On Romney, Obama, Mormonism & More
Posted in Politics, Religion on | 4 minutes | 71 Comments →
I rarely write about politics, but over at Vic’s place, Matt DeStefano asked:
I’d be curious to hear how the Christians here feel about Romney’s Mormonism, especially given this video.
First, my general attitude towards voting for US presidents: I don’t. Unless I feel specifically called otherwise, I don’t pay attention to any of it. To brothers and sisters who vote, I respect your motive of civic duty, but the lesser of two evils is still evil. Second, I mean no offense to any denominationalists anywhere, but I cannot mince words: what I am about to say will be considered harsh, heretical and anathema to some. Third, if any professed believers feel the pressure of offense creeping up their soul while reading what I am about to say, I respectfully ask them to follow the “pray, wait, respond” strategy. Ask YHWH if there is any truth in what I am saying, then wait for at least five minutes. Please don’t just take offense and shoot from the hip. Lastly, please note that this is a response to Matt, so I’ll be addressing him personally hereafter. Since this is a supplement to a discussion that began elsewhere, glancing at the original thread will supply necessary context. It may also help to watched the linked video if you haven’t.
Matt,
Man, politics and religion, in one post? What are you trying to do? Start WWIII?
In all seriousness, you asked a great question. Before we start, I want to apologize for my tone to you ever since the thing with DBT01. I’ve put it all behind me and I would like to get back to the type of conversations we had before that debate went sour. We had a good, solid streak for a long time. There was humor, lightness and mutual respect, and I don’t want to permanently lose that over something as petty as pooping on a debate. So, I’m sorry for carrying that in my heart and letting it affect the way I spoke to you about unrelated issues. So what do you say? Cheers to a new beginning?
That said, I respectfully dissent with Crude, not because I think Alex Rosenberg is a shining example of clear, rational sanity—he isn’t—but because I believe it doesn’t do any good to make those sorts of subjective comparisons. Scripture is plain: all are owned by YHWH or Satan. The proposition is Boolean. What does it really accomplish to retort that X is loonier than Y?
To answer your question, well… what do I think about Romney? It’s a lose-lose scenario either way. Satan controls everyone who is not under the direct lordship of Yeshua. Sure, both candidates address their take on various problems, but neither address sin, which is the root of all problems. As for Mormonism, like many other religions, it’s a straight-up cult, a whitewashed form of demon worship to the unknowing, unquestioning masses. The tapping, the code words, the secrets, the symbolism, the obsession with white… wake up and learn, people! Again, the writing is on the wall! The simple-minded assume all is holy just because someone invokes the name “Jesus Christ,” but Lucifer and the demons know that name, and used it. Again, Scripture is plain: “Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light” (2 Cor. 11:14). Is not “light” a central theme of that video? Where are we told that Joseph Smith followed Scripture and tested the spirits?
Honestly, that video saddened as much as the superbowl halftime show this year. The same way sugar is broken down and packaged into many different tastes for many different people—soda and ketchup, wine and chocolate—so it is with paganism and false doctrine: Mormonism, Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism, JWism, Ecumenism, Wicca, Masonry, Satanism, Baal worship, Molech worship… on and on and on ad nauseum, throughout history until now. Each are just different flavors with varying proportions of truth and error, suited to the preferences of those who taste. Make no mistake: I’m not saying my denomination is right and all the others are wrong. I hold no official denomination. I believe all partake of apostasy in varying degrees. Followers of YHWH are called out of all apostasy in Revelation 18:4: “Come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues[.]”
If anyone thinks I am misguided, I welcome a reasoned argument from Scripture. Dissent with anything less, and it will likely be ignored.
Syllabus
says...I welcome a reasoned argument from Scripture.
The problem with a statement like that is, of course, that every argument from Scripture is dependent upon the priors of the person making the argument. What kind of hermeneutics we use in, say, interpreting Romans 9 will depend upon the presuppositions that we hold to. In that sense, then, I don’t actually think it’s possible to make an argument about any topic mentioned in Scripture from Scripture alone.
And I’m wondering where precisely you’re getting your argument that “all are owned by YHWH or Satan.” Not necessarily disagreeing, mind, but I’d like the specific reference points to know where to go from there.
cl
says...Hi Syllabus.
Correct, but, looking at the whole of Scripture tends to correct these problems. At least, that’s been my experience. Unless one wishes to cast the entirety of Scripture as “relative,” there are core statements which do not admit of differing interpretations.
Didn’t Messiah continually refute Satan and Pharisees from Scripture alone? I believe he’s set a precedent for us.
It’s not an argument. It’s the inescapable conclusion of my understanding of numerous Scriptures, for example individual verses like Matthew 12:30, an assortment of parables both from Messiah and John the Baptist referring to “wheat and chaff,” and, most importantly, the final state of affairs described in Revelation, where we find two categories of people: those who inherited eternal life, and those who did not. Mind you, that’s just from the New Testament. Isaiah 66:24 pre-affirmed Revelation, as an example from the Old Testament. There are many others, and my statement remains true here and now even if one accepts universalism (which I don’t).
Do you believe any Scriptures teach otherwise?
BenYachov
says...>The same way sugar is broken down and packaged into many different tastes for many different people—soda and ketchup, wine and chocolate—so it is with paganism and false doctrine: Mormonism, Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism, JWism, Ecumenism, Wicca, Masonry, Satanism, Baal worship, Molech worship…
So me calling you a material heretic because you are not Catholic is “rude” but this is OK?
cl you are an interesting young man. You have one standard for me & another double standard for yourself.
Would that you where consistent.
BenYachov
says...>I hold no official denomination. I believe all partake of apostasy in varying degrees.
The problem with this Pox on all your houses view is 1) it is still technically Protestant. 2) It makes a liar out of Yeshua when he told Shimmon Kefpha “on this Rock I will build my Church and the Gates of Hell with not prevail against It.” 3) It makes you like the Gnu Atheists with there Negative Atheism “I don’t believe there is no God I merely lack God belief”.
“I don’t belong to any denomination I’m just a Believer”.
That just reduces you to a denomination of one called cl.
BTW we must follow the Bible with Tradition (2 Thes 3:6).
Scripture alone is not Biblical and thus false by it’s own standards.
Syllabus08890
says...Didn’t Messiah continually refute Satan and Pharisees from Scripture alone?
When they quoted Scripture at Him, yeah, He responded with Scripture. When Satan tempted Christ by quoting the Psalms at Him, Christ responded with Scripture. When the Sadeucees asked Him a question concerning whether there would be a resurrection – and since they only accepted the validity of a strict interpretation of the Torah and thus denied the Resurrection – He quoted the Torah at them to make a point. And there are also a number of instances where the Pharisees quoted Scripture at Him where he simply answers them by His own authority – the adulterous woman in John 8, though possibly a later interpolation, is the one I’m thinking of. So I don’t think that you can say that Christ is, in those examples, setting a precedent for solely Scriptural arguments without doing eisegetical backflips.
It’s not an argument. It’s the inescapable conclusion of my understanding of numerous Scriptures, for example individual verses like Matthew 12:30, an assortment of parables both from Messiah and John the Baptist referring to “wheat and chaff,” and, most importantly, the final state of affairs described in Revelation, where we find two categories of people: those who inherited eternal life, and those who did not. Mind you, that’s just from the New Testament. Isaiah 66:24 pre-affirmed Revelation, as an example from the Old Testament. There are many others, and my statement remains true here and now even if one accepts universalism (which I don’t).
OK, but you’ve just shifted it from “all are owned by YHWH or Satan” to “some inherit eternal life, some don’t”. I accept the last, but I’m curious about how you get to the first from the last. And it seems that you’re conflating “what Scripture clearly teaches” with “what I clearly perceive that Scripture teaches”. The two may be equivalent, but they aren’t so by definition. If anything, that seems to reductive.
And Ecumenism is… heretical? We must understand very different things by “ecumenism”.
cl
says...Syllabus,
The original point in contention is whether or not a reasonable case can be made from Scripture alone. I am saying that it can, because Messiah did it. Are you saying it can’t? Are you saying it can, only sometimes? How is it a “backflip” to note that Messiah used Scripture alone on several occasions? Why can’t we? Are you implying that since Messiah relied on authority at times, this means we cannot reason directly from Scripture? If so, I disagree. If not, please explain with greater precision what you believe about this, and why you believe it.
Those who inherit eternal life are owned by YHWH, whether Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and the like (from the OT), or those paid by grace since the cross. All others belong to the devil. If this still doesn’t suffice for you, I’ll gladly cite more Scriptures supporting the notion. I’m a bit pressed for time at the moment, and since you said you “agree with the first,” I suspect you just disagree with the way I worded it. I could also anticipate a question about children.
