Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
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
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....
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
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.
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
Adversus Haereses (Book IV, Chapter 37)
I doin't recall this posted, surely, not in full. I came across it by chance.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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).
I lost my mother in 2008.
A miracle accompanied her funeral liturgy.
See Link
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.