# Anyone know what religion Huckabee subscribes to?



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

It's certainly not Christianity:

"The criteria to get into heaven is you have to be not good, but perfect. That's the real challenge in it," he said at First Baptist North Spartanburg, a megachurch with 6,000 members.

"On that day, when I pull up, I'll be asked, 'Do you have what it takes to get in?"' Huckabee said. "And if I ask, 'Well, what does it take to get in?' 'Gotta be perfect."'



Yikes. If this isn't anti-Christ, an absolute and obscene perversion of Christianity, I'm not sure what ever could be.

If only perfect people get into heaven it's got to be an extremely lonely place.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Frank, I'm more inclined to side with you than some others, but here you clearly ignore Huckabee saying that Christ will be with him (save him.)

Without Christ, Christians believe our sins would keep us out of heaven.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Frank, I'm more inclined to side with you than some others, but here you clearly ignore Huckabee saying that Christ will be with him (save him.)
> 
> Without Christ, Christians believe our sins would keep us out of heaven.


Jesus preached repentance of sin, not the usage of him as a Free Pass Card for it.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Your probable political distaste for Huckabee is obvious. I won't post in this thread any more. 

I attend church (Lutheran) nearly every Sunday and know what we believe. I don't know exactly what Huckabee believes.

You seem to distort religion for your own ends. I suppose you are not the only one who does that. I generally don't say much. Sometimes your political arguments can make some sense.

I am appalled at some of the things you say about organized religion, but usually stay away from your commentary that gets pretty nasty.

I have opened myself up here. Say whatever you want. I hope it makes you feel better.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

You forgot the last part of his sermon:



> "Well, I'm afraid I don't have that, but you know what, I won't be there alone that day. Somebody is going to be with me. His name is Jesus, and he's promised that he would never leave me or forsake me," he said.


This is pretty standard Christian teaching, at least of the Protestant variety. We are all sinners and cannot get into heaven on our own merits. The only reason it's possible is the unmerited grace of God and the sacrifice of Jesus on our behalf, to pay the penalty for our sins. You can call it a Free Pass Card (and it is free in the sense we can never earn it), but essentially it's repenting of our sins, accepting Jesus as our Savior, and doing our best to live a changed life with the assistance of God's Holy Spirit.

(A Presbyterian perspective . . . we and the Lutherans probably have 99% in common, although we may approach it a little differently.)


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Beresford said:


> This is pretty standard Christian teaching, at least of the Protestant variety. We are all sinners and cannot get into heaven on our own merits. The only reason it's possible is the unmerited grace of God and the sacrifice of Jesus on our behalf, to pay the penalty for our sins. You can call it a Free Pass Card (and it is free in the sense we can never earn it), but essentially it's repenting of our sins, accepting Jesus as our Savior, and doing our best to live a changed life with the assistance of God's Holy Spirit.
> 
> (A Presbyterian perspective . . . we and the Lutherans probably have 99% in common, although we may approach it a little differently.)


Is there any Biblical basis whatsoever, either in the Old or New Testament, for the claim that only perfect people get into heaven? If not, where did this idiotic notion come from?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Is there any Biblical basis whatsoever, either in the Old or New Testament, for the claim that only perfect people get into heaven? If not, where did this idiotic notion come from?


As I understand the dogma, when you have been shriven, you are in a state of grace, ergo perfect. If one is not in a state of grace, again according to the dogma of your religion, one cannot enter heaven.

All I can say is, I can certainly think of better things to pick on Huckabee about, but we have all come to realize you have some severe issues surrounding religion, religious people, and most especially, the Pope.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Huckabee is Christian. An Orthodox Bishop once said he would be first suprised at seeing some people in heaven and even more suprised he made it too.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Is there any Biblical basis whatsoever, either in the Old or New Testament, for the claim that only perfect people get into heaven? If not, where did this idiotic notion come from?


First, I just want to say I have no desire to fight you or anyone else on this subject, or any other, on a Sunday. I am just answering your question without debating the issue one way or another, at this point.

True followers of Christ may become perfect through his grace and atonement.

As to scripture, just off the top of my head, without any claim that this is complete in any regard:

"Let your heart be perfect with the Lord," 1 Kgs. 8: 61.

"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven," Matt. 5: 48.

"If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man," James 3: 2.

 "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind," 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." 
1 Cor. 6: 9 (9-11).


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Huckabee is a Southern Baptist.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

whomewhat said:


> "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind," 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."
> 1 Cor. 6: 9 (9-11).


It's even more pointed in the latin Vulgate or the original Greek. Frank's version of Christianity is the only thing here that's not Christian.
Good post.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

whomewhat said:


> First, I just want to say I have no desire to fight you or anyone else on this subject, or any other, on a Sunday. I am just answering your question without debating the issue one way or another, at this point.


None of those quotes answers my question. They're simply calls to strive for perfection, which is fine, but it's very different than claiming only perfect people get into heaven. I'm almost 50 years old and I'm still waiting to meet a perfect human being, Christian or otherwise.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> It's even more pointed in the latin Vulgate or the original Greek. Frank's version of Christianity is the only thing here that's not Christian.
> Good post.


Actually that's one of the most inaccurate translations I've ever come across of 1 Corinthians 6, e.g. the Greek "_malakoi_" does not translate to "effeminate", but simply "soft". Reading it as "effeminate" is a ridiculous stretch, as is "abusers of themselves with mankind". Just absurd.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

LOL, no we shall be treated to a literary and linguistic critique of the Bible by Frank. Sometimes, this place is just too precious.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

I can understand Franks issue here ( I think). It is certainly the orthodox Christian belief that God is perfect , He is holy. Holy doesn't mean God is harsh and cold towards human beings, as in some "folk" ideas of holiness.
It is good news. God is pure, wholly loving, just and "good" ( a difficult concept since goodness is defined by what we understand of God in the first place).

However, it is true that Christianity teaches that nothing unholy, ie not perfect can enter God's presence. The Apostle Paul says " all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God", and goes on to outline our need of a Saviour. 

Christianity also teaches that therefore we need a Saviour - who is of course, Jesus of Nazareth, who we believe to be the Christ, the Son of God.

Where I am with Frank on this one is that far too many evangelical Christians use this as a "ticket to heaven". Too many don't seem to think repentance goes beyond conversion to a radical examination of their whole lives.

I have been amongst, belonged to and around thousands of evangelical Christians all my life, and time and again, one sees unbelievable behaviour, beliefs about the world and other people and unbelievable values attributed to Jesus that justify a lifestyle that is unregenerate. This must be such a huge turn off to unbelievers and I don't blame them.

Some such attitudes amongst evangelical Christians I have witnessed are " sanctified arrogance; my Church is bigger than your Church ( so God must be with my Church not your Church) , an appalling attitude to people who don't agree with us; if my Church won't do it my way I'll go and start another Church; sanctified competition between brothers and sisters in Christ; sanctification of the wealth of the few over the poverty of the many, a vicious intolerance towards people who do not fit into the sexualtiy norm", and I could go on but that is depressing enough for now. Not all evangelical Christians are guilty of these things, but my experience is that these things are all too often ,depressingly, seen. A British Christian author has stated that Evangelical and Charismatic Christianity is in love with: Power, Celebrity; Entertainment; Wealth; Spectacle. I wonder if that list reminds us of Jesus? No, didn't think so. Ron Howards book very much resonated with my own experience.

As an aside it has been shown the mega churches grow at the expense of other churches in America ( here too , we just have fewer of them). The number of practicing Christians in the US has not risen with the rise of the mega Churches, despite their claims to be making thousands of converts, and the "normal " Churches have declined in proportion to the growth of the mega Churches. One theologian put it this way " the mega Churches have "done a number" on the regular Churches". It is akin to what the big out-of-town shopping malls have done to the smaller town center shops. God of course is really into this and always backs the winners!!! Or does he?


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

doesn't read as "soft" to me:

https://www.greeknewtestament.com/B46C006.htm (Can't paste Greek here directly!)

but after all, Frank is our resident Theologian and Bible Expert.

the latin follows the greek better:
an nescitis quia iniqui regnum Dei non possidebunt nolite errare neque fornicarii neque idolis servientes neque adulteri,neque molles neque masculorum concubitores neque fures neque avari neque ebriosi neque maledici neque rapaces regnum Dei possidebunt


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Leather man said:


> Where I am with Frank on this one is that far too many evangelical Christians use this as a "ticket to heaven". Too many don't seem to think repentance goes beyond conversion to a radical examination of their whole lives.


Thank you, that's exactly what I'm trying to say.

When Jesus was asked, specifically, what one must do to attain the kingdom of heaven, he gave a very short list of only the most basic commandments. He didn't say anything about perfection.

That is why I consider Huckabee's claim that perfection is a requirement for heaven to be so absolutely reprehensible: it puts heaven beyond the reach of virtually everyone. Except of course for Mr. Huckabee and whomewhatwhere. It's the essence of spiritual pride and arrogance, which according to Jesus are the greatest sins one can commit, i.e. "theirs will be the harshest sentence".


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> doesn't read as "soft" to me:
> 
> https://www.greeknewtestament.com/B46C006.htm
> 
> but after all, Frank is our resident Theologian and Bible Expert.


Excuse me, but your own link comes up with FIVE different translations for that particular word. Thanks for making my point for me.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Thank you, that's exactly what I'm trying to say.
> 
> Except of course for Mr. Huckabee and whomewhatwhere.


Now wait a minute! I assume this remark "Except of course for . . . whomewhatwhere" was meant for me? What on earth did I do? You asked a question:

_"Is there *any* Biblical basis whatsoever, either in the Old or New Testament, for the claim that only perfect people get into heaven? If not, where did this idiotic notion come from?"_

_I responded, without criticism of you or anyone else, to your question only. I provided some, not all, "Biblical basis" for the idea that we must be perfect, that is cleaned through the grace of Jesus Christ, and I get this unwarranted, unprovoked attack? You may disagree that this supports the idea that we must be perfect through Christ in order to enter God's presence, but you asked for "*any* Biblical basis _whatsoever" and I provided it. If you had wanted "absolute, definitive" evidence of this you should have asked for such, rather than asking for "any Bibilical basis whatsoever." Words do mean things and you are in discussion with others about the meaning of words right now. Maybe you can dicuss the meaning of the phrase "_*any* Biblical basis whatsoever" and take each word one at a time. My answer was responsive, even if it did not satisfy you. _Wow_! Talk about "pride and arrogance!"_


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Excuse me, but your own link comes up with FIVE different translations for that particular word. Thanks for making my point for me.


Uh, no. Just five different ways of saying the same thing: You're screwed , Frank.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Excuse me, but your own link comes up with FIVE different translations for that particular word. Thanks for making my point for me.


We are in danger of getting diverted here. However IMO the most accurate translation of the Koine Greek text is the Revised Standard Version and it translates "Malakoi" as " sexual perverts". I think this is better as it is more generalised.

I cannot find "soft" as a translation anywhere - but I don't deny it must exist. Not sure it helps much though ( I mean the translation "soft" - do we all have to be "hard men"?)

The trouble with difficult to translate words is that those doing the translating end up loading their translation with either their own theological bias or the issue of the day.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Leather man said:


> We are in danger of getting diverted here. However IMO the most accurate translation of the Koine Greek text is the Revised Standard Version and it translates "Malakoi" as " sexual perverts". I think this is better as it is more generalised.
> 
> I cannot find "soft" as a translation anywhere - but I don't deny it must exist. Not sure it helps much though ( I mean the translation "soft" - do we all have to be "hard men"?)
> 
> The trouble with difficult to translate words is that those doing the translating end up loading their translation with either their own theological bias or the issue of the day.


The word had only two meanings in Greek. One was "soft" and the other was "loose". There is absolutely no justification for translating the word as "effeminate". Doing so is an example of the bias you refer to.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

Interesting though how we all have picked up on that word Malakoi in Paul's list! How about another word "idolators"! I wonder if we find it easier to point the finger at others rather than ourselves. Idolatory is a sin that we all struggle with in societies that worship at the altar of money and power, whilst we follow a Saviour who taught " you cannot serve both God and money".

Or how about adultery? By Jesus' definition of what committing adultery means ( even looking at someone of the opposite sex in a lustful way) we are all "screwed" - as someone said. (pardon the dreadful and wholly unintentional pun:icon_pale

Context is all! Paul is writing to a Church which has grown up with licenciousness. The purpose of his unholy list is not for us to pick it apart, but to describe a generally lax, self indulgent and rather destructive lifestyle. To a Church still visiting prostitutes and general loose living he is contrasting the alternatives - 1. An undisciplined life. 2. A life with Christ.

He is saying " You were saved by Christ for a new life. it makes no sense at all to be going back to the life you left to follow Him. Loose living was taking you away from God, Christ brought you to God, so why are you now not living for Christ?"


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

To be blunt: _malakoi_ was the term for a male prostitute or 'bottom" (to use modern parlance) and _arsenokoitai_ was a "top". Consistent with Leviticus if you'd like to review your OT.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> The word had only two meanings in Greek. One was "soft" and the other was "loose". There is absolutely no justification for translating the word as "effeminate". Doing so is an example of the bias you refer to.


The reason why some Greek words in the Bible can be difficult to translate is by the time we get to Koine Greek, some words have taken on new or more meanings that they had in Classical Greek.

However, I can see how soft and loose amount to the same thing - soft here not meaning a gentle person as we would use soft, but as someone who aspire to a soft life - ie self indulgent.

"Loose" would fit Paul's argument very nicely in 1Cor6 and so I can see why the RSV translates it " sexual perverts" because this would be a fair translation of " loose people". It adds weight also to a generalised translation being the best.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Leather man said:


> Interesting though how we all have picked up on that word Malakoi in Paul's list! How about another word "idolators"! I wonder if we find it easier to point the finger at others rather than ourselves. Idolatory is a sin that we all struggle with in societies that worship at the altar of money and power, whilst we follow a Saviour who taught " you cannot serve both God and money".
> 
> Or how about adultery? By Jesus' definition of what committing adultery means ( even looking at someone of the opposite sex in a lustful way) we are all "screwed" - as someone said. (pardon the dreadful and wholly unintentional pun:icon_pale
> 
> ...


Right on the money (pun intended) :icon_smile_big: . Although Paul lists specific grevious sins, it is really indicative of turning away from the things of this world toward Christ that is what he's trying to point out.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Is there any Biblical basis whatsoever, either in the Old or New Testament, for the claim that only perfect people get into heaven? If not, where did this idiotic notion come from?


I won't dare venture a guess on textual authority, where I am entirely out of my depth, but I understand that one of the basic Protestant beliefs is not merely that Christ perfects us, but that _*only*_ Christ perfects us.



> That is why I consider Huckabee's claim that perfection is a requirement for heaven to be so absolutely reprehensible: it puts heaven beyond the reach of virtually everyone.


Again, the idea is that the "perfection" in question is _only_ attainable through Christ. That it is not remotely within the reach of anyone _except_ through Christ. Not through being good, doing good works (which I understand is a modern Catholic imperative), living a clean and decent life, hurting no one, or even following the strictest of behavioral proscriptions.

Protestant doctrine is that salvation has nothing to do with behavior, and everything to do with your heart. I suppose that Protestants would acknowledge that truly accepting Christ -- an act that has no outward, observable component whatsoever -- will inspire a person to engage in good behavior, but the good behavior is itself in no way a "ticket" to salvation, nor is it even evidence of having accepted Christ. Behavior, or even intent, is nothing of importance when compared to this spiritual transformation.

The idea is that even if we were to consider the most perfectly-behaved person that is even theoretically possible, when "perfection" is expressed solely in terms of good behavior -- a person who never harmed anyone, never lied, never did anything less than gave 100% effort during every second of his life in furtherance of acts of complete selflessness and service to others -- such a person (if such a life were even possible) would not, by virtue of such a life, be one inch closer to being saved. He would not have been perfected in the Protestant sense. He would have earned nothing by a life of seemingly-perfect behavior.

In other words, Protestant salvation is 100% spiritual, 0% physical/material/behavioral.

Please don't argue theology with me. I am only trying to describe my understanding of it, not to promote it.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

Leather man said:


> Interesting though how we all have picked up on that word Malakoi in Paul's list!


To be clear: I was not picking up on that single word at all. I was responding to the initial question posed, "_*any* Biblical basis whatsoever_." When the question was posed I did a quick search on certain keywords to find the biblical references that were asked for. I typed in either perfect or perfection, I don't recall which, and these were the scripture references that were provided. I then provided them as evidence of "_*any* Biblical basis whatsoever_." I did not and have not involved myself in discussion outside of this parameter, others did, but I do not wish to be painted with the "all have picked up on that word" brush.

