Forlife has gone through a metamorphosis. It is wonderous indeed.
On PWI, Catholic vs Protestant debates are lame. Yes, I know that’s just my not-so-humble opinion. See, while I think general religious topics fit (if not over done lately), squabbles over ‘who get’s it more right’ is a waste of time (PWI context), when both fit and live in the same culture. What is the political or world issue at stake, here? I’m a Catholic. So, what protestant am I supposed to convince here? Tirib? He’s heard it all before. Who is he supposed to convince? Me? You, Brother Chris? We’ve heard it all before. Debate’s over, shake hands. Be thankful it isn’t much of an actual Political or World Issue.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
On PWI, Catholic vs Protestant debates are lame. Yes, I know that’s just my not-so-humble opinion. See, while I think general religious topics fit (if not over done lately), squabbles over ‘who get’s it more right’ is a waste of time (PWI context), when both fit and live in the same culture. What is the political or world issue at stake, here? I’m a Catholic. So, what protestant am I supposed to convince here? Tirib? He’s heard it all before. Who is he supposed to convince? Me? You, Brother Chris? We’ve heard it all before. Debate’s over, shake hands. Be thankful it isn’t much of an actual Political or World Issue. [/quote]
Agreed. It’s a complete non-issue.
Here we have an election in 2010. So many interesting aspects: Congressional turnover (or not), schisms in both parties, major substantive policies at issue (stimulus? health care? Iran?), Obama’s role if the GOP takes the majority, role of government re-examined in light of 2008-10, etc. But instead of the great relevant political threads of old, we get threads like
-“Catholic v. Protestant - Final Theological Showdown, Even Though American Catholics and Protestants Live Peacefully Together In The Same Neighborhoods and Have For Centuries”
-“We Can Achieve Utopia If Only We Privatize the Air We Breathe!”
-“Retreat To the Caves and Buy Gold and Gunpowder!”
-“Damn, Why Can’t All Drugs Be Legal, Especially the Ones I Like?”
If I sound jaded, apologies - but it used to be more interesting around here.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
On PWI, Catholic vs Protestant debates are lame. Yes, I know that’s just my not-so-humble opinion. See, while I think general religious topics fit (if not over done lately), squabbles over ‘who get’s it more right’ is a waste of time (PWI context), when both fit and live in the same culture. What is the political or world issue at stake, here? I’m a Catholic. So, what protestant am I supposed to convince here? Tirib? He’s heard it all before. Who is he supposed to convince? Me? You, Brother Chris? We’ve heard it all before. Debate’s over, shake hands. Be thankful it isn’t much of an actual Political or World Issue. [/quote]This will be to Thunderbolt too. To me, whether the Roman catholic Church has deceived hundreds of millions of human souls into a false sense of spiritual security and thereby contributed to their eternal damnation is infinitely more consequential than anything that happens in our pathetic political process.
That said, whether PWI is the best place for that conflict to take place is a notion worth considering. Probably not. I did not instigate and in fact deftly avoided it for weeks. Now that said, once drawn in I did participate and that in full frontal assault fashion. I am not sorry I did. Now THAT said, those exchanges represent the very least enjoyable times I’ve spent on this site. I think you may be the only catholic here that actually believes me. I hate those battles and I do mean HATE. Or more accurately I hate that they have to be, but they do and they always will. They depress me and I have to be in constant prayer to avoid a monstrous eruption of all the lowest and most combative and arrogant places in my character. It’s exhausting. Hence, the explanation for why I sat this last one out.
Of course it IS a fascinating and extraordinarily weighty time in our nations history. I don’t mean to diminish the discussion of those things as I’ve done plenty of that myself as well.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This will be to Thunderbolt too. To me, whether the Roman catholic Church has deceived hundreds of millions of human souls into a false sense of spiritual security and thereby contributed to their eternal damnation is infinitely more consequential than anything that happens in our pathetic political process.[/quote]
Not going on the defensive as far the theological and salvational worth of the Catholic Church goes. Look, I’ve had christian friends stop just short of saying that I’m attending the church of the anti-christ. I’ve had atheist friends flat out question my ability to think for myself (heck, they all seem to be weekend psychologists). And these are people I still consider friends! My faith isn’t a popularity contest. My friendship doesn’t require the acceptance or even much respect of my faith. Though, I do draw the line at getting vulgar. Or, the inability to practice good judgement as to when to drop or raise a debate. Besides, I’m just not intersted in doing this on a Politics and World Issues forum.
