The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles)

Associated Press ^ | 3/24/01

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams

Previous Thread

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Hey, he's a guy. He's on our team. :oP

Well, I hear you won't push his remote control buttons for him.

LOL!

You guys are pitiful:)

Becky

[RobbyS]

C.WRight Mills said that power take three forms: authority, manipulation and force. Only the first enjoys full consent of the subject. As a bishop Law was given full authority. He has abused it by descending to lesser forms, encouraged by PR types, and finally he must try to use raw force. The problem is that he lacks the strength to use force. He is like Nixon at the end of his presidency.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

43 sounds pretty good right now:)

We are up to 30. It really is not to bad, the wind is not blowing today. The wind is what makes it bad.

BEcky

[JHavard]

I'd like to ask all of you for prayers for my 44-year-old daughter Debby, in Ohio.

She’s in a Cleveland Ohio Hospital, and has a tumor on her intestine the size of a grapefruit, and if it's cancerous, she could end up needing a colostomy.

No one need to post me back, I know you will all say a prayer for her, and I know God's aware and in full charge, I just thought you would want to know.

Thanks in advance. Jim and Ginny and family

[OLD REGGIE]

(SD) When Petr and Paul led the early Church, told them what to believe, and wrote them letters detailing these beliefs, Jesus didn't criticise them for trying to "lord over" them or of failing to be a "servant." Their leadership was their service.

(OR) He was dead Dave. What criticism of Peter did he have while he was still on this earth "in the flesh"?

I'm not sure I see yoru point. Are you suggesting that Jesus did not approve of Peter and Paul writing Scripture and teaching people? Of course not.

I'm not surprised you missed my point. Whether the writing and teaching of Peter, Paul, and the others was criticized by Jesus is certainly not the point.

Let me try one more time.

There is no written record of Jesus criticizing anything while Peter and Paul were writing so your statement has no meaning.

Did Jesus ever criticize Peter? Yes!

Did Jesus ever criticize all the apostles for arguing about their individual "greatness". Yes! (Luke 9:46}

Interestingly Jesus also made it clear to them it wasn't necessary to be a follower of them, with them, and doing only as they "taught". Hmmm. Is there any room for "others" in this scheme?

Luke 9:
[49] John answered, "Master, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he does not follow with us."
[50] But Jesus said to him, "Do not forbid him; for he that is not against you is for you."

[OLD REGGIE]

A Catholic believes the Church is the authoritative interpreter of Scripture. A Protestant believes that the Holy Spirit will personally interpret Scripture authoritatively for him.

(Quester) This is, essentially, an accurate statement. Thank you. At least two Protestants took issue with it. I don't know why.

If you are including me amongst those "Protestants" you should be aware there are many "Protestants" who would disclaim me.

My issue is; There is no such thing as a generic Catholic or Protestant. You cannot make an accurate statement of what A Catholic or A Protestant believes.

A Catholic practices birth control.
A Catholic doesn't believe in the Real Presence.
A Catholic doesn't believe in the Perpetual Virginity.
A Catholic doesn't believe in the Immaculate Coception.
A Catholic doesn't believe in the Bodily Assumption of Mary.

True?
False?
Partially true?
True of some?
Are any of these people Catholic?

[SoothingDave]

I didn't watch much tv last night, but did you read the letter? The pro-choice issue was bad enough but he was talking about Jesus being pro-choice too. Did he mention that last night?

I read the letter on FR a day or two ago. It was pathetic. But we know there are "pro-choice" "Christians" out there, and this is how they think. You don't, perhaps, get the full revulsion of it when you think in the abstract. When it is written out in its full force, it is repulsive.

May God have mercy on them.

SD

[SoothingDave]

yawn

You know what I mean. We've done this a million times.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Interestingly Jesus also made it clear to them it wasn't necessary to be a follower of them, with them, and doing only as they "taught". Hmmm. Is there any room for "others" in this scheme?