By “ecumenism,” I mean the world church movement spearheaded by the WCC. Do you mean something different by it? I didn’t say, “Ecumenism is heretical.” I said all denominations contain varying degrees of truth and error, and I said that some would consider *MY* words heretical, but other than that, I didn’t join those words the way you now attribute them to me. May I ask why you’re doing so?
Syllabus
says...I am saying that it can, because Messiah did it. Are you saying it can’t? Are you saying it can, only sometimes?
I’m saying that no, it cannot in all cases.
How is it a “backflip” to note that Messiah used Scripture alone on several occasions?
It’s a backflip to extrapolate a couple of responses that Christ gives to certain people into a full-blown principle that only arguments made from Scripture are valid against a certain Scriptural interpretations. That looks an awful lot like reading your own assumptions back into the text.
Are you implying that since Messiah relied on authority at times, this means we cannot reason directly from Scripture?
No, only that we cannot always do so, and we should not assume that we can.
Those who inherit eternal life are owned by YHWH, whether Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and the like (from the OT), or those paid by grace since the cross. All others belong to the devil.
Right, but my question is about where you’re getting the “they belong to the devil” part. Under his influence, sure. But implying that they belong to Satan? And that they will ultimately belong to him? That I throughly disagree with.
Do you mean something different by it?
What I mean is cooperation by people of different faiths who nonetheless share enough common ground to have very similar ends.
May I ask why you’re doing so?
A misunderstanding of the text.
Crude
says...Correcting the view that Y is loonier than X, for one thing. The context of the discussion was politics and general discourse – not scripture. And I’m really tired of seeing people talk about ‘oh look how crazy the beliefs of those YECs/mormons/whatever’ are, at least coming from a camp which turns a blind eye or even praises far worse. That’s coming from someone who’s not a mormon, and certainly not a YEC. I’m tired of the hypocrisy on that front, so when the opportunity arises, I bring it up.
Also, I don’t think the distinction you’re making is so clear cut even biblically. See Paul’s talk about the altar to an unknown god.
cl
says...Syllabus,
Then we agree. You must have read “all cases” into my words. While I certainly fail at times, normally, I try to choose my words and the words I omit carefully.
Sure, when you put it like that, but that goes beyond my words. All I asked was for anyone who disagreed to explain why with a reasonable case from Scripture. I never said anything about “all cases,” I never said, “only arguments made from Scripture are valid against a certain Scriptural interpretations,” those are your words, not mine. So, if you disagree with anything I said, just tell me why, and use Scripture. I’m open.
Well. I honestly don’t know why you keep adding to my words. I would never say that “they ultimately” belong to Satan, because Satan doesn’t have permanent ownership over any living soul. Those who have rejected Messiah and died in their sins are a different story. Nonetheless, I have to ask: what do you find so disagreeable about the simple claim that one is either owned by YHWH or Satan at any given time?
Okay, then we did mean something different there. I agree that people of all faiths should cooperate to achieve various goals.
cl
says...Crude,
You didn’t correct Matt’s view, though. In fact, you seem to have solidified it. That’s what I mean: we see through our glasses, others see through theirs, and all this subjective nonsense of “your side is crazier than mine” doesn’t really accomplish much. At least, not in my opinion. But you have every right to expose whatever you want. Don’t let me stop you, I just wanted to draw my line.
I’m with you there.
What distinction do you think I’m making? Let’s be sure we’re on the same page first.
Crude
says...If by that you mean ‘you didn’t change Matt’s mind’, no doubt. But that’s never my goal anyway. Matt is what he is, and outside of a personal experience or a change of heart – neither of which I can cause – that won’t change. What I can do is point out something for the benefit of others.
The Boolean proposition of “you either belong to God or Satan”.
Matt DeStefano
says...Hey cl,
Thanks for the kind words, and I’m sorry for my part also. I have to admit being quite frightened by the video, especially the knowledge that only a generation ago people were swearing an oath to avenge the death of Joseph Smith at the hands of the American government.
I’m not sure I can add much to the discussion about whether or not Mormonism is somehow Satanic – since I simply don’t agree with the overall theology, but it seems to me that especially those of us who are secular have much more to fear from Mormonism than we do from Catholicism or any other branch of Christianity.
Of course, as an atheist, I don’t exactly have political representation for my beliefs in that area – so it’s never been much of a concern to me regardless.
Syllabus
says...I find the whole language of “ownership” somewhat problematic, but I don’t disagree with it when it comes to God. However, I entirely reject the notion that Satan can “own” any human soul. If the language of ownership in that sense is applicable to any entity, it is only applicable to God. Also, in Scripture, you’ll see language that talks about how Satan or other spiritual forces, stoichaeon or whatever else are in charge of the kingdoms of the world, or are the “princes of the power of the air” or what have you. It doesn’t seem to me, however, that you can find language that attributes ownership of humans to Satan in any way that is at all unequivocal. There may be language, for instance, that talks about handing a brother over to Satan for a time so that he might be saved, but ownership seems to me to be something else entirely. One might be under the influence of Satan, one might perhaps even be dominated by him, but it seems to me that that’s not the same as being owned by Satan.
Well, here’s the thing. The critique that I do have has more to do with your assertion that Mormonism is demon-worship. I think that this is a bit of a stretch. Is Mormonism mistaken? Sure, it is. Seriously. But that’s not the same as being demon-worshippers. Might it be demon-worship? Sure, it might be, but that one Scripture reference you cited seems insufficient to me to warrant the conclusion that Mormonism is demon-worship. Is Satan happy that people are Mormons are seriously mistaken in their trinitarianism and Christology? I would imagine so. But that doesn’t mean that he was the instigator of that religion. I think it’s more likely that Smith and Young were simply opportunistic con men. Ockham’s razor, and all that.
Now, since there’s virtually no Scriptural argument there, other than a reference that says that Satan can array himself as an angel of light – which I think is meant to make a rhetorical point WRT the light, but that’s my opinion – I think that a criticism of it can use reason and experience rather than solely Scripture. Can Satan masquerade in guise of an angel or whatever? I certainly think he can. Did he, in the case of Joseph Smith’s alleged vision? I think not, and Scripture is silent on the issue. If you think that he did, I’ll say it’s possible, though less likely than the alternative. But Scripture does not speak to that issue, and thus it seems that I need not make a Scriptural argument against it.
And on to another question:
Source? This sounds like an extrapolation to me, but by all means provide references. And I think it’s important to remember that there’s a difference between dominion over the world and dominion over specific individuals.
cl
says...Crude,
True, I just question whether anybody actually said to themselves, “Wow, I think Crude’s right… a voodoo witch doctor covered in blood actually *IS* saner than Rosenberg.” Unless of course they already agreed, which proves my point about the glasses.
I don’t see the connection. The context is Paul’s travel, waiting in Athens, walking through the Areopagus. How does the fact that the Greeks had an altar for an “unknown god” have any bearing on the proposition in question? I suspect you’ll point to verse 23, but I’ll wait for your words.
cl
says...Syllabus,
Okay, so you only disagree with half, and as for the other half, you disagree over the word I used. No big deal to me, not worth splitting hairs over. This whole thing has been so blown out of context I’m eager to return to the meat. The take-home point, in context of the OP, was that any given candidate is either “owned” or “controlled” or “dominated” (or fill in the blank with whatever word you want to use) by YHWH or Satan, and that in this election, like all the other ones I’ve seen in my life, it’s lose-lose since, as far as I can see, neither are Spirit-filled believers. One can say “X might do more evil than Y” but that’s just speculation.
There’s no “might” in my view. Again, if you’re talking about “worshipping” or “paying homage” or “revering” or “invoking” (or fill in the blank with whatever word you want to use) spiritual beings of any sort whatsoever, you are ultimately either worshipping YHWH or Satan. The only “middle ground” here would be the Scripturally-recorded mistake of worshipping an angel. In that case, one wouldn’t be worshipping either YHWH or Satan, they’d be sinning while not ultimately worshipping Satan. I’m not alleging that all Mormons are aware that the higher-ups lead rituals to demons. Like I said, I believe most Mormons are just simple-minded people who hear the word “Jesus Christ” and assume all is well.
Why do you think that? I believe Scripture speaks to that type of issue plainly and clearly, and that Smith’s was clearly an instance of the type. I’ll get to that after you answer.
What’s “the” alternative? You speak as if there is only one…
cl
says...Matt,
Cheers, and thank you as well. I’m just glad we’re finally past that low point.
How could you, since you deny Satan exists? ;)
cl
says...BenYachov,
Not at all. It’s not my fault you came here and took offense despite the fact that I admonished readers to avoid that error. Worse, you try to equate your own outright personal insult with my saying that I believe all denominations contain varying degrees of truth and error, when the two statements are nowhere near the same category. What I said is also true for your beloved “Catholic” church, James. Remember, it was *YOUR* church that KILLED a man (allegedly) because he believed the sun rotated around the Earth. Don’t nitpick by saying “we don’t really know why they burned him, his file was missing” either. Did Yeshua admonish the disciples to kill people they didn’t agree with? Is that “sound doctrine” or “wholesome church tradition” to you, James?
