Thursday, September 09, 2010

If I Ran the Blogosphere ...

No one would be able to protest (on their blogs) what some private citizens are planning on doing in Florida, unless they protested what the U.S. government did in Afghanistan (referring to this).

57 comments:

Lockheed said...

The Federal Govt destroying bibles illegally brought into Afghanistan is equivalent to a church in Fla burning Qur'ans to incite Muslim anger?

"The unsolicited Bibles sent by a church in the United States were confiscated about a year ago..."

"Troops at posts in war zones are required to burn their trash, Wright said..."

"Military officers considered sending the Bibles back to the church, he said, but they worried the church would turn around and send them to another organization in Afghanistan -- giving the impression that they had been distributed by the U.S. government."

I think these are totally unrelated, and while I disapprove of both, the burning of the Qur'an by a pastor in some odd attempt at what could only be media grubbery is more offensive.

While I doubt we can win a war where we fail to destroy the enemy's reason for fighting, I don't expect the US Govt to promote Christianity.

Mossy said...

It seem the U.S. government treats the Qur'an with more respect and reverence than the Bible.

American soldiers are even ordered to handle the Qur'an with gloves (a possible acknowledgment of their unclean status to their detainees as non-believers Qur'an 9:28-98:6?)

Was getting rid of Bibles by burning them the only option!

steve said...

Lockheed said...

"The Federal Govt destroying bibles illegally brought into Afghanistan is equivalent to a church in Fla burning Qur'ans to incite Muslim anger?"

Good point. That's almost as bad as Peter and John illegally preaching the Gospel in Jerusalem, in defiance of the Sanhedrin.

natamllc said...

Have we lost our minds?

Last I checked, Christ hasn't lost His!

One thing I am certain of that I will experience before death from earth, absolutely.

One, moments just before passing out of here when I breathe my last.

Two, Christ returns.

The first option is the only one of the two I have any mental capacity to comprehend since I have seen people breathe their last breath on earth then pass.

I can read it. I can realize it. I cannot comprehend it.

Why?

It can only be experienced by it happening:::>

2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.
2Pe 3:11 Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness,
2Pe 3:12 waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn!
2Pe 3:13 But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.



Meanwhile, I suppose, we are just going to have to get familiar with this:

Luk 21:10 Then he said to them, "Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.
Luk 21:11 There will be great earthquakes, and in various places famines and pestilences. And there will be terrors and great signs from heaven.
Luk 21:12 But before all this they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors for my name's sake.
Luk 21:13 This will be your opportunity to bear witness.
Luk 21:14 Settle it therefore in your minds not to meditate beforehand how to answer,
Luk 21:15 for I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict.
Luk 21:16 You will be delivered up even by parents and brothers and relatives and friends, and some of you they will put to death.
Luk 21:17 You will be hated by all for my name's sake.
Luk 21:18 But not a hair of your head will perish.
Luk 21:19 By your endurance you will gain your lives.


Just a personal digression, now. My firstborn son is over at a forward operations base somewhere distant from his main stay, Kandahar Airbase. He is a member of the 101st Airborne, Screaming Eagles. He serves as a Crew Chief with the Alpha Co. Blackhawks. I was chatting with him yesterday and his whole company is talking about this event that may happen Saturday? He remarks that "all" Afghanies are showing a more hostile emotion towards all the Coalition forces! Hmmmmm?

Turretinfan said...

"The Federal Govt destroying bibles illegally brought into Afghanistan is equivalent to a church in Fla burning Qur'ans to incite Muslim anger?"

No, what the Federal Government did is far worse.

"While I doubt we can win a war where we fail to destroy the enemy's reason for fighting, I don't expect the US Govt to promote Christianity."

I do. At a minimum, I expect the US government (and all governments) not to actively hinder the Gospel.

-TurretinFan

Anonymous said...

A few years ago I received a shipment of camo-themed Gideon Bibles from a relative "over there." He had rescued them from the trash pile where they were being disposed of by military chaplains. The whole world is upside down and backwards.

John Francis said...

I disagree with the action of burning bibles, even deficient protestant bibles. I do not see the connection with thinking the government's action in burning the bible is anything similar in the action taken in Florida to burn the Muslim book. The intention is completely different in both cases.

Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong in itself with burning the Qur'an. In fact, I think it is a good thing to do. I just think that given the potential reaction of Muslims, it is not a prudent thing to do. For example, I think that it would be a wholly virtuous action to burn Calvin's Institutes because of its blasphemous writings. I doubt that there would be any violent outburst by protestants.

Turretinfan said...

Speaking of burning Bibles, it's good to see that a servant of Rome has shown up!

John Francis said...

I understand that the historical reality is against your narrative, but there is an important qualifier you have failed to mention. The "bibles" burned by the Catholic Church were some of the worst translations imaginable. I guess that its okay for the protestant to change the words around in Scripture, add in and delete what he wills (read Luther), but we Catholics love God's Word.

This means that I should revise my prior comments. There is nothing wrong in itself to burn heretical bibles too.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

Also, it is evident that the "Pastor" in Florida is just one more liar in protestantism. He lied about the Imam moving his mosque away from Ground Zero.

Turretinfan said...

"some of the worst translations imaginable"

Oh? What did you have in mind? The versions I have in mind are pretty good and reasonably accurate translations.

Of course, it is possible that you and I are thinking of different times your church authorized and promoted the burning both of Bibles and Christians.

-TurretinFan

John Francis said...

Sir, they were not Christians. Those Christ Rejectors were heretics.

Incidentally, there is nothing wrong in itself with the proper authority burning heretics. It just isn't prudent to do so today for a number of reasons. So fear not you're physically safe now, but when you die, you will surely burn for all eternity.

ChaferDTS said...

" No, what the Federal Government did is far worse. "

I agree with you. I as one having prior military service I was very bothered by our own government doing this with Bible burning. To me it displayed or came off to me as hostility towards Christianity from our government. Our county was founded based on freedom of religion. And is showing a very bad example of condemning the possible burning of the Koran by a some Pastor at a local church while our own government burning Bibles. I see something extremely wrong with this picture. It gives me a good idea on where our government is heading when it comes to Christianity.

Turretinfan said...

"Sir, they were not Christians. Those Christ Rejectors were heretics."

Judged by the Word of God, they were not heretics. Perhaps you've got the wrong standard of judgment.

"Incidentally, there is nothing wrong in itself with the proper authority burning heretics. It just isn't prudent to do so today for a number of reasons. So fear not you're physically safe now, but when you die, you will surely burn for all eternity."

You and Benedict XVI would, one supposes, have to agree to disagree about that.

But, I'm at least glad to see that you are clear on the fact that your gospel is another gospel from the one I preach.

-TurretinFan

ChaferDTS said...

" Incidentally, there is nothing wrong in itself with the proper authority burning heretics. "

I have a problem with it. For starters it leaves out a person's right for freedom of religion. And secondly, the government is not a tool used by the church to kill herteics. Heresy is a church issue dealt with by means of excommunication in the New Testament and not by having the government kill them. The Church has no authority at all to kill claimed heretics in the New Testament. We are to refute them and excommunicate them. Never once we are told to kill them by command by Jesus Christ or the apostles.

"It just isn't prudent to do so today for a number of reasons. So fear not you're physically safe now, but when you die, you will surely burn for all eternity. "

People like yourself make me very glad Roman Catholicism has no control over our government to kill claimed heretics. What took place in England whenever a Roman Catholic or Protestant got in power reminds me of the dangers when no separation between Government and religion it maintained.

Black Sheep said...

John Francis said... "Incidentally, there is nothing wrong in itself with the proper authority burning heretics. It just isn't prudent to do so today for a number of reasons."

Why is it less prudent today than in previous ages?

I think you're just trying to be inflammatory :o)

Tom said...

The Papal Sect has burned more Bibles than it ever printed.

John Francis said...

Judged by the Word of God, they were not heretics. Perhaps you've got the wrong standard of judgment.

Funny how you speak of the Word of God, which I take you to be refering to Scripture, acts as an animate body. Let me guess, you believe that if two people sit down in dispute with one another in front of the Bible that the Bible is going to say, "hey guys, Jimmy here is right on X, Y, and some of Z, but Pedro here is completely right on Z." No, that is not how it works. What happens is that protestant Jimmy and Pedro both appeal to their understanding of an abridged version of Scripture, and they can either compromise, condemn each other as heretics, one give up, or both seek someone whom they mutually respect and will assent to his judgment. Essentially, incomplete-Scripture becomes the proverbial rag-doll pulled back and forth between the two heretics.