Luke 9:
[49] John answered, "Master, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he does not follow with us."
[50] But Jesus said to him, "Do not forbid him; for he that is not against you is for you."

Interesting. Do you think that if these folks were "against" Jesus, that Jesus would approve of them?

If they were doing in contradiction to what the Apostles taught, is that just hunky dory? Or is the message given to them optional?

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

Very interesting. Protestant sounding almost. Listen to God. Listen for God. Hmmmmmm. Maybe we don't need this magic "authority".

I am doing a little chain pulling. I truly liked it.

[OLD REGGIE]

BTW, I want to thank you for your efforts. I look forward to this posting every day. (Don't always agree, but I like it.)

[OLD REGGIE]

I long for the days of my youth when the TV people didn't make a big deal about things. And when every forecast of sno didn't cause a milk, bread, toilet paper frenzy.

You young whippersnapper. In the days of my youth there was no tv, there was generally one radio in the living room, and milk and bread was home delivered.

[Quester]

Luke 9:49 John answered, "Master, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he does not follow with us."

50 But Jesus said to him, "Do not forbid him; for he that is not against you is for you."

Interesting. Do you think that if these folks were "against" Jesus, that Jesus would approve of them?

Obviously not. The Pharisees (in general) were against JESUS, and He certainly didn't approve of them.

If they were doing in contradiction to what the Apostles taught, is that just hunky dory? Or is the message given to them optional?

I believe that this passage is telling us that what is important is doing the will of JESUS, and that there is no need to be under any particular earthly authority to do it.

[SoothingDave]

I long for the days of my youth when the TV people didn't make a big deal about things. And when every forecast of sno didn't cause a milk, bread, toilet paper frenzy.

You young whippersnapper. In the days of my youth there was no tv, there was generally one radio in the living room, and milk and bread was home delivered.

I notice you didn't mention the toilet paper. ;-)

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

For years Law has tolerated vipers such as Cuenin--even worse than he. So now he gets bit.

For years JP II has tolerated vipers such as Law. So now he gets bit.

[SoothingDave]

I believe that this passage is telling us that what is important is doing the will of JESUS, and that there is no need to be under any particular earthly authority to do it.

If we were all capable of discerning this will without assistance from those set up to teach us, I would agree.

Which returns us once again to the idea that Protestants have that they will be led to truth individually by the Holy Spirit.

Doing the will of Jesus is certainly the important thing, but that does not mean we do not need guidance. So He left us a guide.

Incidentally, your use of the phrase "particular earthly authority" is interesting. Given your hypotheses, what purpose does any earthly authority serve? I can see someone like me submitting to an authority that I thought was, well, authoritative. But since you reserve the right to determine is your "authority" is reading the Bible correctly, what is the point?

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

I didn't watch much tv last night, but did you read the letter? The pro-choice issue was bad enough but he was talking about Jesus being pro-choice too. Did he mention that last night? CD

I didn't read the letter. Is it available? Yes, he argued that Jesus would have been pro-choice. O'Reilly let him talk but made it clear he felt him to be a fool.

[SoothingDave]

I didn't read the letter. Is it available?

Here

First is PP's response, then that of the "reverand."

SD

[SoothingDave]

In your show you said that Jesus was not pro-choice and you were sure he would be insulted were he to see this card. Even as a minister I am careful what I presume Jesus would do if he were alive today, but one thing I know from the Bible is that Jesus was not against women having a choice in continuing a pregnancy. He never said a word about abortion (nor did anyone else in the Bible) even though abortion was available and in use in his time. In addition, his compassionate stance toward all individuals causes me to believe that he would want us to do what we can to ensure that women have full access to all necessary medical care in order to have healthy and happy families. Jesus was for peace on earth, justice on earth, compassion on earth, mercy on earth, and choice on earth.

[al_c]

BTW, I want to thank you for your efforts. I look forward to this posting every day. (Don't always agree, but I like it.)

Good to know. :o)