False. I am as much against “Protestantism” as all the others.
Nonsense. I believe what Messiah told Peter. I simply disbelieve that “church” in that verse means “the official decrees and popery of fallible Catholic men.” That’s where we differ.
Well, if you think I’m “like a Gnu” because I reject denominationalism, there’s not much I can do about that. It’s a subjective evaluation I’m simply not interested in. No edification could result.
Hardly. I’m a member of the body, just like any other. The body is just the body, period. It’s not Catholic, it’s not Protestant, it’s not Mormon… etc.
1) I agree. As I implied, I trace “tradition” back to the source: both testaments, Messiah, and the disciples. For you, “tradition” seems to reduce to the decrees of your religious institution. I say this because, in the other thread, I pointed out how your church “cursed” or “excommunicated” (or whatever word you want to use) all who held to the Sabbath in the tradition of Yeshua and the apostles. Your reply was that the Law no longer applies, despite Messiah’s clear words to the contrary! And you said that without batting an eyelash! Despite your closing insult, you did not make your case.
2) You ripped 2 Thess 3:6 out of context. It has to do with not being a sloth and earning one’s keep. It’s a total backflip to use that verse to argue “BenYachov’s Catholicism” as the one true church.
Crude
says...Frankly, I don’t think many people have connected the dots in that way. It took me a long time to even notice it myself.
Not the specific example of ‘witch doctor’, but simply pointing out a contrast that does not get made. People will disagree with materialism and atheism, of course. But I think for many people, even many Christians, there’s this habit of sliding into a kind of ‘assumed respectability’ complacency. To illustrate what I mean, just ask yourself – can you think of a lot of christians, even orthodox christians, who treat YEC and anti-evolutionary views with intellectual disdain and/or disgust? I absolutely can. But how many treat materialists like Rosenberg with the same way, despite it being far more warranted? That’s a shorter list, and that should change.
The fact that Paul treated the altar to an unknown god as a positive point, and an indication that the people were, whether they knew it or not, however imperfectly, doing something right and proper.
cl
says...Crude,
Why do you say that’s a “fact” when Acts 17 records no such appraisal?
Contrary, verse 16 says Paul was “greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols.” Not a positive point. In verse 30, he refers specifically to such worship as “ignorance,” not a positive point. Also in verse 30, he tells the Athenians YHWH is “calling them to repent.” Do people need to repent of things done right and proper?
It seems to me that verse 23 was a rhetorical maneuver to lead into a presentation of the gospel, and that is exactly what Paul does after that verse. Paraphrased, it goes something like, “Y’all are so ignorant and full of idols you even have one to an unknown god, but I’m here to make the ‘true God’ known to you…” The most one can say is that Paul called the Athenians “very religious” in verse 22—but that just underscores my point! The Mormons in that video are very religious, but since their zeal is not for YHWH, it is for Satan. Messiah said it: “whoever is not for me is against me.” Those Athenians were effectively “owned” by Satan because of their ignorance and idol worship. Paul knew this, and that’s why he was calling them to repent.
Can you give me any reason to believe otherwise?
dale
says...As is usually the case, this election is one in which we have to vote for the lesser of two evils, at best. But regardless of this, I think that it is in each persons best interest to vote. Not voting because you don’t like the candidates, and then backing it up with scripture is justification in a weak way and does more harm that good.
Though the candidates are not great, there are differences and these differences will have an impact on all of us. Make up your own mind as to who you feel is better, I know what I’m doing. The non voter is not exempt from their cause and effect upon society when they don’t take part. If deciding to symbolically “not take part” is how they feel, they should follow the example of John the Baptist, if they want to be real about it.
And, I say these things without offense, as I look to the following verses as direct examples of how Christ responded to political and civic duty versus living faithfully for and within the Holy Spirit.
Matthew 22:15-22
15 Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16 They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax[a] to Caesar or not?”
18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, 20 and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”
21 “Caesar’s,” they replied.
Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”
22 When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.
Crude
says...Because it does, and it’s a fact.
Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.
Do people need to repent of worshiping God?
Paul connected the altar of the unknown God with the God of Christianity. He said explicitly that they were worshiping said God, but were ignorant of same.
There were a lot of things going on in that city, but when Paul spoke of that altar, he took a different line than simply dismissing it as utterly wrong false-god worship.
That paraphrase doesn’t work. Here’s a closer one: “This God you are worshiping is my God. You don’t know enough about Him. I’m here to teach you.”
Or it’s for a corrupt and imperfect image of a God they are sadly ignorant of. I don’t think it’s very easy to say ‘You thought you were worshiping God but – surprise! – it was really the devil’, at least when those very same people are both aware of the devil’s existence, who he is, and consciously reject him.
That really depends. If you dig in your heels and explain away Paul’s connection of the altar to an unknown God with the God Paul himself was proclaiming, then no, we’re at an impasse – and that’s fine. In turn, I’d ask if you can give me any reason to accept an interpretation that explains away Paul’s explicitly identifying the altar to an unknown God with the God Paul himself believed in. Going to Acts 16 or pointing at the reference to idols won’t work, because Paul is putting the altar in a different context.
cl
says...Dale,
I don’t think Messiah’s paying of taxes can be properly construed as Scriptural evidence that we should all vote in US presidential elections. “Civic duty” is a gray area. Paying taxes is a matter of law, and that’s the context of the verses you cited. If there were a law that said we must vote, I think you’d have a much stronger case.
I tend to agree at the local levels, but I believe the American political process is so thoroughly corrupt that it’s actually in our best interest to abstain. Unlike you, I don’t know what I’m doing. There is so much spin and misinformation WRT politics that I don’t think voters can make a reasonably informed decision at the national level. So, I don’t. I don’t even believe voting counts. Florida 2008, as one example. I honestly believe the whole thing is rigged. I understand that not everybody shares my beliefs, and I’m not going to condemn anybody for voting. On my view, a single righteous prayer effects more good into the world than voting for a US president.
I understand that, and I accept the consequences of my non-action. I believe my energy is better spent elsewhere than the rabbit holes of misinformation and spin that is American politics. That’s just me.
You lost me there. Surely you’re not suggesting I should take up residence outside the US simply because I’m in protest against US macropolitics? If that’s the case, ouch…! That’s harsh. :)
cl
says...Crude,
There is only one context in which what you allege makes sense: perhaps the altar was one of the altars built by Israelites for the sacrifices to YHWH, but that is a stretch, and pure speculation.
It’s not a fact at all. I think you’re reading that into the words without good reason. But let’s cut to the chase instead of argue frivolous details that we can never affirm. Let’s grant that my opening speculation is correct, and that what you say is correct (even though I don’t think it is). How would that be relevant to the Boolean proposition, even if they were worshipping an altar of YHWH by accident? I anticipate something along the lines of what you write here:
How does that allow for middle ground? Show me one Scripture that allows for middle ground between “saved” or “born again” (owned by YHWH) and “condemned” or “dead in one’s sins.” (owned by Satan, divine act notwithstanding).
Ronin
says...cl,
With regards to the discussion you are having with Crude (middle ground or however you want to label it), Can we consider Cornelius (see Acts 10)? The story of Cornelius sort of gives credence to what [it seems to me] Crude is trying to communicate to you.
Also, I see you are proffering the idea of “Scripture Alone”. You realize that what you call “Scripture” is tied to “Tradition”?
BenYachov
says...@cl
>Not at all.
Absolutely you do.
> It’s not my fault you came here and took offense despite the fact that I admonished readers to avoid that error.
It is inconsistent to be mad at me for calling you a “heretic” while you give yourself the right to call my Church’s beliefs “pagan”. No, I am not in principle mad at people who do that but the hypocritical inconsistency on your part is galling.
You can call Sunday observance Pagan or say the Catholic Church is pagan but you have no right to take offense at me calling you a heretic. Which you are BTW at least in the material sense.
>Worse, you try to equate your own outright personal insult
So let me get this straight me calling you a heretic is a “personal insult” but you calling my church pagan is not an insult? How PZ Myers of you.
This is an irrational double standard. It is not an insult to me for anyone to say I am wrong or my church is wrong. But claiming I can’t do the same is shameful.
> with my saying that I believe all denominations contain varying degrees of truth and error, when the two statements are nowhere near the same category.
Yes it is since such a concept is heresy to Catholicism since you implicitly include the Catholicism within the concept of denominations.
Catholicism formally teaches no errors in matters of Faith and Morals. None!
>What I said is also true for your beloved “Catholic” church, James. Remember, it was *YOUR* church that KILLED a man (allegedly) because he believed the sun rotated around the Earth.
