Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
I really should amend that. I believe that God has rewarded me beyond my dreams.
I KNOW that the sum of the internal angles of a triangle is 180 degrees.
God, as it were, exists in the non Euclidian universe in which the sum of the internal angles can be more than or less than 180 degrees. My knowledge of our known universe cannot extend out of that universe into the ALL that God exists in. Any knowledge that I have is at best BELIEF, when extended to the attempts at grasping God.
There is no dogmatic teaching of the Church that destroys human life unless it is in self defense.
From the Catechism
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM
Legitimate defense
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor.... the one is intended, the other is not.”65
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful.... Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge.66
Capital Punishment
2266 The State’s effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.67
2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
“If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
“Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]
What it's attuned to is the view that people cannot be forced to do good.
Nobody or at least no government forces people to believe one way or the other in the West.
That's because beliefs cannot be forced, and in all truth neither can behavior (I present the holy martyrs as exhibit A).
Of course a laissez-faire government is not foolproof. Thomas Jefferson said that "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." I do not believe that what we see is "the inevitible result." Whatever our failures as a society, the blame must be placed squarely on our own shoulders. We cannot use a tyrannical emperor as a scapegoat. Lord have mercy on us.
First I never said she is a socialist or communist (they are not the same). Second, I doubt that she knows what they are. I do. I was born and grew up in communism.
You have some gall presuming. But it doesn't surprise me.
hat's why I call it the Deformation.
***I was born and grew up in communism.***
But, kosta, my dear sir, your experience in the here and now, in the material world does not even come close to the spiritual indwelling ESP of those being frogmarched.
Aristotelian thought regarding the phsyical world simply cannot hold a candle to the new age metaphysical experiences that one may imagine that one has, with either the use of drugs or metaphysics.
Well, not if you follow the Reformers, anyway.
***Jesus caused the Church; the Church caused the Bible. To say that it is else is untrue and attacks the very Truth of Jesus’ ministry on Earth. That is evil.***
John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Church, and the Church was with God, and the Church was God.”
See, here is our problem. We, the Reformed, believe that the Word of God is the Bible, while you believe that the Bible is just a bunch of stuff written by a bunch of men.
***John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Church, and the Church was with God, and the Church was God.”
See, here is our problem. We, the Reformed, believe that the Word of God is the Bible, while you believe that the Bible is just a bunch of stuff written by a bunch of men.***
Inspired men, but just men.
Tell, me if you would. Do you believe that the Word mentioned in the Bible is equivalent to God? Or do you believe that the words in the Bible are words of men who tried to write down their thoughts and impressions and memories of their experiences that they had related to God, or readings that they read or orations that they heard?
In other words, do you believe that the Bible is equivalent to God?
The earth and all it holds proceded out from God, and it is not God. Neither is the Bible, but the Bible holds the wisdom of God, and all who ignore it do so at their own peril. Yes, the men were inspired, by the Holy Spirit, who, as we know, is God. These men did not write, as you put it, “Thoughts and impressions and memories” but instead wrote what the Holy Spirit wanted us to know about God the Father and his Son.
Then you might stop worshiping it.
The Holy Spirit inspired all the original men who wrote the original tracts. But we’ve had all manner of folks involved including the monarch of England. Now there are some here who rail on about the Church being a political structure. Imagine, if you would, the mindset of people who fled religious persecution in England, only to kowtow and genuflect to not only the political translation of the Bible known as the KJV, but also the Westminster Confession.
Can you image the minset of people who would willingly agree to slavishly follow such an abominable text as a religioius one commissioned, bought and paid for by the English Government; followed by one very similar from the Scottish Parliament.
We follow the Creed created by the Church of Jesus Christ. Reformed follow one not only of men, but of foreign governments as well. One might question the Reformed theological sanity simply on those grounds, and not only on the dozens of theological contradictions and non sequiturs compiled by men such as Calvin and Luther.
Good point, bd. That's why I like your posts. :) I am glad you mentioned Acts 15, because it is indicative that the Church was not a unified camp. Those in Jerusalem, most of whom eventually became Ebionites, denied Jesus' divnity, but instead looked at Him as the Jewish Messiah (i.e. human only). The people around James the Just were also practicing (observant) Jews, who followed the Law.
The other camp were the Gentiles who basically did not follow the Law and who might have considered Jesus divine for a number of reasons, such as biblical terminology, used out of context and understaning in Judaism (i.e. "Son of Man," "Son of God," "Lord," etc.), but also very possibly because it suited the mindset of the Greek pagan religion.
