Leftist clergy want to perform same-sex marriages
I suppose I’m expected to feel sympathy for the “moral dilemma” faced by liberal clergy in California who want to perform same-sex marriages, but don’t want to go against their denomination’s rules. I don’t:
Last month, a former student, who has known Father Comella nearly 30 years, asked him to officiate at his same-sex wedding. Father Comella, 61, wrestled with the question but decided not to do it. If he were excommunicated, he would no longer be able to effect change through teaching, he says. It was also a personal decision: He has Parkinson’s disease and worries about losing his health care benefits. “I felt guilty for letting them down and not being able to be more courageous,” he says.
See, I’d like to help you out, friend, but it’s more important that I effect change. This is Berkeley, I’m sure you understand.
Here’s another profile in courage, from the Methodists:
When Messrs. Barron and Marler approached her, Ms. Lindsay had quickly agreed to sign their marriage license and say a special prayer during Sunday service. She even invited other gay couples to join.
But she soon began to feel concerned about her decision. At a United Methodist conference in Sacramento, she ran into the Rev. Renae Extrum-Fernandez, the former pastor at her church, who was now district superintendent. Ms. Lindsay asked whether Ms. Extrum-Fernandez wanted to know about her plans for the coming Sunday. Ms. Extrum-Fernandez, suspecting something risky, said no.
Ms. Extrum-Fernandez later told Ms. Lindsay that if someone were to raise a complaint about a pastor’s actions, she would have to pass it on to the bishop.
Hmm…I thought Christianity was supposed to be risky, but I’m not a preacher. Well, instead, it’s easier (and safer)to whine about how bigoted the bishops are:
“Most Holy God,” she [Eileen Lindsay] prayed before the assembled. “Today is a day of lament and a day of thanksgiving.” Her congregation …read from their programs in response: “We confess that we are members of a denomination whose official policies hurt and oppress people.”
If Ms. Lindsay really believes this she should promptly leave the Methodists. If she believes she is party to a religion of “oppression”, why is she staying with it?
I suspect the unpopular answer might be that gay marriage isn’t really something that liberal clergy feel strongly enough to actually quit their jobs over.
Biggles, who tipped me to this story, points out that these clerics aren’t exactly facing the dilemma of Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer here. That’s not fair, of course–Latimer and Ridley didn’t have to worry about losing their health care.
_____________
{Post by See-Dubya}
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
First Day of 2012 Open Thread & Aspirin-Swapping Roundtable
January 1, 2012 11:45 AM by Doug Powers
235 Comments
Reports: Miners trapped in Mullan, Idaho; 6 hospitalized
December 15, 2011 01:34 AM by Michelle Malkin
23 Comments
Sports and the sexual abuse of children; Plus: Rick Santorum makes things worse
November 8, 2011 02:29 PM by Michelle Malkin
89 Comments10 years ago: My generation’s bloody wake-up call
September 10, 2011 10:07 PM by Michelle Malkin
44 Comments
Hurricane/Tropical Storm Irene Open Thread
August 28, 2011 12:25 PM by Doug Powers
104 CommentsQuake alert: Shake, rattle, and roll!
August 23, 2011 02:03 PM by Michelle Malkin
231 Comments‘Patriotic Millionaires’ Still Begging Government to Take Their Money
June 8, 2011 04:15 PM by Doug Powers
97 CommentsHappy Mother’s Day!
May 8, 2011 11:07 AM by Doug Powers
57 Comments
Categories: Idiots,Uncategorized
Redstate
» Morning Briefing for February 14, 2012Betsys Page
» Cruising the WebPundit & Pundette
» Bishop Jenky, Nicki Minaj, and the "98%"Sister Toldjah
» Obama’s new budget is a bad joke
Such is the case with a liberal government thats’ too afraid to say NO because it might hurt someone else’s feelings.
boo hoo.
How? By creating longer lines? Care to explain also why people from Canada have to go to Montana hospitals to give birth? Considering the very low birth rate of Canada, that’s a huge, effective counterargument to your statement.
Little longer??!?! Don’t think so!
It means that the system is ineffective. You’re failing to factor in several variables, such as time off work, but I guess in your planned utopia, no one but rich, white Protestant male republicans will be doing that while the others just sit on their couches eating Dortios and watching Jon Stewart because they are entitled to it?
right4life said:
Neither did Jesus. The OT canon was already closed before the time of Jesus, even though the Hebrew canon wasn’t “officially” closed until the end of the 1st century. Jesus refers endorses the then “unofficial” canon. I guess the Catholic church believes Jesus must have missed a few…
Correction: “two males or two females”
ouch!
Rusty, it isn’t “one quote.” There’s also I Corinthians 6:9-11, also written by Paul but in a different epistle to a different congregation. Seems he was consistent on this. Most Christians, as noted by others here, consider the NT to be inspired by God, so it’s not just “man’s” opinion.
As to the shift from OT to NT (shellfish, etc.) the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 may be informative. The Apostles determined that Gentile Christians did not have to follow all the Jewish laws and customs to follow Christ, but did need to abstain from certain things. One thing that made the priority list was “fornication,” e.g. sexual immorality. I’m confident a balanced hermeneutical approach to the preceding and following JudeoChristian religous thought would include homosexual activity in this prohibited activity.
Essentially, what these liberal clergy are saying is that they don’t care what the Apostle Paul, or their current ecclesiastical leadership, say about this issue. It would be kind of like, say, the pastor of the church in Thessalonica ignoring an apostolic directive and offering a contradictory message.
“According to your claim didn’t just men write “Jesus’ teachings”, Rusty?”
Nope, R4L, I imagine Rusty’s totally embarrassed that he didn’t even put minimal thought into his absurdly contradictory assertion. (“Can’t trust what’s written in the Bible – trust Jesus’ words.”)
This is a case where one doesn’t need to apply deep apologetics to an opponents reasoning, just an obvious question of basic logic.
The Catch-22 people are calling me on…I don’t disagree with that. Mankind has had millenia to distort Jesus’s teachings. What started as an oral history has been translated to languages that don’t always match the source material.