Actually nobody was ever executed for Heliocentracism. This is another of your many ignorant mistakes about history like claiming the term “Catholic” was first used in the 14th century. Cardinal Bellermine said if you could prove via science the Helio view was correct then the Scripture verses that appear to say otherwise would have to be reinterpreted. The Reformers OTOH all rejected the Helio view and called those who championed it “infidels”.
>Don’t nitpick by saying “we don’t really know why they burned him, his file was missing” either. Did Yeshua admonish the disciples to kill people they didn’t agree with? Is that “sound doctrine” or “wholesome church tradition” to you, James?
This sounds like Gnu propaganda. The Church has no power to execute anybody. Political states however may execute traitors. Religious dissidents until modern times where treated as political traitors in all countries. The OT mandated the execution of Jews who spoke false prophesy and blasphemy. Yeshua is God so he commanded that at one point. Modern militant Atheist states (China) ironically still execute people for the heresy of God-belief.
>False. I am as much against “Protestantism” as all the others.
If you believe in a 66 book Bible and not a 73 book Bible you are a Protestant. If you believe in private interpretation and Sola Scriptura you are a Protestant. If you belong to a Christian community with at best only two valid sacraments (i.e. Baptism and Marriage) you are a Protestant.
>Nonsense. I believe what Messiah told Peter. I simply disbelieve that “church” in that verse means “the official decrees and popery of fallible Catholic men.” That’s where we differ
You believe whatever Church Yeshua founded went extinct. I don’t, that is the difference besides as I showed the historical evidence shows a Primitive Catholic Church not a Pseudo-Protestant Sabbatheian Church.
>Well, if you think I’m “like a Gnu” because I reject denominationalism, there’s not much I can do about that. It’s a subjective evaluation I’m simply not interested in. No edification could result.
My criticism is your anti-denominationalism denomination is a negative proposition without formal content. At least an established even if post 16th century Protestant tradition has a list of doctrinal imperitives I can objectively critique. A denomination of one such as yourself is a blank state.
>Hardly. I’m a member of the body, just like any other. The body is just the body, period. It’s not Catholic, it’s not Protestant, it’s not Mormon… etc.
Then due me the courtesy of telling me the name of your non-denominational denomination?
>1) I agree. As I implied, I trace “tradition” back to the source: both testaments, Messiah, and the disciples.
So do I but you are avoiding the question and begging it. Where are those teachings found? In written Scripture alone(where does written Scripture claim that?) or oral teaching handed on with Scrupture?
The Bible endorses the later not the former.
> For you, “tradition” seems to reduce to the decrees of your religious institution.
Yeshua gave this power to the Apostles who intern passed it too the Bishops. Your argument is with Jesus.
>I say this because, in the other thread, I pointed out how your church “cursed” or “excommunicated” (or whatever word you want to use) all who held to the Sabbath in the tradition of Yeshua and the apostles.
A dumb heavy handed move like Paul VI getting rid of the Old Mass but such observance wasn’t necessary. Paul could break it when fellowshipping with Gentiles and Paul forbad Jewish Christians from imposing it on Gentiles even if they where fellowshipping with Jewish Christians.
>Your reply was that the Law no longer applies, despite Messiah’s clear words to the contrary! And you said that without batting an eyelash! Despite your closing insult, you did not make your case.
Paul said we are not under the Old Law. Take it up with Him. We are always under God’s Law. I made the case from history you merely dismissed it.
>2) You ripped 2 Thess 3:6 out of context. It has to do with not being a sloth and earning one’s keep. It’s a total backflip to use that verse to argue “BenYachov’s Catholicism” as the one true church.
So when you cite Scripture it is Messiah’s Clear words but if I do it then it’s “BenYachov’s Catholicism”?
That shows Scripture is not clear and needs a formal interpreter guided by the Ruach Ha Kodesh(i.e. Holy Spirit for you non-Hebrewphiles).
Does your non-denominational denomination fit that bill? Can it trace itself back 2,000 years? Or is it only a few years maybe decades old?
That I’d like to know.
BenYachov
says...Let me fix that previous post.
@cl
>Not at all.
Absolutely you do.
> It’s not my fault you came here and took offense despite the fact that I admonished readers to avoid that error.
It is inconsistent to be mad at me for calling you a “heretic” while you give yourself the right to call my Church’s beliefs “pagan”. No, I am not in principle mad at people who do that but the hypocritical inconsistency on your part is galling.
You can call Sunday observance Pagan or say the Catholic Church is pagan but you have no right to take offense at me calling you a heretic. Which you are BTW at least in the material sense.
>Worse, you try to equate your own outright personal insult
So let me get this straight me calling you a heretic is a “personal insult” but you calling my church pagan is not an insult? How PZ Myers of you.
This is an irrational double standard. It is not an insult to me for anyone to say I am wrong or my church is wrong. But claiming I can’t do the same is shameful.
> with my saying that I believe all denominations contain varying degrees of truth and error, when the two statements are nowhere near the same category.
Yes it is since such a concept is heresy to Catholicism since you implicitly include the Catholicism within the concept of denominations.
Catholicism formally teaches no errors in matters of Faith and Morals. None!
>What I said is also true for your beloved “Catholic” church, James. Remember, it was *YOUR* church that KILLED a man (allegedly) because he believed the sun rotated around the Earth.
Actually nobody was ever executed for Heliocentracism. This is another of your many ignorant mistakes about history like claiming the term “Catholic” was first used in the 14th century. Cardinal Bellermine said if you could prove via science the Helio view was correct then the Scripture verses that appear to say otherwise would have to be reinterpreted. The Reformers OTOH all rejected the Helio view and called those who championed it “infidels”.
>Don’t nitpick by saying “we don’t really know why they burned him, his file was missing” either. Did Yeshua admonish the disciples to kill people they didn’t agree with? Is that “sound doctrine” or “wholesome church tradition” to you, James?
This sounds like Gnu propaganda. The Church has no power to execute anybody. Political states however may execute traitors. Religious dissidents until modern times where treated as political traitors in all countries. The OT mandated the execution of Jews who spoke false prophesy and blasphemy. Yeshua is God so he commanded that at one point. Modern militant Atheist states (China) ironically still execute people for the heresy of God-belief.
>False. I am as much against “Protestantism” as all the others.
If you believe in a 66 book Bible and not a 73 book Bible you are a Protestant. If you believe in private interpretation and Sola Scriptura you are a Protestant. If you belong to a Christian community with at best only two valid sacraments (i.e. Baptism and Marriage) you are a Protestant.
>Nonsense. I believe what Messiah told Peter. I simply disbelieve that “church” in that verse means “the official decrees and popery of fallible Catholic men.” That’s where we differ
You believe whatever Church Yeshua founded went extinct. I don’t, that is the difference besides as I showed the historical evidence shows a Primitive Catholic Church not a Pseudo-Protestant Sabbatheian Church.
>Well, if you think I’m “like a Gnu” because I reject denominationalism, there’s not much I can do about that. It’s a subjective evaluation I’m simply not interested in. No edification could result.
My criticism is your anti-denominationalism denomination is a negative proposition without formal content. At least an established even if post 16th century Protestant tradition has a list of doctrinal imperitives I can objectively critique. A denomination of one such as yourself is a blank state.
>Hardly. I’m a member of the body, just like any other. The body is just the body, period. It’s not Catholic, it’s not Protestant, it’s not Mormon… etc.
Then due me the courtesy of telling me the name of your non-denominational denomination?
>1) I agree. As I implied, I trace “tradition” back to the source: both testaments, Messiah, and the disciples.
So do I but you are avoiding the question and begging it. Where are those teachings found? In written Scripture alone(where does written Scripture claim that?) or oral teaching handed on with Scrupture?
The Bible endorses the later not the former.
> For you, “tradition” seems to reduce to the decrees of your religious institution.
Yeshua gave this power to the Apostles who intern passed it too the Bishops. Your argument is with Jesus.
>I say this because, in the other thread, I pointed out how your church “cursed” or “excommunicated” (or whatever word you want to use) all who held to the Sabbath in the tradition of Yeshua and the apostles.
A dumb heavy handed move like Paul VI getting rid of the Old Mass but such observance wasn’t necessary. Paul could break it when fellowshipping with Gentiles and Paul forbad Jewish Christians from imposing it on Gentiles even if they where fellowshipping with Jewish Christians.
>Your reply was that the Law no longer applies, despite Messiah’s clear words to the contrary! And you said that without batting an eyelash! Despite your closing insult, you did not make your case.
Paul said we are not under the Old Law. Take it up with Him. We are always under God’s Law. I made the case from history you merely dismissed it.
>2) You ripped 2 Thess 3:6 out of context. It has to do with not being a sloth and earning one’s keep. It’s a total backflip to use that verse to argue “BenYachov’s Catholicism” as the one true church.
So when you cite Scripture it is Messiah’s Clear words but if I do it then it’s “BenYachov’s Catholicism”?
