Posted on 06/18/2004 9:55:45 AM PDT by xsysmgr
You are not the subject of this command. Typical Biblical illeteracy. Just cause you are reading it, doesn't mean you are the one being commanded here.
SD
You're not this stupid. The response we have to something, of course, depends on the circumstances. A child running around aimlessly through a field of flowers is a joy. One doing so through city traffic is a different thing.
The fact you refuse to look at is what "heresy" is and how it can be a destabilizing factor. Just assuming that every person and every time is like 20th Century secular America is foolish.
SD
Activity with the aim of bringing down the state.
Suppose the little old lady were able to convince the ENTIRE POPULATION that the RC church is the whore of babylon, but the police and the power structures are still in your hands.
My hands? Or the hands of the Church? In any event, this is not the situation. We have seperated church and state.
If you want a hypothetical answer, you will need to engage in hypotheses. If the entire population was against the RC Church then there is no way that it could maintain hold of power. Because there would be no one left, right?
Either you don't mean the "entire population" or you consider the church's leaders and priests to be something other than "population."
The idea of seperating heresy from sedition is a modern one, an artifact of seperating Church and State. Where the two are not seperated, any act of heresy is an act of sedition.
SD
At the time of much of the Inquisition, was "The State" always determined as one clear cut entity or was it a time when who's rule you were under was in a constant, ongoing state of flux? Did the religious leaders of the times help the situation or were they part of the problem?
Would that be your opinion or would it be something you know, without question? If it's something you know, I'd be interested in hearing some proof to back it up.
Is Scripture good?
Matt 28: 16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
"And Jesus came and spoke unto them"
Who them?
"Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee..."
It is clear Jesus is talking here to His Apostles. He is telling them to go out to teach. Not any Joe Schmo that can pick up this book and read a sentence.
SD
That's way too broad of a question. The Inquisition operated under various forms for centuries under various controls and in various territories.
SD
You know, there is similar confusion about the crusaders war against the Islamic expansion in the holyland.
Well of course. You list these societal stages as if you are pondering various salads on a menu.
By all civilized consensus the copulation of church and state was an abomination. We expect the state to gobble power wherever the lizard finds it; but the church's assent and use of that arrangement is all the more execrable because we expect more from her. When a pimp acts like a pimp we are not shocked; when a virgin signs on with him one might use the word "whore" out of injured affection.
And their divorce was a monumental moral advance.
So those who tell me that it was in some sense better that heretics were killed (depite, apparently, the church's best efforts to contain the definition of "exterminate") -- better, you say, because, after all, heresy was just a species of sedition.
So the virgin acted like a whore because she had previously become a whore. I see.
Duke of Burgundy was waging civil war against the rest of France and the French King and that Joan was captured by Burgundian troops
That statement is overreaching & more wrong than right. BTW, Joan was captured by Luxemburg's troops.
The Burgundians were the allies of the English in 1431 just as the Vichy French were the allies of the Germans in 1942.
Bad analogy.
However, today, only the Catholic religious intolerance of past centuries is criticized and exaggerated while Protestant religious intolerance is never mentioned unless, as in the case of the Salem Witch Trials, it is depicted as amusing entertainment.
I have a bone of contention with many of the actions of some Protestant leaders too, but that's beside the point or it should be in this discussion.
Well of course. You list these societal stages as if you are pondering various salads on a menu.
No, I point out what to us may seem obvious, but to many here is unthought. Many give the impression that they think it as simple as one side thinking the moon is green cheese and killing others cause they think it is blue.
We must examine what happened in context, not to excuse it, but to get a realistic understanding of why things happened. Of course, for some, this is unnecessary. They desire Catholic to be pure evil and no amount of understanding why things happen is required.
And their divorce was a monumental moral advance.
Yes, the affiliation with secular power was corrupting of the Church. But still pure secular power with no heed given to any higher authority is not a bed of roses either.
So those who tell me that it was in some sense better that heretics were killed -- better, you say, because, after all, heresy was just a species of sedition.