However, Jesus’s teachings are of compassion, kindness, and forgiveness. Whether those are truly His teachings or just human error, I’ve found that they’re good teachings to live by.
I’m not even suggesting that the Romans quotation is being taken out of context or being misquotes or mistranslated. I’m just saying it’s one paragraph in a long Book that is focusing on the opinion of neither God or His Son. So I don’t value it nearly as much as anything in the Gospels.
I teach equality under the law. And I truly believe that homosexual sex is in no way a sin. Promiscuous sex? Yes. Homosexual sex, no.
I also teach not making stuff up like that Jesus ever said that marriage gad to be between man and woman.
It doesn’t take a whole lot of power to stereotype EQ. All you need is a premise based on prejudice, and an example that supports your claims. Would your opinions change if I found you an article written by a gay man who has lived in a decades long, monogamous, relationship with a gay lover? How about if I told you about lesbians, myself included who have had no difficulty leaving lame or unfulfilling relationships? What’s the point in stereotyping anyone?
I’d look rather foolish if I took a quote from a catholic or former catholic and made some type of claim lumping all of you into one monolithic behavior pattern.
Really??? What does that say about all of your husbands,sons and fathers. Your statement is a very cynical look at the nature of man.
I was raised in the church, and left when I got older, and experienced more of life. I’ve never met a christian, family included, who wasn’t a hypocrite.
Quick story 1.
In my church, we were taught that suicide was the worst sin ever. You will lose your chances at heaven, and will go to purgatory, or possibly hell. There was no debate. One of the elder sisters in the church hung herself because her husband beat her, and the church told her to pray over it. Nobody would support her efforts to leave him and or get a divorce. At her funeral, the Pastor talked about her in heavan, and how she is with angels and at peace, blah, blah… I asked one one of the elder deacons much later about how the Sister couldn’t be in heavan due to the suicide. He along with my father scolded me, and said that the woman was in heavan, because she was baptised, and loved the lord. Ohhhkay. I thought of this story when the pious Tony Dungy talked about how his late son is now in heavan.
Very quick story #2.
I had a college girlfriend who was raised as an Apostolic christian church. I went to visit her family as one of her college “buddies”. I had an idea to take them all to the movies. I was told no, “Going to the movies was to “worldly”, and not something Jesus would approve of” Instead, we could drive our vehicle go to effing Blockbuster to rent the movies, and play it on the VCR. Ohhhkay then.
I think of this story whenever I see the Amish families take their horse and buggies to the state fair to eat and get on the amusement rides.
You all can debate your scriptures as much as you want. In the end, the words mean what you want them to mean based on how you want to live your life.
Have a good one.
Sorry about any grammar or style errors. I’m on my way out for brunch.
As a Lutheran (Thank You Martin Luther), I’m reading some of the comments and came across this gem. It’s a great comment and it gets to the heart of the argument.
Here we had a “state” type institution (Catholic Church) that told the people how they should behave, who they should believe (i.e the Priests & Elders) WITHOUT showing them the source (i.e. the Bible).
Rusty, right now, where would you “limit” same sex marriage (i.e. non-discrimination)?
What about Polygamy? Well, you can’t discriminate against them, right?? (Aren’t there laws against this sort of thing???
What about Brother & Sister marrying? Father Daughter? How are you going to discriminate against them?
You could take the imaginary “Right to Privacy” that’s NOT in the Constitution and allow any AND all of the above examples. It’s a slippery slope
Final Question:
What about Beastiality? Hey, if A man can’t find anybody to marry, what about those farm animals? I say this tongue and cheek, but without some sort of norms, where is the boundary for society?
Then you are a heretic and should be branded as one. You intentionally ignore scripture and ignore the very words of Jesus Christ himself to suit your own personal and political beliefs.
and who decides what is ‘equal’? hmmm?? is pedophilia ‘equal’ to homosexuality? and if not, why not? why shouldn’t 3 or 4 or however many be able to get married? isn’t that ‘equal’??
how do you know this? and why do you think you ‘have it right’??
you can believe whatever you want, but you can’t say the scripture doesn’t teach that homosexuality is sin. its always been a sin, both under judiasm, and christianity…but all of a sudden you’re here to set us straight??
so you get to pick and choose what you believe!! isn’t that nice! you have a god in your own image!
this same Jesus will cast people into hell, and this same Jesus killed ananias and sephira for lying, and others for taking the communion in an improper manner…oh and He is the Angel of the Lord that killed 185,000 assyrians in the book of Isaiah.
do not presume His kindness means no consequences.
Forgiveness is for those who turn away from their sins. “Go and sin no more.” That statement alone is indicative of all of the elements you cited. However, conveniently missing from said statement is acceptance, of any kind, of sinful behavior.
Leave Rusty alone. He studied the Bible for two years and is an expert.
The rest of us who have been living the life of Christ are just bigots.
/sarc – duh
Rusty, I surmise from your defense of homosexuality and how you defend it that that is your preferred sin of choice. It is forgiveable but you have to make the decision to seek that forgiveness.
Yes Jesus taught of forgiveness, compassion and kindness, but he also taught, as God, of justice and his disdain for sin. He also shows the punishment he meted out in his wrath after long-suffering of the sins of people like the Canannites; Ninevites; Amorites, and the list goes on. Of course your familiar with Sodom and Gomorrah – they were the epitomy of his wrath being poured out because of homosexuality.
Rusty, Do you remember what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah??
I think you and “The Big Guy” might disagree JUUUSSSSTTT a bit here
Have you read the “Gospels” that you seem to place priority on? In Mark 10:6 and following verses, Jesus addresses divorce. Part of his statement addresses “the beginning” (Creation, Genesis etc.) and states that God created the male and female, and the man and woman would leave their parents and join together as “one flesh.”
There’s a pretty clear example from the Gospels, and a quotation of Jesus’ own words. It seems to parallel the current conservative position (one man marries one woman, becomes a family, shouldn’t get divorced and should be faithful to each other). Do you see any holes in this argument?