That shows Scripture is not clear and needs a formal interpreter guided by the Ruach Ha Kodesh(i.e. Holy Spirit for you non-Hebrewphiles).
Does your non-denominational denomination fit that bill? Can it trace itself back 2,000 years? Or is it only a few years maybe decades old?
That I’d like to know.
cl
says...Ronin,
I’ll gladly look into it, but, would you mind explaining what you perceive to be the connection?
Not at all. See my reply to BenYachov at #17. When he said we must follow Scripture with tradition, I said, “I agree.” Here’s the catch: when “tradition” seems to clearly contradict Scripture, I side with Scripture. Does that nullify my claim that all denominations contain varying degrees of truth and error?
Ronin
says...cl,
Sure, I am asking you to consider Cornelius knowledge of “God” prior to Peter’s visit.
I am not disputing that, though. Truth and error are what we can expect when humans are involved. However, I am wondering what “Scripture Alone” means to you?
cl
says...BenYachov,
I understand that this is what you believe, and I firmly believe I cannot convince you otherwise. Nor will I try. What follows is solely in the interest of correcting your mistaken interpetations of things I’ve said, lest anybody else accept the errors.
1) I wasn’t mad, I just thought it was rude.
2) You condemning me as a “heretic” is in an entirely different category than me simply stating my belief that Catholicism has accepted some pagan customs, hence no inconsistency.
3) I told you not to take offense since none was intended, you chose otherwise, that’s on you.
Yes, that’s correct. If I called you a “pagan,” you’d have a case.
False. You overlooked my intentional use of the word “allegedly” and, as usual, overlooked the main point: there is no apostolic tradition of killing people for dissent. Which leads to:
Yet, in that same comment, you said the Law no longer applies, so you can’t appeal to the Law to justify Catholic murders.
Thanks for clarifying your beliefs further.
False. Stop twisting my words.
I did, and you ignored it.
False. I gave Scriptural reasons for my disagreement and you rambled on for 7 comments in a row. If you want to do me the courtesy of a concise, articulate response of substance, feel free. I won’t argue with you anymore, but, at least I can understand, and check to see if you may have a point beneath all the bluster.
Not at all, it’s about context. Paul telling people to earn their keep cannot be reasonably interpreted as, “Paul says we should believe every tradition the Catholic church teaches.” Paul also said that even if an angel teaches a gospel different than the apostolic tradition, let that angel be condemned (Galatians 1:8).
I never said otherwise, which means this is more irrelevance. Look, if you want to have a fruitful conversation, please… slow down. Pick your battles. Quell your offense like I asked. Limit your criticisms and comments to the key points and above all, extend charity. When you come around, I can literally feel my blood pressure rise. If you respond with more bluster I’m just going to ignore it like I would Paps. Listen to what Bob has been trying to tell you.
cl
says...Ronin,
Thanks for clarifying, I’ll get back to you regarding Cornelius.
That only revelations in Scripture are true and/or worthy of being followed, or something like that, which I reject. The Holy Spirit speaks to believers, and tradition can provide key insights with normative weight. Thing is, when tradition contradicts Scripture, I side with Scripture, while remaining open to other views. Is anything wrong with any of that on your view?
Also, what does “Scripture Alone” mean to you?
BenYachov
says...@cl
>1) I wasn’t mad, I just thought it was rude.
Split hairs all you like if it’s “rude” for me to call you a heretic it is “rude” by your own standards to discribe the doctrines or practices of my church as pagan.
>2) You condemning me as a “heretic” is in an entirely different category than me simply stating my belief that Catholicism has accepted some pagan customs, hence no inconsistency.
A heretic is a person who is in doctrinal error. Ironically since you believe everyone is in doctrinal error then logically you believe everyone is a heretic.
I have no problem with a non-Catholic considering me or calling me a heretic.
Why you grant yourself the power to say everyone is wrong but consider it “rude” to be called so yourself by the ancient technical definition is still inconsistant and kind of galling.
>3) I told you not to take offense since none was intended, you chose otherwise, that’s on you.
I take offense at your inconsistancy in calling me rude for calling you a heretic but granting yourself the right to say everybody is in error. Which is the same thing.
Heresy equals error you must accept this.
>Yes, that’s correct. If I called you a “pagan,” you’d have a case.
Hairspliting again?
Sorry no. I practice all the “pagan” practices of my Church & I believe in all the “pagan” doctrines without question. So how does that not make me “pagan”?
You cannot call out my Family without calling out me. But I am not offended at you calling them pagans. I’m offended at your clear double standard. It’s galling.
>as usual, overlooked the main point: there is no apostolic tradition of killing people for dissent.
Of course but as I pointed out it was the State that exocuted them not the Church.
>Yet, in that same comment, you said the Law no longer applies, so you can’t appeal to the Law to justify Catholic murders.
Catholic murders? That is not “rude” by your standards? I love it!
Yes I can since under the New Law the Public Authority may weld the sword & they don’t do so in vain see the Book of Romans. The State may exocute tratiors.
>Thanks for clarifying your beliefs further.
You are welcome.
>I did, and you ignored it.
I’m getting old refresh my memory. What is your non-denomination called?
You must worship somewhere?
>False. I gave Scriptural reasons for my disagreement and you rambled on for 7 comments in a row.
You & I and the Devil himself may cite Scripture but who is using it correctly is at issue. I reject your interpretation of Yeshua’s words.
So who tells us which interpretation is correct? That cries out for an Authoritative Church and Tradition.
>Not at all, it’s about context. Paul telling people to earn their keep.
No in 2 Thes 2:15 and 2 Thes 3:6 he is telling them to follow both Scripture and Tradition. That is the plain sense of the text and the historical understanding of the Fathers. Luther’s human tradition of men called Sola Scriptura is not taught or believed by the ancients.
>Paul also said that even if an angel teaches a gospel different than the apostolic tradition, let that angel be condemned (Galatians 1:8).
Like Ebonites and modern Neo-Ebonites who taught you have to keep the 7th day under pain of mortal sin. Or persons who claim they can take from the Church the power to bind and loss & give it to themselves even thought the NT via the Letter of Jude councils against perishing in the rebellion of Korah.
>Look, if you want to have a fruitful conversation, please… slow down.
I can do that.
>Pick your battles. Quell your offense like I asked.
Don’t employ double standards & I am in.
>Limit your criticisms and comments to the key points and above all, extend charity.
I have not done otherwise here.
>When you come around, I can literally feel my blood pressure rise. If you respond with more bluster I’m just going to ignore it like I would Paps. Listen to what Bob has been trying to tell you.
I will never say as true what I firmly believe to be false. Also don’t compare me to Paps. The man has no learning & I obviously do.
Ronin
says...cl,
You wrote:
Not at all. I think we share the similar principles.
I am in agreement with how you defined it.
dale
says...cl,
I don’t think that Messiah’s paying of taxes can’t be fairly used as Scriptual precedent for being civically minded, thus being inclined to vote. He is not advocating for letting the government elections rule your heart or mind, and neither am I. Would it be fair to say that we both agree that, more or less, the political election and democratic vote system in this country is a farce? If so, let’s look at this glass half full, though with a sense of humor. Or, pray for the candidates.
Hypothetically, we are given the chance to choose between two masters, neither of which I advocate deifying, not even the slightest. Thus I quote Christ in saying, “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s…” in good faith. At best, you have the chance to vote for a cruel or a less cruel master. Why not vote? It’s one day every four years. Plus, do it for Christ. During his lifetime, his being a Jew made it illegal for him to vote. That’s not right in my eyes, and I think you would agree?
I do both. Caesar get’s his, Christ and our Father which art in heaven gets theirs. The latter being the truth, of course. But… you do admit benefits and merits of voting for local elections, so you’re not opposed to voting. You have just drawn a line. As Christians, I feel we should look at people in general, not cities, states or nations.
Again, I agree with you. If I vote, that’s not the same as letting it rack my mind or twist the muscles in my back through anxiety. A 32nd degree Mason, and a Mormon. Not the best of choices, I agree. Plus, I never said I was wrecked by this. ;-)
Never ever would I want you to be exiled from the United States. What I meant by what I originally said is implying that asceticism, I don’t feel…it’s not the answer. If the world is sick, the sinners need help. And where in Christ’s sermon is there anything that is even remotely close to saying, “why bother…hands off the sick, they’re just going to die…that’t the way to go?”
Truth be told, my voting probably won’t heal the world, but maybe it could? Not voting, that won’t heal the world at all. Have faith, bother! If I sin in ignorance by voting, may Christ forgive me! :-)
BenYachov
says...cl
I don’t want to be rough with you I just want you to shoot straight with me & be consistent.
Crude
says...cl,
No, that is not the only context, and absolutely not what I mean or what I’ve been describing.
I’m taking the words at face value. Paul points to the altar to an unknown God, and explicitly connects that God to the very God he was preaching about.