To attack me with the comments that follow was simply uncalled for: "That is why I consider Huckabee's claim that perfection is a requirement for heaven to be so absolutely reprehensible: it puts heaven beyond the reach of virtually everyone. Except of course for Mr. Huckabee and *whomewhatwhere.*" And do not tell me this was not a reference to me just because you added "where" to the end of "whomewhat!" I not only make no special claim on entrance into Heaven, but I worry about my worthiness to enter into God's presence each and every day, especially on Sundays. The reason for this is because I do believe works are important. My view differs from Mr. Phinn's, which I understand, in that I believe in the proposition that "faith without works is dead." I do agree that no matter how righteous one may be that without the grace of Jesus Christ it is all for naught, however, grace is not a free pass to do whatever we want. I would say that "a person who never harmed anyone, never lied, never did anything less than gave 100% effort during every second of his life in furtherance of acts of complete selflessness and service to others -- such a person (if such a life were even possible) would not, by virtue of such a life," be exempt from requiring the grace of Jesus Christ to enter into God's kingdom. That is where we differ.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Phinn said:


> Again, the idea is that the "perfection" in question is _only_ attainable through Christ. That it is not remotely within the reach of anyone _except_ through Christ. Not through being good, doing good works (which I understand is a modern Catholic imperative), living a clean and decent life, hurting no one, or even following the strictest of behavioral proscriptions.


Not entirely correct, as salvation comes though Grace alone ( Catholic theology) cooperation with that grace (by doing good works) is more accurate as "the Catholic imperative" : E.g. "faith without works is dead" etc. :icon_smile:


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I was sitting in greek class when Mrs Seale walked in visibly shaking and announced " there is a rumour the president has been shot in Dallas. Students will go quietly to chapel. We filed in according to class and sat in our familiar places. Father Murphy,former All Ireland football hero Orangeman and the Vicar father Bliel led us in prayers, Father Murphy with his usual strong voice pushing forward like a football player through his own stream of tears. Father Murphy prayed for "our beloved president and servant in God John Fitzgerald Kennedy on behalf of all CHRISTENDOM." I pity you Frank. You're so busy reading the menu you have forgotten to eat.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Gosh Kav, I'm surprised you didn't grace us with yet another story about how you decked someone, or got kicked out of a biker bar, or provided excruciatingly self-absorbed details of yet another display of your awesome physical and mental powers, or yet another of your life experiences that nobody other than yourself give a rat's ass about.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Actually some rats asses are very valuable if they've been part of laboratory experiments. I see online some researchers have revived lab mice hearts. Maybe medical science can cure you someday.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

whomewhat said:


> I do agree that no matter how righteous one may be that without the grace of Jesus Christ it is all for naught


Mk 10:17 As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up, knelt down before him, and asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
10:18 Jesus answered him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.
10:19 You know the commandments: 'You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; you shall not defraud; honor your father and your mother.'"
10:20 He replied and said to him, "Teacher, all of these I have observed from my youth."
10:21 Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said to him, "You are lacking in one thing. Go, sell what you have, and give to (the) poor and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me."

In attaining heaven, if Jesus' grace was paramount to following basic behavioral rules, I believe Jesus would have said so in this passage. But in fact he took this opportunity (one of many) to redirect misdirected attention and worship from himself and back toward God, where it belongs.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> It's certainly not Christianity:
> 
> "The criteria to get into heaven is you have to be not good, but perfect. That's the real challenge in it," he said at First Baptist North Spartanburg, a megachurch with 6,000 members.
> 
> ...


Frank,

Huckabee did not say that you have to be perfect to get into heaven. Nice try.

His belief structure is the good old Southern Baptist. Redemption through faith in Jesus Christ.

And trust me, the Baptist heaven isn't a lonely place, just a little boring.

Cheers


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> That is why I consider Huckabee's claim that perfection is a requirement for heaven to be so absolutely reprehensible: it puts heaven beyond the reach of virtually everyone. Except of course for Mr. Huckabee and whomewhatwhere. It's the essence of spiritual pride and arrogance, which according to Jesus are the greatest sins one can commit, i.e. "theirs will be the harshest sentence".


Was there not some quip along the lines of "judge not lest ye be judged"? Of course, these things probably do not apply to you, as you have demonstrated time and again you get the sekrit squirrel messages about what applies to FrankDC and what does not.

To the sane people here, does the hypocrisy demonstrated above not make you laugh (while also cringing)?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

The answer to the original question is stunningly easy: everybody has the religion they say they have. There is no such thing as a "real" religion independent of the beliefs and actions of its adherents.

Therefore:
Millard Fuller, founder of Habitat for Humanity: Christian (maybe Baptist)
Richard Nixon: Quaker
the Catholic priests who abused young boys, and the bishops who covered it up: Christian (Catholic)
Dr. Tom Dooley, who provided medical relief to impoverished people: Christian (Catholic)
Ferdinand and Isabella, who persecuted Jews and Muslims in Spain: Christian (Catholic)
Albert Schweitzer: Christian
Osama bin Laden: Muslim.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Jack, I think it'd be farer to say that Ferdinand and Isabella booted out Muslim invaders from their country rather than persecued them.

Oops forgot, It's *ALWAYS* the White Christian Male's fault for every ill that's ever occurred. Sorry, my bad.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

yachtie said:


> Jack, I think it'd be farer to say that Ferdinand and Isabella booted out Muslim invaders from their country rather than persecued them.
> 
> Oops forgot, It's *ALWAYS* the White Christian Male's fault for every ill that's ever occurred. Sorry, my bad.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Jack, I think it'd be farer to say that Ferdinand and Isabella booted out Muslim invaders from their country rather than persecued them.


The fall of Granada: AD 1492

Granada is difficult to subue by military means alone. While steadily capturing outlying strongholds of the Muslim kingdom, the Spanish also meddle in a dispute between members of the ruling family. Their chosen prince, Boabdil, agrees under duress to surrender Granada to Ferdinand and Isabella when he is in a position to do so. In 1491 they call in their pledge. When Boabdil refuses to deliver, they besiege the city of Granada. It falls to them in 1492.

The reconquest of Spain is complete.

The long Spanish tradition of tolerance between Muslim and Christian survives briefly after this final Christian victory. The Moors of Granada are promised religious freedom. The promise is honoured for only a few years.

In 1495 Queen Isabella's strict confessor, Jiménez de Cisneros, becomes archbishop of Toledo. He decrees that Muslims must convert to Christianity. The result is a Moorish uprising in 1499, after which the choice becomes even more stark. From 1502 the Muslims of Granada must convert immediately or leave Spain. This is the dilemma already imposed by the Spanish Inquisition in 1492 on the Jews. Identifying fraudulent conversions, whether from Judaism or Islam, will keep the inquisitors busy for years.

I'm not an expert in Spanish history, but if this is correct it demonstrates that the Spanish reconquest was complete in 1492 and it wasn't until ten years later that Ferdinand and Isabella initiated their program of forced conversion or exile. You are, of course, free to call it whatever you want.



yachtie said:


> Oops forgot, It's *ALWAYS* the White Christian Male's fault for every ill that's ever occurred. Sorry, my bad.


This is a gross distortion. I've never said anything like that in any post here, or in any other comment, and I don't believe it's true.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

There was serious subversion problem with the remaining Moors in the south IIRC. Anyway, a few hundred years of forced conversions by Muslims in Spain ( not to mention elsewhere)seems to have been left out of your list. Appeared slanted- hence the comment.

Always the yadadoo about the Inquisition ( not just by you, understand)- like nothing else ever happened. (!)


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

yachtie said:


> There was serious subversion problem with the remaining Moors in the south IIRC. Anyway, a few hundred years of forced conversions by Muslims in Spain ( not to mention elsewhere)seems to have been left out of your list. Appeared slanted- hence the comment.
> 
> Always the yadadoo about the Inquisition ( not just by you, understand)- like nothing else ever happened. (!)


"Yadadoo"? Torture and forced conversions? It's a long time ago, but I still take it seriously.

You may not have noticed that the only Muslim I mentioned was Osama bin Laden. I spent a little time trying to find a positive Muslim to reference for balance but no luck in the time I was willing to put into it. (I don't really think that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar counterbalances Osama bin Laden, do you?)


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> "Yadadoo"? Torture and forced conversions? It's a long time ago, but I still take it seriously.
> 
> You may not have noticed that the only Muslim I mentioned was Osama bin Laden. I spent a little time trying to find a positive Muslim to reference for balance but no luck in the time I was willing to put into it. (I don't really think that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar counterbalances Osama bin Laden, do you?)


Well, torture was by the civil authorities and the Inquisition were pikers in the forced conversion business- but it does make for a good line of discussion:

It's immaterial that (insert the position that one's supporting) because the Inquisition did (insert some heinous acts here) therefore, your religion is just full of it and I don't have to listen to anything you say.

Yadadoo.

It's just the Catholic version of the Nazi line. Not saying you play that card, but so many do that I'm really tired of it.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Yachtie:

In 2008, can the Spanish really be counted under the "white" universal heading? I do not think so. At best, "white, hispanic" vs. the pariah group of males, "white non-hispanic". Now, I know "Spanish" and "hispanic" are not one and the same, but I submit to you in modern day America, it is a distinction without a difference.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Well, torture was by the civil authorities and the Inquisition were pikers in the forced conversion business- but it does make for a good line of discussion:
> 
> It's immaterial that (insert the position that one's supporting) because the Inquisition did (insert some heinous acts here) therefore, your religion is just full of it and I don't have to listen to anything you say.


So speaketh Hector Projector. You forgot the "Nyahh! Nyahh!" part at the end. I'm sure Wayfarer would approve the addition.

Nice try at thread hijacking, though.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Should Huckabee win I have this vision of Franck dressed up in a Monty Python Spanish Inquisition costume trying to disrupt his swearing in ceremony.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> So speaketh Hector Projector. You forgot the "Nyahh! Nyahh!" part at the end. I'm sure Wayfarer would approve the addition.
> 
> Nice try at thread hijacking, though.


Go back to the locked ward, Frank. Your friends miss you.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Yachtie:
> 
> In 2008, can the Spanish really be counted under the "white" universal heading? I do not think so. At best, "white, hispanic" vs. the pariah group of males, "white non-hispanic". Now, I know "Spanish" and "hispanic" are not one and the same, but I submit to you in modern day America, it is a distinction without a difference.


If I called any of the Spaniards I know "hispanic", I'd get popped in the nose. Quite a distinction, I assure you.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> So speaketh Hector Projector. You forgot the "Nyahh! Nyahh!" part at the end. * I'm sure Wayfarer would approve the addition.*
> 
> Nice try at thread hijacking, though.


I feel like I have replaced Dubya in FrankDC's little world of fixations. Just as male pattern baldness was once Dubya's fault, it now seems that all the world's ills are mine.

We are flattered FrankDC. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

yachtie said:


> If I called any of the Spaniards I know "hispanic", I'd get popped in the nose. Quite a distinction, I assure you.


Oh, I agree....to them. I have seen the reaction first hand. Ditto people from Portugal. Here in 'Merica though? A "Martinez" is a "Martinez" and a "Martinez" is hispanic!


----------



## videocrew (Jun 25, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Is there any Biblical basis whatsoever, either in the Old or New Testament, for the claim that only perfect people get into heaven? If not, where did this idiotic notion come from?


"And there shall in no wise enter into it (Heaven) anything that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the lamb's book of life." Revelation 21:27


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Oh, I agree....to them. I have seen the reaction first hand. Ditto people from Portugal. Here in 'Merica though? A "Martinez" is a "Martinez" and a "Martinez" is hispanic!


Only to Anglocentrics in Washington. :icon_smile_big: If someone uses a "y" in a compound last name, It's safer to assume that they're from the old country or if they're from here they are not mestizo. ( same difference in my experience).

How's that for cultural sensitivity!


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Kav said:


> Should Huckabee win I have this vision of Franck dressed up in a Monty Python Spanish Inquisition costume trying to disrupt his swearing in ceremony.


I do look pretty good in red.. 

I'll bring the rrrrack and comfy chair.


----------



## In Mufti (Jan 28, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> The answer to the original question is stunningly easy: everybody has the religion they say they have. There is no such thing as a "real" religion independent of the beliefs and actions of its adherents.
> 
> Therefore:
> Millard Fuller, founder of Habitat for Humanity: Christian (maybe Baptist)
> ...


Let's not forget some others:

Adoolf Hitler: Responsble for starting most lethal war in human history (Athiest)
Joseph Stalin: Slaughtered up to 20 million of his own citizens (Athiest)
Mao Tsedong: Slaughtered more than 30 million Chinese (Athiest)


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

In Mufti said:


> Let's not forget some others:
> 
> Adoolf Hitler: Responsble for starting most lethal war in human history (Athiest)
> Joseph Stalin: Slaughtered up to 20 million of his own citizens (Athiest)
> Mao Tsedong: Slaughtered more than 30 million Chinese (Athiest)


Hey, leave us godless folks out of your dogmatic squabbles!


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

In Mufti said:


> Let's not forget some others:
> 
> Adoolf Hitler: Responsble for starting most lethal war in human history (Athiest)
> Joseph Stalin: Slaughtered up to 20 million of his own citizens (Athiest)
> Mao Tsedong: Slaughtered more than 30 million Chinese (Athiest)


I believe Hitler was Protestant.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Like the vast majority of Austrians, Hitler was born into a Catholic family. His mother at least was reputed to be quite religious. He was baptized as a Catholic, went to Catholic schools and was an altar boy. He received the sacrament of Confirmation at the Cathedral in Linz. 

Whether he considered himself a Catholic in his later adult years is a matter of some uncertainty.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Frank, for somebody who is suppose to know so much about the Bible, as you would like people to believe, why don't you know the basics?

Why did Adam & Eve get kicked out of the Garden of Eden?

What are the animal sacrifices for?

Why is Propitiation in the New Testament?

Why do people repent?

Why did Jesus come and die on the cross?

Why are there so many legal words in the Bible?

I don't know what you think Christianity is, but you don't know it at all, because you don't know the basics. And you need to seperate the Old from the New, because Jesus came to fulfill the laws of the Old Testament, that means he was living in the Old Testament time zone- the New Testament began when Jesus died.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

In Mufti said:


> Let's not forget some others:
> 
> Adoolf Hitler: Responsble for starting most lethal war in human history (Athiest)
> Joseph Stalin: Slaughtered up to 20 million of his own citizens (Athiest)
> Mao Tsedong: Slaughtered more than 30 million Chinese (Athiest)


You forgot about the Athiest that believe in abortion where millions of the most innocent of the innocent have been murdered. What is amazing is so many of these athiest fight against capital punnishment, I guess they have a gulity conscience and don't want to be rightly punnished (die) for there murder.

Glad you pointed out the Athiest.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

WA said:


> You forgot about the Athiest that believe in abortion where millions of the most innocent of the innocent have been murdered. What is amazing is so many of these athiest fight against capital punnishment, I guess they have a gulity conscience and don't want to be rightly punnished (die) for there murder.
> 
> Glad you pointed out the Athiest.


What an excellent smear job. I mean, masterful. Any atheist that is against capital punishment is merely afraid WA is going to send them to the chair for abortion. 'Effing brilliant. You and Frank are merely two sides of the same coin.

And just to inform you, some of your folk pro-abortion.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

WA said:


> Frank, for somebody who is suppose to know so much about the Bible, as you would like people to believe, why don't you know the basics?
> 
> Why did Adam & Eve get kicked out of the Garden of Eden?
> 
> ...


The answer to all your questions is the same: NO ONE BUT GOD IS PERFECT. Yet Mr. Huckabee claims only perfect people get into heaven, and views Jesus not only as a magical Free Pass Card to perfection and heaven, but as the ONLY Free Pass Card. Such a belief is astonishing to me, and isn't supported by what Jesus himself said, e.g.

"Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone."

"I assure you, no slave is greater than his master. No messenger outranks the one who sent him."

"Healthy people don't need a doctor, sick people do."

"I have not come to call the self-righteous, but sinners."

Etc etc etc. How much clearer could Jesus have been? He was constantly correcting people's misdirected hero worship from himself and back to God.

Lk 10:25 There was a scholar of the law who stood up to test him and said, "Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
10:26 Jesus said to him, "What is written in the law? How do you read it?"
10:27 He said in reply, "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your being, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself."
10:28 He replied to him, "You have answered correctly; do this and you will live."


