Constitution Day

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximilian75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It would be fine with me. Canon Law doesn’t call for popular elections or jury duty.
 
A Discalced Carmelite Friar once told my group, “sarcasm always has a wounding effect.”

It many ways, this is true.

Jim
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I’m just saying
 
I did not say conscience was objective morality, or God’s Law. I said it [conscience] could not be forced [by God, who is Love], but only drawn [by that Love]. It is only forced by satan.

Even when satan and all the wicked openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is LORD to the glory of the Father, they were drawn by the Truth [which is Love] to do so, not forced to do so. It is of their own freedom of will to acknowledge it.

Do not confuse objective morality, such as God’s Law, Exo 20:1-17, with church authority. They are not the same.

The church cannot, by sword of the state, forcibly make anyone worship, for such worship is not worship and is worthless, see John 4:23.

A person may indeed follow a false religion, but I would never force you by sword of the state to change. I use the methods of Jesus Christ, through the word of God, compassion, instruction, see 2 Tim. 4:2. There is not a single word of force in that text.

People are freely allowed to turn away from Truth; Psa. 119:142,151, until such time as in God’s mercy allows.
 
Last edited:
The great reformer Roger Williams, rightly distinguished [as many others] between the First Table and Second Tables of the Ten Commandments.

"… He declared that the state should concern itself only with matters of civil order, not with religious belief, and he rejected any attempt to enforce the “first Table” of the Ten Commandments, those commandments that dealt with the relationship between God and individuals. Instead, Williams believed that the state must confine itself to the commandments dealing with the relations between people: murder, theft, adultery, lying, and honoring parents.[[25]](Roger Williams - Wikipedia) He employed the metaphor of a “wall of separation” between church and state, which was later used by Thomas Jefferson in his Letter to Danbury Baptists (1801).[26][27]

Williams considered it “forced worship” if the state attempted to promote any particular religious idea or practice, and he declared, "Forced worship stinks in God’s nostrils."[28] He considered Constantine the Great to be a worse enemy to Christianity than Nero because the subsequent state support corrupted Christianity and led to the death of the Christian church. He described the attempt to compel belief as “rape of the soul” and spoke of the “oceans of blood” shed as a result of trying to command conformity.[29] The moral principles in the Scriptures ought to inform the civil magistrates, he believed, but he observed that well-ordered, just, and civil governments existed even where Christianity was not present. Thus, all governments had to maintain civil order and justice, but Williams decided that none had a warrant to promote or repress any religion. …" - Roger Williams - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
Again, for instance, see Daniel 3 & 6.

Nebuchadnezzar, attempted to “force” by state law all to worship as he dictated, setting up another religion. False religion does not care if it is merely external compliance, or both external and internal compliance. It only demands compliance.

Darius, by being deceived, attempted to “force” by state law all to worship as he dictated, and by prohibition of all other religion other than pre (or pro) scribed.

Real godly religion does make such distinction. God desires truth on the inside, internal that manifests outwardly in real demonstration of faith (not force), for true worship, not a mere external form, as the Pharisees had. Such worship is mockery of God. See 2 Tim. 3:5.

See Rev. 13:16, in that false counterfeit of real religion, “causes”/makes (forces) all to comply outwardly, even if they do not inwardly. This is also seen in Daniel 7, in which “war” is used to force outward compliance.
 
Last edited:
Again, you confuse “conversion” with forced “compliance”. I used the word “compliance”, and you used the word I did not use, such as “conversion”.

A “Catholic” is a person. Catholicism is a belief system, doctrine or theology or a faith. The two are not the same thing.

I am against certain theological positions, which bring about actions such as is being described.

I hate no Catholic.

I do have a distaste for certain elements of “Catholicism”.

So to be against a certain theology of Catholicism, has nothing to do with being against any particular Catholic. I in fact, agreed with some of the positions taken by other Catholics in this very thread.

I do not deal in “liberal” history books. And you simply make another accusation without any foundation whatsoever. It is the sign of a weak position.
 
So the motto seems to be “burn 'em”, don’t “rebut them”.

By so doing as you are doing now, and following those before you, you too will kill, just as they of old, even by approval if nothing else, and you will be personally guilty for murder by God in so doing.
 
Last edited:
No text books say that most Catholic monarchs were “evil”. That’s simply popular perception.
 
Oh, please.

You didn’t even address what I already said. You simply flagged it to make it ‘go away’, and possibly even me ‘go away’.
 
The state cannot exist without the individuals. It is the individuals that make the state.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top