You and Benedict XVI would, one supposes, have to agree to disagree about that.

I guess it depends on who is doing the supposing.

But, I'm at least glad to see that you are clear on the fact that your gospel is another gospel from the one I preach.

Yes we are. Any time you want to enter into full communion with God's family, you will be welcomed.

John Francis said...

I have a problem with it. For starters it leaves out a person's right for freedom of religion. And secondly, the government is not a tool used by the church to kill herteics. Heresy is a church issue dealt with by means of excommunication in the New Testament and not by having the government kill them. The Church has no authority at all to kill claimed heretics in the New Testament. We are to refute them and excommunicate them. Never once we are told to kill them by command by Jesus Christ or the apostles.

You seem to forget the idea that God has rights over life and death, and he can impart his authority over this matter to the head of the community who is charged with the common good. I can't kill a heretic, but the leader of the community can. God gave this command to the Old Testament leaders. It didn't just become intrinsically evil over night after Jesus came. Heresy, I assure you, is more dangerous than any bodily harm you can do to another.



People like yourself make me very glad Roman Catholicism has no control over our government to kill claimed heretics. What took place in England whenever a Roman Catholic or Protestant got in power reminds me of the dangers when no separation between Government and religion it maintained.

I already said that today it would not be prudent to kill heretics. I just assert that there is nothing worng with doing so in itself.

John Francis said...

Why is it less prudent today than in previous ages?

I think you're just trying to be inflammatory :o)


There are a number of reasons why. For starters, if burning a heretic causes a huge stumbling block for men and women of good will, and essentially further incites heresy, then the burning results in more harm than the medicinal good it would have effected in the heretic. There are other reasons, but I think the one above is sufficient to hold.

Turretinfan said...

"Funny how you speak of the Word of God, which I take you to be refering to Scripture, acts as an animate body."

It's not funny to me, but perhaps that's because I'm more familiar with God's Word than you are.

"Let me guess, you believe that if two people sit down in dispute with one another in front of the Bible that the Bible is going to say, "hey guys, Jimmy here is right on X, Y, and some of Z, but Pedro here is completely right on Z." No, that is not how it works."

Your guesses don't seem to be much better than your knowledge of God's word.

"What happens is that protestant Jimmy and Pedro both appeal to their understanding of an abridged version of Scripture, and they can either compromise, condemn each other as heretics, one give up, or both seek someone whom they mutually respect and will assent to his judgment."

You mean, people don't always agree? I'm shocked - shocked I tell ya! There's also another option, they agree to disagree.

"Essentially, incomplete-Scripture becomes the proverbial rag-doll pulled back and forth between the two heretics."

Better two humble Christians arguing over the sense of Scripture, than an arrogant Roman bishop claiming personal infallibility!

-TurretinFan

John Francis said...

Wow, that was ten seconds of reading nonsense.

It's not funny to me, but perhaps that's because I'm more familiar with God's Word than you are.

The proof is in the pudding. You keep forgetting the fact that you and your forefathers have thrown some of God's Word into the trash.

Your guesses don't seem to be much better than your knowledge of God's word.

Are you going to interact, or just enagage in wishful thinking?

You mean, people don't always agree? I'm shocked - shocked I tell ya! There's also another option, they agree to disagree.

I've covered that already, if you happened to have read it. I doubt you did given the puffery of your non-informative replies. They both disagree and call each other heretics. I guess they could also just disagree and say the other's truth is truth for him. This seems to fall in line with protestant relativism.

Better two humble Christians arguing over the sense of Scripture, than an arrogant Roman bishop claiming personal infallibility!

You need a lesson on Catholic Dogma. The entire Church proclaimed Papal Infallibility at Vatican I, not personal infallibility, which is so ambiguous.

Turretinfan said...

"Wow, that was ten seconds of reading nonsense."

Your judgment is noted, but not valued by me.

I wrote: It's not funny to me, but perhaps that's because I'm more familiar with God's Word than you are.

You responded: "The proof is in the pudding."

That cliche doesn't really fit this situation.

You continued: "You keep forgetting the fact that you and your forefathers have thrown some of God's Word into the trash."

It's not a question of memory, it's a question of fact. The fact is that you erroneously refer to things that are not God's word as though they were.