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> The answer to all your questions is the same: NO ONE BUT GOD IS PERFECT. Yet Mr. Huckabee claims only perfect people get into heaven, and views Jesus not only as a magical Free Pass Card to perfection and heaven, but as the ONLY Free Pass Card. Such a belief is astonishing to me, and isn't supported by what Jesus himself said, e.g.
> 
> "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone."


Generally, I find it counter-productive to engage in "Bible bashing," which is when each person finds scriptures to support their view and counter the view of the other. It is really not persuasive since those who so engage are usually not open-minded and have already decided that their position is correct.

Matthew 5:48 
"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

John 14:9 
"Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?"

You mistake Christ's humility, his willingness to give all glory to the Father, as some sort of acknowledgment that he is less than perfect. You are correct that he did not want anyone to worship him, rather, he guided us to the Father. This humility was a part of his perfection. He could not have redeemed us, could not have been the Savior, unless he was perfect, meaning, without sin. Only a sinless being could atone for the sins of the world.

I believe that Christ was the only perfect human being to ever walk this earth. As a perfect being, I accept what he said as truth, absolute truth, when put into proper context. He commanded us to be perfect, "even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." If he asked us to do it then it must be possible. Since it is not possible for any of us to achive perfection on our own then it stands to reason their must be another way. The other way is his grace. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Or accept?

And for the record: I did not say that the grace of Jesus Christ was a "free pass." I said that all we can do is insufficient without his grace. We must still do all of the other things he has commanded us to do and, if we do those things, then his grace is sufficient for us.

I am not a supporter of Huckabee for many reasons. His religion and beliefs are not one of them. Certainly his belief that we must be perfect, "even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect" is not a reason to think him crazy. He is simply restating a commonly accepted principle amongst those of us who profess to be Christians.

Now, I have been commanded by the highest living authority I know, my wife, to cease from further participation in this thread. Something about it being "too stressful." I will leave the discussion and/or disagreement on the subject of Christ's perfection and Divinity to the rest of you, but do thank you for the opportunity to express *my* belief that Jesus Christ was absolutely, completely, and without any doubt, PERFECT.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Wayfarer, My karma is going to run over your dogma. It's sad, and I am part of the problem: but with all this quote and counterquotation of the bible not one of us ' christians ' has extended one iota of christian charity to one another. Instead we test each other's defences like some desperate WW1 general looking for a breach in spelling, flaw in logic or argument. And yet we remained entrenched. I think we all pretty well know what the longtime posters will say. We could have a writing contest like the one imitating Hemingway and copy each other's personae pretty acurately. But what have we accomplished when the computer is shut down? Are we not like drivers cutting in and out of traffic, just to arrive at best 15 seconds earlier in our 24/7 regimens? Huckabee certainly doesn't impress me regardless of his religosity. But then the whole crowd reminds me why I never attended a High School reunion or believed any employer's promise beyond one 8 hour day's pay enforced by government labour laws. But ONE of these twits is going to be the next POTUS and Commander in Chief. The guy, or gal is going to walk around with a briefcase that can launch a nuclear strike, find out what really is going on with UFOs and largely determine the fate of millions of people for better or worse. I'm scared beyond any election I've ever voted in. For that, I AM PRAYING.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Phinn said:


> Like the vast majority of Austrians, Hitler was born into a Catholic family. His mother at least was reputed to be quite religious. He was baptized as a Catholic, went to Catholic schools and was an altar boy. He received the sacrament of Confirmation at the Cathedral in Linz.
> 
> Whether he considered himself a Catholic in his later adult years is a matter of some uncertainty.


Really? I thought I read somewhere that he was Lutheran.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> The answer to all your questions is the same: NO ONE BUT GOD IS PERFECT. Yet Mr. Huckabee claims only perfect people get into heaven, and views Jesus not only as a magical Free Pass Card to perfection and heaven, but as the ONLY Free Pass Card. Such a belief is astonishing to me, and isn't supported by what Jesus himself said, e.g.
> 
> "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone."
> 
> ...


So, you are saying that Jesus is not God, which means you are not a Christian in belief.

"Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." Where did Jesus deny that He is God here?

"I assure you, no slave is greater than his master. No messenger outranks the one who sent him." John The Baptist is not God.

"Healthy people don't need a doctor, sick people do." When did Jesus need a doctor?

"I have not come to call the self-righteous, but sinners." If you are truely righteous then you do not need a savior, but all sinners do, so He was proclaiming Himself as God by calling sinners.

While I didn't look up the stories above to make for sure my replies are correct, it really doesn't matter because Jesus never denied being God, but he often talked to people who though He wasn't God, and He wasn't out to prove that He is. Afterall, when did the disciples know that Jesus was God? At the end all the disciples knew that Jesus is God.

This list you quote from Luke includes repentence. It is hard to love God with all of your heart by denying that Jesus is God. You would not be repenting, either, if you do not confess who Jesus is. There is no place here, either, that says you don't need a saviour, or the proper blood sacrifice, because sin is death, which is blood spilled until dead.

Did Jesus say that no man can come before the Father except by Jesus? So, Jesus would be the ONLY Free Pass Card.

Jesus said that He is Equal to God the Father- Who but God can say They are Equal to God and really be God? wa is not equal, so not God. Kav does not even know if there is a God, so he is not God either. You have proved that you are not God, so there is no since in you saying that you are God. Who ever told you that Christians don't believe Jesus is God?

Some people had there head hit to hard and had brain damage. I worked with a guy that fried his brains on drugs. Perhaps you have one of these problems.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> What an excellent smear job. I mean, masterful. Any atheist that is against capital punishment is merely afraid WA is going to send them to the chair for abortion. 'Effing brilliant. You and Frank are merely two sides of the same coin.
> 
> And just to inform you, some of your folk pro-abortion.


The ones who are guilty bit.

There are lots of atheist who don't believe in abortion. Why are they not bitting? Not guilty. I suppose you attack a lot here and elsewhere because of your conscience.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

WA, tell me how your last comment directed to Frank was that of a professed christian? I apologise and ask forgiveness of any and all I have offended, by design or error, right in my assertions or not in all these religious threads. Religion is now tapu ( tahitian dialect for taboo) for me to post.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

Kav said:


> But ONE of these twits is going to be the next POTUS and Commander in Chief. The guy, or gal is going to walk around with a briefcase that can launch a nuclear strike, *find out what really is going on with UFOs* and largely determine the fate of millions of people for better or worse.


The wife granted me a temporary reprieve because, frankly, I have not laughed so hard all month! You know how friends all talk about, well, anything when they get together and I have commented, more times than I can remember, that if I were elected President, in my first 100 hundred days in office, I would visit Area 51 and any other area that knows the answer to Kav's proposition! :icon_smile_big: I don't always agree with Kav. Okay, let's be honest, I rarely agree with him, but this post was brilliant (the juxtaposition of "can launch a nuclear strike" with "find out what really is going on with UFOs"), and I mean that with all sincerity. :aportnoy:


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

In Mufti said:


> Let's not forget some others:
> 
> Adoolf Hitler: Responsble for starting most lethal war in human history (Athiest)
> Joseph Stalin: Slaughtered up to 20 million of his own citizens (Athiest)
> Mao Tsedong: Slaughtered more than 30 million Chinese (Athiest)


There are a couple of points to be made here.

First, Hitler was clearly not an atheist. He was raised Catholic and continued to espouse Catholic beliefs throughout his life.

Hitler regarded himself as a Catholic until he died. "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so," he told Gerhard Engel, one of his generals, in 1941.

There was really no reason for Hitler to doubt his good standing as a Catholic. The Catholic press in Germany was eager to curry his favor, and the princes of the Catholic Church never asked for his excommunication. Religions encourage their followers to hold authority in unquestioning respect; this is what makes devout religionists such wonderful dupes for dictators.

When Hitler narrowly escaped assassination in Munich in November, 1939, he gave the credit to providence. "Now I am completely content," he exclaimed. "The fact that I left the Burgerbraukeller earlier than usual is a corroboration of Providence's intention to let me reach my goal." Catholic newspapers throughout the Reich echoed this, declaring that it was a miraculous working of providence that had protected their Fuhrer. One cardinal, Michael Faulhaber, sent a telegram instructing that a Te Deum be sung in the cathedral of Munich, "to thank Divine Providence in the name of the archdiocese for the Fuhrer's fortunate escape." The Pope also sent his special personal congratulations!

Later the Pope was to publicly describe Hitler's opposition to Russia as a "highminded gallantry in defense of the foundations of Christian culture." Several German bishops openly supported Hitler's invasion of Russia, calling it a "European crusade." One bishop exhorted all Catholics to fight for "a victory that will allow Europe to breathe freely again and will promise all nations a new future."

Biographer John Toland wrote of Hitler's religion: "Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy, he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of god. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of god -- so long as it was done impersonally, without cruelty. Himmler was pleased to murder with mercy. He ordered technical experts to devise gas chambers which would eliminate masses of Jews efficiently and 'humanely,' then crowded the victims into boxcars and sent them east to stay in ghettos until the killing centers in Poland were completed."

Second, although certainly Stalin and presumably Mao were atheists, there is no sense by which their crimes were committed because they were atheists, any more than Hitler's crimes were committed because he was a Catholic.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Whomewhat, Pax for all the past online uglyness between us.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Kav said:


> WA, tell me how your last comment directed to Frank was that of a professed christian? I apologise and ask forgiveness of any and all I have offended, by design or error, right in my assertions or not in all these religious threads. Religion is now tapu ( tahitian dialect for taboo) for me to post.


Kav, I have never heard any one from any religion say that Christians believe Jesus isn't God when describing Christian belief. Frank is the only one that said Christians don't believe Jesus is God, and he comes from Western Civilization. People do get hit in the head or have a stroke or brain fried on drugs and that part of the head does not work right again or knowlege is missing while the rest of the brain is normal.

With Wayfarer I wasn't even fishing and he bit.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Baptists "believe that God has accepted Jesus' sacrifice and through Jesus' death , sees us the way He originally intended to, perfect, just as He is perfect. "

"Jesus taught that we had to be perfect and have perfect righteousness in order to enter the kingdom of heaven. But none of us can attain perfection or perfect righteousness. ‘With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.’

Thats where Jesus comes in. He lived a perfect life and had perfect righteousness. He knew no sin, but died the death for our sin. We know no righteousness, but through His death on the Cross we can have forgiveness for our sins, His perfection, and His righteousness. "

"And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him" (Hebrews 5:9).


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Uh, Frank is a fellow Californian, a title many declare emphatically not part of Western Civilization. And in fact, He is probably with me, Andy and Gabba on the western side of the Pacific Plate and therefore spiritual inheritor of the ancient civilisation of Mu, western counterpart to Atlantis. Perhaps We should perform trephanation on Frank if you think he suffers a cranial malaise? I could probably get Shirley Mclain to balance his chakras as post operative therapy. Wayfarer can act as post operative medical reviewer to certify it's ethical and needed procedure. Just think! two posters with holes in their heads!


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> There are a couple of points to be made here. Blah blah blah.


I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on the Inquisition crap but this is REALLY over the top. To set the record straight _Mit Brendenner Sorge_ was a scathing attack on National Socialism and read from the pulpit of the Dom ( cathedral) in Munich in '37 as well as throughout Germany *at the request of the Pope *. So much for your "currying favor". Your sources are faulty (but very nicely fit into your preconceived world view). FWIW, no one, except maybe Frank and you , believes that Adolf was a Catholic in good standing, or that the Church thought so.

frff.org? Oh Please LOL. Do you get your news from the Daily Planet as well?


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

On another note ( and the advantage of 2000 years of history). The answer is simple: Frank is an Arian. What's old is new again. That's okay Frank, as long as I get to be Athanasius. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

What begs answering is Chuck Norris also a Southern Baptist? There, I the great OZ, man behind the curtain have returned the forum universe to harmonic convergence and back from the brink of sub atomic disintegration by the ancient rosicrucian and Chemahuevi shaman tradition of mentioning a great agent of good to negate one of evil.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

yachtie said:


> I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on the Inquisition crap but this is REALLY over the top.


By all means, defend the Inquisition if you wish.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Retrieves my Bo Gritz commemorative M1 from the closet. Is it this thread, or do I really hear Lizard people emerging from the street manhole outisde my window?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

WA said:


> So, you are saying that Jesus is not God, which means you are not a Christian in belief.


We'll need to wrap up this discussion, because you clearly need to take your own advice about learning the basics of Christianity.

Start with these two passages:

Mk 12:29 And Jesus answered him: The first commandment of all is, Hear, O Israel: *the Lord our God is one God*.

Jn 14:28 "If you loved me, you would rejoice because I said, 'I am going to the Father,' *for my Father is greater than I*."

Does Jesus claim more than one God exists? No, he doesn't. So the question of whether one God can be "greater" than another is moot: clearly Jesus was not God.

Now that's not to say the power and spirit of God was not present within Jesus. IMO it certainly was. But Jesus got into lots of trouble with this even during his ministry, because one can be "in" (or part of) something without becoming that thing. The best example of this in the NT is in John 10:

1. Jesus states that he is one with the Father. (John 10:30) 
2. The Jews misunderstand that Jesus is claiming to be God, and immediately pick up stones to kill him. (John 10:31-33) 
3. Jesus rephrases his statement by using the term "Son of God" instead, and shows that this means "God" (by reference to Psalms 82:6). 
4. Jesus answers the charge against him, that he is "making himself God" by explaining others in scripture who had the word of God in them were also called "gods".

A man can swim in an ocean, swallow a bit of ocean water and then accurately say, "I am in the ocean, and the ocean is in me". Yet obviously the man does not become an ocean. The very essence of Jesus' teaching is that anyone can love God with all their heart, love their neighbors as themselves, and attain the exact same communication, relationship, cohabitation etc with God that Jesus enjoyed. To claim he was unique in this regard is to castrate his entire ministry IMO.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> By all means, defend the Inquisition if you wish.


The benefit of the doubt was to *you, *not necessarily the Inquisition but that last post of yours is really non factual garbage.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> We'll need to wrap up this discussion, because you clearly need to take your own advice about learning the basics of .
> *Arianism.*


Fixed :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Man, I just received an old 1908 Oxford University edition of the Septuagint some Tarheel photocopied and uploaded onto CDs to sell on EBAY. Half the lousy pages are warped from sloppy xeroxing and the greek text really,really screwed up. Anyone ever tried putting a Freznle lens on a Dell monitor( Dude, you're getting a migraine.) ? I haven't had this much fun since reading Melville's THE COUNTING HOUSE preamble to Moby Dick. I'm going to light a candle for all you people come Liturgy Thursday . I love the smell of beeswax and incense in the morning. It has the smell of- victory. I'll leave you with a remark made by that sadly underappreciated Catholic man of english letters G.k. Chesterton " Angels can fly, because they take things lightly."


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

*Lutheran beliefs*

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ,
His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
On the third day He rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
from there He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Holy Christian Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Amen.

From the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod:
_On the basis of the Holy Scriptures we teach the sublime article of the Holy Trinity; that is, *we teach that the one true God, *Deut. 6:4; 1 Cor. 8:4, *is the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, three distinct persons, but of one and the same divine essence, equal in power, equal in eternity, equal in majesty, because each person possesses the one divine essence entire,* Col. 2:9, Matt. 28:19. We hold that all teachers and communions that deny the doctrine of the Holy Trinity are outside the pale of the Christian Church. The Triune God is the God who is gracious to man, John 3:16-18, 1 Cor. 12:3. Since the Fall, no man can believe in the "fatherhood" of God except he believe in the eternal Son of God, who became man and reconciled us to God by His vicarious satisfaction, 1 John 2:23; John 14:6._

_In response, let me first emphasize that we human beings, with our limited power of reason (which is also corrupted by sin), cannot understand or fathom the mystery of the divine Trinity. What we know about God He has revealed to us, which we must accept on faith. One of our official Lutheran confessional documents succinctly summarizes the doctrine of the Trinity as follows: There is one divine essence, which is called and which is truly God, and...there are three persons in the one divine essence, equal in power and alike eternal: God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. All three are one divine essence, eternal, without division, without end, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, one creator and preserver of all things visible and invisible." (Augsburg Confession I, 1-3)_​_All human analogies break down at some point, but the Trinity is often compared to water, an "essence" that is liquid, solid, and gas at the same time. But again, illustrations of this kind cannot probe the mystery of God. He can only be believed in, not fully understood. _


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

yachtie said:


> If I called any of the Spaniards I know "hispanic", I'd get popped in the nose. Quite a distinction, I assure you.


Hispanic (Spanish: hispano; Portuguese: hispânico; Latin: Hispanus, adjective from Hispania, the Roman name for the Iberian Peninsula) is a term that historically denoted relation to the ancient Hispania and its peoples.

