it is "scarce", otherwise why would you pay? Those who do not have pennies cannot have that thing, and thus it is scarce TO THEM. Scarcity is its own animal in the world of economics, and doesn't necessarily match the common definition. That's all I was talking about.

Again, you are presuming that I have set aside "x" dollars of money that I will give to charity, no more, no less. ...

You are misunderstanding me. I was, in effect, asking you how you could support the Cardinal since his decisions are going to cost others lots of money. But now it appears that you don't hold that position, so....

12,882 posted on 09/22/2006 9:11:33 PM PDT by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12879 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
You should know that I read everything everyone posts to me, in most cases more than once. If I misunderstand something, that is a mistake, but not for lack of considering the post.

I am beginning to note that I have had to correct your understanding of this same point several times now. It had made me wonder who is reading what on the other end.

We have been talking passed each other. I have only ever been talking about the conscious decisions of some to hide illegals and protect them from the rightful authorities who would otherwise deport them. From your latest posts, you appear to ONLY be talking about "giving a glass of water". Since I made it clear very early that I had no issue with that, I assumed that you CONTINUED for the purpose of defending the Cardinal's actions. Was that really unreasonable of me?

I have not said that I agree with the Cardinal's actions and that I would follow him. I understand them, but I do not personally agree with the extent that he has gone. I have made that clear. Our discussions have been more theoretical, such as "do I as a human have the right to disobey a law that is, in the eyes of God's Law, unjust". Christian conscience and the Church's teachings lead me to help make a just stand. But these musings on my part do not mean that I am applying them to the Cardinal's situation and that I am willing to do the same things. I have restricted my "help" to a fellow who comes in my path. I specifically said I didn't intend on helping him find a job, but give food and drink. If he was in the middle of the desert, perhaps I would take him to civilization. However, if so, in any of the above cases, I could be charged with a misdemenor in California. I then told you that God's Laws were above man's law. Thus, my conscience would tell me to disobey such a law. You seemed to take angst against ANY disobedience of man's law MERELY BECAUSE it is a "law". I then noted that with such a stance, there would be no Christian martyrs or confessors - rest assured, this is a very lame Christianity you propose.

As I have related before, less than a year ago, I had the opportunity to see in my neighbor's driveway 20 illegals pile out of a little pickup truck trying to avoid capture. I don't recall telling you that I opened my front door and let them hide behind my couches! I am only arguing over your theoretical action - which seems to be that in all cases, an illegal is presumed to be a criminal and is to be avoided. It appears to me that you hold the law in esteem above a human being - which is reminiscent of the Pharisees.

Doesn't this match exactly what I said? If you are willing to pay even a penny for something, then it is "scarce", otherwise why would you pay?

Uh, I don't agree with this theoritical application of economics in our discussion. I do not define "scarce" as having to pay a penny for something. It merely means that someone has something that I am willing to trade for - whether it is barter or cash or other services. The use of "scarce" is hardly applicable on the subject of food in the United States, regardless of your theoretical definition. "Scarce" means it is unavailable, or only sparingly. Are you really willing to defend your point of view? That because food is not free, it is scarce???

You are misunderstanding me. I was, in effect, asking you how you could support the Cardinal since his decisions are going to cost others lots of money. But now it appears that you don't hold that position, so....

The Cardinal is making a political stand. A notice to lawmakers that we are in desperate need of immigration reform. Sometimes, people must take drastic action so that the problem is noted. That is how the government works. If no one complained or did something that caused a little discomfort, nothing would ever get done. The Cardinal has this right as an American (DOI) and as a human being in the image and likeness of God, as understood by the Church.

An example of how drastic action is needed for the government to move: ever notice that a city won't put up a stop light or sign at a dangerous intersection UNTIL SOMEONE DIES? It seems a rule of thumb! Thus, I see the Cardinal's civil disobedience as an attempt to draw attention to the problem. While I would not personally do what he has done, it certainly IS within Christian teachings to take such drastic action. I am defending his "biblical right" to take such action, although my conscience does not lead me to join him.

I hope that is more clear.

Regards

12,883 posted on 09/23/2006 2:43:13 PM PDT by jo kus (Humility is present when one debases oneself without being obliged to do so- St.Chrysostom; Phil 2:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12882 | View Replies]

To: jo kus
You seemed to take angst against ANY disobedience of man's law MERELY BECAUSE it is a "law".

You said it best: "I am beginning to note that I have had to correct your understanding of this same point several times now. It had made me wonder who is reading what on the other end."

Uh, I don't agree with this theoretical application of economics in our discussion. I do not define "scarce" as having to pay a penny for something. ... The use of "scarce" is hardly applicable on the subject of food in the United States, regardless of your theoretical definition. "Scarce" means it is unavailable, or only sparingly. Are you really willing to defend your point of view? That because food is not free, it is scarce???

