Posted on 07/25/2010 1:37:12 PM PDT by betty boop
As betty has shown, the French Revolution is the antithesis of the American Revolution. Whereas the American Revolution was about the creation of many goods, the French Revolution was ultimately about the unmaking, or nihilization of good, beginning with the death (nihilization) of God the Father.
“”These sins arise from the hearts of men not our form of government””
When government thinks it can separate itself from the Church and form its own sort of Church ,it’s easy to see degradation of morality,thus the system fails because it separated itself from the Church and never understood what true freedom and liberty is in the first place.
More from Pope Leo XIII Libertas
There are others, somewhat more moderate though not more consistent, who affirm that the morality of individuals is to be guided by the divine law, but not the morality of the State, for that in public affairs the commands of God may be passed over, and may be entirely disregarded in the framing of laws. Hence follows the fatal theory of the need of separation between Church and State. But the absurdity of such a position is manifest. Nature herself proclaims the necessity of the State providing means and opportunities whereby the community may be enabled to live properly, that is to say, according to the laws of God. For, since God is the source of all goodness and justice, it is absolutely ridiculous that the State should pay no attention to these laws or render them abortive by contrary enact menu. Besides, those who are in authority owe it to the commonwealth not only to provide for its external well-being and the conveniences of life, but still more to consult the welfare of men’s souls in the wisdom of their legislation. But, for the increase of such benefits, nothing more suitable can be conceived than the laws which have God for their author; and, therefore, they who in their government of the State take no account of these laws abuse political power by causing it to deviate from its proper end and from what nature itself prescribes. And, what is still more important, and what We have more than once pointed out, although the civil authority has not the same proximate end as the spiritual, nor proceeds on the same lines, nevertheless in the exercise of their separate powers they must occasionally meet. For their subjects are the same, and not infrequently they deal with the same objects, though in different ways. Whenever this occurs, since a state of conflict is absurd and manifestly repugnant to the most wise ordinance of God, there must necessarily exist some order or mode of procedure to remove the occasions of difference and contention, and to secure harmony in all things. This harmony has been not inaptly compared to that which exists between the body and the soul for the well-being of both one and the other, the separation of which brings irremediable harm to the body, since it extinguishes its very life.
And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD? Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say.
And he said, O my Lord, send, I pray thee, by the hand [of him whom] thou wilt send.
And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Moses, and he said, [Is] not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well. And also, behold, he cometh forth to meet thee: and when he seeth thee, he will be glad in his heart.
And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do.
And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, [even] he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God.
And thou shalt take this rod in thine hand, wherewith thou shalt do signs. - Exodus 4:10-17
And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them. - I Samuel 8:6-9
Ye shall not eat one day, nor two days, nor five days, neither ten days, nor twenty days; [But] even a whole month, until it come out at your nostrils, and it be loathsome unto you: because that ye have despised the LORD which [is] among you, and have wept before him, saying, Why came we forth out of Egypt? - Numbers 11:18-20
This prophecy is a judgment and a mercy.
His eyes [were] as a flame of fire, and on his head [were] many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
And the armies [which were] in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
And he hath on [his] vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. – Revelation 19:11-16
Not really. If you ask an observant Jew, he or she may not be able to tell you either. Privately or publicly, they do not see any real continuity between Christianity and Judaism any more than Christians see continuity in Mormonism, and I would say rightfully so. Food for thought.
Unfortunately, any intelligent discussion about this is not really possible because it seems to be a sorely sensitive issue for the Evangelical side of this coin, which seems plain from your comment alone. Too bad.
Problem is Dear Sister, we live in the New Covenant fulfilled by Christ and not living in the OT anymore.
Christ gave us the Church and sends His Spirit to the Church as ecclesiastical authority,so it's not of man but of Christ.
"And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. [18] Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. [19] Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning any thing whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven"- Matthew 18: 17-19
Matt. 16:18; 18:18 - Jesus uses the word "ecclesia" only twice in the New Testament Scriptures, which demonstrates that Jesus intended a visible, unified, hierarchical, and authoritative Church.-From scripturecatholic
And likewise we will choke on every form of governance
If you are governed by the dogmatic teaching of Faith and Morals of the Catholic Church and FOLLOW them you will not choke. You will be a Saint
even our own Constitutional Republic which is still the best man can do
If our constitution was joined with moral teachings of the Church there would be no Abortion ,no pornography etc.. because the FF's would have tied it to dogmatic teachings of the Church on these morals making it impossible to change laws to something immoral. That would be true freedom-which is free from error.
