These 2 issues were no part of the original Tea Party Movement. It was formed to protest the government bailouts and spending and is focused on small government and an end to spending money we don’t have. Other issues may come up but these were not part of the original movement.
No PR, non Catholic believers don’t reject the NT. Back in the day when Catholics considered me a Catholic before I was rejected as one, I argued the same thing you do with a SDA about discernment of the NT. Didn’t hold water with him. His reply was simply God could use the Catholic Church for whatever purpose He chose at the time. I might add the compilation of NT Scripture occured a very long time ago. And some believers who do not reject the NT, nevertheless believe the Catholic Church has strayed along the way and Christ when His Church does, needs to reform it to keep the gates from prevailing. I think it’s unfair to say they reject the NT.
PR, if Gaber is more familiar with the “strident apologetics” on this forum, are you saying Catholic Answers apologetics is not in line with the scholarly considerations of the Church?
Hey, Alan
The T.E.A. refers to the phrase “Taxed Enough Already” and using the Tea Party label was a bit of a double entendre, invoking the original tax protesters before the Revolution.
No it isn’t. “Love the sinner, hate the sin,” makes a nice bumper sticker, but it hardly does the discussion of judging, justice.
Why are you opposed to this?
It’s like a Muslim criticizing a Christian by saying, “Oh, no–not the ‘Jesus forgave my sins!’ argument”
“Go and sin no more.” It’s about the only example of Jesus “calling down” sinners so you have to base everything on that. Compared to the severity of His words like “whitewashed tombs” and “brood of vipers” he reserves for the righteous, that’s pretty tame.
If I’m a friend, I’ll have to warn him that he is doing wrong. From then on in it’s his decision, and his blood is not on my hands. I may have to warn his partner, too, depending on the relationships between those involved.
No, at that point it is about keeping order and protecting the rights of others. I’m not going to tell a nasty person he’s a nasty person because he has sinned. That’s like telling a fish he swims in water. I’m going to tell him he’s a nasty person because he’s messing other people up and infringing on their rights.
Who’s stopping you, or anyone? Jesus did it rarely, which was my only point to the poster who said scripture “abounds” with example of Jesus doing this. I challenged that assertion which has thus far gone undefended. Far be it from me to force anybody to follow His example.
PR, you seem to want it both ways. You say your understanding is based on faith which is what I say.We all use our own noggin’ to come to an understanding, based on faith.
I use only that which was provided for us by God.
Unless, in the example I provided earlier, he wants to say that he believes that Jesus turned clay animals into live ones. And if he believes that he’ll have to provide what canon he uses to declare something to be true and something to be false, regarding Our Lord.
He could do that, but then he’d be divorcing himself from the truth.
Because I have met Him, firstly. Secondly, because I trust whom He sent.
And you speak of having trust. But then you also talk about how you use only what God provided and truth and that you have met Him.
So am I to assume Thomas wrote that Christ changed clay animals into live ones?CCC 2700-2724 describes vocal, meditative, and contemplative expressions of prayer. Contemplative prayer is silent prayer, where one thinks about nothing in particular and just sits with an open gaze upon the Lord, inviting Him in without telling Him what to do.
They are silent, and we do not think about things. In meditative prayer you might, but in contemplative you don’t.
I don’t see how it would be a problem.
I probably do from time to time. I don’t fancy myself conservative or not conservative. Maybe I am a conservative; I’m not pushing for women priests or anything like that. I question not what is being taught, but how it’s being taught and what is coming across – and what could be coming across.
No, and to be clear it isn’t the conservatism itself that bothers me. It’s conservatives who think they are “better” Catholics than others just because the others supposedly don’t accept all Church teachings, and therefore look down on them. That will be a spiritual stumbling block for those conservatives.
It’s a coincidence that I would see this post right when I happened to have been leafing thru the pages of my Bible and Mark 12 popped up where Jesus told the Pharisees to pay taxes.
Exactly, and I forgot to state that. Timothy’s connection of those sentiments, wherever they came from, with the Tea Party Movement (for it is not an actual political party) is incorrect. If the people who believe such things call themselves part of the movement, there’s not much that can be done, but it’s definitely NOT something that movement supports.
Well, then, Alan, as is often the case in religious dialogue, our disagreement is with semantics. It’s how you define “calling down sinners.”sin <<< do not commit. if one commits mortal sin do not receive Eucharist before confessing it.
sinner <<< judge a fellow sinner and you will be judged by the same measure. Note this is not only my opinion, but our Savior’s:
Ref: Matt 7:1-2
“Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you."
Oh, no. Not the old “sin but not sinner” argument. OK, show me a sin where there is not a sinner who committed it, and I’ll accept that you have judged sin itself, sinner-free. To say “I will not judge you but you did commit a sin” is logically flawed. You just can’t say someone committed a sin without saying that person is guilty of it. :whacky:
Call down sinners all day if you are moved to doing that; I’m not here to change your mind or limit your tactics.
I’m just discussing the actions of Jesus. He did not call down sinners. He called down the people who called down sinners. He called down the righteous because they thought they were better than sinners. Do you dispute that? Should I get biblical references, or do you know what I’m talking about?
He can believe whatever he wants to believe. It’s when he speaks and acts on those beliefs where there might be a problem. It’s not my job to be my brother’s thought police. If I had to spend an hour with such a person, I’d probably spend at least the first half hour listening and asking questions, without even trying to actually say anything. Then I might carefully start asking more probing questions. Best I’m likely to do is to plant seeds, and those are usually best done by giving them questions to ask themselves rather than trying to tell them anything since they do not accept my opinion as authority. Plus I’ll be wiser for the experience in case I get a chance to meet again or meet another one of like mind. It also allows me to reflect on whether any of my own biases reflect those that are clearly repugnant, in any way. So when I see somebody evil it helps me do a very detailed moral inventory, right down to the thought and feeling level. I may be a king of abstraction.
Ref Rom 7 and it may help explain my last couple comments.
Alan
I agree with Edwin that there are lots of Catholics here who are triumphalistic rosary-wavers.
)Except Jesus still didn’t do it. Except the people whose sins were that they themselves were calling down sinners. Again, I’m not telling you what you should do, just what our Lord didn’t do.
Certainly.
What yardstick would you use to measure simony, selling indulgences, the Crusades, and the Inquisition?
PR, you place faith in yourself and in your faith choices too. You choose to have faith in the Catholic Church.
I thought the Protestant reformers objected to the selling of indulgences. I don’t know maybe they were using the yardstick of the Holy Spirit on that one.What yardstick would you use to measure simony, selling indulgences, the Crusades, and the Inquisition?
If I say these things were evil, does that mean I’ve used the Yardstick of Almighty Self? If so, then I guess I’m OK with using the Yardstick of the Almighty Self. Somebody has to stand for something around here.
Alan
Anyway I’d be ok with it too.I thought the Protestant reformers objected to the selling of indulgences. I don’t know maybe they were using the yardstick of the Holy Spirit on that one.
How do you know?
