| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Westboro Baptist Church Thanks God; for London tube bombings | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 11 2005, 01:37 AM (3,070 Views) | |
| Rick Zimmer | Jul 15 2005, 07:51 PM Post #176 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
I disagree. While the actual words may have little meaning for them, I see Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, animalists, wiccans and atheists as searching and loving the truth as they understand it. To me, God is Truth. Hence whether these people whose beliefs may be dissimilar to mine use the same words as I use, I believe they express their love for Truth in their lives. And each of these groups seek to act properly and with goodness towards their brothers and sisters. So, it does not matter if they use the words I use, they are doing the same thing. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jul 15 2005, 08:24 PM Post #177 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Rick: The problem with this is, for instance, in many branches of Hinduism and Buddhism, is there is no impetus to do anything for another person since their stage in life is due to their karmic economy. "Love you neighbor as yourself" means nothing like you envision, and this is why you just don't find Hindu social services in India Likewise, your use of "brother and sister" is a rather Christian term that would not be recognized by Moslems -- esp since you are Kafir and not in the Ummah muhammadīyah. So you can fancy that everyone is doing the same thing with your reliance on the two commandments, but I don't think that anyone else who followed the other religions would think that you had any concept at all of what their respective programs were. That is not to say categorically that only Christians have these understandings, but I don't see how you can distill the meaning of Christ's words in abstraction from everything else in the Incarnation and the Paschal Mystery. That sort of universalism doesn't get anywhere outside of some U.N. or World Council of Churches lowest common denominator "let's all just get along" policy rhetoric. BTW, the "love for truth" is not even a religious consideration -- one of the precepts of Natural Law theory is that we are all ordered to know the truth. This is not germane to the religious question or to the dispensation in Christ. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Jul 16 2005, 03:31 AM Post #178 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
"...or World Council of Churches ...." Hey bub, this is a family place, with a PG-13 rating- let's watch the profanity!
|
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jul 16 2005, 06:28 AM Post #179 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Thumps, What you are doing here is what I think is the wrong way of looking at things like this. You are getting far too hung up on words, the nuances of words and trying to determne the spiritual truths of others based on whether they transalte into the nuanced views you and I may hold. Given your educational background, I understand this. In your field, the precise meaning of words is very important. The exchanges between you and Jeffrey make this clear. To me, though, I look more at what people do -- because Jesus calls us to do something, not talk about it. The most important question to me is whether or not God allows non-Christians into heaven. I believe He does. I believe the Catholic Church would hold He does. If this is true, then somehow these people are complying with what God expects of them, just as I am, if I am allowed into heaven and they are as well. You want to impose upon the actions of people of different religious traditions a Western and Christian concept of how they are to love their neighbor as themselves. I believe the Western and Christan tradition is irrelevant to whether they are doing this -- their actions, though, are highly relevant. If I am Buddhist and I have found great spiritual nourishment in Buddhism, am I not loving others as myself if I teach them Buddhism? If my belief system is one of reincarnation and I teach and help others to accept their current incarnation because this is what I do for myself, am I not loving them as I would love myself? If I am Hindu and believe that I must honor the various gods, especially the god of my household, and I teach others they should do the same, am I not loving them as I love myself? The fact that a Buddhist or a Hundu does not set up a social service agency is not a rejection of the need to love others as they love themselves, but rather simply a different manifesttaion of how they relate to each other and what they feel is most important in doing so. Indeed, to use your point from above about the importance of a corporate aspect of human behavior and morality, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and all others also establish a social order and seek to preserve it as they feel it should be best preserved. Of course "loving others as I love myself" has a very different meaning in other religious traditions and other cultures than it does for me and I would likely reject their view as appropriate for me just as they would reject my view as appropriate for them. You seem to wish to seek a Christian manifestation of spiritual beliefs in people of other religious traditions or no religious tradition. I would argue that is a parochial and incorrect view of things, albeit a very human mindset. I believe God looks to where we each find ourselves and then expects/demands that we each love God totally in the context of our lives and love our neighbors as ourselves in the context of our lives. Thus, the manifestation of this will be very different from one culture to another, from one religious tradition to another. Indeed, I believe it will vary from each individual to each individual. Thus, in a world of 6.5 billion people, I would argue there are 6.5 billion manifestations of this, even if some are very close to each other. From a religious standpoint, I do not believe we can judge whether others are loving God, however they define Him, and loving their neighbors, however they define that, based on whether they define it and manifest it as we would do so. I believe God deals with each individual in their own unique circumstances and I believe we must respect those unique circumstances and not see others as wrong simply because they do not live their lives as we live ours. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Jul 16 2005, 06:48 AM Post #180 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Rick: "In your field, the precise meaning of words is very important. The exchanges between you and Jeffrey make this clear. " I have not noticed any such precision. Thumpy makes up meanings (disorder, kidnap) as he goes along. He also tends to assert as undeniable facts, the very conclusions he needs to argue for (abortion, Euthyphro, etc.) Perhaps your basic agreement with him on the global issues, makes you think his arguments are more precise or valid than they are. [Edit for clarity: To Thumpy and Dwain - ] As for the Euthyphro distinction: you can just say that because God is "infinite" a basic logical distinction does not apply. Nice try, though. The discussion of how we understand an infinite God (whatever that may mean) was also amusing. It seems that you *do* understand such a God when it suits you (backing the persecution of homosexuals, restricting women's rights, kidnapping Jews), but do not understand such a God when it comes to explaining evil in the world, or whenever we find such incomprehensibility to be useful in argument. |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jul 16 2005, 07:38 AM Post #181 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Wow Jeffrey, you certainly have me wrong! You really need to go back and read what I have said about a lot of things. Virtually all that you claim I have said are things I have never said or have said the exact opposite of. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jul 16 2005, 07:54 AM Post #182 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Jeff: it is clear that *you* are the one who makes up meanings: case in point kidnapping, which was your term to begin with. You argued that the terms was valid since it was used by the world opinion and the courts in the Mortara case. Yet Fr. Feletti was exonerated by the secular courts of kidanpping. You hide this fact so that you can continue using the term to bash the Church. That is dissembling, and you seem all too ready to dissemble to achieve your ends. I trust this is no problem in your book, since it is all highly evolved monkey chatter anyway. But you have no substantial grounds for using the term "kidnap" in the case of Mortara, and I will continue to call you on it every time. I assume that you reflexively accuse me of making things up simply because that is your modus operandi and you can only assume that everyone does it. I do wish you would show some integrity -- I think it really is there within you. As it is, you have yet to make any sort of objective argument as to why bigotry or kidnapping is is wrong, homosexuality is normal, etc. Since I don't think you hold that there is an "order" -- and of course true to form all you can do is accuse me of making up an arbitrary definition without offering one yourself -- there is no common ground for any discussion. You are the one in your own little universe of discourse here. I would bet that virtually everyone in this forum knows well what terms like "order" and "disorder" mean, if if they might not apply them in exactly the same way in every instance. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Jul 16 2005, 07:54 AM Post #183 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Rick - I typed quickly. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of my reply were directed only at Thumpy and Dwain, and their discussion of the Euthyphtro and infinity. Only the first sentence (responding to where you attributed precision to Thumpy's arguments with me) was meant to be a reply to you. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jul 16 2005, 07:56 AM Post #184 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Rick: Welcome to Jeffland -- that doesn't stop him. It really does not matter what you said, it is what he chooses to read. Face it, you are an evil degenerate bigot, and stupid as well since you are a Catholic. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jul 16 2005, 07:59 AM Post #185 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Well, perhaps there is some truth to this! :lol: |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Jul 16 2005, 08:14 AM Post #186 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Thumpy: "You have yet to make any sort of objective argument as to why bigotry or kidnapping is is wrong, homosexuality is normal, etc. Since I don't think you hold that there is an "order" -- and of course true to form all you can do is accuse me of making up an arbitrary definition without offering one yourself -- there is no common ground for any discussion. You are the one in your own little universe of discourse here. I would bet that virtually everyone in this forum knows well what terms like "order" and "disorder" mean, if if they might not apply them in exactly the same way in every instance." Yes, I know, you think that without the glories of the RCC, there is no morality. The reason I don't bother to reply to your ravings, is that they are so patentlly silly as to not need reply. I only reply when there is actually a practical issue at stake - like your desire to persecute homosexuals because they are different from you. Your understanding of what is called "meta-ethics" - the theoretical discussion of the nature of morality itself (are moral judgements objectively true, or merely an expression of our emotions or our culture, are they based on a priori rationality, or discoverable like truths in the sciences, what is social contract theory, etc.) is so limited, it makes discussion pointless. I am not trying to insult you, this is just a fact. If you actually have any interest at all in genuinely engaging in human attempts to understand morality, you might start by reading the classics of western moral philosophy - Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, Kant, Locke, Mill, Hobbes, Hume, etc. Then you can read some 20th century stuff by Moore, Hare, Stevenson, Williams, Boyd, Brink, Foot, Nagel and others. Again, I have no need to resolve the major issues of western moral thought, to point out that your views on homosexuals are bigoted. Your attempt to make your bigoted discussion of homosexuality philosophically deeper than it actually is, will be ignored in the future as well. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jul 16 2005, 01:27 PM Post #187 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
It hardly takes an RCC perspective to discuss an ordered universe and the nature of being. One could adopt any number of cosmologies that generally point to the same conclusions-- Aristotelian, Taoist, Hindu, perennialist, etc. In fact, I haven't appealed to RCC -- and early on I told you I would not have to. So your assertion that I only hold on to it because of "the glories of the RCC" is without merit. You must feel pinned against the wall, as all you can do is try to push back. I have read a large selection of the texts that you mentioned, and am quite conversant with traditional, enlightenment, and post modern ethics so your dismissal of my reading knowledge only again speaks to your own in ability to argue your case. The fact that you are incapable, or unwilling, to proffer an opposing argument or to actually define your terms for public discourse is not my problem. It is unfortunate that you have decided to not continue to discuss the philosophical implications of ethics, homosexuality, etc with me. I would rather not have to dismiss you as incompetent -- I thought you were intelligent enough to assemble a little series of syllogisms that could prove your case. After all, if you could persuade me that Catholicism was benighted, you would be doing me and your cause a great service. So make your case or drop it. Define your terms and tell me whether you think there is an objective and knowable order to discuss regarding materiality, nature, the human person, ethics and morals, sexuality, etc. Otherwise, you are only continuing your (perhaps not so highly evolved) monkey chatter.
|
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jul 16 2005, 03:52 PM Post #188 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Rick: in your above post you wrote:
I have no problem with this : "those who are under the law are judged according to the law, those who are apart from the law are judged apart from the law". But what if Christianity really did provide a healthy and happier and more joyous path through life? If you felt that X was a better way to promote health and wealth and happiness, then why would it be a problem to tell others about it? Shouldn't you share your secret to good living with others, or should you keep it to yourself? If you knew that brushing your teeth with fluoride decreased cavities, why would it be wrong to share that information with people who used twigs to clean their teeth? Why, then, is there a problem with Christians evangelizing others? In fact, does not Jesus tell us to do exactly this (as part of fleshing out what it means to "love our neighbor as ourself")? If you can help someone love themselves better, so that they can in turn understand what it means to love their neighbor with more compassion and empathy, would that not be a good thing? Why is this imposing a Christian value on others? Is compassion not objectively good? Is service to others not objectively good? Is caring for the sick and loving your enemy and being a good Samaritan to the stranger in need not objectively good? Or is all of this culturally contingent? Show me in the other traditions where these values (or analogous values) are promoted as they are in Christianity. Or are you saying that a religion that teaches one should ignore other's suffering because of karmic economy is equal to one that teaches to care for the suffering because in doing so they are actually loving God? It seems you have a Christianity that makes no moral claim on your actions, apart from however you decide to interpret the two commandments -- all the rest of Jesus' teachings, scripture, and our moral tradition are meaningless wastes of time. I can't really believe that this is what you are getting at, but it seems an inescapable conclusion. What am I missing? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jul 16 2005, 06:50 PM Post #189 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
From the Thumps...
Well said. I like this. Where is it from? (I suppose I should know!) Also from the Thumpster...
The issue to me is NOT promoting health, wealth and happiness. I would find such an assertion -- that the Gospel is intended to bring health, wealth and happiness -- as a major distortion and misuse of the Gospel message. Jesus did not come to teach us to be healthy, wealthy or happy. He came to open the gates of Heaven for sinful man and to teach us how to gain entry. I do not see showing people the way to health, wealth and happiness as the purpose for my religion. The purpose of my religion is to promote my relationship with God so that I will be "happy with him in heaven." What promotes health, wealth and happiness is more related to economic systems and cultural mores than it is with religion. I would not even begin to suggest that Christianity is an appropriate way to promote health, wealth and happiness. Nor would I begin to argue that those who are not Christian are not capable of having as much health, wealth and happiness as I do. To be honest with you, Thumps, I am surprised you would even raise this as an argument. Also from Thumps...