You know ,"the truth shall set you free"
I wish you a Blessed day!
I also disagree with you that the Church is receiving "messages" from Christ other than what is in the scriptures and what is already known to the Church by the Holy Tradition. The faith was delievered once, not piecemeal. There is no scriptural basis to oppose slavery; the scriptures do not condemn it.
Well I see you’ve given up on the argument over Judeo-Christian values existing in our founding documents and have decided to now attack the proposition by whipping up an argument over the existence of any such thing as a Judeo-Christian tradition. If I were to ask an observant Jew about the Judeo-Christian tradition, it would likely be Dennis Prager, but if you bing the subject “Judeo-Christian tradition” you will get 1.3 mil results (we all know you wouldn’t actually get that many results, but you’d get a bunch), including some that are militantly hostile to the whole idea. Ought to be a lot of argumentative material there.
You’ve been asked (several times) to give a source (when? and who?) for your claim that Adams wrote a letter stating that the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion. So far as I know, you haven’t answered that completely reasonable request (not to me you haven’t, for sure) choosing instead, like a drive-by journalist, to go galloping off on another quest. I’ve given a cite for every one of my claims. This conversation stops until you return the courtesy.
The church freed slaves held by Muslims.
“”There is no scriptural basis to oppose slavery; the scriptures do not condemn it””
The Salve trade tore husbands from wives,so scripture is against it
Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.Matthew 19:6
Child slavery is against Scripture also..
But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”Matthew 19:14
The Salve trade = The slave trade
Thank you for your kind words Captain Beyond! I’m so glad you found the article interesting.
BTW, I am not attacking Judeao-Christian values. I know that most Jewish sites question the suggested continuity between Judaism and Christianity the way most (mainline) Christians would question "Chrstian-Mormon values" as a common denominator.
Where and when did the Church have the secular authority to do something like that?
Well, then who was the Freeper? Let's ask him/her for the source.
Separation is not against scripture. Remarriage is. Where does the Bible condemn slavery? It legitimizes it.
Child slavery is against Scripture also. But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”Matthew 19:14
Being a slave does not stop anyone from coming to Christ. besides, that verse does not address slavery but disciples trying to stop the children from "bothering" Jesus since children were seen as, well, childish. :)
Apostle Paul clearly states that all authority on earth is from God and that slaves should be obedient to their masters. Therefore the Church has no scriptural reason to oppose slavery.
I will do this once because I am nice. In the future do your own homework before you speak.
The Declaration tosses a bouquet in the general direction of "the Supreme Being" [not in the sense of Creator] as the source of "the rights of man and the citizen." It appears to be within the Natural Law tradition — at least nominally.
Notwithstanding, an analysis of its provisions makes plain that the Declaration envisions a system of society that tops out in the State, and bottoms out in the State. There is nothing outside of the State, which has become a quasi-sacred repository of the General Will. The rights of man and the citizen are actually contingent on his "playing ball" with the State, which can change the Law in response to changes in the purported General Will. There is no higher authority than the State as the repository of the General Will.
The contingency of human rights is shown, for instance, WRT religious liberty. See item 10: "No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law." But what constitutes both the public order and the law is determined by the State. Law is conceived to be the very expression of the General Will, and as such is subject to change as the General Will changes. Indeed, the State is virtually unlimited in its scope for effecting such change; for enterprising political operators can always gin up support for whatever their proposals may be by invoking the principle of the General Will....
Law is everything. Justice is not even mentioned. The British and American idea was that the law is the handmaiden (to to speak) of Justice. Where laws do not serve the interest of Justice, they are no laws at all, they are illegitimate usurpations of God-given liberties. The French Declaration's view of law does not answer to the problems of justice. Law is the highest authority there is; it has no standard or criterion beyond itself that it has to measure up to. It is justified by nothing outside of itself, except the fictional General Will....
The French Declaration is offered as a consummation of human reason with respect to the affairs of men in political society. The rights of man are abstract rights, and moreover grants of the State; they are not personal rights: if they were, the State could not rescind them by passing new law.
The same way law is detached from the idea of justice, the French idea of Reason is detached from its Logos. The loss of its ground in the Logos makes reason just one more abstraction....
Well, just a few thoughts for now, FWTW.
Thank you ever so much for writing, dear xzins!
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.