If I want that kind of debate and exercise I’ll go somewhere else. Where religion intersects with political or cutural issues, sure. That is, as opposed to bickering, page after page, over the real or figurative presence of body and the blood in the eucharist. Or, the validity of a ministerial priesthood.
I mean, what does any of it have do with the role of the military? The debate over security measures? Taxation and spending? What about cultural and traditional norms? Heck, it doesn’t even matter what our respective stances are concerning the rosary, we–protestants and Catholics-- mourn the breakdown of the family. And, we point out the real world consequences for a supposedly self-governing people. Now there’s an actual interface with the PWI theme. But, what relevance does a debate over sola scriptura vs tradition and scripture have to do with any of this? Perhaps if this was TOI, Theological and Other-worldly Issues, I’d understand. But it isn’t.
For all the debates I’ve had with protestant neighbors and friends, ultimately it is each other to whom we look for the kind of traditional norms and communities we seek. In short, in ordering this world, politically and practically, the finer theological debates mean squat.
Nope, you didn’t. Note, my words were for the OP mostly, and to a lesser degree anybody who gives a flip about what I might think.
Of course I do. I’ve argued vigorously one moment only to share a laugh in the next, with many a protestant. Ultimately, we both want our families, neighborhoods, and communities to look very, very, similar. And those things are relevant to the PWI theme. How is society and community to be ordered? What are our liberties? What are our duties and obligations?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This will be to Thunderbolt too. To me, whether the Roman catholic Church has deceived hundreds of millions of human souls into a false sense of spiritual security and thereby contributed to their eternal damnation is infinitely more consequential than anything that happens in our pathetic political process. [/quote]
I’ll response more fully on this later, but a qualifying question for my education: if you’re this serious about proposition - that millions of souls are being deceived into eternal damnation and modern political issues are insignificant in light of the seriousness of this spiritual struggle - then how do you submit to any kind of secular authority, law or politics that stands in the way of this more important mission?
Because the First Amendment - which clearly permits and protects Catholics to engage in their practice to deceive millions into eternal damnation as a matter of law - stands in direct contrast to the more important mission you speak of.
The United States Constitution expressly enables the very evil you believe is the most important evil of all to quash - how do you square your fidelity to it? How is the Constitution not your enemy in your fight?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This will be to Thunderbolt too. To me, whether the Roman catholic Church has deceived hundreds of millions of human souls into a false sense of spiritual security and thereby contributed to their eternal damnation is infinitely more consequential than anything that happens in our pathetic political process. [/quote]
I’ll response more fully on this later, but a qualifying question for my education: if you’re this serious about proposition - that millions of souls are being deceived into eternal damnation and modern political issues are insignificant in light of the seriousness of this spiritual struggle - then how do you submit to any kind of secular authority, law or politics that stands in the way of this more important mission?
Because the First Amendment - which clearly permits and protects Catholics to engage in their practice to deceive millions into eternal damnation as a matter of law - stands in direct contrast to the more important mission you speak of.
The United States Constitution expressly enables the very evil you believe is the most important evil of all to quash - how do you square your fidelity to it? How is the Constitution not your enemy in your fight?[/quote]This is a great question (seriously) and I don’t have much time now. I’ll cop out for the moment and leave you with the section of the Westminster Confession of Faith (my all time favorite extra biblical statement of the gospel) dealing with the “civil magistrate”. I will also say that I do not generally find the New Testament/Church age manifestation of God’s providence demanding prosecution for civilly non criminal offenses, read heresy, though many at the time the Westminster standards were written did. I also do not view politics as insignificant. I do however view them as entirely secondary and dependent on the spiritual state of the populous practicing them. I further DO NOT view ours or any other nations founding manifesto as the Word of almighty God. Everything, including our constitution IS, not should be, subject to the will of God. I can hear it already, though probably not from you.