I will go you one better challenging us even more directly to evangelize. Jesus has told us to "Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." I believe Jesus wants us to do this. The question becomes, what is it He wants us to do? If God Himself finds non-Christians as righteous and welcomes them into Heaven, who are we to say that their beliefs are not adequate and they should adopt an alternative belief? If God welcomes the atheist into heaven if that person sincerely seeks the truth and lives according to his/her values, then is it not our duty to help them do exactly this and not badger them about Christianity or, even worse, tell them they must become Christian in order to be saved? God doesn't do this. Why should we? I believe we should teach about Christianity; but we should do so by example far more than words. As Francis of Assisi said "Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words." Much wisdom in these words, I believe. More Thumpster...
Thinking of becoming a Democrat, thumps? Continuing with Thumps comments...
Jesus clearly, though His example, showed us what compassion is and mandated we be compassionate. For those of us who are Christian, we are mandated to do this. I would argue however that far too many of us feel very justified in walking past an ill-dressed, dirty homeless person and refusing to give them the quarter they seek because we believe it will simply be used for drugs or drink. We do not believe it would be compassionate to simply enable such behavior.' Many Christians even see this ignoring the needs of others to be an appropriate political response because it will encourage and motivate people to better themselves. How is this any different than someone who believes that the poor are that way because of some sort of karma and the best way to help them is to allow them to handle their fate so that they can be reincarnated to a higher plane in the next life? If this is what I truly believed, is not the most compassionate thing I can do is to allow them their fate? Can I condemn someone who truly believes this is the proper course of action simply because I have different beliefs and believe such situations should be handled differently. Again, if I believe that God welcomes a perosn such as this into heaven, as I do believe, who am I to say they are not acting correctly based on their beliefs and their circumstances in life. And one final quote from Ivorythumper..
If I were strong and good enough that all of my actions were motivated solely and completely by loving God above all else and loving my neighbor as myself, I cannot imagine anything I would do as being immoral. Giod demands much of me in response to His gift of my Christian faith. And He does not make it easy. I would argue that it is far harder to base an action and especially one's entire life solely on the love of God and the love of neighbor than it is to simply follow a bunch of "Thou shalt not's" I would also argue that if I follow a bunch of rules and regulations but do not act out of love of God and love of neighbor, I have not acted morally simply because I have followed some rules someone wrote down. As Paul says "If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing." It all comes down to love, Thumpster. Love of God with our whole heart, mind and soul and love of our neighbor as ourselves. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Amanda | Jul 16 2005, 08:16 PM Post #190 |
![]()
Senior Carp
|
Fascinating that you are also conducting a dialogue with the Lords of Google's selective ad-making down below. Do they know something we don't? The latest is: (Won;t let me link the "dynamic image", but it's worth clicking on If you look fast, it might still be there. ). http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagea...TzIIWV-20fRyTmE |
|
[size=5] We should tolerate eccentricity in others, almost to the point of lunacy, provided no one else is harmed.[/size] "Daily Telegraph", London July 27 2005 | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jul 16 2005, 08:27 PM Post #191 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
I noticed that Amanda. Kind of cool the way they do that. BTW, can I interest you in a touch of Christianity? You know, it will make you healthy, wealthy and happy! (Sorry, thumps! I couldn't help myself! )
|
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Steve Miller | Jul 16 2005, 08:36 PM Post #192 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
If it makes you happy, you're not doing it right. Has to do with the "wretch" thing. |
|
Wag more Bark less | |
![]() |
|
| Amanda | Jul 16 2005, 08:58 PM Post #193 |
![]()
Senior Carp
|
RickZ:
Hmmm. Maybe you need to sell cookies as a fund-raiser too. Better still brownies. Fabulous brownies. You might get more takers, especially if your house-to-housies were cute. Find a way to make them tasty AND produce weight loss -- and you won't have any meaningful competition. Why convert by the sword when you can convert by taste-bud? Combine it with weight reduction, distribute franchises ala Mary Kay...and it's a done deal. (Just think of the slogans: "brownies in the here-and-now, brownie points for the After -Life". ) After all the Aztecs used chocolate and you could do it without human sacriifice. As for me, I'm sick of matzoh and even honey cake is beginning to pall... |
|
[size=5] We should tolerate eccentricity in others, almost to the point of lunacy, provided no one else is harmed.[/size] "Daily Telegraph", London July 27 2005 | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jul 17 2005, 09:11 PM Post #194 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
If I may, just a few points of reflection on what you have written:
The quote about being judged apart from the Law is from St Paul, Rom 2:12 The matter of health and wealth and happiness is not Prosperity Gospel but analogy. What Christ offers is much greater than this -- he offers joy. So why not spread the love?
The divine commission ("go therefore and make disciples...") is precisely what I was referring to -- yet what does it mean? You ask what does he want us to do? "Baptize"] and "teach" about Christ and the salvation offered through him. It is NOT obvious that non Christians will enter the kingdom -- though most theologians and indeed the Church do hold this in respect to Rom 2 above -- yet we are still called to make disciples and "teach". Christ obviously posits a better way of living and we are commissioned and commanded to bring a rather specific message and way of living to all men and women. With all due respect to St Francis (and I have never ascertained that this is an actual quote from him -- you must know that "make me a channel of your peace" is not from him but from the 19th century), this does not remove the obligation to use both words and actions. If you have reached such a unitive state of Christian perfection that you can walk through life as such an example of Christ that your coworkers and students regularly come up to you and ask "what is the reason for your joy?" or "what must I do to be saved?", then perhaps you don't need words. If this is not happening, maybe you need to be a bit more open about things.... ![]()
No, Democrats are into abortion and confiscatory taxes to implement social programs. I am much more a libertarian and think that the call to care for the poor and disenfranchised is the proper role of the churches, not governmental entitlement programs. .
You might be correct in thinking that some people ignore the poor for such “political” reasons—I’ve never encountered it, and I do not see how it be reconciled with Matt 25. This objection to me is not germane—one does not judge the merits of system based on the behavior of those members who do not adhere to it, or choose to rewrite it. I also don’t understand why you language such as “condemn” – one can well say one way is objectively better or more in conformance with the perceived reality without loading the argument with such language. I would hold that a good person who is a Hindu would be a better person as a Christian. That might not be PC, but it is the reasonable extension of our belief in the graces of the sacraments and the empowerment of the Holy Spirit that is freely available to those who ask it of the heavenly Father. But as St Paul says in Rom 10:14
We are positively called to evangelize and to bring the good news of Jesus to all men and women. They can decide whether or not they want to hear it. It is not our job to change hearts and minds or to decide who gets into Heaven and on what grounds, that is God’s; but he does call us to bring the Gospel to all and to evangelize both in deed and in word.
You need not set up a false dichotomy between the one who follows rules without love, and one who loves without rules. We do have rules or guidelines as to what constitutes true love to avert the obvious problems of self deception. If you have reached the unitive state of Christian perfection, then you might well say with St Augustine “Love God and do what you will”. This however does not mean the freedom to be a libertine, but rather the freedom to perfectly obey God and the teachings of his Church. We must always evaluate our actions and thoughts (matters of faith and morals) in respect to the traditions handed down through the apostles. So “yes” it all comes down to “love” but this love is a negation of the self love that we are so easily seduced by, and is only found in submission to Christ in full conformance with the deposit of faith as safeguarded by the Church. Anything else is fraught with the dangers of self deception and spiritual pride. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Jul 18 2005, 03:13 PM Post #195 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Overall, I think we understand each other and are not in opposition to each other so much as have differing emphases. Where I know we disagree based on other conversations we have had is in how this all gets applied in society. But I think we each understand the other and, I suspect, we do not disagree so much as just interpret differently -- each of us understanding, though, how the other can interpret as he does. BTW, how's married life? |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jul 18 2005, 04:45 PM Post #196 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Rick, do you believe that Jesus is the Son of God? If so, do you believe he was the only one, or were there others? If you believe that he was the only Son of God, do you believe that he meant what he said? |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Jul 18 2005, 06:52 PM Post #197 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
"All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares."(Romans 2:12-16 (NIV) Not to throw gasoline on the fire here, but there is an obvious Catch-22 in this passage. Of course those who do not have the law, but rather, the law "written in their hearts" will be judged by their adherence to that "natural" law that they hold ideal - but, just like everyone else, and all others holding their own ideal law written on their hearts, they will be found lacking in their adherence to it - just like me. That's why I need to know of the redemption offered through Christ, and why they do, too. That's why Jesus instructed us to spread his good news to all the world. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Jul 18 2005, 07:16 PM Post #198 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Dwain: "That's why Jesus instructed us to spread his good news to all the world." Sort of like Amway, or a chain letter. |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Jul 18 2005, 07:24 PM Post #199 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Yeah, something like that, only Christians have a better retirement plan. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Steve Miller | Jul 18 2005, 08:17 PM Post #200 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
|
|
Wag more Bark less | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |








If you look fast, it might still be there. ).
)


8:55 AM Jul 13