The U.S. Office of Management and Budget currently defines "Hispanic or Latino" as "a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race".


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

2 Corinthians 5

17 Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. 

18 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, 

19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. 

20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 

21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.


----------



## In Mufti (Jan 28, 2005)

Monument unveiled to Catholic priests killed in Nazi camps 

Nov 4, 2006, 17:23 GMT 

Berlin - Catholic priests and monks, the bulk of them Polish, who were killed by the Nazis in a concentration camp near Berlin were commemorated Saturday with the unveiling of a stone sculpture in the presence of Cardinal Jozef Glemp of Poland. 

The sculpture is engraved with the names of 96 clergy who died at Sachsenhausen concentration camp on the north-west outskirts of Berlin. 

Historians working for the Catholic archdiocese of Berlin have so far documented the names of 711 Catholic clergy from Poland, Germany and other European nations who were incarcerated in the camp, where inmates often died of starvation or disease or were executed. 

Hundreds were later transferred to Dachau concentration camp on the outskirts of Munich and other Nazi sites, where they died. 

Unveiling the monument, in which a cross has been etched in the stone, Berlin's archbishop, Cardinal Georg Sterzinsky, said the German Catholic Church was grateful that there was now a memorial to this group of Nazi victims, more than 600 of whom were Poles. 

One of the surviving inmates, Kazimierz Majdanski, now 90, later went on to become Catholic bishop of Szczecin-Kamien, the Berlin archdiocese said. Glemp, who holds the title of primate of Poland, represented the Polish Catholic Church at the ceremony. 

Sterzinsky appealed for continued vigilance against right-wing extremism and racism. 

The Nazis opened the Sachsenhausen detention camp in 1936. Thousands more died when the Nazis forced inmates to march away as defeat loomed, but the Red Army was able to liberate 3,000 prisoners at the camp on April 22, 1945.


***************************************************************


Trying to maintain that Hitler was some type of practicing Catholic is asinine. 

People are members of a religion if they try to adhere to its teachings and dogma—not simply because they say they are members of a religion. Hitler obviously didn’t follow any of the practices of the Roman Catholic Church. For starters, he invaded two Catholic countries: Poland and France (eventually took Italy too)..and killed a number of Catholic priests and nuns. And that whole mass murder and genocide thing also would have kept him in the confessional for most of the war. He may have been raised Catholic, but it’s pretty clear he left the Church at some point regardless of what he might have put out as propaganda.

I have this discussion with a lot of the boobs in California who claim they are Buddhist—but know nothing about Buddhism other than they think it lets them be stoners. They just like to throw the Buddhist thing out there because they think it makes them sound highly evolved and oh so exotic. Having lived in Buddhist countries for periods, I know that to be Buddhist means following certain specific beliefs and disciplines. I asked one of our California Buddhist where the local temple was and got the, “Oh, I don’t go to a temple.” I asked a few more questions and it was clear that, other than buying a statue of a little fat guy, this person was no more Buddhist than my power mower. 

My point: Just claiming you are of a certain faith isn’t enough—you have to at least TRY to live its tenets.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*census categories vs. definitions*



Bogdanoff said:


> Hispanic (Spanish: hispano; Portuguese: hispânico; Latin: Hispanus, adjective from Hispania, the Roman name for the Iberian Peninsula) is a term that historically denoted relation to the ancient Hispania and its peoples.
> 
> The U.S. Office of Management and Budget currently defines "Hispanic or Latino" as "a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race".


Census categories are devised to, among other things, count people in ways that make it possible to discern who is eligible for various government programs.

Similar terms in other contexts attempt to define people in terms of their ancestry. The notion that defining people in terms of something called race is not scientifically credible. It is interesting and still very potent in a social context. Thus, for example, mestizos from New Mexico ase self proclaimed Spanish Americans while residents of other states with similar ancestry are known as Mexican Americans. The term race is, apparently, included in the census definition, lest anyone get confused between national origin and skin color. Not too long ago popular discourse in the US included references to the White race, the Jewish race, mongaloid race, etc.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Kav said:


> I'll leave you with a remark made by that sadly underappreciated Catholic man of english letters G.k. Chesterton " Angels can fly, because they take things lightly."


If I remember correctly the quote is, "Angels can fly because they take _themselves_ lightly." (This is from memory so Kav might be right.)


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

In Mufti said:


> People are members of a religion if they try to adhere to its teachings and dogma-not simply because they say they are members of a religion. Hitler obviously didn't follow any of the practices of the Roman Catholic Church. For starters, he invaded two Catholic countries: Poland and France (eventually took Italy too)..and killed a number of Catholic priests and nuns. And that whole mass murder and genocide thing also would have kept him in the confessional for most of the war. He may have been raised Catholic, but it's pretty clear he left the Church at some point regardless of what he might have put out as propaganda.
> 
> My point: Just claiming you are of a certain faith isn't enough-you have to at least TRY to live its tenets.


You see, this kind of thing just illustrates my initial point. Once you decide that someone else can determine what religion a person belongs to it leads you into absurd conclusions, like the people who claim that Catholics aren't Christian, people who claim that Islamic terrorists aren't "real" Muslims because the proper understanding of Islam is that it's a religion of peace, or that all the supporters of abortion rights are atheists because no real Christian would. What about the millions of Catholics who practice birth control, or are willing to at least think about or discuss female priests, or Jews who do not keep kosher?

Outside of the person's own statements of their religious preference, there is no reliable, neutral means to make such judgments.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

Hitler may have been raised a Catholic (I don't know this, but if he was Austrian the odds were overwhelmingly in favor of it) but he and the Nazi hierarchy were very uneasy about Christianity in general. As a result, the Church had to make a lot of uncomfortable (and occasionally egregious) choices in order to survive intact during the Hitler era. 

The original Nazi Party platform espoused support for what they called "Positive Christianity," which was something of their own invention that basically entailed the various churches toeing the Party line. Later on, Party suspicion of the Church and its Jewish roots made it difficult, for example, for musicians to perform Masses or the Bach Passions. Wagner's Parsifal was almost booted off the boards of Bayreuth also on account of its Christian imagery, and was only saved because of Hitler's fascination with it.

Another point of trivia-- Stalin started out life as a seminarian. Which, by itself, proves nothing.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

WA said:


> The ones who are guilty bit.
> 
> There are lots of atheist who don't believe in abortion. Why are they not bitting? Not guilty. I suppose you attack a lot here and elsewhere because of your conscience.


Ah, I see you are reverting back to childhood. The "Who Smelt It, Dealt It" fallacy.

One can attack bad logic and bad positions without holding the exact contrary position you sanctimonous moron. I use the word "moron" with descriptive precision here, as that is the IQ you are demonstrating with your logical constructions, not as an ad hom. You made universal statements and the statements had no logical necessity. When I point this out to you, you claim that I therefore am "guilty". This is moronic.

WA, just so you know, if you were convicted of murder, I could push the button all day long. I would not have a qualm about it. So I guess I do not fit into your schoolyard fallacy.


----------



## In Mufti (Jan 28, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> You see, this kind of thing just illustrates my initial point. Once you decide that someone else can determine what religion a person belongs to it leads you into absurd conclusions, like the people who claim that Catholics aren't Christian, people who claim that Islamic terrorists aren't "real" Muslims because the proper understanding of Islam is that it's a religion of peace, or that all the supporters of abortion rights are atheists because no real Christian would. What about the millions of Catholics who practice birth control, or are willing to at least think about or discuss female priests, or Jews who do not keep kosher?
> 
> Outside of the person's own statements of their religious preference, there is no reliable, neutral means to make such judgments.


Any word has to have some type of meaningful definition. A Human being is not a giraffe simply because he may decide he is. Religious identities are more substantial than just someone waking up one day and saying, "Hey, I think I'm a ......." If I woke up today and said, "I've decided I'm a surgeon." No one would take that seriously--nor should they. It's the same way with religious identity.

And yes, among Catholics there is considerable debate about how many tenets of the Church one can ignore and still meet the definition of being a "Catholic." The Catholic Church requires that one who wants to become a member of the Church go through formal instruction and rites. You're not a Catholic until the Catholic Church says you're a Catholic.

Words have meaning--even religious titles.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> The Catholic Church requires that one who wants to become a member of the Church go through formal instruction and rites. You're not a Catholic until the Catholic Church says you're a Catholic.


What do you have to do in order to be considered no longer Catholic? If, for example, one is raised a Catholic, is baptized and confirmed a Catholic, but engages in various acts in adulthood that are considered anti-Catholic, is he still Catholic? Or is he just a bad Catholic?

In other words, is there something, other than overt unilateral renunciation and/or excommunication, that more or less definitively demonstrates that one is no longer Catholic?

Or any other religion that's been mentioned?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I called my good friend in Christ father Quido Sarducci on this matter of good and bad catholics. It did grieve me to hear his increased coughing from that ever present cigarette and he let escape a minor complaint of learning german after struggling with polish so many years. Father repeated a famous phrase in latin I will now translate " If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck it is probably a duck." I can share too his soon to be released book he worked on for 10 years at his Priory in the California Desert ( Palm Springs .)' Actors who have played Our lord Jesus on film'- and how it changed the course of their lives, with an apocrypha on Steve Reeves and Arnold Swartzenegger who only played that heathen Hercules, but would have been pretty good too.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> You see, this kind of thing just illustrates my initial point. Once you decide that someone else can determine what religion a person belongs to it leads you into absurd conclusions, like the people who claim that Catholics aren't Christian, people who claim that Islamic terrorists aren't "real" Muslims because the proper understanding of Islam is that it's a religion of peace, or that all the supporters of abortion rights are atheists because no real Christian would. What about the millions of Catholics who practice birth control, or are willing to at least think about or discuss female priests, or Jews who do not keep kosher?
> 
> Outside of the person's own statements of their religious preference, there is no reliable, neutral means to make such judgments.


That is incorrct. As Mufti says there are objective standards of behavior , cult etc. that are required to be a " member" of a religion. In fact your proposition needs to be reversed to be correct. a person's personal statements are in fact the least accurate determinant of whether a person is a member of a particular religion. Your own proposition damns you ( pun intended). In Catholicism, for example, there are certain matters of faith, dogma etc that must be adhered to to be a "member in good standing". "catholics" who practice artificial birth control, support women as "priests", vote for permissive abortion etc, are not Catholic. They're at odds with the teaching of the Church and as such are seperated from the Church. (*Despite what they themselves may think)*

As far as I can determine, every religion has similarity in this ( although probably not as canonical as the RCC).


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Phinn said:


> What do you have to do in order to be considered no longer Catholic? If, for example, one is raised a Catholic, is baptized and confirmed a Catholic, but engages in various acts in adulthood that are considered anti-Catholic, is he still Catholic? Or is he just a bad Catholic?
> 
> In other words, is there something, other than overt unilateral renunciation and/or excommunication, that more or less definitively demonstrates that one is no longer Catholic?
> 
> Or any other religion that's been mentioned?


There's a list of acts that incur the penalty of excommunication _latae sentiae _(automatically). Short of these, the person has probably effectively excommunicated himself since it's less what one says as what one does.


----------



## In Mufti (Jan 28, 2005)

Phinn said:


> What do you have to do in order to be considered no longer Catholic? If, for example, one is raised a Catholic, is baptized and confirmed a Catholic, but engages in various acts in adulthood that are considered anti-Catholic, is he still Catholic? Or is he just a bad Catholic?
> 
> In other words, is there something, other than overt unilateral renunciation and/or excommunication, that more or less definitively demonstrates that one is no longer Catholic?
> 
> Or any other religion that's been mentioned?


These are very deep questions and are debated continually within the Church. I am not a priest, however, I will give you my layman's understanding.

When we sin, we distance ourselves from God. He doesn't move; we do. The Sacrament of Reconciliation (often called "Confession") is where we admit our failings and become reconciled (reunited) with God. The Church believes that God has an infinite desire to "bring the lost sheep back to the flock."

The Catholic Church expects its members to fall short of the ideals it sets out. Committing sin is part of being human--it's unavoidable as long as you are drawing a breath. So, committing sin is part of being Catholic. Point being--sinning, even for a long period does not cause one to lose their recognition within the Church. While you are sinning, the Church considers you in a somewhat diminished standing. Excuse the analogy: It would be similar to the athlete who has been benched--he's still on the team but needs to straighten a few things out before he's able to get out on the court again. While you are in state of sin, you are not supposed to receive the other sacraments--because you are "on the bench" spiritually--so to speak. Once a Catholic makes a genuine and heartfelt confession, they are considered "back in the game." Jesus used the parable of the Prodigal Son to illustrate God's relationship to sinners.

Abortion comes up a lot in these discussions. Abortion is a very serious sin-but the Church specifically reaches out to women who have had abortions through Project Rachel-recognizing that women who have had abortions are also victims who badly need God's comfort. "Hate the sin while loving the sinner."

Excommunication is a very rare measure because the Church does believe that humans will commit sins--even very serious sins because it comes with the territory. In fact the purpose of the Church is specifically to redeem sinners. No sIn--No need for a Church. Excommunication is usually reserved for those who are trying to use the Church itself to promote evil. For example, if I were to open "Roy's Holy Catholic Abortion Clinic." And tell women that the Pope had authorized me to conduct abortions in the name of the Catholic Church-I could eventually expect to be excommunicated. But even then, the Church would first spend a good deal of time and effort to get me to repent my sins and return to grace before taking that measure. I would be excommunicated because I was posing a threat to faithful Catholics through the manipulation of the Church and the Church would be using excommunication to make it clear to the world that I do not represent the Church.

The shorthand expression for many who were raised Catholic but no longer subscribe to or live it tenets is: "Fallen away Catholics." Back to the sports analogy-these are people who have decided they don't want to play anymore. However, the Church still keeps a locker for them-just in case they decide to show up again one day.

My apologies to all Catholics for my vast oversimplification of two thousand years of theological reasoning.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> That is incorrct. As Mufti says there are objective standards of behavior , cult etc. that are required to be a " member" of a religion. In fact your proposition needs to be reversed to be correct. a person's personal statements are in fact the least accurate determinant of whether a person is a member of a particular religion. Your own proposition damns you ( pun intended). In Catholicism, for example, there are certain matters of faith, dogma etc that must be adhered to to be a "member in good standing". "catholics" who practice artificial birth control, support women as "priests", vote for permissive abortion etc, are not Catholic. They're at odds with the teaching of the Church and as such are seperated from the Church. (*Despite what they themselves may think)*


Good grief, any second now I expect Peter O'Toole to peek through some curtains... "Well played, Thomas! Well played!"

But thank you for that most concise explanation of why the RCC constitutes a political organization rather than a religion, and has since the First Council of Nicea in 325.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

The basic problem with Jack's line of thinking is that words do not denote reality. I can say, "I am a giant. I am 10 feet tall" but clearly, just because I say that, does not mean I am a ten foot all giant. A "foot" describes a certain quality and "ten" is the label of a certain number. We have a standard meaning each of these two words convey that is quantitative and put together, we all know what "10 feet" is. However, my words that, "I am 10 feet tall" do not change reality, they merely describe it. The objective observer can decide for him/herself whether my words accurately describe the reality.

So to Jack's thinking. Anyone can say they are Catholic. However, this term is the label for a particular school of religious thought or dogma with a set of parameters mutually agreed on by the Catholic authorities. When one deems themselves "Catholic", the independent observer can decide for themselves whether this label is being accurately applied or not. Words do not denote. They merely convey mutually agreed upon references. A mis-applied label does not accurately reflect the mutually agreed upon references.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Good grief, any second now I expect Peter O'Toole to peek through some curtains... "Well played, Thomas! Well played!"
> 
> But thank you for that most concise explanation of why the RCC constitutes a political organization rather than a religion, and has since the First Council of Nicea in 325.


Keep slugging, Arius. Someday you'll get it.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Keep slugging, Arius. Someday you'll get it.


He is just acting like the emontionally stunted six year old he is always speaking about. Some kids, we will call them "the Catholic Church", have a club. This club has rules. Frank does not want to follow the rules, but he still wants to be part of the club. If he does not get his way, he is going to throw a temper tantrum and lash out, punishing the entire *adult* world he comes into contact with, because he cannot join the club he wants to.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

In Mufti, very nicely written.


----------



## obiwan (Feb 2, 2007)

At the end of this discussion, none of what anyone has said will matter. I profess to be a Christian, I have accepted Christ as my savior and my only means to entry into Heaven to spend eternity with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I will be judged for my actions after I became a Christian, nothing before matters for the blood of Christ washed my sins away, a new beginning, a re-birth.

