Jump to content

widowsmite

Member
  • Posts

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location
    BC

widowsmite's Achievements

Rookie

Rookie (2/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later
  • One Year In

Recent Badges

0

Reputation

  1. So which is it for you? Augustine is a liar in any context, and "Augustine repudiated the Church before he died, citing corruption and fraud as the main reasons". So Augustine cannot be taken at his own word, liar that he is, except when it happens to support your stand, and even then, without regard for the context in which it was said? Nice work. You want us to accept your claims as truth? How intelligent are we supposed to be in your mythology? I realize by the above bit of sarcasm, I am opening myself to be quoted out of context. Don't you dare!
  2. And just to clarify, Book Two of Augustine's Confessions "depicts the falling away from God that comes from adherence to the flesh." He concentrates on his sixteenth year, a year of idleness, lust, and adolescent mischief. The memory of staying out late with friends and stealing some pears from a tree next to their vineyard, pears that they barely ate and fed to hogs instead, prompts a deep probing of the motives and aims of sinful acts, a treatise between apparent motives and genuine motives. when it is said, "Let's go, let's do it," we are ashamed not to be shameless. A depraved soul, falling away from security in thee to destruction in itself, seeking nothing from the shameful deed but shame itself. A quaint way to describe what we casually denote today as peer pressure and thrillseeking. This book is a classic not just for religious reasons. St. Augustine is foremost and thorough in publicly confessing that he was far from saintly in his younger years, but many motherly tears and prayers later, he converted to Christianity at age 32 and thereafter wrote these great books, Confessions, and City of God. You do him and his Master great injustice by taking his words out of context. Online reference: http://ccel.org/a/augustine/confessions/co...onfessions.html
  3. I find it strange that you would put so much faith into Celsus as a source, when our current knowledge of Celsus' work has only been sourced through Origen's citation of it in the course of refuting it... That's why he titled it Confessions. Compare various Bible translations here --> http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?...=NASB&x=20&y=11 Sorry, no such thing as Sinai Bible at that site... Could say the same of your sources, more justifiably. And Mr. Read has lived for 2000 years to ever so definitively conclude thus? Or is he a person of great faith in his trusty sources?
  4. Christianity is symbolized by the cross, on which Jesus Christ was crucified. The cross has profound meaning. It has a vertical axis that denotes man's relationship with God: man looks up to God, the Supreme Being, and this God came down to earth to share our humanity so we may one day rise to share His divinity. It has a horizontal axis that denotes man's relationship to his fellowman, a relationship of equality. The cross also brings to mind the two most important commandments: 1 (vertical) You shall love God above all else, with your whole heart and mind and soul; and 2 (horizontal) You shall love your neighbour as Christ loved you. "Secular Christianity" proposes to do without the vertical axis, retaining only the horizontal. It fails to see how the vertical axis centers the horizontal, anchors it steadfastly to the ground, lifts it way up, and maintains the balance. Remove the vertical axis and what do you have? A lopsided beam that sinks quickly to the earth, caked in dirt, shifting with the earth's movements, as we human beings, left to our own devices and quarrels, settle for compromises left and right as we vainly seek consensus among our disparate valuations, seesaw one way and then the other and back again, and finally grind down to the lowest common denominator. Witness the "secular" Christmas controversy that started this topic. From celebrating Christmas as the birth of Christ with its wealth of meaning and beautiful music and traditions, we have decided to keep Christ out of Christmas, do away with the vertical axis. In the interest of inclusiveness, we have taken out the nativity scenes, changed all references to "Holiday". The Christian mother objects to this, pointing out that the menorah and Islamic star and crescent are just as religious. What next? Were it not for the commercial lifeblood that Christmas decorations and giftgiving have become, it will eventually be dropped from the secular calendar. As Elder points out, just imagine what our musical heritage would be reduced to if we decided to strip out all the true Christmas songs. I am afraid that instead of a Happy Holiday, we'll end up with a Sappy Holiday...
  5. So, who gets to say what this melange may include or not? Churchill, Einstein, some other large-brained individual? Did Jesus Christ really say, "Your sins are forgiven" or not? Did He say, "I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more," or not? Or, "I am the resurrection and the life," or "I am the way, the truth, and the life." Which parts of the account of Jesus' life and words may a well-meaning secular Christian dispose of? Is it up to his conscience? His reasoning? Is your conscience/reasoning better than mine when it comes to deciding what is to be included or not? Shall we come to the same conclusions tomorrow or a generation hence? At some point, the Church fathers had to go through this process and came up with the Bible as we know it today. Should we keep iterating this process as needed? What's so unrevisionist about that? Oh, I get it: in your upside-down world, this is construed as reverse revisionism. The essence of Christianity is that God, in His great love, came down from heaven in the person of Jesus Christ to share our humanity, so that we may one day share in His divinity. Hence, through Jesus Christ, we are no longer slaves, but children of God, and if children, heirs. On what does rational humanism base its valuation of individual human life? Where does it choose to draw the line on this valuation--at the moment the umbilical cord is cut until the last sentient thought? Or at the point of viability, wherever current technology may define that at a given moment and place? Or based on how much the mother wants this child, never mind the father, and give the mother a year or so to change her mind one more time... Rational humanism is all about Me in the place of God. It espouses some sort of Golden Rule to be self-limiting, so that others may have an "equal" chance. The problem is that the definition of "the other" can be manipulated as the "compassionate" humanist sees fit. The very term "compassion" is loosely defined and easily distorted to mean whatever seems reasonable to me. Human reason has its purpose. It also has its limitations, and its deceptions, as history shows. If it does not subject itself to a higher moral authority, we are scattered in the confusion of our thoughts, carried by the drift of popular thinking and evolving trends. Not necessarily, especially if you follow Craig's thinking of discarding the more fantastic aspects of Christianity as delusional. Each one has been given different gifts, some more public than others, some so quietly hidden that it takes many years after a person's demise to become recognized, sometimes never known but to God. Whatever the case, we are each obliged to deliver according to our gifts.
  6. "Secular Christianity" is the ultimate in revisionism. It opens the gates to watered down and sanitized precepts that render it meaningless, tearing it from its root and morphing it, among other things, into this castrated beast we know as political correctness.
  7. And in a good part of the Western world, including ours, this one-religion push is going on as well. Which religion? Secularism. Craig, you are right that we should steep ourselves in history, but make sure it is not of the revisionist kind!
  8. I am not sure which bible you refer to, but it does not sound like the one I read. I do agree that the Bible is not peaceful, rather peaceable. It leads you to live not according to what you like, but to aspire to a higher ideal, to settle for nothing less than perfection in yourself--a constant internal battle with your fleshly desires. At the same time, it tells of a God who is a loving Father, full of mercy and patience, faithful even when we are not, seeking the one who is lost, ready to forgive when we ask for forgiveness, exalting the humble and lowly, pleased with sincerity of heart, near to the brokenhearted, protective of widows and orphans and sojourners, exhorting us to be perfect as He is perfect. Read the Bible directly, so you can discern when someone else has misinterpreted it or quoted it out of context. The Bible must be read and interpreted in its entirety, not just the pieces that seem to suit one's particular notions. It helps if one has the aid of someone who is well-versed in the context of the times it was written, so that cultural differences can be bridged. That is what the Magisterium of the Church is about--the teaching authority, ever solicitous over the integrity, translation, and interpretation of the Bible. Unfortunately, the Protestant movement chose to cut itself off from this unifying source, giving rise to personal interpretations and even translations that were not true to the original. Hence, the sense of disorganization that you perceive. I think this "Babel" of biblical interpretation signifies God's assertion that no man can ascend to heaven of his own accord, save through His grace.
  9. I Google'd for "Pope Leo X fable" and found many interesting hits, some of which trace the origin of that "quote" to a fictional work by John Bale, an apostate Carmelite turned Protestant. Pope Leo X was no exemplary pope, but I would not let one or a few bad popes bring down the Church. I mean, there have been some lousy American presidents, but I would not let their badness detract from what is good about America. I would not be as quick in dismissing the Shroud of Turin as fake--I saw a documentary about it on Discovery Channel a few years ago that subjected the Shroud to some current scientific technologies (Xray, DNA analysis, etc.) and left the question still open in the end. And there are other relics supposedly from the cross and the nail. But my faith would not hinge on the authenticity of any of these. John the evangelist is supposedly the same John, one of the twelve apostles, the one who was exiled rather than martyred like the others. So one of the Gospels may indeed have been written by Jesus' contemporary. I think that God intentionally left the scientific proof ambiguous at best, because when it comes to matters of faith, seeing is not believing, rather, believing IS seeing. Your free will to believe or not becomes meaningless if you are overwhelmed with worldly proof. Cop-out, you say, but that is how God works. Who are we to tell Him how to run things? He gives us free will; He abides by it. Faith can never be a matter of coercion, no matter how we humans fail in this regard. Christian atheism is an oxymoron. "Christian" hails from Jesus Christ, Christ meaning the Anointed One or Messiah. And if you follow Jesus, then you follow His belief in God the Father. And you commit to obey the two commands He said to be the most needful: love God above all, and love your neighbor as Jesus has loved you. Not much room for atheism there.
  10. As Jesus said, He came with a sword that divides even families, so it should not surprise us that Christians are divided among themselves. Historically, this was already the case even while Christ still walked this earth, as factionalism reared its ugly head even among His disciples. It's human nature. I do agree that these divisions and argumentations do a lot of harm for the Christian cause, and people who are so inclined will take advantage of it for their purposes. It certainly weakens the Christian message of peace and love and brotherhood, and I have wondered like you why God would allow such setbacks to the spread of the Gospel. I have come to believe that when God allows evil to happen, it is only because He is able to redeem it by drawing a greater good. When it comes to these divisions among Christian sects, I do see one upside: it has spurred the more sincere denominations to dig deeper and look farther. Natural human competitiveness works to refuel evangelical fervor. Argumentation serves to purify and extend our beliefs, as God is so pure and infinite that we can never quite plumb the extent of His truths till the end of time. Questioning and challenges encourage us to revisit and renew our heritage for each generation. Otherwise, complacency will kick in, and perhaps stagnation. But we also gain comfort from Jesus' prayer for unity before He ascended into heaven, which we are sure is answered by His father. We just need to cooperate to make it happen. This means first recognizing that what unites us (Jesus Christ) is way greater than what divides us, so we need to fix our eyes on Him. And then recognizing the giftedness of each other and appreciating what each brings to the table. For Catholics, their Eucharistic centering. For Bible Christians, their Scriptural focus. And so on. Just like the world's resources are geographically spread so that we can meet everyone's needs by trade and aid, I think God makes a point of not letting one person have a monopoly on the whole of truth, lest anyone be tempted to boast or set himself up as God, and so we can all come together humbly in need to piece this awesome puzzle together. I don't think we need to distinguish between history and spirituality here, as God also speaks through history. We just need to make sure it is history based on best available facts, in full context, not the revisionist rehashings that prop up many current prejudices.
  11. We're talking about Christianity here, which basically states that human nature is fallen, we are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God. So, anyone who rightfully believes in his Christian faith SHOULD always relate to others, Christian or not, from this humble perspective. But fallen human beings that we are, we succumb to our desire to be right, to our self-righteousness, a form of pride, the father of all sins including hatred. We also have a difficulty balancing this with Jesus' command to go out and preach the good news to all nations. Often, we end up moralizing before evangelizing, and that does not sound like good news to many people. The point is: Christianity is not easy to follow. Jesus compared it to the eye of the needle through which a camel can only pass by getting down on its knees and unloading all its worldly goods. He also called it the narrow path, and we're always gonna be slipping off first on the right, and then on the left. But we need to take His hand of forgiveness and clamber back on. Christianity is difficult, impossible to humans, that's why it is symbolized by the cross of crucifixion. It is only made possible by the strength of Jesus Christ. Hence, when you meet a sincere professing Christian, you have to recognize that he is holding the most beautiful diamond with leprous hands. Don't let his human disease get in the way of accepting this divine treasure for yourself.
  12. "It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -- Mother Teresa of Calcutta, a true expert on poverty More here: http://www.gargaro.com/mother_teresa/quotes.html
  13. if diseases such as HIV were contracted from these "immoral decisions" is justifiable then that the taxpayer be expected pick up the tabs thereafter for how many years and how is it differing from a shared experience resulting in the tabs for a perhaps a one time abort The issue of taxpayers footing the medical bill has nothing to do with the morality of the action that caused the medical condition in the first place. The issue is whether the procedure was medically necessary and hence should be paid for by the health care system, i.e., the taxpayers. Treating HIV patients is medically necessary. But pregnancy is not a disease, and abortion is rarely a medical necessity. In fact, abortion is life-threatening to the baby. I find it sad and offensive that I contribute to a system that uses its scarce health dollars for abortion on demand, while seriously ill people wait months and years to get the help they need, sometimes dying while they wait. Our priorities are screwed up.
  14. I am not sure whether you were making these remarks tongue-in-cheek, but here are some useful things to know when suggesting the morning-after pill (Emergency Contraceptive Pill) as an alternative to abortion: More here: http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/publicat/l...ight/sept98.htm So, not only are ECPs not 100% effective, they may actually precipitate ovulation. Given the timing of their ingestion, they are likely to operate as a form of chemical abortion. An information campaign on the Billings Ovulation Method may be a more needful and appropriate suggestion: http://www.woomb.org/
  15. Because Church teaching, based on Scripture, condemns homosexuality, fornication, adultery, and other sins as an abomination to God. 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10 Because Church teaching, based on Christ's example in Scripture, condemns not the homosexual, fornicator, adulterer and other sinners, offering forgiveness and the admonition to "Go and sin no more." John 8:11 Because Church teaching, based on Christ's words in Scripture, says to forgive one's brother seventy times seven times. Matthew 18:21 Granted, all of us fall short of what we preach at one time or another, causing harm to others as well as to ourselves. But to let that sense of guilt silence prevent us from speaking God's truth is to add to our sins. That is why God offers the grace of absolution in the sacrament of reconciliation--knowing full well that we will fall, but wanting us not to be stuck in the quagmire of our failings.
×
×
  • Create New...