Ancient Greek gods were basically superhumans, and seeing Christ as a "superhuman" would not at all be alien to the Greek mindset to consider him divine or even a demigod (like Achilles, a son of a human and a goddess mother).
If there is any evidence of Christ's divinity that early, I would be willing to bet it was of Greek and not of Jewish origin.
As the Church became more and more Greek and Roman, that belief only became mor pronounced. Many a scholar would not consider St. John's Gospel to have been written by an illiterate Jewish fiherman. The Greek of the author is too sophisticated and so is his theology. He could just as easily have been someone who knew St. John personally, one of his Greek disciples, who then decided to write this on John's behalf.
Now, you will also notice in Acts 15 that they sent a note to the Gentiles advising them to stay away from anything sacrificed to the idols, strangeled, or with blood. The fact is that they didn't follow that advice as they were expected to (being treated as Noahide Gentiles).
Your point about the eating the flesh and drinking the blood as part of the Eucharist is an excellent point. Even the Bible mentions that many of Christ's disciples left Him when He said the bread was His Body and that they are to eat it.
Did Christ teach something contrary to the Law? But you will notice that Luke doesn't say outright to eat the body and drink the blood. He says "share it among you" for the rbead, and for the wine He says, according to Luke (22:20) "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.
But Mark and Matthew definitely say eat and drink, and in fact Matthew quotes form Mark, a is frequently the case, verbatim. Also Mark and Matthew do not say "new" covenant, just covenant.
As Acts 15 reminds us, (the Jews believe) Moses wrote the Law dictated by God Himself that prohibits anything sacrificed to idols, strangeled or with blood as food. How do we reconcile this?
The Protestants would say that the Eucharist is only symbolic of memory. But the Bible is too explicit in too many places about it being the flesh and blood of Jesus. And the early Church treated it as such in substance, as a mystery (sacrament) of God, even if it is not felsh and blood in appearance and taste.
I am keenly aware of that "higher state" of being that some are iputing. BTW, Ann Coulter is an avid fan of the Greatful Dead. Talk about drugs and metaphysics!
And the Church has always believed that the Word (Logos) is the Father's only-begotten Son, not the Bible.
For 1,500 years no one (mis)took the phrase "word of God" to be synonimous with Christ (it takes special talent). The Bible is not Jesus. Now I am beginning to understand why so many Protestants worship the bible.
***The earth and all it holds proceded out from God, and it is not God. Neither is the Bible***
These are good words and true.
***but the Bible holds the wisdom of God, and all who ignore it do so at their own peril.***
If you mean ignore the wisdom of God, what exactly do you mean? The Reformed elect have no choice but to follow the indwelling HS and have no need of the Bible. The unelect can not ignore it to their utmost effort, but it means nothing since they are going to hell.
Who exactly in the Reformed universe utilizes the Bible?
***These men did not write, as you put it, “Thoughts and impressions and memories” but instead wrote what the Holy Spirit wanted us to know about God the Father and his Son.***
That doesn’t mean that the Bible you have in your possession has those characteristics; neither does it mean that the original texts were either. The Gospel according to Matthew is not equivalent to The Gospel according to God.
It is man’s feeble attempts to write about the infallible in fallible terms.
***Can you image the minset of people who would willingly agree to slavishly follow such an abominable text as a religioius one commissioned, bought and paid for by the English Government; followed by one very similar from the Scottish Parliament.***
Only if you can imagine a people slavishly following a human Pope and a church made of fallible men.
Thanks and amen! I’ve been blessed (?) with the gift of admonishment, but the other side of that is encouragement so it’s not all bad (smile).
***Then you might stop worshiping it.***
Never started, so that is an impossible task.
***The Holy Spirit inspired all the original men who wrote the original tracts. ***
Do you really think that the Holy Spirit stopped at that point and didn’t continue to inspire? Do you really think the HS no longer has an interest in preserving the purity of the scripture? That he doesn’t continue to work in the hearts of men to maintain the word of God so that all may worship in purity and truth?
***The Reformed elect have no choice but to follow the indwelling HS and have no need of the Bible.***
The sentence is nonsense. That’s like saying “Dear, I have all the parts to assemble this gym set for the boys, you can go ahead and throw out the assembly instructions.” You’ll not see one of the Reformed who doesn’t regularly, if not daily, read and study the Bible for its wisdom, instruction, correction, and understanding from God. It is the HS who gives us understanding of what we have read.
Ah! maybe there is where the problem lies.
For our sakes silly.. So that "WE" would know who and what we are made of.. Not intellectually but practically and spiritually.. So we would know what we are, and what we ain't.. Eternity is a long time and much to be gained or lost..
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.