This isn’t a frivolous detail. It’s a straight up biblical example of Saint Paul flat out affirming that people who would normally be classified as pagan were, even if they weren’t fully comprehending of it, worshiping the God of Christianity. Nor is it some fringe view – it’s a pretty darn common reading of that part of Acts.
Here’s what I’m arguing against: you’ve asserted explicitly that mormonism involves straight up demon worship, whether or not mormons realize it. I’ve pointed out that just because someone is engaged in worship that is not obviously, explicitly Christian, it does not follow that they are engaged in demon worship – and I gave a biblical example in St Paul’s acts to illustrate this. “They are worshiping the God of Christianity, ignorantly” is a live possibility.
That’s not to say mormonism or other religions are not problematic, even gravely so. But it’s also not to say that if a religion is non-Christian (or not sufficiently orthodox, I suppose, in the case of the mormons), that what’s being dealt with is flat out demon worship that is totally disconnected from God. And this complicates your boolean proposition of ‘you either belong to God or Satan’, because it means that being ignorant in worship doesn’t mean you are worshiping/belong to Satan.
cl
says...Dale,
Absolutely.
Yes, that’s an important point, one I fall short on.
Because I have no idea what the truth is with regard to either candidate, per the “farce” agreement we just established and the media spin alluded to earlier, and I don’t think it’s right to pick the “less evil” guy. But again, that’s just me. I’m not judging anyone who disagrees.
I would agree that’s not right, but—and this is just my gut feeling here, mind you—I don’t think Jesus would have been the voting type, unless of course it was mandatory by law.
The reason I draw that line is because the “farce” and “spin” don’t apply nearly as much at the local level. I’m not opposed to voting at all, I just don’t participate in US macropolitics.
I guess we just differ in that I can’t bring myself to vote for either. Honestly, I will never accept the “lesser of two evils” logic. If literally everyone adopted my attitude, and nobody voted for these pawns, we could send a real message. The lion perishes for lack of prey.
Nowhere, but, where in any Scripture is there anything even remotely close to implying that not voting is a “hands off the sick” attitude? On my view, voting for the “less evil” is still a vote for evil. The whole thing is a false dichotomy. If nothing else, I hope that helps explain my lack of participation.
cl
says...Crude,
No he doesn’t. The entire context of the chapter is “distress” over idol worship and “ignorance.” Furthermore, at literally every other turn in Scripture, idol worship is condemned in any and all forms. For those reasons, looking at Scripture on the whole, I don’t think Paul was implying, “Hey guys, this is an idol / alter to the right god!” But again, I want to focus on the meat here.
Then why did you challenge the Boolean proposition? Though they interconnect, this is a different argument altogether, so, let me readjust real quick… okay, let’s take Ned Flanders from the Simpsons as our example. Ned’s a good neighbor, a patriotic citizen, an honest guy, and a Mormon. He goes to church, hears the Prophet talk about Jesus, prays earnestly, asks for forgiveness, etc. I am not saying Ned can’t be authentically saved. True salvation can happen anywhere, even in response to a charlatan posing as a preacher. After all, when Paul knew that contemporaries were preaching Jesus from knowingly false motives, what did he say? Stop them? No! He said let them preach, because whether from false motives or true, Christ was being preached.
Are we in full agreement so far?
cl
says...BenYachov,
I’ve been as straight with you as I know how. You don’t exactly slow down and listen, but, I was willing to try again tonight. Quite frankly, you put up a pretense of rationality yet fail to practice it at every turn. I talked myself into giving you yet another chance right now, and quickly realized that you continue to twist my words as you did earlier. This is evident from the second line in yet another long slog of a comment. Look:
There you go, putting words in my mouth, twisting what I say, failing to pay charity by quoting what I actually say… why on Earth should I spend more time explaining myself when you don’t even listen or comprehend or fairly represent what’s already been said? I mean this literally: I have never, in 2-3 years, seen you humbly apologize or say “I was wrong about that,” not even once. No offense, but not only do I feel there can be no fruit until you change, I feel that I’m directly disobeying the Lord by continuing with you.
I’m sorry, but I have to stop until something changes.
Crude
says...cl,
He does. You’ve got the verse right there in front of you, you have Paul’s own words. He singles out the altar to an unknown God for a reason – that wasn’t just another instance of idol worship to him.
That is the meat. Paul’s saying what he’s saying, and he’s pretty explicit – he singles out the altar and informs people of what they’ve actually been worshiping. It’s not Satan. It’s God.
What’s more, your own interpretation has to make this a live possibility. According to you, someone can worship something without realizing it. X thinks he’s worshiping God, but no, he’s worshiping Satan/demons. But if it’s possible to worship something without realizing it, it’s possible to worship God without realizing it.
Because I’m pointing out how the boolean proposition doesn’t work the way you think it does, certainly not when it comes to *us* evaluating which of the two is the case.
But go on.
dale
says...cl,
Agreed.
Unless we delve into specific political issues, all I can say is that though both candidates do represent things that I do not support, there are some issues that separate them, which I do care about and have an opinion on.
That’s fair. I guess all I can honestly say is that I don’t think he would command against voting.
It’s not that I have a problem with you not voting at the national level, it’s that I don’t see why you draw a line between it and the local level, as you never claimed that local government was beyond corruption. Wouldn’t that make local government the “lesser evil?” And, this is not saying I have a problem with that either.
For what it’s worth, I’m just trying to look at all of this as “glass half full.”
BenYachov
says...@cl
>I’ve been as straight with you as I know how.
Then your skills in this area are very poor indeed sir.
>and quickly realized that you continue to twist my words as you did earlier.
You are twisting your own words. Your the one too filled to the brim with pride to admit the obvious contradiction here on your part. Calling me “rude” for calling you a heretic while giving yourself the right to call my Church “pagan” and to use adjectives like “Catholic murderers” is just plain hypocritical.
That you don’t have the decency to acknowledge in yourself the very failings you claim to have found in me continues to erode your already thin crediblity.
>This is evident from the second line in yet another long slog of a comment. Look:
>Ironically since you believe everyone is in doctrinal error then logically you believe everyone is a heretic.
>There you go, putting words in my mouth, twisting what I say,
I reply: Well Sunshine these are the logical implications of your view. Everybody is objectively wrong and nobody is orthodox in their belief. If you don’t like it that is not my problem.
>failing to pay charity by quoting what I actually say…
I did pay attention to what you said & the logical flaw remains. Again not my problem.
>I mean this literally: I have never, in 2-3 years, seen you humbly apologize or say “I was wrong about that,” not even once.
Except I am with myself 24/7 & I know that I have. If you had any wisdom & less pride you have simply said “Ok you got me there BY! Maybe I shouldn’t have taken offense at you calling me a heretic by Catholic Standards(standards which I reject FYI) considering what I have said about Romanism. That was rude of me. Sorry about that let’s move on.”
But no you dug in your heals & stuck with your contradiction.
>No offense, but not only do I feel there can be no fruit until you change, I feel that I’m directly disobeying the Lord by continuing with you.
>I’m sorry, but I have to stop until something changes.
Rather you need to learn when you point your finger at someone three fingers are pointing back at you. Don’t be so quick to take the stick from your brother’s eye but ignore the log in your own.
BenYachov
says...@Crude
This might help you out. From the Catholic Encylopedia on Idolatry.
My parting gift.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07636a.htm
QUOTE”Considered in itself, idolatry is the greatest of mortal sins. For it is, by definition, an inroad on God’s sovereignty over the world, an attempt on His Divine majesty, a rebellious setting up of a creature on the throne that belongs to Him alone. Even the simulation of idolatry, in order to escape death during persecution, is a mortal sin, because of the pernicious falsehood it involves and the scandal it causes. Of Seneca who, against his better knowledge, took part in idolatrous worship, St. Augustine says: “He was the more to be condemned for doing mendaciously what people believed him to do sincerely”. The guilt of idolatry, however, is not to be estimated by its abstract nature alone; the concrete form it assumes in the conscience of the sinner is the all-important element. No sin is mortal — i.e. debars man from attaining the end for which he was created — that is not committed with clear knowledge and free determination. But how many, or how few, of the countless millions of idolaters are, or have been, able to distinguish between the one Creator of all things and His creatures? and, having made the distinction, how many have been perverse enough to worship the creature in preference to the Creator? — It is reasonable, Christian, and charitable to suppose that the “false gods” of the heathen were, in their conscience, the only true God they knew, and that their worship being right in its intention, went up to the one true God with that of Jews and Christians to whom He had revealed Himself. “In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ . . . . . the gentiles who have not the law, shall be judged by their conscience” (Romans 2:14-16). God, who wishes all men to be saved, and Christ, who died for all who sinned in Adam, would be frustrated in their merciful designs if the prince of this world were to carry off all idolaters.”END QUOTE
cl
says...Dale,
I agree. I just said I believe he’d eschew all participation in worldly politics, and indeed, we see a glimpse of this in Jesus’ refusing to be made king.