I was merely trying to show you the correct use of the term in a discussion about economics. You aren't required to use it. :) My use is precisely applicable when you criticize Americans for not giving enough to the poor in our capitalist system. To someone who cannot afford food, it is scarce. And, if anyone is willing to participate in the system, the government will provide food. That is only possible from the taxes raised from successful capitalists.

12,884 posted on 09/25/2006 4:18:15 AM PDT by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12883 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
I wrote : You seemed to take angst against ANY disobedience of man's law MERELY BECAUSE it is a "law".

You wrote : You said it best: "I am beginning to note that I have had to correct your understanding of this same point several times now. It had made me wonder who is reading what on the other end."

Uhm. OK. Throughout, I have been chastized for aiding and abeting criminals (illegal aliens are ALL criminals by your explicit statement). I guess your reasons, then, are not "merely because it is a law", but also because it takes money from other Americans? Sorry for the mistatement.

Regarding your theoretical term "scarcity", I still don't believe its use is appropriate to our conversation. Who in their right mind, outside of a theoretical diatribe on macroeconomics in some university campus classroon, is going to say that the United States of America has scarce resources of food? The problem is distribution, not resoursces themselves. I see farmers destroying food all the time here. It is illegal to go into a harvested field and pick up scrap lettuce heads that weren't picked up. That is the bottom line. Money.

Regards

12,885 posted on 09/25/2006 7:00:18 AM PDT by jo kus (Humility is present when one debases oneself without being obliged to do so- St.Chrysostom; Phil 2:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12884 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
St. Ireneaus sez you're wrong.

Adversus Haereses (Book IV, Chapter 37)

I doin't recall this posted, surely, not in full. I came across it by chance.

12,886 posted on 09/26/2006 3:57:30 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jo kus
I guess your reasons, then, are not "merely because it is a law", but also because it takes money from other Americans?

Yes, and because of the danger it puts Americans in to have illegals roaming the streets. Another illegal just killed a police officer a few days ago. This one was deported in 1999 for child molestation, but just snuck back across the border. All illegals are lawbreakers and criminals. Some are violent criminals, but most are non-violent. Some people say one must be convicted to be a criminal, so the description can be adjusted as needed. However, all are unjustified lawbreakers under any definition.

12,887 posted on 09/26/2006 10:25:57 PM PDT by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12885 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; jo kus; kosta50; Kolokotronis

I had an opportunity today to really roam about New York so decided to do a Church walk-a-bout! Started off at St. Patrick's cathedral and there were huge crowds and a great atmosphere of worship, moved to the nearby Episcopal church, atmosphere ok, crowds much less, then to the First Presbyterian: the place was about 30% occupied and this wasn't really worshipful, then to a Lutheran Church on 67th and Central Park West and my first shock: the church hardly seemed a place of worship -- the priest was practically gossiping from the lectern, so I left quickly. Then to a Christian Scientist place further down the street and the place was nearly empty and it was like a dry lecture with no deep meaning. Finally, to a unitarian place and this was almost empty and I beat a hasty retreat. What is going on in the world of mainstream Protestantism?


12,888 posted on 10/15/2006 4:47:08 PM PDT by Cronos ("Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant" - Omar Ahmed, CAIR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12887 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; jo kus; kosta50; Kolokotronis
What is going on in the world of mainstream Protestantism?

Assuming this is not a gag, first of all, the Episcopals, the Christian Scientists, and the Unitarians are not Bible believing Christians, at least as far as I am aware of what their respective leaderships stand for. I reject them and do not call them my brothers in Christ. Therefore, if you consider these all "mainstream Protestantism" then I suppose you would also lump us all in with the Branch Davidians. Feel free if that is what you wish, but we obviously couldn't have a meaningful conversation.

Second of all, I'm not sure how you expect me to answer for your anecdotal experiences in NYC on one Sunday visiting a few churches. (I do not see how you could have possibly gotten to so many churches on one day, but if you assert it as fact I'll go with it.) Anyway, I really do not think you want to go there in generalizing Protestantism though. Would you think it fair of me to generalize Catholicism based on the THOUSANDS of "anecdotes" that have been in the news recently, all with the same grim theme? I've never gone there.

I defend Reformed theology and Southern Baptists, not everyone who calls himself a Protestant.