Even though I am "saved" I still fall short, am I still a sinner as we all are, but once you have salvation, it cannot be taken away, you'll one day atone for your deeds here on earth but, that will be between you and God alone.

Even FrankDC, as much as we like to paint him in a corner, deserves our (Christian) love. I hate his sin, as much as I hate my own but, we as Christians (little Christ) are supposed to love as Jesus did, lead men to Christ and try as best we can to lead a Christ like life.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

I think many of us paint our good friend Frank in a corner because of his "vehement" attitudes on things, not for his sexual preference, which I personally think you are born with and I not believe to be a sin. A church can say "bad, bad, bad" all they want, but if their reason is "because I said so" then that's not good enough reason for me.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

KenR said:


> I think many of us paint our good friend Frank in a corner because of his "vehement" attitudes on things, not for his sexual preference


Huh? You'll need to reference where I said anything about my sexual orientation (btw, "sexual preference" hasn't been used by anyone with a clue for over 30 years now), otherwise I'll assume this is (yet) another troll.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

obiwan said:


> At the end of this discussion, none of what anyone has said will matter. I profess to be a Christian, I have accepted Christ as my savior and my only means to entry into Heaven to spend eternity with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I will be judged for my actions after I became a Christian, nothing before matters for the blood of Christ washed my sins away, a new beginning, a re-birth.
> 
> Even though I am "saved" I still fall short, am I still a sinner as we all are, but once you have salvation, it cannot be taken away, you'll one day atone for your deeds here on earth but, that will be between you and God alone.
> 
> Even FrankDC, as much as we like to paint him in a corner, deserves our (Christian) love. I hate his sin, as much as I hate my own but, we as Christians (little Christ) are supposed to love as Jesus did, lead men to Christ and try as best we can to lead a Christ like life.


If you do your best to love God and your neighbor, in my view this suffices to get one into heaven. The rest IMO is just pointless semantics. Personally I spent most of my life being raised in a very traditional Catholic household, attending Catholic school etc but never found God until I stopped worshipping ghosts.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Painting Frank into corners has never stopped him. What worries me are the footprints on the ceiling!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Huh? You'll need to reference where I said anything about my sexual orientation (btw, "sexual preference" hasn't been used by anyone with a clue for over 30 years now), otherwise I'll assume this is (yet) another troll.


KenR, hope you learned your lesson. I have extended the olive branch to this guy before and he tried to hit me about the face and head with it!


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

yachtie said:


> That is incorrct. As Mufti says there are objective standards of behavior , cult etc. that are required to be a " member" of a religion. In fact your proposition needs to be reversed to be correct. a person's personal statements are in fact the least accurate determinant of whether a person is a member of a particular religion. Your own proposition damns you ( pun intended). In Catholicism, for example, there are certain matters of faith, dogma etc that must be adhered to to be a "member in good standing". "catholics" who practice *artificial birth control*, support women as "priests", vote for permissive abortion etc, are not Catholic. They're at odds with the teaching of the Church and as such are seperated from the Church. (*Despite what they themselves may think)*


This is somewhat off topic, but can anyone explain to me what is the consistency in thought behind allowing "natural family planning" and not allowing "artificial birth control?" The goal of natural family planning is the same as artificial birth control, which is to have sex without consequences, it is just that with natural family planning there is less of it each month.

p.s. It would make sense if there was a prohibition against abortifacient birth control and all other types, but that doesn't seem to be where the line was drawn.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

Probably goes back to Aquinas. If you put a lot of stock in the value of sperm, there is a subtle difference between strangling them in the cradle vs. letting them die of exposure.

Which reminds one of a joke. 

What do you call couples who use the rhythm method?



Parents.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

hopkins_student said:


> This is somewhat off topic, but can anyone explain to me what is the consistency in thought behind allowing "natural family planning" and not allowing "artificial birth control?" The goal of natural family planning is the same as artificial birth control, which is to have sex without consequences, it is just that with natural family planning there is less of it each month.
> 
> p.s. It would make sense if there was a prohibition against abortifacient birth control and all other types, but that doesn't seem to be where the line was drawn.


This was discussed at length in another thread, but in a nutshell there are problems with separating acts from consequences. The issue is not in the goal but in the means of achieving the goal. Unfortunately, the "pill" does act as an abortifacient at the lower doses now prescribed so it does fall into your second category.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> ...but never found God until I stopped worshipping ghosts.


If you were worshiping ghosts, you weren't Catholic. Worship is for God alone ( duh- it's only the FIRST COMMANDMENT).

What were they teaching you in that school of yours anyway?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> If you were worshiping ghosts, you weren't Catholic. Worship is for God alone ( duh- it's only the FIRST COMMANDMENT).
> 
> What were they teaching you in that school of yours anyway?


Here's what we got:

We believe in one God, 
the Father, the Almighty, 
maker of heaven and earth, 
of all that is seen and unseen. 

[Ok by me so far.]

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, 
the only Son of God, 
eternally begotten of the Father, 
God from God, light from light, 
true God from true God, 
begotten, not made, 
of one Being with the Father; 
through him all things were made. 

[Absurd, illogical and misleading ghost worship, which castrates the message of Jesus and is completely unsupported/unsupportable by Biblical reference.]


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

If it's not your club, why get so het up about the rules?


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

yachtie said:


> Unfortunately, the "pill" does act as an abortifacient at the lower doses now prescribed so it does fall into your second category.


That may be the case for progesterone only pills, which are rarely used, and then typically only in women who have recently delivered children and are breastfeeding. Low dose combined estrogen and progesterone pills still prevent ovulation from occurring, as I understand it, which prevent fertilization of the egg because it is not there to be fertilized. Anyhow...condoms, on the other hand, are most certainly not abortifacient, and neither are diaphragms or contraceptive foams.

I'll try to locate the other thread by searching, but if I can't find it I may ask for a link since you'd likely recall the thread title.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Concordia said:


> If it's not your club, why get so het up about the rules?


It's like watching a billion people praying to imaginary apparitions of Mary in Burger King billboards, instead of praying to the one and only living God who can help them. To not try and steer these people back to authentic religion would be something less than, uh, Christian.

Luke 11:2-4 And he said unto them, "When ye pray, say:

Our Father which art in Heaven, hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in Heaven, so in earth.
Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for
we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us
not into temptation; but deliver us from evil."

God is the deliverer from evil. Praying to apparitions in Burger King billboards just makes one look stupid.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Phinn said:


> What do you have to do in order to be considered no longer Catholic? If, for example, one is raised a Catholic, is baptized and confirmed a Catholic, but engages in various acts in adulthood that are considered anti-Catholic, is he still Catholic? Or is he just a bad Catholic?
> 
> In other words, is there something, other than overt unilateral renunciation and/or excommunication, that more or less definitively demonstrates that one is no longer Catholic?
> 
> Or any other religion that's been mentioned?


Did Ted Kennedy have problems trying not to be Catholic?

In this one little town that I lived in this one person decided not to be Catholic, so he stopped going and didn't pay tithe. The priest hasseled him and then went behind his back to collect tithe by convincing the employer to pay directly to the Catholic Church. It showed up on his pay check stub that he was not getting all of the money. It didn't take long to find out where the unaccounted money was going.

The Baptist have no problem of throwing people out, as are a number of other denominations.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Here's what we got:
> 
> We believe in one God,
> the Father, the Almighty,
> ...


And that is where your error lies Arius, Jesus is God. Like your namesake, you also have problems distinguishing between the human nature of Jesus and the divine nature of Jesus. ( he had both- remember the True God and True Man line from your catechism classes?) It's not dilutive of the message at all- it makes his message, His message. You really need to read the NT again. It's completely supported- and yes, you'll have to do your own homework.


----------



## In Mufti (Jan 28, 2005)

WA said:


> Did Ted Kennedy have problems trying not to be Catholic?
> 
> In this one little town that I lived in this one person decided not to be Catholic, so he stopped going and didn't pay tithe. The priest hasseled him and then went behind his back to collect tithe by convincing the employer to pay directly to the Catholic Church. It showed up on his pay check stub that he was not getting all of the money. It didn't take long to find out where the unaccounted money was going.
> 
> The Baptist have no problem of throwing people out, as are a number of other denominations.


I don't believe this, if for no other reason than that the Catholic Church doesn't "tithe." Donations are strictly voluntary as to how much and how often. The Church does not even issue any guidlines as some churches do. I don't know what might have been going on here but I can assure you had nothing to do with Catholic Church pracitces in any way.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Huh? You'll need to reference where I said anything about my sexual orientation (btw, "sexual preference" hasn't been used by anyone with a clue for over 30 years now), otherwise I'll assume this is (yet) another troll.


Assume what you like Frank.



Wayfarer said:


> KenR, hope you learned your lesson. I have extended the olive branch to this guy before and he tried to hit me about the face and head with it!


Not sure if I was actually extending an olive branch, I was just speaking my mind. But thank you for your concern, you are a true gentleman. :icon_smile:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> [Absurd, illogical and misleading ghost worship, *which castrates the message *of Jesus and is completely unsupported/unsupportable by Biblical reference.]


Your consistently themed imagery could probably earn someone their Ph.D. in clinical psychology.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

In Mufti said:


> I don't believe this, if for no other reason than that the Catholic Church doesn't "tithe." Donations are strictly voluntary as to how much and how often. The Church does not even issue any guidlines as some churches do. I don't know what might have been going on here but I can assure you had nothing to do with Catholic Church pracitces in any way.


Don't know how truthfull that story of the small town is, but I have heard other stories that cause me to wonder. Some people would like us to believe that the Catholic Church is perfect, but it is like all the others - people do things they shouldn't.

About tithe, my great grand parents had to rent as many pews as they needed to go to mass. I'm sure they had to pay tithe, too, back then.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Wayfarer, Why are you so over protective? Some atheist are some of the best people on earth while others are some of the worse. Since I didn't attack, slander or smear do gooder atheist why did you bite?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

WA said:


> About tithe, my great grand parents had to rent as many pews as they needed to go to mass. I'm sure they had to pay tithe, too, back then.


What church are you talking about? If it's the RCC you're mistaken on at least one and almost certainly both counts.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> What church are you talking about? If it's the RCC you're mistaken on at least one and almost certainly both counts.


About ten years ago there was an article in the local newspaper about paying rent for use of pews. Supposely the rent for pew payed for the maintance of the church building. This was not only in the RCC but some other groups did this too. Can't ask grandma about the tithe, anymore. The way things are done now doesn't mean anything of how the past was done.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

WA said:


> About ten years ago there was an article in the local newspaper about paying rent for use of pews. Supposely the rent for pew payed for the maintance of the church building. This was not only in the RCC but some other groups did this too. Can't ask grandma about the tithe, anymore. The way things are done now doesn't mean anything of how the past was done.


You're right. A simple search found this:

https://tinyurl.com/3af9om


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

WA said:


> About ten years ago there was an article in the local newspaper about paying rent for use of pews. Supposely the rent for pew payed for the maintance of the church building. This was not only in the RCC but some other groups did this too. Can't ask grandma about the tithe, anymore. The way things are done now doesn't mean anything of how the past was done.


Must have been quite a long time ago. I can't speak to other churches, but the Jewish part of my family has to " rent" pews at their temple and I believe it's standard practice in Judaism. I don't think tithing has been a requirement for hundereds of years, if ever, but I've not specifically researched that historically.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

WA said:


> Wayfarer, Why are you so over protective? Some atheist are some of the best people on earth while others are some of the worse. Since I didn't attack, slander or smear do gooder atheist why did you bite?


Because you did attack all athiests by making a universal statement. And I do not stipulate that a "do gooder athiest" is someone that believes in your positions on abortion and capital punishment. This is the basic problem in trying to converse with you. You cannot think cleary enough to pull yourself out of things. Everything "good" is defined by how you see it. It is the same position held by any Muslim fundie.

Fundie is as fundie does.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Concordia said:


> If it's not your club, why get so het up about the rules?


This was the observation I made way back at the start of this. The people that run the club make the rules and Frank does not like that. He wants to be part of the club but not have the rules apply to him.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> This was the observation I made way back at the start of this. The people that run the club make the rules and Frank does not like that. He wants to be part of the club but not have the rules apply to him.


Arius is not alone. It's all too common these days, unfortunately.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Thanks to those who responded to me privately on this topic. The discussions far outstripped the public one in quality and demeanor, as usual.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Thanks to those who responded to me privately on this topic. The discussions far outstripped the public one in quality and demeanor, as usual.


LOL, Frank always has so many private friends. Funny how he always gives the impression of being on the inside, in the "club" but so rails against "clubs" that have rules he does not want to follow.

Frank, if the private chats are so far superior, why even bother posting publically on the topic? It is not a rational decision given your statements.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> LOL, Frank always has so many private friends. Funny how he always gives the impression of being on the inside, in the "club" but so rails against "clubs" that have rules he does not want to follow.
> 
> Frank, if the private chats are so far superior, why even bother posting publically on the topic? It is not a rational decision given your statements.


The best part is that he doesn't even use his computer to have these "discussions". :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Unfortunately it's the norm here on AAAC: excellent private discussions, public discussions all but ruined by the same handful of emotionally retarded members who're in desperate need of a social life.

Before I relegated Wayfarer to my ignore list he had over 6,000+ posts, about 5,500 of which are nothing but pedantry, personal attacks, side-stepping and an overwhelming need to be right and get the last word on every single issue. Certainly worthy of pity IMO.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Unfortunately it's the norm here on AAAC: excellent private discussions, public discussions all but ruined by the same handful of emotionally retarded members who're in desperate need of a social life.
> 
> Before I relegated Wayfarer to my ignore list he had over 6,000+ posts, about 5,500 of which are nothing but pedantry, personal attacks, side-stepping and an *overwhelming need to be right and get the last word on every single issue.* Certainly worthy of pity IMO.


Frank, Frank, Frank. We went through this the last time you put me on "ignore". Somehow you always magically manage to answer my posts, including ones that do not get quoted by others. You simply grow frustrated when I hold you to the fires of logic, good sense, and civility. The side-stepping Frank is all done by you and the problem arises when I (and others) will not let you do it. I think your transference issues are at play again here.

And need to get the last word in? I cannot think of a gambit that reflects this more than claiming to have someone on ignore yet continuing to insult him. That would be about the epitome of it IMO.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Unfortunately it's the norm here on AAAC: excellent private discussions, public discussions all but ruined by the same handful of emotionally retarded members who're in desperate need of a social life.


I couldn't agree more! Check out the timestamps on these posts:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/search.php?searchid=1215489


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Thanks to those who responded to me privately on this topic. The discussions far outstripped the public one in quality and demeanor, as usual.





Wayfarer said:


> LOL, Frank always has so many private friends. Funny how he always gives the impression of being on the inside, in the "club" but so rails against "clubs" that have rules he does not want to follow.
> 
> Frank, if the private chats are so far superior, why even bother posting publically on the topic? It is not a rational decision given your statements.


I have PM'd back and forth with Frank on occassion (not about this thread). And, while I don't really understand his stance on religious issues, I don't think he is as bad a guy as some may think.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

He may be a swell guy. I just have a bad reaction to morally superior self-righteous types. If he wants to calm things down a bit I can be cooperative.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

KenR said:


> He may be a swell guy. I just have a bad reaction to morally superior self-righteous types. If he wants to calm things down a bit I can be cooperative.


I start a thread on Huckabee and Christianity, you make a puerile swipe at a member's sexual "preference". Tell us all about moral superiority and calming down, you freaking hypocrite.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> I start a thread on Huckabee and Christianity, you make a puerile swipe at a member's sexual "preference". Tell us all about moral superiority and calming down, you freaking hypocrite.


No, you start a thread on Huckabee and your own warped Arianism, positing same as a correct theology and are smacked up side the head. Then you go defensive over no slight any reasonable person can determine. The problem is not with Ken, but you.

SEEK
PROFESSIONAL
HELP.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I was not going to post in this thread, but Ken is one of the most level-headed posters here.

I do not agree with your assessment of him at all.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

KenR said:


> I think many of us paint our good friend Frank in a corner because of his "vehement" attitudes on things, *not for his sexual preference, which I personally think you are born with and I not believe to be a sin. A church can say "bad, bad, bad" all they want, but if their reason is "because I said so" then that's not good enough reason for me.*





FrankDC said:


> I start a thread on Huckabee and Christianity, you make a puerile swipe at a member's sexual "preference". Tell us all about moral superiority and calming down, you freaking hypocrite.


Calm down, Frank. Ken didn't make any swipe at you. As to his use of preference rather than orientation, I hardly find that to be offensive. Read his next sentence..._which I personally think you are born with and I not believe to be a sin_.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I think I would be qualified as an evangelical and I find Huckabee to be both a liar and a hypocrite. 

Just last night they were showing a clip of him saying that he thought SC should fly whatever flag they want (Civil War flag in State Flag design) and that if someone told Arkansas what flag they could fly Arkansas would tell them to sit on the flag pole. 

I expect that from a rough & tumble person like McCain, but not from a Southern Baptist Preacher playing the "I'm more moral, sensitive, and caring than anyone else" card.

In addition, I find his whole "Covenant Marriage" thing another insincere attempt to have it both ways. I'm surprised that Frank has not focused on this topic more intently.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

KenR is nothing but a good natured person that tries to get the various large personalities here to come to some middle ground. I think he is to be applauded for this. 

I did warn you though KenR


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I think I would be qualified as an evangelical and I find Huckabee to be both a liar and a hypocrite.
> 
> Just last night they were showing a clip of him saying that he thought SC should fly whatever flag they want (Civil War flag in State Flag design) and that if someone told Arkansas what flag they could fly Arkansas would tell them to sit on the flag pole.
> 
> ...


At least not in this thread, but we've discussed the topic ad nauseam in others. Huckabee established his credentials as a repressive theocrat many years ago on this subject, and election results so far are proving he loses political viability the second he steps beyond America's Bible Belt.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Because you did attack all athiests by making a universal statement. And I do not stipulate that a "do gooder athiest" is someone that believes in your positions on abortion and capital punishment. This is the basic problem in trying to converse with you. You cannot think cleary enough to pull yourself out of things. Everything "good" is defined by how you see it. It is the same position held by any Muslim fundie.
> 
> Fundie is as fundie does.


"You forgot about the Athiest that believe in abortion where millions of the most innocent of the innocent have been murdered. What is amazing is so many of these athiest fight against capital punnishment, I guess they have a gulity conscience and don't want to be rightly punnished (die) for there murder."

You are reading in more than I wrote, because above I wrote thinking of you so as to exclude athiest who believe in capital punnishment.

I do include Christianity perhaps more than I should, but you try to write as though 2,000 years of Christian influence has never happened. Credit do where credit is do, and you are silent. I don't think everything that I have written here is negative to athiestism. Can you write or even think without athiest bias?

What do you know about logic? Logical thinking is mathematical. Words have mathematical properties. Therefore, a sentence is a mathematical question.

Lastly, why are you, an athiest (if that is possible), writing in a religious thread? And, at that, knocking religion, and then accuseing me of knocking athistism. Are you going to set your pants on fire with an answer?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

WA said:


> "You forgot about the Athiest that believe in abortion where millions of the most innocent of the innocent have been murdered. What is amazing is so many of these athiest fight against capital punnishment, I guess they have a gulity conscience and don't want to be rightly punnished (die) for there murder."
> 
> You are reading in more than I wrote, because above I wrote thinking of you so as to exclude athiest who believe in capital punnishment.
> 
> ...


Wayfarer, have you been eating too many chiles out there in AZ?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

WA said:


> You are reading in more than I wrote, because above I wrote thinking of you so as to exclude athiest who believe in capital punnishment.


Well if that is true, I owe you an apology.



WA said:


> I do include Christianity perhaps more than I should, but you try to write as though 2,000 years of Christian influence has never happened. Credit do where credit is do, and you are silent. I don't think everything that I have written here is negative to athiestism. Can you write or even think without athiest bias?


WA, I am the biggest defender of Western civilization you will ever meet and Xtianity is part of that. I am not anti-Xtian, in fact I speak up constantly that they are singled out for religious censorship when other religions are promoted.



WA said:


> What do you know about logic? Logical thinking is mathematical. Words have mathematical properties. Therefore, a sentence is a mathematical question.


What do I know about logic, specifically conversational? Ever hear of a guy named J. Anthony Blair? Granted it was a long time ago, but I had a two class series with him. That is not the exhaustive list of what I know, but it was my introduction and if you go find out who he is, you will see there is no finer pedigree.



WA said:


> Lastly, why are you, an athiest (if that is possible), writing in a religious thread? And, at that, knocking religion, and then accuseing me of knocking athistism. Are you going to set your pants on fire with an answer?


Go read post #7. You will see my entry to this thread and I think you will find nothing wrong with it. Also, please point out where I "knocked religion". I will make quips about my godless state, but I never really knock religion per se (although quite often those that profess to be "religious"). Some of my best friends are Xtian 



WA said:


> Are you going to set your pants on fire with an answer?


No, they are MTM.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> Wayfarer, have you been eating too many chiles out there in AZ?


Rejenos with single barrel tequila


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> At least not in this thread, but we've discussed the topic ad nauseam in others. Huckabee established his credentials as a repressive theocrat many years ago on this subject, and election results so far are proving he loses political viability the second he steps beyond America's Bible Belt.


Strange that my search doesn't find any threads on Covenant Marriages. Maybe I just can't get it to work.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> No, they are MTM.


When are you going to step into some bespoke ones?

Here is a logical question. If athiestism is pure randonness and reason is the opposite, then everytime you reason something you are proving athiestism to be make believe. Are you checkmated?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

WA said:


> Here is a logical question. If athiestism is pure randonness and reason is the opposite, then everytime you reason something you are proving athiestism to be make believe. Are you checkmated?


Not even close. Occam's Razor precludes a god. Pure logic and I do believe the good Scot was excommunicated for the axiom.

I look on religion, at its very core, this way:

When religious people do not have the answer to one of life's mysteries, they say, "That is God" or "God knows." When I do not know the answer I say, "I do not know." It works for me and keeps Occam happy.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Not even close. Occam's Razor precludes a god. Pure logic and I do believe the good Scot was excommunicated for the axiom.
> .


Well, actually Occam's razor is not pure logic ( in the sense of mathematically formalizable logic) but merely a inductive shortcut that works more often than not. And no, even using the razor it appears on first blush that it would require a God. (Simplest answer is usually right-right?)

I'd have to check but IIRC Occam got into trouble for his nominalistic views but got excommunicated over a debate concerning the meaning of poverty between the Franciscans and the pope JohnXXII .

I mean, really, Wayfarer...


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Well, actually Occam's razor is not pure logic ( in the sense of mathematically formalizable logic) but merely a inductive shortcut that works more often than not. And no, even using the razor it appears on first blush that it would require a God. (Simplest answer is usually right-right?)
> 
> I'd have to check but IIRC Occam got into trouble for his nominalistic views but got excommunicated over a debate concerning the meaning of poverty between the Franciscans and the pope JohnXXII .
> 
> I mean, really, Wayfarer...


Well it has been awhile, but I thought there was more to it than the "simplest" answer. More along the formulation of do not introduce logical entities into a system that are not needed to explain it. The example I remember from my logic text, about 20 years ago, was the existence of "Pluglies". They were the answer to why the shirts of the writer came out of the closet wrinkled. Shirts would go into his closet well pressed but come out wrinkled. The answer was not that he was hanging his shirts too close together and improperly, but rather the race of Pluglies were coming out at night and wrinkling his shirts.

I will bow to your recollection that this axiom only got Occam in trouble vs. excommunicated. I was already losing my religion, so to speak, by this time and stopped paying that much attention to such dogmatic battles.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Capital punishment is late term abortion. When a question cannot be answered in greek Orthodoxy the reply is mysterios. That translates as ' mystery' or ask Father next sunday. I don't want answers to everything. That would be like coming to the last line of the last work of a favourite writer. If Occam's razor was electric, would we have to explain electricity? And finally, I am hard pressed to name all the party would be candidates from the past two elections and predict Huckabee too will fade in our collective consciousness. I have determined this using the Bible Code I learned about on CBN ( Christian Broadcasting Network) in between Hal Lindsey saying outright Israel is in it's greatest peril due to the influx of russian jews who expect everything from the state vs the pioneering spirit of the western european jews. He was folowed by Pat Robertson hustling $50 for 3 meals a week for a poor jew and the Reverand Hagee asking for $350 to send a jew to Israel, $700 for a couple and $1500 for a family of four. If we support Israel unconditionaly they will rebuild the Temple, a precondition to the return of Jesus. I call this the tail wagging the Dog, which is God backwards as most of this whole thread has gone. But if two wrongs don't make a right, three lefts certainly do. happy festivus, I am sipping a nice Petit Sira with cheese and olives and listening to Hildegaard Von Bingen, who never tried out on american idol or checked into a rehab center. Everybody say AMEN!


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

Kav said:


> Capital punishment is late term abortion.


For me, and the principle reason this is not so, is that capital punishment is 'executed' after a charge, conviction, multiple appeals, and only for the most egregious of criminal behavior. Abortion is the execution of an innocent. While some innocents have been wrongly executed even after all of the aforementioned steps of due process were carried out, no child executed through abortion procedures has ever been provided even minimal due process.

Daniel Siebert, for example, was scheduled to be executed on October 25, 2007. His execution was stayed. Why? A federal appeals court granted multiple-murderer Daniel Lee Siebert's request for a stay of execution. Siebert was scheduled to die by lethal injection. He claimed his cancer medication would counteract with a lethal injection, inflicting unnecessary pain. A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a Montgomery district judge's order and is granting the stay of execution. Siebert, 53, has been on Alabama's death row for more than 20 years and has terminal pancreatic cancer.

Because his cancer medication might counteract the lethal injection and inflict "unnecessary pain," he is granted a stay. Erring on the side of caution, I suppose. I wonder if abortion is painful to the unborn? Only the unborn knows, for sure, but maybe caution is warranted here, too, and a stay should be granted for all unborn children until we know absolutely.

Sherri Weathers was a hearing-impaired student at the Alabama Institute for the Deaf and Blind and had not shown up for classes for a full week. Her guidance counselor called the manager of her apartments and asked her to check on Sherri's welfare. Using a passkey, the manager found Sherri and her two small children, Chad, 5 and Joseph, 4, dead in the apartment. Their bodies had all been placed on Sherri's bed and covered with a blanket. When police arrived, the manager asked them to check another apartment which was occupied by another student of the Institute who had also been missing. Police found the naked body of Linda Jarman, 33, on her bed. Daniel Siebert had been teaching art at the Institute under the assumed name of Daniel Spence and investigators soon learned that he had expressed a romantic interest in Sherri Weathers. A fingerprint match from the murder scenes led to the discover that Spence was instead Daniel Siebert, who had been convicted of manslaughter in Las Vegas in 1979. Police also discovered that Siebert had been dating another woman who had been missing since around the same time as the other women. Linda Odom, a cocktail waitress, was found dead outside of Talladega a short time later. Siebert was finally arrested in Nashville Tennessee several months later. Siebert confessed to the five murders in Alabama and said there were at least a dozen murders in total, "maybe more." He definitely murdered: Sherri Weathers, Chad Weathers (5), Joseph Weathers (4), Linda Odom (32), Linda Jarman (33), Gidget Castro (28), Nesia McElrath (23), Beatrice McDougall (57), unnamed victim, unnamed woman. 

Victims of the millions of aborted children? ZERO.

If we can find compassion for the guilty, Daniel Siebert, surely then, we can grant clemency to the innocent? Just my opinion.

PS I was just responding to the above comment and did not initiate this subject, for the record.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

whomewhat said:


> For me, and the principle reason this is not so, is that capital punishment is 'executed' after a charge, conviction, multiple appeals, and only for the most egregious of criminal behavior. Abortion is the execution of an innocent. While some innocents have been wrongly executed even after all of the aforementioned steps of due process were carried out, no child executed through abortion procedures has ever been provided even minimal due process.


Two wrongs don't make a right. Capital punishment is the ultimate form of totalitarianism, while abortion (except in very rare cases) is the ultimate form of selfishness. Despite my continuous hammering of the RCC it's one issue where I agree with their position. Our penal system is more than capable of protecting society without resorting to intentional murder. Capital punishment is therefore never self-defense, it's nothing more than institutionalized barbarism. It accomplishes nothing except to bring our entire society down to the same level as murderers. IMO.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

My comment was , in the measure of my post tongue in cheek. Our society , our humanity and stewardship of the earth and each other is a continuing hurt and embarassment. I can only 'mock that which mocks me' and giggle quietly at all the Huckabees, and more importantly their detractors who do so little better. Today's news brought it's own casualtiy figures and latest horrors, the greatest the ability of everyone to blame someone, something else.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Two wrongs don't make a right. Capital punishment is the ultimate form of totalitarianism, while abortion (except in very rare cases) is the ultimate form of selfishness. Despite my continuous hammering of the RCC it's one issue where I agree with their position. Our penal system is more than capable of protecting society without resorting to intentional murder. Capital punishment is therefore never self-defense, it's nothing more than institutionalized barbarism. *It accomplishes nothing *except to bring our entire society down to the same level as murderers. IMO.


Violence certainly does solve some things. To say otherwise is to be blind to history.

At the very least, capital punishment thins the herd a bit. That is helpful on many levels.

It is collective self-defense as witnessed in the Huckabee case. If that guy had been put down he would not have killed the second woman. You could also say if he hadn't been let out except that almost everyone eventually gets out. There is really only a semantic difference between "Life" and "life." I think the chair is more human than a cage. A repeat pedophile, rapist, or murderer is a stain on our society. Have we no conscience?

Criminal Justice and Capital Punishment is one of the few legitimate collective activities IMHO.

At least we have Jessica's Law now.

"Jessica's Law is the informal name given to a 2005 Florida law, as well as laws in several other states, designed to punish sex offenders and reduce their ability to re-offend. A version of Jessica's Law has been introduced on the federal level, known as the Jessica Lunsford Act.

Jessica's Law is also used by the media to designate all legislation and potential legislation in other states modeled after the Florida law. Forty-two states have introduced such legislation since Florida's law was passed.

The law is named after Jessica Lunsford, a young Florida girl who was raped and murdered in February 2005 by John Couey, a previously convicted sex offender. Public outrage over this case spurred Florida officials to introduce this legislation. Among the key provisions of the law are a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years in prison and lifetime electronic monitoring of adults convicted of lewd or lascivious acts against a victim less than 12 years old. In Florida, sexual battery or rape of a child less than twelve years old is a capital felony, punishable only by death or life imprisonment with no chance of parole."


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

> In Florida, sexual battery or rape of a child less than twelve years old is a capital felony, punishable only by death or life imprisonment with no chance of parole."


+1. This should be the law in every state.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Without Christ, Christians believe our sins would keep us out of heaven.


Not all Christians.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

yachtie said:


> +1. This should be the law in every state.


+some more. What is the recidivism rate in this area? How stupid can society be to let them lose?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

RSS said:


> Not all Christians.


Well, then they wouldn't be CHRISTians. Read John 3:16 again. It's fine if you are Muslim, atheist or even RSSian, but if you don't believe in this, the most basic belief of the Christian churches, then you can't call yourself a CHRISTian. There are many differences in opinion among the Christian churches, but at least they all can agree on the Gospel.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

In recent days I've spent a fair amount of time in Episcopalian/Anglican blogs. The thought of writing more about theology and/or liturgy weighs a bit heavy. At the moment, I'm a bit worn-out on the subject. But I do have one question &#8230; and as I haven't read the entire thread - it's just the same-old same-old - perhaps it's already been asked.

Given our constant discussion about the current state of dress - or the lack thereof - in the world today &#8230; is anyone surprised by the similar direction of religion &#8230; with it's bad theology and poor liturgy? 

As has been noted here before ... what is happening in matters of style and dress is not happening in a vacuum; it's just one symptom of a greater disease in our society as a whole. There is a real loss of interest in and the understanding of the finer and more intelligent points of many things both tangible and intangible &#8230; including religion.

It's just that when it comes to religion it's not about bad dress and poor style - although you're likely to find it in the congregation - it's about bad theology and poor liturgy.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Religion was once a spiritual journey; today it's a package tour. Everything has been arranged well in advance. There's no need to think about anything ... all the thinking has been done for you!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> Well, then they wouldn't be CHRISTians. Read John 3:16 again. It's fine if you are Muslim, atheist or even RSSian, but if you don't believe in this, the most basic belief of the Christian churches, then you can't call yourself a CHRISTian. There are many differences in opinion among the Christian churches, but at least they all can agree on the Gospel.


I wanted to wait until someone else responded, as apparently I offend some by daring to air my profane understanding of Xtian dogma. That is my understanding of it too though. Live a life in perfect accord with the Bible's teachings yet do not accept Jesus are your personal saviour, accept him into your "heart", etc., and you do not get into Heaven. Lead a life of total evil, on your death bed, comply with these things, and you get into Heaven.

It is all about Jesus


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I wanted to wait until someone else responded, as apparently I offend some by daring to air my profane understanding of Xtian dogma. That is my understanding of it too though. Live a life in perfect accord with the Bible's teachings yet do not accept Jesus are your personal saviour, accept him into your "heart", etc., and you do not get into Heaven. Lead a life of total evil, on your death bed, comply with these things, and you get into Heaven.
> 
> It is all about Jesus


Yeah, I mean I can't call myself Muslim if I don't believe the basic tenets of Islam.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Laxplayer said:


> Well, then they wouldn't be CHRISTians. There are many differences in opinion among the Christian churches, but at least they all can agree on the Gospel.


 Not true in full. Some believe they are saved by the Grace of God.

Let us remember that religion -- including Christianity -- is faith ... not fact. There are many understandings. None of them are all inclusive. 

There is one truth ... and man has not divined it ... nor is he likely ever to accomplish it. 

If you wish to presume your understanding to be "the understanding" &#8230; you way to be "the way" &#8230; that is your prerogative. Of course, it places your personal understanding equal to that of God.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Wayfarer said:


> I wanted to wait until someone else responded, as apparently I offend some by daring to air my profane understanding of Xtian dogma. That is my understanding of it too though. Live a life in perfect accord with the Bible's teachings yet do not accept Jesus are your personal saviour, accept him into your "heart", etc., and you do not get into Heaven. Lead a life of total evil, on your death bed, comply with these things, and you get into Heaven.
> 
> It is all about Jesus


This is known as Substitutionary Atonement. It is not so much Christian as fundamentalist.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

RSS said:


> This is known as Substitutionary Atonement. It is not so much Christian as fundamentalist.


On this I agree. It's not our acceptance, but our belief. As for your other post...yes, saved by the Grace of God through Jesus Christ His Son. I'm Lutheran. I thought our beliefs were very similar to the Episcopal Church, but I guess I was wrong if the EC does not believe Jesus was necessary. Without Jesus, why have the Great Vigil of Easter?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

RSS said:


> This is known as Substitutionary Atonement. It is not so much Christian as fundamentalist.


I will admit I have never heard this title for this piece of dogma. So to explore this, are you saying:

1) It is possible to get to Heaven in a way not "through Christ"? This would of course mean that a pagan that leads a "good life" can arrive in Heaven.

2) Are you saying my scenarios in the above are wrong? Can a person that leads a perfect life not get to Heaven as this person has not "accepted Christ into their lives?" Can not a person that has led an evil life not get to Heaven through a deathbed conversion?

I love this sort of exploration of dogma.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

RSS said:


> There is one truth ... and man has not divined it ... nor is he likely ever to accomplish it.


I agree with that. Which is why I chuckle whenever someone professes their religion has the answer. That is the basis of my agnosticism. I claim to truly be "without knowledge". I just do not know if there is a god or not. I find adherence to Pascal's wager hypocritical, so I do not employ that either.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

First one would have to clarify What Anglican/Episcopalian. My background was very traditional reformed catholic Church of Ireland. I've visited churches with a female vicar who is talking about Islam to the gay choir who have utterly no concept of what the Book of Common Prayer was. Many christian churches and some of the woo woo ones like Jehovah Witness have a rank and class system. The ' best of the best of the best' as Will Smith would mock get raptured via first class, the rest go through some tribulation or judgement or wind up in economy class standby with Three Stooges movies, peanuts and diet coke or something. Orthodoxy teaches all Christians, and indeed also all humanity have grace and will be judged no less or more than orthodox. We believe Orthodoxy represents the purest form of the early church. We are flying in a very trad Pan AM Constellation and not a FAA unlicensed homebuilt with a VW engine or a DC 10 that may crash because of unseen design flaws or an intoxicated pilot. And it is this 7-9 decade journey that is every bit as important as the eternal destination. If I thought Charlie Manson and Adolf Hitler got the same deal of course I'd consider a life of hedonism with annual migrations to Burning Man and Saville Row after robbing a drug dealer, Wal-mart, my congressman and other thieves. But I think meeting the Dalai lama (who I expect to see in heaven, should I make it) watching Swan Lake in a East European Opera house or hearing bagpipes hidden in the ocatillo whle driving through Tucson have meaning, and Peggy Lee singing IS THAT ALL THERE IS was wrong.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> On this I agree. It's not our acceptance, but our belief. As for your other post...yes, saved by the Grace of God through Jesus Christ His Son. I'm Lutheran. I thought our beliefs were very similar to the Episcopal Church, but I guess I was wrong if the EC does not believe Jesus was necessary. Without Jesus, why have the Great Vigil of Easter?


Its original purpose was to usurp springtime pagan fertility rituals. But today its main purpose is to sell lots and lots of candy.

The grace of God comes from God and only from God:

Mt 21:28 "What is your opinion? A man had two sons. He came to the first and said, 'Son, go out and work in the vineyard today.'
21:29 He said in reply, 'I will not,' but afterwards he changed his mind and went.
21:30 The man came to the other son and gave the same order. He said in reply, 'Yes, sir,' but did not go.
21:31 Which of the two did his father's will?" They answered, "The first." Jesus said to them, "I tell you truly, tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you."

It's all about repentance of sin and seeking God's will, not using Caspar the Friendly Ghost as an excuse for sin.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Oh those bad christians, setting up a lemonade and Girl Scout cookie booth next to the pagans during festivus. And how many yet earlier religions did those Hollywood pagan priests in black eyeliner and Yvonne De Carlo dancing girls writhing before an intoxicated George Saunders usurp? Beats Frank to a bloody pulp with a randomly selected Jospeh Campbell title.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Kav said:


> Oh those bad christians, setting up a lemonade and Girl Scout cookie booth next to the pagans during festivus. And how many yet earlier religions did those Hollywood pagan priests in black eyeliner and Yvonne De Carlo dancing girls writhing before an intoxicated George Saunders usurp? Beats Frank to a bloody pulp with a randomly selected Jospeh Campbell title.


I honestly don't know, but thanks for the laugh. 

For what it's worth I prefer Alan Watts to Joseph Campbell, at least pre-LSD Watts. Post-LSD Watts was a snore IMO.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The late Alan Watts, who I met at one of his last Sausalito houseboat lectures found his first gainfull employment as a priest in the Anglican Church. Alan is largely responsible for popularising Buddhism in the west , particularly ZEN along with the more scholarly, but equaly delightfull Doctor Suzuki . Though a big admirier of G.K. Chesteron, Alan failed to grasp the english genius for Christianity also expressed by C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkein and Bishop Kallistos Ware. Poor Alan, in his Vodka and Cigar hazed worldview LSD hardly made a dent and he died still uptight over a Church that gave him his religous and academic foundation and a paycheck. His legacy are lectures played at godawfull hours on Pacifica Radio and books one must special order because 'Buddha in a Box' replete with jade plastic, made in CHICOM CHINA statue and a small book of buddhist scripture takes up the shelf space at BORDERS.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

I disagree with your assessment of Watts, and have no idea what "the english genius for Christianity" is supposed to mean. I related to Watts' experience (having fake religion pounded into his head as a child, etc), and IMO his resultant understanding of the difference between fake and authentic Christianity was masterful.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Its original purpose was to usurp springtime pagan fertility rituals. But today its main purpose is to sell lots and lots of candy.
> 
> The grace of God comes from God and only from God:
> 
> ...


You obviously have no idea what the Great Vigil of Easter is. Read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Vigil And let me get this straight...did you really just compare Jesus to Casper?


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

Early on in this thread, page three post 61, I stated as follows:

"Generally, I find it counter-productive to engage in "Bible bashing," which is when each person finds scriptures to support their view and counter the view of the other. It is really not persuasive since those who so engage are usually not open-minded and have already decided that their position is correct."

What has followed, IMHO, supports my initial proposition. No minds have been changed, some feelings have been hurt, and things some hold to be sacred have been reduced to the same level of respect reserved for politicians these days. The common thread I have found amongst all of the posts here is that each of us has our own variation on what we believe, some of it common ground, some of it worlds apart. Maybe we could just all agree that we disagree and move the discussion away from things that some hold in the highest reverence, as a gesture of respect for each other and our common love of all things clothes? I, for one, know that I have far more urgent things going on in my life and I derive no benefit from tearing down the beliefs of others, even those who choose to believe in nothing. Ultimately, we judge each other by our actions and words, not our inner most held beliefs, and those spoken here are hardly reflective of enlightenment, whatever you believe that to be. 

And Kav, as a complete novice when it comes to "Kav-speak," for lack of a better term, what on earth does "Pax" mean, in the context that you used it? I generally got the point that civility was what we should shoot for, unless I misunderstood that, too, but "Pax?"


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> You obviously have no idea what the Great Vigil of Easter is. Read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Vigil And let me get this straight...did you really just compare Jesus to Casper?


The word "Easter" was taken from the Saxon pagan goddess "Eostre", and the RCC's timing of this holiday was intended to usurp pagan fertility celebrations that occurred at or near the start of spring.

Easter was by no means unique in this regard. Dates for most of the RCC's major holidays were chosen to usurp established pagan festivities (e.g. Christmas was chosen to usurp the pagan winter solstice celebrations, even though according to the best guesses, Jesus was born sometime in the first week of June, etc).

I've already answered your other question. God is the sole granter of grace, he is the sole deliverer from sin and evil. The spirit and power of God resided inside Jesus while he was here (e.g. "Walk while you still have the light.", etc) but since then, God's contact and communication with man is through the holy Spirit.

JN 14:26 The Advocate, the holy Spirit _that the Father will send_ in my name--he will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you.

JN 15:26 "When the Advocate comes _whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father_, he will testify to me.

These passages are yet another direct conflict with the Nicene Creed. The holy Spirit proceeds from God alone, not from both God and Jesus.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Last post for me in this thread.

John 14:1 "Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God ; trust also in me. 
John 14:2 In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. 
John 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 
John 14:4 You know the way to the place where I am going." 
John 14:5 Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?" 
John 14:6 *Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.* 

14*And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. *15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17*And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. *18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. 
--I Corinthians 15:14-19


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Pax= peace


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> John 14:6 *Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.*


This passage is understood only in the context of another:

Jn 12:44 Jesus cried out and said, "Whoever believes in me believes not only in me but also in the one who sent me,
12:45 and whoever sees me sees the one who sent me.
12:46 I came into the world as light, so that everyone who believes in me might not remain in darkness.
12:47 _If anyone hears my words and does not observe them, I do not condemn him, for I did not come to condemn the world but to save the world._
12:48 _Whoever rejects me and does not accept my words has something to judge him: the word that I spoke, it will condemn him on the last day,
_12:49 _because I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and speak.
_12:50 _And I know that his commandment is eternal life. So what I say, I say as the Father told me."_

And also Mt 7:21:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but _only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven_."

The question of whether Jesus (or, as is the case with most of John, Jesus speaking as universal Logos) is the sole gatekeeper to heaven is entirely moot, if a person dies in sin or believes Jesus is a Free Pass Card for sin. You can find many passages in the NT where Jesus prays to God or calls for prayer to God, and not a single instance of him praying to himself or calling for prayers to himself.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Poor old Bede lived, what in the 7th century? And the Saxons, who occupied Western Germany became Christian when? And the modern western church, Roman Catholic became a distinct entity after what great schism? And Eostre, at best an apocryphal name in the literature somehow became known to a religion using among it's common languages Greek, of which the word for DAWN. ie new day and rebirth is EOSE ? FOR SALE one 1st edition of THE GOLDEN BOUGH.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

Kav said:


> Pax= peace


Ah, then I understood correctly and can at least look to that as the light in this otherwise dark thread.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

If we turned the light up, all these people squinting in the dark would realise the menu special of the day was meatloaf.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Two wrongs don't make a right. Capital punishment is the ultimate form of totalitarianism, while abortion (except in very rare cases) is the ultimate form of selfishness. Despite my continuous hammering of the RCC it's one issue where I agree with their position. Our penal system is more than capable of protecting society without resorting to intentional murder. Capital punishment is therefore never self-defense, it's nothing more than institutionalized barbarism. It accomplishes nothing except to bring our entire society down to the same level as murderers. IMO.


Punishment is not a wrong when it is justice and not revenge.

The Pope shouldn't be playing God.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

And people, including the Bishop of Rome shouldn't be playing Pope. Somehow THE CHURCH nurtured the Gospel until what we more or less agree to be the New Testament and the Old Testament of our jewish brothers ( itself codified in the 3rd century in response to Christianity.) With every person using Sola Scriptura arguments it's not suprising everyone is their own Pope, their own church and in some measure condemning every and all who digress.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> The question of whether Jesus (or, as is the case with most of John, Jesus speaking as universal Logos) is the sole gatekeeper to heaven is entirely moot, if a person dies in sin or believes Jesus is a Free Pass Card for sin. You can find many passages in the NT where Jesus prays to God or calls for prayer to God, and not a single instance of him praying to himself or calling for prayers to himself.


The difference in the Persons of the Trinity is Relational not Substantive. You've made this rather elementary mistake- confusing Relation with Substance. There is only one Substance- God. That's why Christianity is Monotheistic. There are 3 Persons- the *only* way to distinguish them is due to the relation between them. The Father begets the Son and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Father is neither generated nor proceeding. 
Think of it this way Arius, an infinite being can have only one thought that fully comprehends Himself- that's the Logos or Son. Their relationship causes the procession of the Holy Spirit. Substantively, they are indisinguishable. The Father has not thoughts aside from the Son or Holy Spirit as they are of one Substance. Christ prays relationally. Your theology must deny the divinity of Christ or conversely require 3 gods. Sorry, that's not Christianity.



Kav said:


> And people, including the Bishop of Rome shouldn't be playing Pope


Don't speak so fast Kav. The Orthodox patriarchs have already agreed to the primacy of the Chair of Peter as well as the equivalence of both the Nicene and Orthodox creeds relating to the procession of the Holy Spirit. You'll probably be coming home to Rome soon enough. :icon_smile_wink:



> The question of whether Jesus (or, as is the case with most of John, Jesus speaking as universal Logos) is the sole gatekeeper to heaven is entirely moot, if a person dies in sin or believes Jesus is a Free Pass Card for sin.


Not moot at all since the Passion, Death and Resurrection is the Salvific Act. That is to say it is what makes Salvation possible. It is incorrect to adhere to a thesis that absolves one of personal responsibility for one's sins. Although knowledge of Christ or belief in Him is a great benefit, it is not the necessary precondition for Salvation. Christ's redemptive act is the sole and necessary precondition for the possibility of Salvation. He made Heaven accessible but we're still on the hook for our own sins. That's where repentance and amendment of our lives plays a crucial role since our perfection- either in this life or in Purgatory- is still a requirement for union with God. Canonization of a Saint is merely a recognition of someone who "made it". There are probably many virtuous pagans in Heaven as there as probably many 'Christians', who didn't correspond to the graces of their vocation, in Hell.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> The difference in the Persons of the Trinity is Relational not Substantive. You've made this rather elementary mistake- confusing Relation with Substance. There is only one Substance- God. That's why Christianity is Monotheistic. There are 3 Persons- the *only* way to distinguish them is due to the relation between them. The Father begets the Son and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Father is neither generated nor proceeding.
> Think of it this way Arius, an infinite being can have only one thought that fully comprehends Himself- that's the Logos or Son. Their relationship causes the procession of the Holy Spirit. Substantively, they are indisinguishable. The Father has not thoughts aside from the Son or Holy Spirit as they are of one Substance. Christ prays relationally. Your theology must deny the divinity of Christ or conversely require 3 gods. Sorry, that's not Christianity.


Reconcile your theology with the following statement:

"Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone."

If Jesus wasn't pointing out a substantive difference between himself and God, something he does repeatedly and often in the three synoptic gospels, what point was he making?


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Reconcile your theology with the following statement:
> 
> "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone."
> 
> If Jesus wasn't pointing out a substantive difference between himself and God, something he does repeatedly and often in the three synoptic gospels, what point was he making?


Try: getting them to realize that he is God. As you've said before, it's not good to do biblical "one liners". If he said "Why do you call me good- I'm not God" you 'd have a point. But he didn't.

Your position sort of runs counter to the dialogue with Peter: "Who do you say that I am? You are the Christ, Son of the living God".etc doesn't it?

BTW- it's not *my* theology. I merely adhere to it.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Huh? You repeat the filioque which Rome finally acknowledged as error. Then because some of the patriarchs have met with the Pope and repeated the ancient 'first among equals' stance the Jesuits are preparing to take inventory and rent out halls to the Knights of Columbus. BUZZZ, Lets try Dog Breeds for $100 Alex.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Try: getting them to realize that he is God. As you've said before, it's not good to do biblical "one liners". If he said "Why do you call me good- I'm not God" you 'd have a point. But he didn't.
> 
> Your position sort of runs counter to the dialogue with Peter: "Who do you say that I am? You are the Christ, Son of the living God".etc doesn't it?
> 
> BTW- it's not *my* theology. I merely adhere to it.


The same misunderstanding that eventually got Jesus nailed to a tree (interpreting his qualitative statements quantitatively) is also the rationale behind Trinitarianism and other (IMO) absurd and unsupported corruptions of authentic Christianity.

We could get into a separate debate about the Gospel of John here, which is where much of this misunderstanding comes from. It was written at least 90 years after Jesus died and is considered by many Biblical scholars to be a fabricated commentary on, rather than an accurate transcription of Jesus' teachings and ministry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John

Getting back to the original topic, here's a Huckabee quote for ksinc:

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do - to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."






Start gathering America's adulterers and homosexuals, I'll fire up the ovens.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Start gathering America's adulterers and homosexuals, *I'll fire up the ovens.*


Time to lock the thread, Frankie wins. First Holocaust allusion.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Well, before they lock the thread, I'd like to say thanks to all who stuck up for me. :icon_smile:


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Laxplayer said:


> I'm Lutheran. I thought our beliefs were very similar to the Episcopal Church, but I guess I was wrong if the EC does not believe Jesus was necessary. Without Jesus, why have the Great Vigil of Easter?


Again, we are back to presupposing one way and only one way.

I have stated neither the theological position of the Episcopal Church (of the United States of America ... there are others) nor that of the Anglican Communion. Among Anglicans there simply is no definitive version of theology ... and with good reason ... none exists ... at least not as understood by man.

We encourage both study and reflection ... and naturally this leads to many differences of opinion.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Upon study and reflection, I think I'll have a drink.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Kav said:


> Huh? You repeat the filioque which Rome finally acknowledged as error. Then because some of the patriarchs have met with the Pope and repeated the ancient 'first among equals' stance the Jesuits are preparing to take inventory and rent out halls to the Knights of Columbus. BUZZZ, Lets try Dog Breeds for $100 Alex.


No need to get your tits in a wringer, Kav. The procession from both the Father and the Son is what's they agreed to. Filioque is a dead issue. Care to make a wager on reunion in our lifetime?:icon_smile_wink:



Frank DC said:


> The same misunderstanding that eventually got Jesus nailed to a tree (interpreting his qualitative statements quantitatively) is also the rationale behind Trinitarianism and other (IMO) absurd and unsupported corruptions of authentic Christianity.


Ah Arius, I have to give you credit for dogged persistance even if your 'arguements' don't hold water. In another venue that may even be commendable. You really will have to pick a new name for your religion , or resurrect the old one named after you, as Christianity really is equivalent to Trinitarianism. BTW, He was *born* to get nailed to a tree. Need I repeat previous posts on Redemptive Sacrifice?



Kav said:


> Upon study and reflection, I think I'll have a drink.


Best suggestion of this whole thread. couldn't agree more 

All done.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Christianity really is equivalent to Trinitarianism.


If that's true, it wasn't important enough for Jesus to explain or even mention it.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> If that's true, it wasn't important enough for Jesus to explain or even mention it.


Gah- can't even enjoy my drink.

Please read the New Testament ( for starters).


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> If that's true, it wasn't important enough for Jesus to explain or even mention it.


He mentioned it, many times. One must believe and want to find it, otherwise, truth alludes them. As I have said before, reciting one scripture here and another there will acomplish nothing when one's purpose is to debate, not learn truth. With all due respect, not a single, solitary mind has been changed by this thread.

Luke 17

20 ¶ And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 
21 Neither shall they say, *Lo* *here*! or, *lo* *there*! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Matthew 28

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:

John 10

30 I and _my_ Father are one.

38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father _is_ in me, and I in him.

John 17

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, _art_ in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

There is no such thing as a 'Orthodox Creed.' The eastern church maintains the Nicene creed without the filioque and continues to reject the infallibility of one bishop. I suggest you make a pilgrimage to Saint Peter's and read Pope Leo's 809 A.D. refutation of the Filioque. And I would love nothing more than to watch a bunch of jesuits show up to take inventory of the spoils and encounter some greek Yiayias. Maybe Rome will think about the last time it invaded Greece and had to ask for german help. Know any sympathetic Lutherans?


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Kav said:


> There is no such thing as a 'Orthodox Creed.' The eastern church maintains the Nicene creed without the filioque and continues to reject the infallibility of one bishop. I suggest you make a pilgrimage to Saint Peter's and read Pope Leo's 809 A.D. refutation of the Filioque. And I would love nothing more than to watch a bunch of jesuits show up to take inventory of the spoils and encounter some greek Yiayias. Maybe Rome will think about the last time it invaded Greece and had to ask for german help. Know any sympathetic Lutherans?


Aww, gee. it was the Venetians not the Romans. And both forms of the Creed are agreed to as equivalent. Not a fan of the Jesuits and who's looking for spoils anyway.  I'll agree that they're still working on the codifications of Vatican I. So I take it you're not agreeing to my bet?


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

Originally Posted by *FrankDC* https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=686724#post686724 
_Is there any Biblical basis whatsoever, either in the Old or New Testament, for the claim that only perfect people get into heaven? If not, where did this idiotic notion come from?_

_Originally Posted by *FrankDC* https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=690964#post690964 _
_If that's true, it wasn't important enough for Jesus to explain or even mention it._

_He makes these statements or asks questions and then when the evidence he claims does not exist is provided, he cites other scripture that he believes is contrary. When you ask if there is "any Biblical basis whatsoever" and then that basis is provided, just admit you were wrong. When you say "If that's true, it wasn't important enough for Jesus to explain or even mention it." and then citations are given where it is mentioned, again, admit you are wrong. _

_If he wants to disagree with the interpretation, that is one thing, but in the first instance there is a "Biblical basis" and in the second it is "explain[ed]" and "mention[ed]." I am not the one who wrote the question, apparently, poorly. What FrankDC should have asked, in the first case, was: "Is there any Biblical basis, either in the Old or New Testament, for the claim that only perfect people get into heaven that I will accept as clear and convincing evidence? In the second: "If that's true, it wasn't deemed necessary for Jesus to clearly, completely, convincingly, and to my sole satisfaction explain or even mention it." _

_This thread is a forum for him to toss stones at everyone's beliefs, and by definition, that is flaming. No answer will satisfy him since his goal is not to learn something new, possibly, rather, it is to criticize anyone who does not believe as he does. Funny how when he makes statements of theology he speaks in absolutes relating to what are nothing more than his beliefs. _

_FrankDC, I have a question. What makes your interpretation correct and everyone else's wrong? Mark 1:22 _22 "And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes." By what authority do you teach your doctrine and why are you not simply a scribe?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

This tread started as condemnation against a candidate for the Presidentcy of the United States and his profession of the christian faith. 9 pages later we are all blind men feeling the elephants legs of that faith. The POTUS represents, under national and world scrutiny what and who we as a people are , were and will be. Some do well and others less so. But ultimately the President is but one player of many; large and small, known and unheralded who define us as a people. I thought maybe a look at some of them might take us beyond the black and white posts thick and all consuming as a locust filled sky. I give you www.fourchaplains.org/story.html


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

Kav, respectfully, I disagree. This had nothing to do with Huckabee, rather, it was the vehicle Frank utilized to, again, attack Christianity. This is not the first time he has done this, as you know better than most. He demands intellectual honesty from everyone, as he sees it, but then engages in these intellectually dishonest exchanges. He is free to attack Christianity, and anything else he wants in the interchange, but I can't just sit back and let him play this game of his without revealing what he is doing. I have no problem with him having his own agenda, but he needs to be honest about it. I don't think he is and I am not going to pretend otherwise. I want to try and keep things civil since I think civil discourse is healthy, but he continually baits people for the sake of baiting them and I find such behavior abusive in its very nature. Just my opinion, of course, but it is supported by past threads and posts of his.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

You and I had an ugly exchange, for which I am sorry and regret. Karl and I once banged heads over Iran and easily could have established another forum feud until we quickly defused it. Ironically I've come around to his view. I've given up on Frank. He's like this Audi driver who cuts people off every morning to make a left turn on my immediate road. There are at least 5 of us who have this unspoken choreographed defensive formation and keep him from making his turn so he has to circle back and is late. He just doesn't get it, and the joke is I followed him one morning and discovered the guy is an insurance broker. I won't be buying insurance from him, and I won't buy anything Frank has to share either. And thats kind of sad, because I think there could have been some conversations of worth. Just in this thread the late Alan Watts was mentioned. I posted how I was fortunate to attend a few of his last Sausalito houseboat lectures. I read every book by and about Watts, collected every lecture tape. Years later I made friends in Ojai California with the personal cook for Krishnamurti. I was helping the tibetan monk I took up to then Saint Andrew's Priory to meet a chinese catholic brother who endured identical torture at the hands of the communists. I took him to the Center in Ojai and my friend arranged a luncheon with the visiting Krishnamurti. And in the course of a long, leisurly but inspirational conversation Alan came up. And Krishnamurti sort of laughed and said he smelled of Vodka and cigars and didn't appreciate what western thought and tradition had given him to become the man who explained buddhism to Americans. And there my story sits, unshared because it falls into tradition and a small brother to direct apostolic succession instead of the sola scriptura of Frank's paperbacks , the real Alan, like the real Jesus to Frank "cloud hidden, whereabouts unknown."


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Kav said:


> Upon study and reflection, I think I'll have a drink.


Now _that_ comment is rather Episcopalian in its tone. After all, drink can lead one to a more comprehensive vision ... or at least toward being more open to toward others.

I think I'll have one myself.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Regarding Huckabee


Kav said:


> This tread started as condemnation against a candidate for the Presidentcy of the United States and his profession of the christian faith.


Yes, it did ... because there is question as to whether or not Huckabee -- particularly given his religious values -- would be able to distinguish the difference between the role he would lead as the president and that he leads in private life.



whomewhat said:


> This had nothing to do with Huckabee, rather, it was the vehicle Frank utilized to, again, attack Christianity.


Personally, I do not see Frank attacking Christianity or Christians... but rather as being critical of the beliefs of some Christians ... and perhaps, even, some widely held -- but certainly not all -- Christian beliefs.



whomewhat said:


> ... he continually baits people for the sake of baiting them...


Baiting occurs -- continually, I might add -- by any number of participants of the Interchange. As I see it, Frank, more often that not, is the one bated into defending himself against those taunting him via the imposition of their social conservatism as it relates directly to his life.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

RSS said:


> Personally, I do not see Frank attacking Christianity or Christians... but rather as being critical of the beliefs of some Christians ... and perhaps, even, some widely held -- but certainly not all -- Christian beliefs.


I agree with this observation. In fact, if you read Frank's comments in this thread, he repeatedly supports Christian beliefs, although perhaps not the particular beliefs that some Christians in this forum support.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> I agree with this observation. In fact, if you read Frank's comments in this thread, he repeatedly supports Christian beliefs, although perhaps not the particular beliefs that some Christians in this forum support.


Isn't that a curious statement. He supports Christian beliefs, but perhaps not those of Christians on this forum? There must be something behind that curtain.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

RSS said:


> Baiting occurs -- continually, I might add -- by any number of participants of the Interchange. As I see it, Frank, more often that not, is the one bated into defending himself against those taunting him via the imposition of their social conservatism as it relates directly to his life.


I am neither an Xtian nor a social conservative. I have continuously backed abortion rights, civil unions, free needle exchanges...any number of things usually deemed "left wing" or "liberal". So now that we have ruled out your genetic fallacy, let me tell you that Frank is...continually, I might add...bashing the Pope, Mormons, and anyone that does not adhere to the Frankian Heresy. Call me simple, but it would seem to me that some basic rules, non-negotiable, have been laid out by your religion's diety and Frank seems to be having a life long hissy fit as he wants to be a member of the Xtian club, he just wants to change/ignore the rules as he sees fit.

It really is an "either/or" situation here. You follow and believe in the rules and are an Xtian, or you are not. I see nothing wrong with subscribing to the Frankian Heresy and being an apostate, but it is not going to get you in the Xtian Club.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Frank espouses a lot of views that are considered heresies by most Christians.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

RSS, I was a baptised high church anglican with a bunch of C. of I. relatives in the family history since excommunication from the R.C for membership in the I.R. A. . It was a wrenching decision; Orthodoxy and my romanian fiance' or the gay,female priest who informed me my old book of common prayer was ' so yesterday.' it took me all of 1 minute using the anglican tenant of reason ( and a stiff 2 finger shot.)


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

What this thread needs:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

yachtie said:


> What this thread needs:


:aportnoy:

Yachtie wins the thread.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Wayfarer said:


> Call me simple, but it would seem to me that some basic rules, non-negotiable, have been laid out by your religion's diety and Frank seems to be having a life long hissy fit as he wants to be a member of the Xtian club, he just wants to change/ignore the rules as he sees fit.
> 
> It really is an "either/or" situation here. You follow and believe in the rules and are an Xtian, or you are not. I see nothing wrong with subscribing to the Frankian Heresy and being an apostate, but it is not going to get you in the Xtian Club.


Okay ... you're simple ... and yet not. Remember, I'm a relativist. :icon_smile_wink:

If one considers that each denomination of Christianity -- heck there are more than are twenty (an understatement) organized denominations of Baptists alone -- has its own understanding of Christian theology ... and then add to this the, more often than not, decidedly different theologies of the countless independent churches (tiny to MEGA) dotting the landscape ... it is more than a little evident that there is no one universally accepted version of Christianity.

Sadly, as time moves forward, there are yet more and more splinter groups rather than less. This constant and further splintering seems to me the antithesis of Christianity ... as we are not in communion with one another ... but rather separate and apart. Of course, I digress.

Indeed there are some basic rules ... but even those basic rules differ wildly from one version of Christianity to another. They differ so much so that it is not uncommon for the basic "non-negotiable" rules of one denomination of Christianity to be significantly at odds with another denomination's set of basic non-negotiable rules. They can be so much at odds ... and some denominations so self-righteous ... that its members often reject followers of other versions of Christianity ... seeing them as being less than "real" Christians.

As example, the Episcopal Church (EPUSA) is facing a schism as those among us adhering to more fundamentalist beliefs choose to "walk apart." Moreover, some versions of fundamentalist Christianity prescribe to the practice of requiring that a congregation defer without question to their particular pastor's personal interpretation of the rules; thus with a change of pastors can come a change of the rules. Now that could be confusing ... unless one is well-versed in double-think ... which all too many seem to be.

Frank doesn't have to change the rules to fit ... and I don't think he's trying to or even believes he needs to change them. In my opinion, Frank knows himself far better than most on this site. He seems to me to be on a spiritual journey in a world where all too many have hopped aboard a religious package tour.

It's not an either/or situation at all. The Episcopal Church (ECUSA) would consider Frank to be an asset. There are certainly other denominations that would welcome Frank ... the United Church of Christ, comes to mind immediately ... and quite possibly the Lutherans. Of course, with all the divisions, no person can possibly fit comfortably -- or even find himself accepted -- into each and every version of Christianity.

All would be well and good were each person left to worship as he chooses. However, given that some versions of Christianity adhere to a hard-line view that they alone are "the way" ... its members charged to "conquer" the world and have it fit to the authoritarian views of their socially dominant leader/s (likely men with an Altemeyer / Pratto & Sidanius double high score) regarding what is right and wrong -- all of it right there in black and white ... and when the world is in full color -- well ... that's where the problem starts ... it certainly isn't with Frank.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Frank would be welcome in the Lutheran church, as long as he brings a hotdish. :icon_smile_big: Lutherans believe in a separation between Law and Gospel. At my church, we hear far more Gospel than Law.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Laxplayer said:


> Frank would be welcome in the Lutheran church, as long as he brings a hotdish. :icon_smile_big: Lutherans believe in a separation between Law and Gospel. At my church, we hear far more Gospel than Law.


Very true at my Episcopal Church as well ... both on the food front ... and Gospel over Law.

On the food front ... why just yesterday, at the annual meeting, I was elected a representative to our diocesan convention. I was elected even though -- or perhaps because -- when introductions were made ... it was noted that I had disappeared momentarily into the kitchen ... to assist in helping remove an overly large and very heavy tray from the oven.


----------