[quote]CHAPTER XXIII.
Of the Civil Magistrate.
I. God, the Supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates to be under him over the people, for his own glory and the public good; and to this end, hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the defense and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil-doers.
II. It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate when called thereunto; in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth, so, for that end, they may lawfully, now under the New Testament, wage war upon just and necessary occasions.
III. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.
IV. It is the duty of the people to pray for magistrates, to honor their persons, to pay them tribute and other dues, to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority, for conscience’ sake. Infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not make void the magistrate’s just and legal authority, nor free the people from their obedience to him: from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted; much less hath the Pope any power or jurisdiction over them in their dominions, or over any of their people; and least of all to deprive them of their dominions or lives, if he shall judge them to be heretics, or upon any other pretense whatsoever. [/quote]
Tiribulus, all I can say is that I’ve been there, and understand the comfort and security that comes from the conviction that you have the TRUTH. I’m glad you’re happy and at peace.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This is a great question (seriously) and I don’t have much time now. I’ll cop out for the moment and leave you with the section of the Westminster Confession of Faith (my all time favorite extra biblical statement of the gospel) dealing with the “civil magistrate”. I will also say that I do not generally find the New Testament/Church age manifestation of God’s providence demanding prosecution for civilly non criminal offenses, read heresy, though many at the time the Westminster standards were written did. I also do not view politics as insignificant. I do however view them as entirely secondary and dependent on the spiritual state of the populous practicing them. I further DO NOT view ours or any other nations founding manifesto as the Word of almighty God. Everything, including our constitution IS, not should be, subject to the will of God. I can hear it already, though probably not from you.[/quote]
Fair enough, and I respect the Confession you cite.
But, unfortunately, I think the question regarding the First Amendment deserves a “yes” or “no” answer. Given the stakes as you’ve described them, I don’t see how you can square a fidelity to it, because it protects in law (the highest law we have) the very evil you think deserves to be vanquished.
Convince me I am wrong.
Take your time, but I just don’t see an available compromise position for you on this, given your stance.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Tiribulus, all I can say is that I’ve been there, and understand the comfort and security that comes from the conviction that you have the TRUTH. [/quote]
And since you couldn’t hold on to the truth no one else can. Sort of like your other biased beliefs.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
<<< Convince me I am wrong. >>>[/quote]I might. (but maybe not as well) There is an answer and it has nothing to do with compromise. Unfortunately I still do not have time at the moment. Hopefully tonight. It’s right there in the bible and the confession as is so often the case. Absolutely nothing I believe is unique or original to myself. Oh dear God how I know better than that.
It took a large group of godly men four years of fear and trembling prayer and discussion (and arguing =] ) to construct the Westminster confession of Faith and the catechisms. They ain’t scripture, but they are as close to comprehensively correct in their non divinely inspired statements of the biblical doctrines as I believe it is probably possible to ever get. I still marvel at the precision and the finely faithful representations of truth I find there. It’s the gospel of George Whitefield and the great awakening. Jonathan Edwards too.
Think how this would go over today: http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/history/spurgeon/web/edwards.sinners.html LOL!!!
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
<<< The United States Constitution expressly enables the very evil you believe is the most important evil of all to quash - how do you square your fidelity to it? How is the Constitution not your enemy in your fight?[/quote]The gospel of Jesus Christ is a supernatural act upon the human spirit whereby it is brought from fully dead to fully alive by God Himself. That is neither enforcible nor preventable by any civil government. There is no example anywhere in the New Testament of either Christ Himself or any of the other writers of scripture mandating that the saints seek to defeat any of the abominable paganism they were surrounded with through the power of anybody’s government, including Rome’s. On the contrary, we are commanded to submit peacefully to all civil powers save when such obedience would constitute disobedience to God.
Paul told Titus in chapter 3 of his epistle to him: [quote]1-Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed, 2-to malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men. 3-For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another. 4-But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, 5-He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6-whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7-so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. [/quote] He wrote this to a man who was ministering on the island of Crete. A place where at that time government was corrupt and changed with every new little city state you happened to be in at the moment.
We are also told everywhere to faithfully preach the Gospel and be used of God to convert and transform society on the individual level. Nobody can be forced into saving faith because it is the gift of God and He himself is the author and finisher of it. Of the statements and forms of government to date, ours is the best. It relies on the private convictions of the citizenry for the preponderance of it’s power. Anybody who conducts themselves in accordance with the spirit of the civil law reflected in our founding documents is welcome here as far as I’m concerned and on many issues true conservative catholics are my political allies. The weightiest issues of the things of God are simply not any of the states business. It’s my business as a believer who has been, like all believers, commanded to proclaim and defend the gospel of grace.
Zeb, of course you’re going to see it that way. Fundamentalism is a literalist, rigid, black and white view of the world and people at that stage tend to think they have THE TRUTH, hence anyone disagreeing with their world view must be wrong.
Those who disagree are dismissed as moral relativists, when in fact they focus on underlying principles rather than strict behavioral mandates. After all, if their holy book says something is so, it MUST be true, no matter the weight of objective evidence to the contrary.
If they saw it differently, they would be at a different stage. I understand your mentality perfectly because I was there myself for many years. I don’t judge you for it, but of course you judge me because I take a less literalist view of your holy book than you do.
[quote]forlife wrote:
…and people at that stage tend to think…
If they saw it differently, they would be at a different stage. I understand your mentality perfectly because I was there myself for many years…[/quote]
Somebody is really, really into that self-help book.
It’s not a self-help book. It’s a longitudinal scientific study of thousands of people.
Stages of Faith by James Fowler
[quote]forlife wrote:
It’s not a self-help book. It’s a longitudinal scientific study of thousands of people.
Stages of Faith by James Fowler[/quote]
WOW!
I was recalling incorrectly; there were 600 in Fowler’s research:
[quote]Dr. James Fowler has asked these questions, and others like them, of nearly six hundred people. He has talked with men, women, and children of all ages, from four to eighty-eight, including Jews, Catholics, Protestants, agnostics, and atheists. In many cases, the interviews became in-depth conversations that provided rare, intimate glimpses into the various ways our lives have meaning and purpose, windows into what this books calls faith.
Faith, as approached here, is not necessarily religious, nor is it to be equated with belief. Rather, faith is a person’s way of leaning into and making sense of life. More verb that noun, faith is the dynamic system of images, values, and commitments that guide one’s life. It is thus universal: everyone who chooses to go on living operated by some basic faith.
Building on the contributions of such key thinkers as Piaget, Erikson, and Kohlberg, Fowler draws on a wide range of scholarship, literature, and firsthand research to present expertly and engagingly the six stages that emerge in working out the meaning of our lives–from the intuitive, imitative faith of childhood through conventional and then more independent faith to the universalizing, self-transcending faith of full maturity. Stages of Faith helps us to understand our own pilgrimage of faith, the passages of our own quest for meaning and value.[/quote]
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
On the contrary, we are commanded to submit peacefully to all civil powers save when such obedience would constitute disobedience to God.[/quote]
Fine as far as it goes, but note your “savings” clause - tolerating and submitting to a First Amendment that flatly permits/enables a sect to intentionally deceive people into forfeiting God surely must qualify as “disobedience”, by your standard?
In short, I understand your “submit to the civil magistrate” notion - I don’t understand how tolerance for the First Amendment doesn’t fall within your exception.
But let’s back into it another way. You are Founding Father at a hypothetical constitutional convention. You don’t have to “submit” to any existing law - you are present at the creation of such a law.
And, someone proposes an equivalent of the First Amendment to be added to a Bill of Rights (reads and means roughly the same thing). Do you vote for it? Or against it?
[quote]forlife wrote:
It’s not a self-help book. It’s a longitudinal scientific study of thousands of people.[/quote]
From you:
Let’s see - a theory that “faith” tracks on a line of “progress” through numerical “stages”, the last one being “enlightenment”.
“Some day I’ll make it to the final stage!”
It’s a self-help book.