If you want to argue that Jesus would be open to two men or two women marrying, please feel free to cite an argument for your position that can stand against Mark 10.
Rusty said:
You mean, the One who also said things like: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves”? Jesus was both a Man of compassion and a Man of wrath towards sin.
Rusty said:
According to the Gospels, Jesus quoted from the Books of Moses and refers to them as the very Word of God. Not only this, He endorses the (then) future writings of the Apostles as inspired by God when He said:
“But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.”
and
“As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world… I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word.”
Rusty said:
Jesus endorsed the Law of Moses’ teaching on marriage and sex – which means marriage is between a man and a woman, and that homosexual behavior is sin.
When Jesus taught about marriage, He described it as being between a man and a woman. Now true, He didn’t specifically mention that a man couldn’t be married to a lampshade, but Jesus’ teachings implicitly forbid any other kind of union being termed as “marriage.”
So do rich people receive government tax dollars via tax cuts?
And I don’t see anyone complaining when tax-exempt schools who also receive federal dollars are forced (and rightly so) to accept military recruiters on campus, despite that school’s wishes. Same concept here.
If you want public money, you have to follow their rules.
Good choice, Rusty. If you did, you’d just be digging yourself an even deeper hole of intellectual confusion & dishonesty.
Well, I know I’m up for taking a peek at any “source material” you believe precedes/predate the Gospels. It is ummm…what?
If you’re presented with Jesus’ teachings you will commit to believing and following them?
Church’s should not enter into an agreement with the government on partnering with them to promote social programs when strings are attached. This is truly being “unequally yoked”.
Churches have done well enough with charity work without government assistance. It is the government who needs the church’s successful programs not the other way around.
Or, from the Gospel Of John chapter 14, verse 6 – ““I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”?
purplepeep said:
The irony is more extreme than even that. Liberal scholars tend to reject the traditional authorship of the Gospels – asserting that the authors were not close to the Jesus of history. Furthermore, scholars of all persuasions tend to agree that the letters of Paul (including Romans) were written years before the 4 Gospels.
Circa 100 A.D., the infant Church relied on the Septuagint, which are the Greek translations of Jewish Scripture. At that time, however. Jewish scholars revised their canon and excluded 15 books which were written from around 150 B.C. to 70 B.C., i.e., Maccabees I and II, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, The Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, additional chapters in Esther and Daniel and a Psalm. I may have forgotton others, but those I can recall. In the 16th century, Protestants decided to go with the revised Jewish Scripture, and did not include those books and chapters I listed. Therefore, the RCC version, which is much older than the Protestant version, contains more books, chapters, etc…
Rather presumptuous and, unsubstantiated. Why would St. Jerome’s Latin translation be called The Vulgate, meaning “common”, if it were only for the exclusive use of clergy? Secondly, there is no Church Law which forbade the reading of Scripture among the faithful. Indeed, in the 2nd century, Iraneus, an Father of the Early Church, exhorted the masses to read Holy Scripture in his Adversus Haereses, to counter the many heresies (Pelagiansim, Arianism, etc…) which sprang up, as well as to provide spiritual sustenance. If reading Scripture at home was uncommon, it could be attributed to general illiteracy, and lack of distribution, as the printing press had not yet been invented.
Physician, heal thyself. And you think there are no abuses (monetary, particularly) among the Protestant sects? How many times have I turned on the TV to see these televangelists exhorting their watchers to send them money? Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker ring a bell? Jimmy Swaggart and his sexual escapades escape your notice?
As for Purgatory, read Maccabees.
Hmmm, read my first response regarding “twisting” the Word of God. He and his ilk were the ones who “twisted” by omitting the books in Scripture that existed for well over a millenia.
Lastly, let me ask you something. Jesus said that you know a tree by its fruits. What has been the fruits of Protestantism? Millions of splinter groups, or denominations? Yes. Many of those “fruits” have been proven to be quite rotten, i.e., Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite, the Bakkers, Swaggert, et al. And as we have noted many times, it is the Protestant denominations who are the ones who have drifted from the Truth: gay marriage, women clergy (which is NOT Biblical), divorce, abortion, etc…
The Roman Catholic Church has NOT swayed in 2000 years on its teachings regarding faith and morals. As Rusty wryly noted, it won’t change. That’s because the Church IS the true Bride of Christ, and has remained faithful to His teachings, despite her sinners.
Okay – now I can say his is a joke with complete certainty.
People who receive a tax break are donors. Our organization is not making a dollar nor have we EVER received anything from the gooberment except for the privilege of spending money to stay in their good graces.
Do you know we have to send in $61.75 to the Department of Agriculture? Why? Good question as we run an orphanage in Haiti and are working to have an adoption agency.
Anybody who is familiar with the amount of paper work it takes to keep a 501(c)(3) going knows it takes money. The gooberment gives us nada. Oh, how I wish the gooberment would give us money as in these financial times, donations are scarce.
Oh, and I forgot to mention, let’s not forget Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his million dollar mansion!
Our old Irish pastor, who is retired, lives in a modest one bedroom apartment, approximately 400 sq. feet, and will probably be there till the end of his days. That’s what he gets after 50+ years of faithful service. No matter. He knows what heavenly award awaits him upon his death.
Soap, did you mean “‘t’his is a joke”? Because EQ did not seem to be joking when she said it and based her argument on this statement.
Out of curiosity, would you accept a $50,000 government grant if, as a stipulation, your orphanage had to adopt to gay couples?
misstressjustice,
You’re citing exceptions to try to disprove common behavior?
Here’s a good recent description of studies which show that sexual restraint is clearly not a common part of the same-sex lifestyle:
You can find the full article along with footnotes referring to the studies here. (Note: Don’t even try claiming these statistics are invalid because they’re quoted by a Christian organization. That’s known as the Genetic Fallacy, which means its an illogical argument. Besides, they’re just stating the findings of the studies—one of which I think was done by acknowledged homosexuals—not making up their own numbers.)