12,889 posted on 10/15/2006 6:28:57 PM PDT by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12888 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
No, it's not a gag -- just an expression of surprise, and this wasn't meant to be any kind of scientific study (with just one visit that's not possible) --> it's my own one-time impression. The reason for the rant I'll admit would be more of what was going on in the Unitarian and Christian Scientist places than what was in the Anglican or Lutheran.

btw, I didn't attend "service" completely at any of these places except at the Catholic Church. Good to know that you don't consider the Unitarians and Christian Scientists as "mainstream Protestants" -- I can understand that for Unitarians in their dogma, but Christian Scientist and Episcopal dogma does follow the mainstream of Protestant thought. Many times the philosophy of many Protestants of not trying to learn from the past leads to such divergent thoughts leading to Unitarians (no more than modern-day heretics) or Christian Scientists.

For Anglicans, they've been hijacked by the gay agenda while for Lutherans, I need to experience more.
12,890 posted on 10/17/2006 2:08:12 AM PDT by Cronos ("Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant" - Omar Ahmed, CAIR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12889 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
OK, thanks for elaborating.

I can understand that for Unitarians in their dogma, but Christian Scientist and Episcopal dogma does follow the mainstream of Protestant thought.

I would find it very difficult to actually define what the "mainstream of Protestant thought" is. If one was to try, I think it would have to whittle down to some very basic points, such as the trinity or the identity of Christ. It would probably also include basic Arminian theology. I find very little/nothing about Christian Scientist dogma with which I can agree. Here is an excerpt from a discussion of their beliefs (with sources) Christian Science Christian or Cult? by Biblical Discernment Ministries:

3. Trinity. Christian Science clearly repudiates the Trinitarian Godhead: "The theory of three persons in one God (that is, a personal Trinity or Tri-unity) suggests polytheism, rather than the one ever-present I Am" (Science and Health, p. 256). Instead, "Life, Truth, and Love constitutes the triune Person called God ... God the Father-Mother; Christ the spiritual idea of sonship; divine Science or the Holy Comforter" (Science and Health, p. 331-332). Christian Science teaches that the Biblical concept of the Trinity suggests "heathen gods" (Science and Health, p. 152).

4. Jesus Christ. Christian Science denies that the incarnation of Christ was the fullness of deity dwelling in human flesh, denies the perfection of the man Jesus, and attempts to explain away the historical death and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ (Science and Health, pp. 336, 29, 332, 53, 398, 313, 593; Miscellaneous Writings, p. 201) Christian Science believes that Mary's conception of Jesus was spiritual -- on pages 332 and 347 of Science and Health, the virgin birth of Christ is described and explained: "Jesus was the offspring of Mary's self-conscious communion with God. ... Mary's conception of him was spiritual." Christian Science believes that the names "Jesus" and "Christ" do not refer to the same person -- that Jesus is the human man and Christ is the "divine idea" (i.e., "dualism").

If you click the link, it doesn't get any prettier. :) I see them as a full-fledged cult and would never have anything to do with them. Nearly the only thing I would have in common with them is not being Roman Catholic. I could happily visit a Catholic Church, but I would never visit a Christian Scientist "church".

I would not put the history of Episcopalianism in the same category at all. From what I could tell, their history has been Christian. I even used to think they were a branch off of Roman Catholicism. :) That is, in an outward sense, not necessarily doctrinally. In any event, what they are doing today is decidedly not Christian, IMO. I might visit a very conservative Episcopal church, which turned its back on its leadership, but I would not visit one that followed the teachings and example of Bishop Genie. I personally would not consider what they are doing to be in line with anything that could be called mainstream Protestantism.

12,891 posted on 10/17/2006 9:05:19 AM PDT by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12890 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper

well, actually, as far as Episcopalians are concerned -- the dogma was pretty much correct until it tried to "modernise" in the 60s. And yes, they were a kind of branch (in their own minds) of the Church -- they considered themselves to be part of the Apostolic succession. It was a very good compromise on the part of Queen Bess the first who got the Protestants (Low Church) and Anglo-Catholics (High Church) into the same union (The Church of England). However, that balance was lost in the last century.


12,892 posted on 10/19/2006 7:05:24 PM PDT by Cronos ("Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant" - Omar Ahmed, CAIR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12891 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Things started to get messy for the Anglicans in the early 30's. Probably before that. The Spiritualist movement had much greater impact in England than it did here.
12,893 posted on 10/27/2006 5:07:47 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12892 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; Dr. Eckleburg; AlbionGirl
OK. I'm setting up. I brought the chocolates for our New Year's celebration.


12,894 posted on 12/31/2006 3:13:48 AM PST by HarleyD (Col 3:15 Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12891 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; Forest Keeper; Dr. Eckleburg
Harley, Dr. E and FK,

Happy New Year!

Am I too early? Too late?

I can’t believe a year has gone by since this thread was posted. What a year it’s been for me. Tumultuous but very gratifying at the same time. I'm very optimistic about the year to come even though as every new year rolls around I realize that this could be the year I lose one of my parents, as they really are aging and becoming more frail.