Because there is generally less spin and misinformation at the local level. Better access to unbiased, non-speical-interest-funded “information.” Etc.
cl
says...Ronin,
Acts records that he was a devout man, whose prayers and alms were received by God.
Ronin
says...cl,
Would you say that God is the God of Christianity? If yes, [IMO] there is no indication Cornelius was taught the “Gospel” prior to Peter’s visit. It appears to me God sent Peter to explain the Gospel to Cornelius. What do you make of those events and circumstances?
cl
says...I would say YHWH—whom Cornelius worsphipped—sent Yeshua Messiah. I would also agree there is no indication that Cornelius understood the gospel or “converted” before seeing Peter.
Seems like a fair speculation to me. Unlike the speculation Crude is asking me to believe, we don’t have a multiplicity of Scriptures going against it (with “it” being the idea that worshipping idols and/or an altar to an unknown god can somehow count as “good” or “positive” worship of YHWH).
Cornelius was owned by YHWH. Therefore, he was sent to receive the gospel and ultimately, the Holy Spirit. This is perfectly in line with the Boolean proposition in question. Also, it’s important to note the context in which I offered the proposition: post-Resurrection. Now, this isn’t to say that the proposition is false or inapplicable pre-Resurrection, just that the old metric was obedience to the Law, whereas the new metric is indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Hope that helps.
Ronin
says...cl,
But, how could Cornelius worship the LORD/YHWH/Elohim/Adonai/etc. if Cornelius did not know the Gospel?
What do you mean by that? Do you mean as in predestined?
cl
says...The same way the rest of the pre-Resurrection Israelites did: through obedience to the Law, worship, prayer, alms, etc. I’m not saying Cornelius was an Israelite, either. Many “aliens” came to adopt the Mosaic Law and thus constituted a sort of “grafted in” believer in OT times.
I’m not talking about pre-destination. I mean simply that Cornelius was of similar standing as any other pre-Resurrection Israelite that YHWH adopted as a son (i.e. owned, or accepted, or whatever).
But again, all this is only partly relevant, as my original comment was in the context of Romney, Obama, contemporary Mormons and all other post-Resurrection folk. Of those, any given person is either indwelt by the Holy Spirit and thus “owned by YHWH,” or not, in which case they are “owned by Satan.” I don’t see any Scriptural evidence for “middle ground” when it comes to salvation. Do you?
See John 8, “the children of Abraham” and “the children of the devil” for a little more Scriptural exposition of what I’m getting at.
Ronin
says...cl,
Except this occurred post-Resurrection (if we are to believe Acts was written in chronological order), and if Cornelius was unaware of Israelite tradition(s) we reason(s) to suppose he was as ignorant as the people of Athens who are described in Acts 17:22-29.
Probably because he had faith (like Abraham), but you see, such can be the case for one who is worshiping an “UNKNOWN” God (see Romans 1:19), whom the LORD will reveal Himself to in someway or another (i.e. Cornelius). Only the LORD knows a person’s heart, which I believe is the crux of this discussion.
Oh it’s relevant. So, would you say Cornelius was indwelt by the Spirit prior to Peter’s visit? When do you suppose one is indwelt by the Spirit prior to faith or before?
It just seems to me this talk of either/or belongs to the LORD alone.
cl
says...Yeah, for some reason I was in a “gospels” context. My mistake.
Unfortunately we’re just not told anything about the extent of Cornelius’ knowledge. However, one has to ask: Would God have esteemed the idol-worshipping Athenians the same way He esteemed Cornelius? If so, why didn’t Luke call the Athenians “devout?” I think it would be quite a stretch to say “yes, the idol-worshipping Athenians were as righteous as Cornelius.” Don’t you?
Even demons have faith. Abraham didn’t have faith in an unknown god, and Abraham didn’t worship idols. That’s the key difference. The Athenians were religious, as Paul said, and they had faith, but it was in a plethora of idols. Surely we can’t put that in the same category as Abraham’s or Cornelius’ faith, can we?
It might be relevant in some meta-theological discussion, but that wasn’t the context I intended for the original proposition. It’s not relevant to what I said WRT Romney or Obama. Of those two, they are either redeemed or they stand damned, right?
I don’t know if he was or not. The most we could say is that his righteousness is consistent with somebody being indwelt. Their was fruit. Unlike the Athenians, he wasn’t listed as a pagan idol-worshipper who “did nothing” except sit around and pontificate on the latest philosophy.
If you mean, “it’s for the Lord to determine who is His and who is not,” I absolutely agree. I’m not trying to judge Romney or Obama. I don’t know anyone’s heart. At the same time, didn’t Jesus say, “by their fruit we would recognize them?” Why would such a statement be issued if believers weren’t supposed to be looking for fruit?
Gabe Ruth
says...I’m a little saddened to find it’s just you, your Bible, and the Holy Spirit holding down the fort, but I can’t say I blame you for taking that route in our age.
It occurred to me that doing what you do (aggressively debating your beliefs with all comers) is the best thing to do if you’re going eschew the moral support of a tradition with living members (provided you stay humble, which you seem to be doing just fine). It keeps you honest and open.
But I notice that Eastern Orthodoxy was left off your list. Was that an oversight?
Ronin
says...cl,
We know the LORD sent Peter for a reason, which was for Peter to explain the Gospel; else, why would the LORD send Peter?
Well, why don’t you consider the fact HE did send Paul to them? Also, it might be pertinent to the discussion to not forget Acts 17:32.
See above.
That’s just it: From the LORD’s perspective, yes, but from our perspective for all we know Obama could not be saved today and give his life to the LORD tomorrow. In that sense, presenting the discussion as either/or is fruitless.
Several things to note here: 1.) it should be obvious that I am talking about the faith Abraham had in the LORD and was deemed righteous (see Romans 4:3), 2.) God had direct contact with Abraham, and 3.) it is conceivable the Athenians were ignorant (see Acts 17:23b) to the things of the LORD; thus, God sent Paul to them.
But, you understand Abraham (as explained above) had direct contact with God and Cornelius was sent Peter, right? Surely, one cannot deny both Abraham and Cornelius were put in circumstances which appear to be varied from that of the Athenians prior to Paul’s speech; why else would God send Paul?
Here is where you are missing the boat, because you are going to have to do some exegetical gymnastics to deny a plain reading of Acts 17:23 and you appear to be overlooking what Acts 17:32 might imply.
Okay, but have you considered Romans 13:1-6?
(emphasis in italics is mine)
cl
says...Gabe Ruth,
This makes it sound like I eschew tradition. I don’t. It’s just, when I think tradition gets it wrong, I depart.
Not really, I live quite close to an Eastern Orthodox church and stumble into the bookshop every now and again. I think that if anyone, they’re the closest to the real deal. Catholicism and Protestantism seem miles away compared to them, but, that’s just my outsider opinion, ya know? The whole point of my remarks in the OP and this thread is that apostasy is rampant, and that’s a Scriptural truth. Make no mistake: I’m sure my beliefs aren’t 100% dead-on either (where 100% dead-on means 100% in line with Messiah’s). I’m not trying to present myself as above or immune to the rampant apostasy.
cl
says...Ronin,
Actually, the Lord sent Cornelius to Peter! See Acts 10:5.
I do! The Lord sent Paul to the Athenians precisely because they were idol-worshipping pagans who needed the truth, not because they were “devout” believers like Cornelius. Two different things.
That some wanted to hear about the resurrection of the dead doesn’t mean there can be middle ground.
Not when I’m considering whether or not to vote for him today, right? I’m not going to vote for Obama because there’s a chance he could believe later. That’s just silly.
Okay, so you side with Crude. No skin off my back, I think it’s y’all who are backflipping, and the entirety of Scripture seems to support what I’m saying: in no other context are idol-worshipping Greeks considered “devout” or “righteous” or “positive” or what have you. To argue or imply otherwise, that’s an exegetical backflip, IMHO.
Yeah, it’s irrelevant to the proposition in question.
Gabe Ruth
says...I like the cut of your jib.
I was raised Catholic and Catholic I have remained, but many short-comings of my church are quite apparent to me (leaving aside any historical complaints). As far as doctrine goes, I think they do a pretty good job holding down the fort, but parishes with real communities are few and far between, which is a pretty serious indictment. I’ve come to the conclusion that Eastern Orthodoxy would be my choice if I were starting from scratch, without my family and community (such as it is). But if I were to convert now it would be for the wrong reasons. As one of my favorite writers always says, the problem is you (meaning, me).
Your attitude towards Scripture is interesting to me. Are you familiar with George MacDonald?
Crude
says...For one thing, what’s communicated in that part of acts is that Paul is informing them about the unknown God some of those greeks were worshiping – and on a normal reading, to worship the unknown God is not ‘idol worship’. Idol worship is worshiping a known, even physical god – the golden calf, etc.
Second, no one is saying that Paul is endorsing, say… ‘worshiping the unknown God over the God of Christianity’.
I’d argue you can see part of the theme of Acts in other parts of the NT. Matthew 25 34-40. The idea that you can be praising God or doing something for God without truly realizing it is right there.
To put it another way, the parable of the good samaritan is showing that someone who is not jew of status (or even, if wikipedia is correct, a jew at all) can still be behaving righteously. But that’s not to say what’s being claimed is ‘being a samaritan is good!’
Ronin
says...cl,
Cornelius did not go see Peter he sent men, and I’m thinking of Acts 10:24-26. The facts are: that according to Acts Peter went to visit Cornelius (that is what I was talking about). But hey, I get what you saying.
This line of thinking is just plain wrong, because Peter was sent to Cornelius since he also needed to hear the truth. Yeah, there is no devout “label” when Luke describes the Athenians, so? Does that mean some of them where not devout, hardly? I don’t read Paul being as accusative as you seem to imply when he is talking to them.
It could mean some of them spoke to Paul after and it could even mean some of them were saved. We just don’t know! What we do know is they were ignorant and Paul was trying to illuminate things for them. In fact, Cornelius was ignorant and Peter visited him to inform him.
So, basically you are saying since he is not a Christian you are not voting for him. You are entitled to that opinion.
LOL! Understood, but that is not what I am saying. Whether you vote for him or not the LORD will put someone in that position (Obama or Romney); and, that person will be in that position not because you or I wanted them there, but because God put them there. If you don’t want to vote because you don’t think Obama or Romney have not provided the fruits of the Spirit, don’t.
Non sequitur, and I would have to look at the context you are talking about.
cl
says...Gabe Ruth,
No, I wasn’t familiar with MacDonald.
In what way?
Crude,
Your whole comment is irrelevant. I’ve not once denied that a non-jew can act righteously. Nor have I denied the idea that one can be praising God or doing something for God without truly realizing it. None of this impacts the proposition in question.
Ronin,
The same thing I said to Crude falls to you: this is all entirely irrelevant to the simple proposition that at any given time, one is either own by God or not.
Crude
says...Sure it does, at least with regards to the acts passage in question. Once you cede all that, it no longer becomes too far-fetched to imagine that the person at the altar of the unknown god, or some other religion entirely – including mormonism – is in fact worshiping the God of the Bible, just in an ignorant or misinformed way.
If you want to say that ‘if at any given time, one is either owned by God or not – and I really can’t tell if a given mormon/jew/what-have-you is owned or not’, I think that’s going to sound a whole lot different than what you originally stated. Then it’s a question of whether the binary view is the best way to communicate the idea, or if there’s something more nuanced at work.
cl
says...Crude,
…and that’s precisely what’s irrelevant, because it has no bearing on the Boolean proposition in question. I have never once denied or even questioned the “ignorant worship” contention. Remember, that wasn’t the way you worded your original claim at #18. I objected, and I still object, to a reading of Acts 17:32 where Paul speaks of the altar to an unknown god as a “positive point,” and you’re simply not going to change my mind on that issue because it would require me to overlook the negative context associated with idol worship throughout the rest of Scripture.
That somebody—a Mormon, a Catholic, whoever—can be worshipping in an ignorant way… that doesn’t change the fact that at any given time, one is either owned by YHWH or not. Example: Joe is a spirit-filled believer who unfortunately accepted some form of apostasy at some point in his walk, hence, leading him to “worship in ignorance” in that regard. Does that change the fact the Joe is owned by YHWH? No. Another example: Bill is a devout but unregenerate Mormon who, through failure to check the Scriptures like the commended Bereans, has accepted heaps of apostasy, but, nonetheless, loves his neighbor as himself, keeps a tight reign on his tongue, and keeps his marriage bed pure. Does that change the fact the Joe is not owned by YHWH? No.
If there’s something “more nuanced” at work, then, by all means, let’s hear it.
Ronin
says...cl,
Is it? Your entire “argument” falls on this [one is either own by God or not]; thus, you are not voting. Problem is: You don’t know if either Obama or Romney are owned by God. Further, government was established by God himself. So, while that’s great you had some sort of epiphany and/or encounter with God—I don’t see your opinion on this matter (voting) as 100% Scripture approved.
cl
says...Ronin,
If we’re descending to disrespect, I’ll respectfully bow out here.
cl
says...Lest anyone else be confused, no, my argument doesn’t fall on the Boolean proposition in question. In fact, I gave no argument in support of my apolitical stance. I simply stated that unless I feel called otherwise, I don’t vote for US presidents. I never once said my position was “100% Scripture approved”, and I never once said or even implied that those who vote are not Scriptural. Lastly, I never once claimed to have any “epiphany” or “encounter with God” on this issue.
No, I don’t know (as in absolute knowledge) whether Obama are Romney are owned by God—but I don’t need absolute knowledge to justify my dissent. Messiah said “by their fruit we shall recognize them,” and that’s all I need here. I just don’t see any fruit, so, I withhold my vote for either.
This is why I rarely talk about politics, and never politics and religion at once. There’s a reason for that old maxim about the dinner table.
Ronin
says...I was not trying to disrespect. I am sorry you took my statement that way but it was not intended as such.
cl
says...Well, what did you actually intend with a seemingly sarcastic comment about a statement I never made? It strikes me as disingenuous at best, but, feel free to clarify.
Ronin
says...cl,
How was I sarcastic? Your tone in your post(s) [i.e. “Time Is Short”] and comments seem to indicate to me that due to certain experiences you have been reading the Word more and going through changes. Am I wrong? Unless, I have totally misread your posts and/or comments.
cl
says...No, not about that.
WRT certain experiences and changes and reading the Word more, you read that correct. Where you seem to be misreading is when you come along and say (paraphrased), “It’s great that you had an epiphany or encounter with God but that doesn’t make your position on voting 100% Scriptural…”
Since I never said it was, nor did I ever say voting was un-Scriptural, you seem to have misread my post and/or comments, wouldn’t you say?
Ronin
says...cl,
I am not implying you said those words verbatim. I don’t know, though. After re-reading your post here are things that stick out:
“To brothers and sisters who vote, I respect your motive of civic duty, but the lesser of two evils is still evil.”
“The simple-minded assume all…”
“If anyone thinks I am misguided, I welcome a reasoned argument from Scripture.”
To me you are drawing a line in the sand and saying, “This is how it is!” That is how it seems to me. It is possible I did misread you. I realize you noted you were responding to Matt, but you did air out your post for your readers to read. I did assume you experienced “something” with God [i.e. “YHWH is far more specific, and, I feel, more reverent.”] among other comments you have made. But again, I could be wrong.
cl
says...This is in a specific context of secular voting. It means, I think it’s wrong to vote for somebody just because they are the lesser of two evils. That’s my opinion, and nowhere did I say Scripture supports it.
This is in a specific context of religions like Mormonism, Catholicism and many others who invoke the name of “Jesus Christ.” That a pastor, preacher or pope invokes that name doesn’t mean everything is gravy.
That was also in the specific context of apostate faiths. So, it seems to me you’ve conflated and/or misunderstood a few things. I did not allege that my position on voting was 100% Scriptural. However, I did and do allege that my remarks about apostate faiths are 100% Scriptural. Nonetheless, voting and apostate faiths are two separate topics within a single post. When I asked for a reasoned argument from Scripture, it was a reasoned arguments that shows either 1) I should vote; or, 2) that what I’ve said about apostate faiths is incorrect.
Ronin
says...cl,
Well, my bad then, but the concluding sentence in your post threw me off. Also, it seemed to me your lesser of two evil notion intertwines with the premise that one is either God’s or not, since it appeared to me you were highlighting it throughout the post and comments.
Understood, I took this post as mainly about Obama and Romney. I thought you were specifically talking about Romney since he is a Mormon. So, I assumed you were talking about the candidates and not a pastor, preacher, or pope.
Thanks for clarifying. I took your post and comments as: a.) neither candidates shows the fruit of the Spirit, b.) the Bible says either one belongs to God or not, c.) since both candidates do not show the fruit of the Spirit I am not voting.
Sorry for my confusion.
cl
says...No worries, I just take it as an invitation to improve my writing.
It does, and the Boolean proposition is Scriptural, but that doesn’t entail that it’s “100% Scriptural” to abstain from voting in US macropolitics. I must make every effort to be silent where Scripture is silent.
Well, I was talking mainly about pastors and preachers, but, this can also apply to the candidates. Just because either pay lipservice to “Jesus Christ” doesn’t mean they have Christ’s best interests at hand.
That’s actually an accurate paraphrase of my feelings. That’s pretty much it in a nutshell, only difference being, I state this as *MY* conclusions, and don’t pretend that they are normative for other believers.