It would be meaningless for us to get into an argument of which is right and which is wrong about many of the non-essentials…
The following could be hogwash since I’m not familiar with Catechism’s, but from an article I read “A Catechism Of The Bible” and maybe this is not something the Roman Catholic Church believes today.
<
By Rev. John O’Brien, M.A.
New York 1924
Revised and enlarged by
Fr. Jaime Pazat De Lys, F.S.S.P.X
St. Mary’s, Kansas 1997
Copyright © 1997, 2003. Jaime Pazat De Lys
How does the above reconcile with what the following verse says – found in both the Douay-Rheims Bible and the King James version:
“But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.”
I don’t see where it says the Roman Catholic Church will interpret the Bible for you. It sounds like he’s saying that anyone who hears or reads the Word of God. This is because each believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit – each indwelt believer comprises the catholic church (note the small letter in catholic).
Why would you put your faith in a manmade institution rather than Jesus Christ alone? He is the only intecessor between us and God – no one or no institution can do that. Read Hebrews if it’s in your Bible.
First, how about answering my questions? I answered yours, so it’s only fair that you respond to mine, iamsaved.
Chap,
Nice try. The government of Haiti determines who adopts. Married couples only. So, no, I would not.
To remove that qualification:
No, we would never take money from any source that gives us an ultimatum – EVER. FYI, we are not supported by a church for this very reason. We are not in this for money.
That’s odd, my King James version doesn’t appear to have a Maccabees in it.
And comparing the works righteousness of indulgences and being able to “buy your way out of purgatory” (that doesn’t exist, Jesus spoke more on Hell in the New Testament than he did of Heaven and somehow must have forgot to speak one word about Purgatory)with a false teachers robbing people blind is rather hilarious. Let’s see a church as a whole pilfering people for money on the condition it would improve their lot in eternity (btw how much money is enough, I mean I want only the best so how much money is enough for my indulgences?) with some people not representing the Church as a whole ripping people off with false teaching that is not Biblical.
Yup, totally equal circumstances. /sarc
Nice how you pick certain individuals in Protestant faiths and imply that these individuals represent the heirarchy of their various churches. You then make the implication that these individuals and their stances should be compared to the “infallable” RC Church. I would submit that these folks more closely resemble certain RC priests like the one that hangs with the Rev. Wright (his name escapes me at the moment) and the innumerable priests that have admitted to being pedophiles.
As to the RC Church not varying it’s message in 2000 years, I would suggest that you re-evaluate your thoughts on that as well. Various popes, ecumenical councils, etc. HAVE brought about changes in the Church’s teachings over the course of time.
Personally, I find the predominant view among many Catholics – as well as the predominant view among many Protestants to be troubling. After all, we all hold the same basic core beliefs in our faith; that Jesus Christ was the son of and incarnation of God on earth, that he died for us to cleanse us of our sins, and that he was resurrected, thus overcoming death, sin and hell.
No Christian (that I know of) doubts these truths. It is what separates us all, Catholic or Protestant, from the other religions of the world.
Ravi Zacharias
Way of the Master Radio
Just to name a few current ones. And lets not forget the centuries of spreading the Gospel to untold millions around the globe.
well lets not forget the pedophile priests!
atheling
Why do you use non-Christian actions by various people who claim they are Christians to denounce Protestanism.
Maybe they are Christians and have made a mistake – aren’t you capable of sin? The only difference between a sinner and a saint is one is saved and the other ain’t. Hopefully the Christian is aware of his sin and repented and sought forgiveness.
And, the Bible says that even Satan can appear as an angel of light – just because someone claims they are a Christian doesn’t make it so. You said it yourself when you quoted scripture – you shall know them by their fruits.
I won’t even go into detail that the American Roman Catholic church harbored homosexuals and pedophiles for years and finally had to pay up for the coverup. I sure wouldn’t want my charitable donations going to support those lawsuits. Maybe that’s why the old,retired priest is living in a 400 sq foot cottage with a thatched roof. No money left over after paying out the millions in lawsuits.
You see, those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones…
the catholic church preaches a salvation by works, not by grade through faith alone.
Council of Trent on Justification:
Canon 11. If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins, excluding grace and charity which is poured into their hearts by the Holy Spirit and inheres in them, or also that the grace which justifies us is only the favour of God, let him be anathema. (see note 1)
Canon 12. If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema.
That was not meant to sound sarcastic, if it did I am sorry. I’ve visited your site and have nothing but good things to say about the work you all do.
I was just truly curious because I am not sure I even agree with putting such such restrictions or conditions on the receipt of federal funds. So long, I think, as the organization is one of many that is performing a certain type of charity, for example a gay couple could adopt through another agency and would otherwise not be unduly burdened, I’m not sure I see why there should not be some reasonable flexibility between an organization’s freedom of expression/religion and the receipt of federal funds. if there is one thing I do agree with is that, looking at it on a micro scale, private charities and especially church-based organizations do a much better, more efficient job with charitable work than government programs.
Tough call though and practically, I think such a facts and circumstances test would be too difficult to administer and would be too subject to abuse.
the apocrypha isn’t scriture, Jesus and the apostles didn’t refer to it as scripture. The jews don’t either.
the catholics have NO justification for including those books in scripture.
Atheling – what do believe Christians used as Scripture before the Roman Catholic Church?
oh and the catholic church didn’t cannonize the apocrphya until the council of trent in the 1500s…
Remember, people…
This is how “Troubles” begin.
You’re the one who brought up those “non-essentials”, which you conveniently dismiss after I ably answered your questions. Let’s not be dishonest here.
Sounds like the answer to the question is “Scripturally” based, is it not?
Your error in this is the fact that ANYONE can pervert or twist the meaning of Scripture. Look at Rusty. He does it all the time. Is the Holy Spirit guiding him? The Church has a teaching branch, the Magisterium, which teaches and translates Scripture, and has not made an error YET. So many Protestant denominations have erred in their teachings of the Gospel. Look at the nutjobs in the news we hear about all the time: David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite, Jim Jones, Jeremiah Wright, to name a few. If some nutcase in the Church rises up, we excommunicate him, in order to prevent the spread of heresy. That’s why the Church has not erred in its teachings to the faithful, and has not had the problems you Protestants do regarding the interpretation of Scripture.
Again, the Church has not changed its teachings on faith and morals for 2000 years. It has been on right side of every moral issue for those 2000 years, yet it’s the Protestant churches who are having difficulty in keeping their teachings on the straight and narrow. You know a tree by its fruits… As for your petty small letters in “catholic”, well, that speaks for more about you than the Church.
The Roman Catholic Church is not manmade. Our Lord Himself instituted its existence:
13 And Jesus came into the quarters of Cæsarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? 14 But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. 15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? 16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. Matthew 16: 13-20.
Sounds like He was giving quite a bit of authority to the “rock”, St. Peter, who would be the first Pope.
Logic would say that the authority invested in Peter could not simply die with him. It had to be continued, for the sake of the continuation of the Church on earth, hence the apostolic succession, by which every priest, and every bishop, not to mention every Pope, can trace the laying of hands to Peter himself.
Now, I have a question for you, and please be honest and do not evade:
Where in Scripture is the command to solely rely on the Bible for all the teachings of the faith?
Chap,
It is all good. The question just sounded loaded.
Faiths based groups out give and out perform any other groups when it comes to charity – FACT. The people who complain that we would not let homosexual couples adopt are the worst givers. They are mostly on a head-hunting mission. If we were not restricted by Haiti, you could bet there would be someone trying to shut us down if we did not consider homosexual couples (which we do not and would not <<< I think that is what you were looking for). Never mind the fact that they would not do the work themselves. We are protected by the Haitian government’s requirements.
As for the government giving us a break, I am still waiting.
Purplepeep: If I’m not mistaken, the RCC feels they started with Peter and have a continuous line to the current Pope.
Actually, I don’t believe they can trace their roots any earlier than 300 AD or so.
Shoot – we can all trace our Christian roots to one cornerstone – Jesus.
sure it has, they teach salvation by works.
he wasn’t the first pope. sorry. there were no popes…but you say the pope speaks for God…is an apostle…
lets put your popes to the test of an postle…
2 Corinthians 12:12
The things that mark an apostle—signs, wonders and miracles—were done among you with great perseverance.
which of the popes passes this test?
atheling said:
What did Jesus say about the Hebrew Canon? Jesus referred to the “Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms” as the pre-NT Bible. This 3-fold division of the Hebrew Bible undoubtedly refers to the the (Jewish) divisions of the Hebrew Scriptures – the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings.
Furthermore, Jesus speaks of “the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah (see 2 Chronicles 24:20-21)” in Luke 11:51 & Matthew 23:35 – referring to the first and last martyrs in the Hebrew Bible (recall that in the Jewish ordering of the Hebrew books, Chronicles is the last book).
So Jesus endorsed the Jewish canon – not the Catholic canon of OT books.
Referring to the Septuagint isn’t going to help your case, either. According to Neil R. Lightfoot:
2 Timothy 3:16–17, “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”
You are dodging the previous arguments of the heretical teachings in the Catholic Church such as indulgences but I will attempt to answer your question despite not being an apologist like Mr. Ravi Zacharias.
Odd, I don’t see the mention of a priest, pastor, bishop, or pope anywhere on that list. The only thing God left for us to have a direct relationship with Him was his Word.
No works righteousness, no amount of money given for indulgences will ever buy you one once of favor with God. God will not be bought or bribed and on the day you go to be judged if you have not repented of your sins (that is turned from them, flee, tell God that here and now that you are no longer a slave to the world and do it in deed and word) and trusted Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins then you are in a world of hurt.
So you can sit back and bash on Protestants who if they are acting rightly are merely living under the tenet of being saved by Grace alone and spreading the Good News of the Gospel by showing people they are dirty rotten sinners just like the rest of us, me included, that are in need of a Savior. No priest, bishop, or pope can do that. You go to God directly with true repentance and faith your life will be forever changed.
atheling:
I have to answer with a question – where in the Bible does it say to rely on the teachings of men that come after the final Book was written – Revelation?
A bonus FYI:
1Ti 2:5 For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
I don’t believe scripture included the Canon’s of the RCC. We’ll have to agree to disagree on the apochypha.
Uh, that’s no proof of using Sola Scriptura. Funnily enough, what is the thing he says in the end about “good work”?
You folks sure contradict yourselves.
Woops, forgot an important piece of that passage. It is Ephesians 2:8-9
atheling, Jesus said He would build His church on petra, not Petros (Peter). Nowhere does the Bible say God will build His church on Peter, period. You can argue that by petra, He meant Peter (although is this is so, then why didn’t He just say “Petros” instead of “petra”?), and I can argue that Jesus was referring to Peter’s confession.
As far as far as Matthew 16:19 goes, the Greek is ambiguous, and can just as easily be translated as: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”
The difference between the two possible translations is that one contradicts the rest of the Bible (by declaring that man dictates to heaven), whereas the other agrees with the rest of Scripture (God is sovereign over man, and the Holy Spirit informs the teachings of the Apostles and prophets – not the other way around).
The divorce lawyers will have no moral delema collecting money from gays whose marriages fail.
Well right4life, the RC Church is in the process of “certifying” the passing of that test on the late Carol Wyotyla – John Paul II. They are trying their best to bestow sainthood on him, and as I understand it, they have to be able to attribute multiple “miracles” to an individual in order to bestow sainthood.
Please don’t get me wrong, I think JP II was a good, decent, godly man. He certainly was posessed of a deep and genuine faith.
But I’ll be darned if I can recall any miracles he performed. I’m pretty sure we would have heard about them at the time, aren’t you?
I know many fine Catholics who are devout Christians, even devout Catholics who, unlike Aethling, can see and recognize the flaws not only in other churches, but especially in their own.
I think iamsaved said it best: we can all trace our Christian roots to one cornerstone – Jesus.
atheling:
The rest:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Where is the contradiction? Are you implying the “good works” above is required for salvation. I don’t think so. You’ve mis-interpreted.