I really want to express my gratitude to God for all that he’s given me in my life, and especially for my buoyant spirit -that’s straight from God- and what a wonderful gift it is, bitter-sweet, though it can be.

Blessed be God and his angels and his saints.

I went to Mass Christmas day with my family. Almost a year has passed since I’ve been inside a Catholic church. I cry when I’m in Church almost all the time, and it doesn’t matter what Church. The Presbyterian Church I’ve attended is quite small, so the Pastor could always see me, and I often felt that I should shield my eyes.

When Mass was ended my Mom said to me “let’s go wish Fr. a merry Christmas,” so I followed her lead. The rest of my family had already headed out to the car, so it was just her and I. The priest is talking to a family so we wait for him to finish up, which he’s just doing, and we overhear him talking to a woman who has just revealed or reminded him that she is no longer a practicing Catholic. She looked ill. I say that because it appeared -even though she was wearing a hat- that she’d lost her hair. Anyway, the priest was asking her what she planned to do for her funeral service, in a very normal tone of voice. He reminded her that she could always turn to St. Joe’s. She replied, shaking her head “I’m not credited.” He smiled and shrugged his shoulders a bit and said to her, “who is going to know?”

“Who is going to know?”

I don’t know whether it was the priest’s way of working his way through an awkward situation, and that what his answer really amounted to was his way of inviting her back to the church or what. But his answer seemed to be the final exclamation point as it relates to this year long journey of mine. His reply, “who is going to know” just kept reverberating, beckoning me to consider or rather consider again the importance of doctrine. Because of how doctrine was treated in my Catholic days, I have an aversion to it. It conjures up images of pack-mules and land-owners and plebs and poverty and misery. And I have a bone-deep aversion to the odious and pernicious doctrine of the 'development' of doctrine. I want to shed my aversion to doctrine, but not to its development.

I bought a few books last weekend. One is titled On Being a Theologian of the Cross and the other two books are works of Herman Sasse, a Lutheran theologian, whose intellect is staggeringly immense. I love great minds. Calvin’s mind is particularly sharp when he expounds on the Providence of God. His intellect was also staggeringly immense. Let the devil take good looks, they’re worthless without a great mind. Less than worthless, if such a measurement exists.

The title of the two editions of Sasse’s work is The Lonely Way, and there are gems inside that are too precious not to share. The first is Luther’s Legacy to Christianity, the second which I will post when next I get a chance, is Erasmus, Luther and Modern Christendom. I think both an appropriate way to celebrate the anniversary of a great thread, peopled by great posters.

I'll post each piece as a stand alone.

12,895 posted on 01/01/2007 8:13:01 AM PST by AlbionGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12894 | View Replies]

Comment #12,896 Removed by Moderator

To: AlbionGirl

Welcome to 2009, brilliant thread.

I ask that all the original participants hop back in here and continue the discussion!

Many of you are Mad Ninja Smart!


12,897 posted on 03/19/2009 10:23:28 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12895 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
Hey Freedom,

This was an excellent discussion, and I finally read both Luther and Erasmus's contribution to the debate.

As noted by one of their translators: Luther brought a blunderbuss while Erasmus brought a rapier. Luther won, but not without leaving an enigma, and a turgid one at that. But, his child-like and sweet side can be found in his gratitude for, and comfort in, the blood of Christ and the grace of God. He was brave.

I became a different person in 2007 than I had been in 2006. And now I'm quite different from the person I was in either of those years. Time marches on.

Your profile page is so full!

It's nice to be re-called, so thanks for the friendliness.

12,898 posted on 03/23/2009 2:32:09 PM PDT by AlbionGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12897 | View Replies]

To: AlbionGirl
I became a different person in 2007 than I had been in 2006. And now I'm quite different from the person I was in either of those years. Time marches on.

Thanks for pinging me back to this. I re-re-re-read everything and I still haven't absorbed it all. Time has marched on for me too -- I am certainly not the person I was way back when. The sadder but wiser me for me :)

This whole topic is a tough row to sled -- but, like anything worthwhile, pays huge rewards. I am appreciate your synopsis -- well stated. In fact, I will have to turn the term "turgid enigma" over and over in my mind. Once I complete parse it I will use it shamelessly, without attribution, as if I coined it! ;)

I keep a full page so people will know a lot about me while learning little. Sort of my little blunderbuss ;)

Take care and may God and Christ watch over you and us all (which of course, They do).

12,899 posted on 03/23/2009 4:12:17 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12898 | View Replies]

To: AlbionGirl
I went to see how long did this thread get, and found your post.

I lost my mother in 2008.

A miracle accompanied her funeral liturgy.

See Link

12,900 posted on 02/07/2010 7:54:59 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12895 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 12,751-12,80012,801-12,85012,851-12,90012,901-12,906 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson