Dealing with Liberal Christians

[Monk Brendan]

For instance, Orthodox (29%), Mainline Churches (28%), and Catholics (27%) led Christian Churches in affirming that the Scriptures were written by men and were not the word of God, versus just and 7% of Evangelical Churches, who instead rightly affirm its full inspiration of God. - U.S. Religious landscape survey; 2008 The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

That is a lie from the pit of hell. Orthodox Christians and Catholic Christians both teach that the Bible is fully and completely inspired of God. Where did you get such an idea? Jack Chick?

 

[Monk Brendan]

(15 “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone.)

Has ANYONE reading this post actually been accosted, abused or raped by a homosexual? If you have, then you may speak out against THAT person, but none other. But if you have not been sinned against, then the ONLY thing you can do is pray, silently, in your prayer closet. And even then, you cannot accuse. You can only say something to the effect of "Lord, I may be wrong, but I suspect that XYZ is gay. Work on His heart, so that he knows that you love him. And work on MY heart, so that I know You have it all in hand, and that you love him."

THAT'S IT! That is all you can say. Then it is up to you to allow God to work, and for you to take your hands, and tongue, off of this issue.

 

[Monk Brendan]

For a christian to embrace said lifestyle is like a christian claiming to also embrace satanic rituals. It just doesn't go together, But christians embrace many things today that are unbiblical so nothing surprises me. And people who embrace such things not only confuse the world as to what christians are about, but these people have to stand before God and respond as to why they made the decisions they did.

So there is NO SUCH THING as a gay Christian? (HONK! Wrong, but thanks for playing.) BTW, what is the "Gay Lifestyle?" I've never had anyone explain it to me.

I know what is not the gay lifestyle. It is not getting up at 10:00 am, having a green juicy, going out to get a mani-pedi, Then, after a fashionably late lunch, tanning between 2:00 to 3:30, and then for 15 minutes to go out and recruit young boys. After that, a cocktail before dinner, a wonderful meal at a 5 star hotel, and then clubbing until the bars close. Then you pick up the nearest young thing, and abuse, rape, and punish him until he crawls out of bed at 4:30.

Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?

 

[hedrick]

That is a lie from the pit of hell. Orthodox Christians and Catholic Christians both teach that the Bible is fully and completely inspired of God. Where did you get such an idea? Jack Chick?

Here's the reference: http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/05/report-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf. Unfortunately it's hard to know what's in people's mind. A common view in the mainline churches is that the Bible was written by humans as a witness to the acts of God in history. Someone with that view might respond that the Bible was written by men and isn't the Word of God, though that's not the alternative I would pick.

 

[hedrick]

That indicates ignorance of why a political agenda can be furthered for moral reasons and thus an immoral person can be supported. The story (if not certain) is told those who protested to Pres. Lincoln that General Grant drank whiskey to excess, to which Lincoln's responded by asking what brand it was, “Because, if it makes him win victories like this at Vicksburg, I will send a demijohn of the same kind to every general in the army.”

I understand. But you can't shout Paul's passage at me and maintain this at the same time. You're basically saying that you're willing to be yoked with immoral persons as long as it furthers your ends. (Of course I think the Republican agenda is in itself evil, but that's not an argument for this forum.) I think there are good arguments for this position. We sometimes are stuck with the lesser evil. But you can't make those arguments and claim to be taking Paul literally.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

That is a lie from the pit of hell. Orthodox Christians and Catholic Christians both teach that the Bible is fully and completely inspired of God. Where did you get such an idea? Jack Chick?

What? Read read the source right before you, and which does not say what the Orthodox and Catholic churches teach, but what those who I.D. as such express. And as abundantly evidenced, such findings are consistent with other views by Catholics.

You can damn these finding if and as you must, but unless you have your own poll then you have no ground. All it does is make you look like one who simply cannot stand to see anything of substance impugn his church but has nothing to really counter it and so he must sling mud.

Or you can do what RCs usually do in trying to disallow what offends them, which is ascribe bias to the researchers (even if some surveys with like findings were commissioned or done by Catholics), and or excommunicate such, even though their own church treats them - and even proabortion, prohomosexual pols - as members in life and in death!

Of course, many RCs even excommunicate the present pope.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

discipler7 said: ↑

17 My God will cast them away,
Because they did not obey Him;
And they shall be wanderers among the nations.

Boy howdy! That's really showing a neighborly attitude. May God bless you just as richly!

While we certainly are to show the love of Christ unconditionally to all, this includes warning them to flee the wrath to come by repentant faith in the risen Lord Jesus to save them. And which kind of faith must be continued in. Failure for a believers to warn the lost and the wayward of the consequences means their blood will be his hands, as said the Lord.

And there is also a point when those who continually harden their heart can be left to their own delusions, and in the end God will judge them for this. Testifying to this negative reality is part of love.

 

[Monk Brendan]

Unfortunately it's hard to know what's in people's mind. A common view in the mainline churches is that the Bible was written by humans as a witness to the acts of God in history. Someone with that view might respond that the Bible was written by men and isn't the Word of God, though that's not the alternative I would pick.

Here is my thought on the matter. The Bible did not come floating down from heaven, bound in red leather, with gold page edging, with 3 ribbons, and land in King James lap. Didn't happen. Every word WAS inspired, but the Holy Spirit was working with and through an earthly author. Moses began the work of writing down what had been ORAL tradition since the beginning of speech. When Moses died, Joshua placed the writings in the Ark of the Covenant, and scribes began to make historical notes. There were several scribes who kept up the histories, plus David and the prophets had scribes that worked with them. Most of the OT was finally cast into a text by Baruch.

The Apocrypha was likewise written down by scribes, and the four authors of the Gospel had their scribes as well. Likewise Paul, James, Peter, and John. All of these were written down by men. But ALL of them were likewise inspired of the Holy Spirit. Finally, starting in the 4th Century, when Constantine made Christianity LEGAL, (not the state religion) the various scribes that had kept these written copies all carefully preserved were able to bring them out into the light, and then several local Councils decided what would be allowed to be read in Church. Finally, in the last years of the 4th Century, it was decided that these books here, all 73 of them could be read in Church!--and that is all the Canon of Scripture is for. These books, AND THESE ALONE, were the ones that could be read while a Liturgy was going on.

 

[Monk Brendan]

You can damn these finding if and as you must, but unless you have your own poll then you have no ground. All it does is make you look like one who simply cannot stand to see anything of substance impugn his church but has nothing to really counter it and so he must sling mud.

I do have some knowledge in surveys and such. To be totally real, I would have to have ALL the raw data, including nulls, unqualified persons, no answers to the phone or letter, how the survey was written, have the survey was presented, Etc, Etc.

Once I had all that data, I would then be able to make a judgement on the accuracy of the conclusions.

Or you can do what RCs usually do in trying to disallow what offends them, which is ascribe bias to the researchers (even if some surveys with like findings were commissioned or done by Catholics), and or excommunicate such, even though their own church treats them - and even proabortion, prohomosexual pols - as members in life and in death!

And that is unfair, as well. If you want to have a totally unbiased poll, then you have to use the methods that I described above. I have no way to judge, without the raw data, if the questionnaire is biased or not. Nor do I know what the mind frame of the questioners, the minds and hearts of the judges, etc. It is very easy to take a poll written by someone else, and bend it to your way of thinking

As far as pro-abortion and pro-LGBT pollsters, my reasoning of the raw data would eliminate any interference of those groups.

Now, have I slung any mud? Have I tried to deflect? NO! I am just showing you that your boiled down data might be flawed.

 

[Monk Brendan]

What? What is you read read the source right before you, and which does not say what the Orthodox and Catholic churches teach, but what those who I.D. as such express. And as abundantly evidenced, such fiunding are consistent with other views by Catholics.

Your post, and your website, are very much anti-Catholic Screeds to point out how the Catholic Church is a worn out, lax, and morally destitute monolith that only tries to draw in money from all over the world, and give the Bishops, Cardinals and Popes the ability to live out their lives in luxury.

So, please try to tone down the Anti-Catholic Rhetoric, and actually put some thought into your next posting.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I understand. But you can't shout Paul's passage at me and maintain this at the same time. You're basically saying that you're willing to be yoked with immoral persons as long as it furthers your ends.

Which is honestly more absurdity. How is voting for the lesser of two evils placing yourself in a yoke with them? Do you think we are electing popes or dictators (if you even would dare say RCs can be yoked with an immoral leader)? And why would your reasoning not mean we would also be yoked with an immoral person if we elected the alternative? Of course, if you think the alternative was not then that simply adds to the absurdity.

Paul recognized that Christians could not escape this world, (1 Corinthians 5:9-10) and the world the church he wrote to was and would be in had emperors who would make our worse leaders look relatively moral, yet conditional obedience to them was enjoined, and honoring of them in deference to their position. They did ot elect hem, but neither were they "yoked with immoral persons."

And if by "yoked with immoral persons" you meant other voters, then that is also as irrational as saying being the most in favor as part of a majority who support a lesser-of-two-evils as the captain of a ship - since he seems to most capable of obtaining their objective - mean they are sinfully yoked with immoral persons.

Honestly, I think your reasoning is driven by the belief that the alternative candidate was a moral candidate, but regardless, the argument as to whether voting for the lesser-of-two-evils is inconsistent with Christians taking the high moral ground, as manifestly different, is that it is not inconsistent, unless you choose not to vote at all. Which has its own pros and cons relative to this.

I think there are good arguments for this position. We sometimes are stuck with the lesser evil. But you can't make those arguments and claim to be taking Paul literally.

Of course i can. Faced with a choice btwn two radically different choices, Christians can be expected to be the most in favor of the one with who they judge as being the best supporter of the basic Biblical values that the candidates debate on. Thus 80% of WBA evangelicals voted for the one they judged as being the most Biblically conservative in the last two Pres. elections, a figure no other group approaches (white Cath. closest at 60%) , thus right there alone manifesting a profound difference between "Bible Christians" and unbelievers (24,26,29% for Jewish, unaffiliated, other faiths). But since you disagree with their judgment, it seems that you must attack them as being contrary to manifesting a radical difference between Christians and unbelievers

You can deny this but you have not shown why, when faced with no viable alternative, voting overwhelmingly for what they see as at least being the lesser of two evils is inconsistent with there being a radical difference between Christians and unbelievers, except that you disagree with their judgment, and of what defines "Christian."

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Your post, and your website, are very much anti-Catholic Screeds to point out how the Catholic Church is a worn out, lax, and morally destitute monolith that only tries to draw in money from all over the world, and give the Bishops, Cardinals and Popes the ability to live out their lives in luxury.

So, please try to tone down the Anti-Catholic Rhetoric, and actually put some thought into your next posting.

What?! I provide extensive substantiation for my position while you just reach back in your bucket for more mud to sling, and I am the one who needs to put some thought into my next posting?

What's more, the mud is on the monk, since there is no "screeds"that point out how the Catholic Church "only tries to draw in money from all over the world, and give the Bishops, Cardinals and Popes the ability to live out their lives in luxury."

But maybe your incendiary unsubstantiated charge of "a lie from the pit of Hell" and your fabrication here will work to get this thread shut down and embarrassing posts deleted.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I do have some knowledge in surveys and such. To be totally real, I would have to have ALL the raw data, including nulls, unqualified persons, no answers to the phone or letter, how the survey was written, have the survey was presented, Etc, Etc.

Once I had all that data, I would then be able to make a judgement on the accuracy of the conclusions.

Oh yes, I forgot about this other recourse, which is just a specious variation of the "bias" charge, but which instead basically (at best) charges a well-established research agency, and implicitly all others who finding are consistent with this, as being so lacking in competence (if not biased) as compared to what you would be that Monk Brendan can assert that their finding "is a lie from Hell" and blithely dismiss it

Sorry, this dismissal is simply unreasonable. We are even dealing to a close election here.

And that is unfair, as well. If you want to have a totally unbiased poll, then you have to use the methods that I described above. I have no way to judge, without the raw data, if the questionnaire is biased or not.
Nor do I know what the mind frame of the questioners, the minds and hearts of the judges, etc. It is very easy to take a poll written by someone else, and bend it to your way of thinking
As far as pro-abortion and pro-LGBT pollsters, my reasoning of the raw data would eliminate any interference of those groups.

I see, so then the charge is bias after all! By every surveyor i have come across on various faiths. Toward evangelicals no less, since they come out on top in every survey regarding commitment, Bible reading, basic conservative moral values, and Catholics (Orthodox, when reported on, tend to be similar) usually are far behind. Now that bias would be consistent with the national media wouldn't it (rhetorical question)? Maybe you think the MSM is mostly conservative and love evangelicals who vote overwhelming conservative.

Your credibility gap increases the more you argue.

Now, have I slung any mud? Have I tried to deflect? NO! I am just showing you that your boiled down data might be flawed.

"Just showing you that me boiled down data might be flawed?" Do you read your own writing? You did not say the data might be flawed, but that the findings reported from Pew (as were duly attributed) was "a lie from the pit of hell." No might be flawed here, and your requirement to access ALL the raw data etc. in defense of this assertion and refusal to allow any warrant for the credibility of Pew here, and which would extend to other surveys of similar findings regarding Catholics at least, under the premise of bias, is simply unreasonable, and indicative of being driven by your own bias.

Here is a fresh poll that perhaps may also be blithely dismissed as a lie from Hell until a certain monk gains access to all the raw data and provides the results of his unbiased conclusions.

Americans Say Religious Aspects of Christmas Are Declining in Public Life

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Finally, in the last years of the 4th Century, it was decided that these books here, all 73 of them could be read in Church!--and that is all the Canon of Scripture is for. These books, AND THESE ALONE, were the ones that could be read while a Liturgy was going on.

Too bad (for your argument) this was not binding, and some scholars disagreed, both in East and West, some of the latter right into Trent. And the EOs also disagree, if just a little it seems.

 

[FireDragon76]

PBJ, you are trying to judge Catholic morality by conservative Protestant standards, since those surveys ask mostly about issues that are only relevant to conservative Protestants. Gambling is not necessarily a sin in the Catholic church (nor in my church), and Catholics are less moralistic about drinking and other little vices that some Protestants go nuts about. But if you do look at what Catholics believe in, they tend to, in my experience, have a stronger articulation of human dignity and social responsibility, which is not something that conservative Protestants necessarily do all that well.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Some organisms are entirely asexual, and reproduce by budding. Some organisms, like snails, are hermaphrodites. Some organisms, like some fish, quite literally change sex. In human biology sometimes people are born intersex.

So either "created male and female" must be understood in light of empirical fact, or else the Bible is wrong. I don't think the Bible is wrong; so I vote for the former. If a human person can be born neither clearly male or clearly female, then that needs to be addressed in a manner befitting of the name Christian. Christianity does not exist in an imaginary world, but the real world; and Christianity concerns itself not with imaginary people, with with real people; because we are concerned with real, not imaginary sinners; real, not imaginary grace.

Digging a foxhole isn't how the Church is supposed to engage the real world around us; we are to engage the real world around us with the mercy, compassion, and love of Jesus Christ which is found in His Gospel. Not everyone is going to fit into the conceptual mold you or I have; because the real world is real, and it is usually a much messier and complicated place than the simplified idealized form of the world that we dream up in our imaginations.

The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. God became man. That means we should actually act like that's true, not just pretend that it's true while we play pretend religion in our safe comfortable ideological foxholes.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[FireDragon76]

My grandma swore her guppies sometimes changed sex. My dad laughed that story off, but it turns out she is correct. All the livebearer freshwater fish, guppies, platys, mollies, etc., can change sex under the right circumstances, usually female to male.

 

[Monk Brendan]

Here is a fresh poll that perhaps may also be blithely dismissed as a lie from Hell until a certain monk gains access to all the raw data and provides the results of his unbiased conclusions.

This poll is not germain to the conversation, as it is only about the secularization of Holy Days, and trivializing Christ.

 

[Monk Brendan]

Too bad (for your argument) this was not binding, and some scholars disagreed, both in East and West, some of the latter right into Trent. And the EOs also disagree, if just a little it seems.

You don't seem to understand what I am saying. The various councils declared that the various books of the Bible could be read liturgically. In other words, You can't read from Fifty Shades of Gray from the pulpit, or the latest Superman comic book, or the New York Times. So, in that respect, it WAS binding.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

PBJ, you are trying to judge Catholic morality by conservative Protestant standards, since those surveys ask mostly about issues that are only relevant to conservative Protestants. Gambling is not necessarily a sin in the Catholic church (nor in my church), and Catholics are less moralistic about drinking and other little vices that some Protestants go nuts about. But if you do look at what Catholics believe in, they tend to, in my experience, have a stronger articulation of human dignity and social responsibility, which is not something that conservative Protestants necessarily do all that well.

No, I am not trying to judge Catholic morality by conservative Protestant standards, unless you think the other things in my post that you left out are merely Protestant standards: Sex between unmarried couples, Baby out of wedlock; Homosexual relations; Abortion; Getting drunk; gossip.

Instead of me trying to engage in specious argumentation it is you, by choosing a issue (gambling for money) which Catholics do not see as sin, and trying to make "getting drunk" into merely drinking as the sum of my argument.

In addition, faced with what Catholics say they believe, what kind of counter argument is it to opine Catholics have a stronger articulation of human dignity and social responsibility? You must mean what their church officially says and so, RCs affirm, but which does not mean that is what their church or the majority or a near majority of their members believe, which is shown by what they do, which Ted Kennedy-type RCs can attest to.