Our Lord didn’t say “Petra” because it’s Greek. He spoke Aramaic. He used the word “kepha”. “Petra” is the feminine form for “rock”. It would have been insulting to call a man a feminine name, at least in those days.
In lowercase, when correctly used, it refers to “universal” – the actual word sometimes translated as “catholic” (a Greek-based word) and is quite commonly used among non-Catholic Christians in creeds and otherwise. It refers to all who believe in Christ.
Several notes on that, atheling.
There’s a bit more to the original Greek being used there. Also, as you read through the Scriptures you’ll find Peter is considered nothing more than one of the apostles who was at times in need of correction, e.g. by Paul.
Additionally if the English translation is to be taken literally, here’s Jesus’ words to Peter in Matthew 16:23 -
“he (Jesus) turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men”.
Taking it literally (as with “The Rock” verse) would not only make Peter offensive to Chrisst, but also make him Satan!
Maybe – but it’s when you have to cut back on ice cream that the misery really sets in!
thats for sure…
Paul didn’t just talk…
1 Corinthians 2:4
My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power,
So much for avoiding Catholic vs. Protestant bashing…
Here’s what “The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict has to say on the books of the Apocrypha:
New Testament:
Old Testament:
I should also point out that even though the Old Testament apocryphal books were part of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures), they were not part of the canon in Hebrew.
Oh, here’s more from “The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict”:
Now please, can we get back to the main topic? Specifically, “Pastors” teaching something directly contradictory to the book they claim as authoritative.
the ‘rock’ was Peter’s proclomation of the Messiahship of Jesus, not that Peter, waffler that he was, was a rock.
atheling said:
If your interpretation is correct, there was nothing that would have prevented Matthew from writing “you are Peter, and upon Peter I will build My church.” He could have written that, but he didn’t.
Matthew, in conveying what Jesus was saying, clearly and deliberately chooses to change words here – distinguishing between Peter and what Jesus would build His church on. Which suggests that there is a difference.
I am at work, and cannot answer all your questions. However, I will try to address them this evening, if I have the time.
As far as “faith and good works”, I leave you with this to ponder, from Matthew 25: 31-46, which is the basis for the Church’s teachings that faith and good works are necessary for salvation:
31 ‘When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33 and He will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. 34 Then the king will say to those at His right hand, “Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.” 37 Then the righteous will answer Him, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? 38 And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? 39 And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?” 40 And the king will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family,* you did it to me.”’
41 ‘Then He will say to those at His left hand, “You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.” 44 Then they also will answer, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?” 45 Then He will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.” 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.’
Does your Protestant bible contain those verses?
Yes the Protestant Bible has those verses. Those are the fruits of God’s grace through faith.
The Book of James speaks to works – faith without works is dead. Once you are saved through faith, the natural result (fruits) will be the good works. The works are not what save you though.
iamsaved:
You are twisting here. How dishonest.
Case closed.
that doesn’t teach salvation by works….Abraham BELIEVED GOD, and it was reckoned to him as righeousness…before circumcision..before any work.
I guess you think Jesus was mistaken when HE said:
Luke 7:50
Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”
and what works did the thief on the cross do?
You dip and dodge better than lgm does, and even attempt to end arguments in the same way.
You keep on believing in works righteousness, works are a fruit of the spirit not a pre-requisite for eternal salvation. In fact indulgences are heretical and do a great disservice to those who are lost by putting some unkwown monetary (how much money do I need to give again? I really do only want the best) and good deed quota on them to be saved. And one can wonder why Mexico and other previously predominant Catholic countries are being saved left and right by finally being awakened to the truth of justification by repentance and faith alone and are becoming less and less RC. No shocker to me, God is on the move and His Word speaks for itself.
But, somehow I doubt todays debate, despite your wonderful dodging ability did you any good. Until next time /adios
I think Peter is a perfect example of the kind of person Jesus wanted: a bumbler, to be sure, and occassionally hot-headed – but always unwavering in his faith.
That’s why Christ made him the first Pope.
But, back to the topic at hand. Why is it Rusty, mistressjustice, et. al. can live how they choose, judge how they choose, and criticize how they choose but those of us who disagree with aspects of the choices *they* make cannot do the same? Why do they applaud clergy who go against the teachings of their church but crticize those of us who cling to religious belief – holding that the consequences for failing to do so are severe?
You’re free to believe what you want and live how you want. That’s why God gave everyone free will. But don’t expect universal approval for your behaviors. “Behaviors” being the key word there.
I treat every person regardless of race, creed, religion, orientation, etc. with respect. When – and only when – do they pose a direct threat to my freedoms and my life (see: radical Islam) do I stand up and fight. There is not hatred there. Only love. A love so strong I’m not afraid to stand up and say something is wrong if it risks the salvation of an individual.
One of the things Christ said was “love your neighbor as yourself.” If the goal of every Christian is the attainment of heaven, it’s logical to conclude each Christian will do what it takes to get to heaven out of that self-love.
This also means if I’m living in sin, I’d want someone to tell me about it. This “admonishing the sinner” is one of the Spiritual Works of Mercy, and they are not to be ignored or made morally relative.
As the study above pointed out, civilizations and cultures thrive best when the traditional view of marriage is supported and encouraged – which is what civil laws have done until recently.
Christ didn’t make him the first pope. He didn’t start the church of Rome, Paul did.
Faith and works are easily reconciled.
No one is saved without any works, for faith itself is a work – something you do (John 6:27-30).
You are saved by Jesus’ works, not by your own works. But even though you are not saved by your works, you are not saved without any works, either. People who continue to live in open rebellion to God will not be saved.
In Ephesians 2:8-9, Paul is telling the Gentile Christians that they are saved apart from works [of the Law of Moses] – specifically circumcision (see Ephesians 2:11), and then compare to Romans 3:28-30& Galatians 2:15-16. Paul was not talking about any and all kinds of works as some think.
There are two kinds of works – works of merit (things that you do to earn something), and works of faith (things that you do to receive what you did not earn).