No, I said heresy and sedition were the same thing. We only now seperate them. We are so used to relativism in matters of religion that the entire concept of a person's belief impacting on society is unclear to us. We are used to not caring what the guy down the street believes. That is because, in a large part, we have become indifferent to him and we have become comfprtable with the idea that there is not so much truth to be known that is worth defending from error.
SD
Christ said let the one among you without sin cast the first stone. He said put down the sword for he who takes it up will die by it. Rome picked up the sword and swung it, picked up the Rock and threw it and kept doing both for the better part of 1000 years. What anyone else did is moot to the point. It doesn't mean they aren't wrong too. It means it matters not a whit to what Rome did. Rome taught it, did it and compulsed others into it. They wrote manuals on it and taught the Protestants through it to do exactly the same things. Rome taught and lived doctrinal error for over 1000 years on just this point alone. Rome cannot admit that without shaking itself to it's foundations. So, we get the handwringing from you guys. No breaks. Stow the handwringing and tell the truth, then fix the error. Then you might get somewhere.
Read it again. I didn't say I'm the one being commanded there. Christ is commanding the Apostles to go forth and teach all nations - Every living soul - teaching them to observe "ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER I HAVE COMMANDED YOU"... Hint, the passage is a command which would fall into the "all things I have commanded you" grouping. All things. At the end of that passage it then becomes Christ speaking to me, you, and anyone else that has been taught. What were you saying about illiteracy?
Bunk. Situational ethics is the secular garbage of the 60s that is largely responsible for the mess the US is in now. Christ didn't teach situational ethics. He taught "it is written" and "i am the same yesterday, today and forever" Sin today was sin yesterday and will be sin tomorrow. The situation has nothing to do with the definition of sin. If you murder someone it's still murder, regardless of the handwringing you go through to try and explain it away.
Actually, I'm more of an agnostic than anything else and a big part of the reason is that I see the spread of Christianity directly related to the force of arms.
If Western Europe became Christian, it was in large part due to the Imperial mandate of the Roman Empire and then the Christianized barbarians. At the time of the Christian (Arianism-variety) Visigothic invasion of Roman Spain, most of the rural population of Hispania was still pagan.
When the supposed Protestant "Reformation" came about, it was begun and carried out by men that would be considered homicidal fanatics by today's standards.
LOL. You're hilarious. So who taught you what needed to be observed? And how does he trace his lines to the Apostles?
Oh, that's right. You're self-taught. So much for that theory.
Just pick up the book and apply whatever you like to yourself however you would like to. That's your style. LOL
SD
Bunk....The situation has nothing to do with the definition of sin.
Of course it does. If I kill a man in self-defense it's different from killing in cold blood. Though in both cases the same weapon would be used in the same way and with the same result.
You set yourself up as the highest authority to pass judgment on those in the past that don't meet up to your superior standards. It's a bit puffed-up of you. Why not thank God that you have the benefit of a civilization that has given you better values? Why not ask God to have mercy on these, instead of condemning them?
SD
In NIV Matt 28:19 is translated as
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Most other versions I looked at were closer to this traslation, than the one in the KJV.
Back to KJV & looking at verse 20, Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
I suppose the part I put in bold could be taken a couple of different ways. However, I fail to find any sort of exclusive responsiblity to be given to a select few in any way here. Instead, I see it written to teach the people to observe *all* things He commanded of the Apostles.
Yes. And who is being addressed here? The Apostles.
I suppose the part I put in bold could be taken a couple of different ways. However, I fail to find any sort of exclusive responsiblity to be given to a select few in any way here.
The Apostles are beign told to teach and to baptise. This is not Jesus telling a crowd to go ut and teach and baptise. Do you see the difference?
Instead, I see it written to teach the people to observe *all* things He commanded of the Apostles.
Yes. After they teach them. Who taught you?
SD
Yes, it is broad & I can't think of a better way to put it.
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.