No sinner will be saved without believing, repenting, confessing, being baptized, and being faithful (but not perfect) until the death.
so why was the woman Jesus spoke to saved just her faith? and the thief on the cross, no baptism, no works
and believing isn’t a work.
Romans 10:13
for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Ephesians 2:8
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—
Oh, brother.
I am not going to get involved in another Catholic v. Protestant Scriptural flame war.
There are similarities and there are differences.
Here’s one similiarity: Liberals and atheists are trying to destroy our right to freedom of workship.
Rusty can call me paranoid all he wants, but I’m not the only one to see the handwriting on the wall. I look north of the border and see the tyranny directed and (some) people of faith (Christians) and it’s not paranoid or naive to see that creeping over the border in a few years’ time.
Then, it won’t matter if you believe in sola scriptura or the Catechism of the Catholic Church – both Protestant and Catholic stand on the brink of losing our right to worship as we please.
So – on issues like this – it really behooves all of us to stand united on what we do agree in and leave issues of doctrine for another time.
those of us who cling to religious beliefWatch your wording there, EQ…
I wouldn’t want you to take as much heat as Obama did for that dirty “c” word.
right4life said:
According to Matthew 27:44, both robbers were insulting Jesus. Apparently, something in Jesus’ demeanor must have changed his mind, for in Luke 23:39-42, the robber defends Jesus from the insults of the other robber, and professes his faith in Jesus as the Messiah.
So right there, you see the thief on the cross repented, changed his ways, made a public confession of Jesus as the Messiah, and was calling on Jesus to save him. To this, Jesus responds with forgiving him.
That’s normally the status quo for me as well but when people directly challenge Scripture and why the Reformation occurred it always ends this way.
Btw the the whole lower cased italics vs normal capitalized is always a fun leading indicator of who believes what. Not that I didn’t already know what side of the fence you were on anyhow. But I digress.
And turn your children into gay communist San Franciscans.
But none of that can happen until we elect the Islamic Manchurian candidate that we have been training and propping up, hidden in plain sight, for the past 40 years.
It all starts with that.
and thats all any of us need.
I knew I liked Chap, such great talent for writing stuff not worth reading.
Totally agree.
Totally different context, chapoutier, but thanks. Mine involves no “bitterness”…perhaps “cleave” is a better word.
Actually, since sola scriptura is Latin, I was taught to italicize foreign words used in otherwise English text.
And, technically, the title of the CCC should be italicized too because it’s the title of a book.
In reading the passage atheling cited you see the message and question it deals with is not about doing stuff to make to the other side of the Pearly Gates.
On the contrary, when you look at it, you see that certainly it was the damned who had a list of works they believed should impress God.
On the other hand, the blessed made no mention of how they thought they had “earned heaven”, much less try to make a case for their “works”. (In fact they seem shocked.)
right4life said:
Was it faith alone? She was weeping at His feet, indicating genuine repentance. Her obedience and her faith were working together, just as James 2:14-22 says.
right4life said:
He stopped insulting Christ, and started defending Christ. That is something he did, that is a work.
Of course he was saved without being baptized into the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ – Jesus hadn’t died, been buried, or raised at that point. No one had been baptized into the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ at that point in history. The robber was saved under the Mosaic age, not the Christian age.
Paul, in the Christian era, writes that we died to sin and became alive to God when we were baptized into Jesus’ death (Romans 6).
right4life said:
Believing is a choice, it is something you do; it is a work. In John 6:26ff, Jesus Himself tells people to work to receive eternal life. When they asked Jesus what work they are to do, Jesus tells them to believe in Him. The word translated “believe” is pisteuo, which is the verb form of the word (noun) pistis – faith.
You “do” faith in order to receive (as a gift, what your actions themselves did not earn) eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you.
right4life said:
Calling on the name of the Lord is something you do, a work. Not a work of merit, but a work of faith.
If you examine the context of Romans 10, you will realize that Paul is alluding to baptism. He talks of believing in your heart and confessing with your mouth – that is what you do when you are being baptized, see Acts 8:36-38.
Paul says that anyone who calls on the name of the Lord is saved – well how exactly do you “call on the name of the Lord”? According to Acts 22:16, and Acts 2:21, 38, 40-41, you call on the name of the Lord by being baptized in the name of the Lord.
good point!
Soap – just caught your comment.
No, not really. Read the stuff on the Freedom from Religion Foundation cite. According to them, we’re receiving special aid from the government because our churches are tax-exempt. And, because they are, they’re responsible for increased property taxes, etc., etc.
I completely agree with you, but I’m warning you that the argument I’ve posed here as hyperbole will be used in the near future to force compliance with gay marriage laws. Perform them, or lose tax-exempt status. Which – for many churches – means shutting their doors or completely ceasing most of the charitable work the church does.
thats what Jesus said. why do you doubt Him?
no, he asked the Lord to remember him, when He came into His kingdom.
baptism is not necessary for works…Paul wasn’t talking about a physical baptism in that passage…and Paul admitted he did not go around baptizing…if it is so necessary for salvation, then why didn’t he do it??
works are not necessary for salvation, and belief and faith are not works.
Galatians 2:16 (Read all of Galatians 2)
yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
nothing about baptism is there??
its not all about you…its all about HIM
oh yeah titus 3:
4 But when the kindness of God our Saviour, and his love toward man, appeared, 5 not by works [done] in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6 which he poured out upon us richly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour; 7 that, being justified by his grace, we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
nothing about baptism there either…
You guys do realize that Rusty is loving this, don’t you? This back and forth sniping is confirming his negative prejudice that Christians are more interesting in defending their prejudices than in finding the truth.
He started us down the rabbit trail by pointing out the differences between the Catholic and Protestant recognition of canon. Some of us tried to give a reasonable answer, but it got carried on from there.
RCC people, do you really think that books containing known geographical and historical errors should be canonical? After all, the concept of inerrancy is critical to the reliability of scripture.
Let’s face it, every single human being is broken. It shows up differently in each of us, but no one is perfect, not Protestants and not Catholics; and that applies all the way from the lowest bench warmer to the upper leadership. The only reason we have any hope at all is because God reached down and made himself known. Our job is to pursue God with all our heart, mind and strength, and to let Him be known to those who are currently lost, in part through our love for one another.
Which was the point of my post above.
Discuss doctrine all you like elsewhere, but if we as a collective group are going to keep our freedoms, we’ve got to unite on things we agree on and fight like hell for our First Amendment rights.
like our gun rights, and every other ‘right’ we have, its whatever the supreme court says it is.
and until congress and the president defy the courts, we will continue to live in a judicial oligarchy.
Only if we allow it. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, right4life. We cannot rest because there are always those who seek to take away our rights.
The language of the Constitution is so explicitly clear that it spells out the rights for us there. We have a right to worship freely just as we have a right to keep and bear arms.
Liberals have no problem ignoring the Heller ruling; likewise, I have no problem ignoring any unjust, un-Constitutional rulings they may try to pass. The day is coming when we may have to do that.
In this day and age, being a conservative Christian is counter-cultural. Let’s continue that rebellion, shall we?
right4life said:
Jesus did not say “Your faith alone, apart from any works including repentance, has saved you.” No, He said “Your faith has saved you.” Jesus’ conception of faith did not exclude any and all works, since He plainly stated in John 6 that faith in Him is itself a work.
right4life said:
When the robber referred to Jesus’ kingdom, He was confessing that Jesus was a King, the Messiah. And what do you think the robber wanted Jesus to remember? That he was a vile criminal deserving to be crucified, so that Jesus would smite him? Obviously, he was asking Jesus for forgiveness.
right4life said:
When the NT refers to baptism, the default meaning is that of water baptism, for the forgiveness of sins. If you want to prove it isn’t a water baptism, you have the burden of proof.
And Paul did baptize people (1 Corinthians 1:16). All he was saying in that passage was that his primary focus was on preaching the Gospel, not on personally baptizing people himself. He was afraid that if he went around personally baptizing people, they would think they were baptized into Paul’s possession, rather than being baptized into Jesus’ possession.
In fact, in 1 Corinthians 1:12-15, Paul proves that people didn’t belong to him since they weren’t baptized in the name of Paul. The implication was, since they were baptized in the name of the Lord, that they belonged to the Lord. That is how you become one of God’s people, by being baptized (literally) into the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19).
right4life said:
There also isn’t anything about the death, burial, and resurrection, either. What do you think faith in Christ entails?
Acts 8:35 says that Philip “preached Jesus” to him. What was the Ethiopian’s response to hearing “Jesus preached”? “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?” I thought Philip preached Jesus, not baptism? You can’t preach Jesus (like Philip) unless you also preach about baptism.
How do you obey the Gospel? How do you obey the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus? By dying with Him, being buried with Him, and being raised to a new life with Him in water baptism.
right4life said:
And it isn’t about how you say we’re saved, but how He said we’re saved.
right4life said:
I bolded the part about baptism. There is a washing that takes place, connected with the Holy Spirit. What happens when you are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ? According to Peter, your sins are forgiven and you receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). Water baptism is connected with receiving the Holy Spirit.
EQ,
I think you misunderstand the true nature of the costs of being a 501(c)(3). There are many. We need a staff to keep up and there is no money (unless we take funds from the children – which we will not do). Then there are the countless forms. Heck, we are supposed to have quarterly board meetings and write minutes of meetings. All of this takes time and is overwhelming. Compound that with trying to maintain a web site and books and we need an army of staff. Know how much of a break the government gives us? None. Do you know the dollar value of the man hours my wife and I put in for which we are compensated? Me either.
I was taken back by the idea the government is helping us with a tax break. I would just be happy if I didn’t have to do so much free work in the form of ridiculous requirements.
Truth is, if you send in $1000, you will get a tax break and I will have to do more free work.
Your point about churches is taken and I do agree.
On the other hand, the blessed made no mention of how they thought they had “earned heaven”, much less try to make a case for their “works”. (In fact they seem shocked.)
Well, my thinking when looking at a passage is “what’s the moral of the story?”
Here it seems the message is to live a life that is of help to others, even though the importance of your help may be unbeknownst to you. Along the lines of “Love your neighbor” and “The Good Samaritan” more than observing religious rules, regulations, sacraments, etc.
There are instances where the theme of a passage is missed. The “Prodigal Son” parable is a good example of this; while the setup tells the tale of the “prodigal”, the “moral of the story” is centered around the older son. It could be more correctly called the parable of “The Obedient, Good Son”.
Now, if folks wanna have at it faith v. works that ground’s already been covered pretty well in the book of James.
Been thinking about this Rusty and EQ and actually….EQ’s kind of right based on one major, and well publicized decision involving Bob Jones. Not only do they not get any public funds, but they also had their 501(c)(3) status revoked by the IRS, which was upheld by the Supreme Court over the interracial marriage brouhaha.
That said…
I am certainly not sticking up for BJU and I don’t think its necessarily wrong that the government denies tax-exempt status (which the government views as a privilege) to groups that discriminate based upon its perception of public policy.
The court did say this:
And in a purely theoretical sense they are right, but practically, EQ is correct in saying that loss of tax-exemption (and probably more importantly, loss of donor’s charitable deduction) would cause many to close shop. I guess it is how you interpret “force compliance with gay marriage laws”
One still has to assume that the government would find it against public policy for churches not to perform gay weddings, but who know?
I am actively involved in my parish, doing a lot of volunteer work that they can’t afford to hire someone to do.
I understand completely. And it’s not a “tax break”, but given the property most churches have, paying taxes on said property would overwhelm churches and close many down. Which is, of course, what some people want.
But you get my point, and prepare for that to be the argument of the PC crowd when the gay marriage issue comes to a head.
Yup, EQ, and I know of one pastor who is tired of the government depriving Christians of their First Amendment right of free speech.
Pastor preaches politics, dares IRS to investigate
snippet:
“I may be taking on the IRS,” Booth said, “but the IRS has taken on the Constitution unchallenged since 1954. I feel like the only law that should dictate what I am allowed to say is the First Amendment.”