I wrote: Your guesses don't seem to be much better than your knowledge of God's word.

You responded: "Are you going to interact, or just enagage in wishful thinking?"

Maybe my answer to your guess wasn't clear. You're wrong in guessing as you did, just as you are ignorant of God's word.

I wrote: "You mean, people don't always agree? I'm shocked - shocked I tell ya! There's also another option, they agree to disagree."

You replied: "I've covered that already, if you happened to have read it. I doubt you did given the puffery of your non-informative replies. They both disagree and call each other heretics. I guess they could also just disagree and say the other's truth is truth for him. This seems to fall in line with protestant relativism."

No - you still haven't addressed the situation where the two disagree, and neither side calls the other heretics, while both affirm that truth is absolute. There are things both in life in general, and in the knowledge of God, where reasonable people can differ about what the truth is, without falling into the error of relativism.

I wrote: "Better two humble Christians arguing over the sense of Scripture, than an arrogant Roman bishop claiming personal infallibility!"

You replied: "You need a lesson on Catholic Dogma. The entire Church proclaimed Papal Infallibility at Vatican I, not personal infallibility, which is so ambiguous. "

Your attempt to find a need for a lesson in dogma based on ambiguity in my statement is amusing at best.

-TurretinFan

natamllc said...

JF: You need a lesson on Catholic Dogma. The entire Church proclaimed Papal Infallibility at Vatican I, not personal infallibility, which is so ambiguous.

Hmmmmmmmm?

What an understanding coming from a fallible human being such as you are.

How does that conflate this?

Jer 17:5 Thus says the LORD: "Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength, whose heart turns away from the LORD.
Jer 17:6 He is like a shrub in the desert, and shall not see any good come. He shall dwell in the parched places of the wilderness, in an uninhabited salt land.
Jer 17:7 "Blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD, whose trust is the LORD.
Jer 17:8 He is like a tree planted by water, that sends out its roots by the stream, and does not fear when heat comes, for its leaves remain green, and is not anxious in the year of drought, for it does not cease to bear fruit."
Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?


Again, you talk like the big boys, but you bite like one who is so much different?

I wonder if this verse is true, which from your talk, I suspect it so:::>

Hab 2:4 "Behold, his soul is puffed up; it is not upright within him, but the righteous shall live by his faith.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

John Francis: "Incidentally, there is nothing wrong in itself with the proper authority burning heretics. It just isn't prudent to do so today for a number of reasons. So fear not you're physically safe now, but when you die, you will surely burn for all eternity."

John Francis,

What are your reasons for believing and saying that TurretinFan will "surely burn for all eternity"?

ChaferDTS said...

"You seem to forget the idea that God has rights over life and death, and he can impart his authority over this matter to the head of the community who is charged with the common good."

The thing is only Israel in the Old Testament was ever given that authority by God and no other human government. And surely that authority was never passed on down to the papacy or Roman Catholicism much less Biblical Christianity. The aspects relating to the civil aspects and cermoninal aspects of the law of Moses was not repeated in the Law of Christ for the Christian Church. Only the moral aspects of the law are repeated as part of Christ's commandments for the Church. We find very easy 9 of the 10 commandments restated in the Law of Christ. ( The Sabbath not repeated for the Church ) . We find no penalities relating to physical death for Christians for sins. All we find is excomminucation. You have no verses in Scripture for your claims.

"I can't kill a heretic, but the leader of the community can. God gave this command to the Old Testament leaders. It didn't just become intrinsically evil over night after Jesus came. Heresy, I assure you, is more dangerous than any bodily harm you can do to another. "

See you ignore the historical context of it much as all Roman Catholicism does on the matter. You see Israel was a human government under the direct authority of God and was expressly given in it's civil aspects of the Law of Moses on what sins were punished by. Whereas in the Christian Church was never commanded or authorized by God to kill claimed heretics. We are told what moral sins are in the law of Christ but never do we find any commands of them being physically put to death but rather to be excomminicated. The Christian Church is not a human government while Israel was . Roman Catholicism itself is guilty of what we read of in Rev. 17:6. I personally find that the Church of Rome the heresy hunter is itself bound in heresy.

"I already said that today it would not be prudent to kill heretics. I just assert that there is nothing worng with doing so in itself."

I praise God each and every day that the Papacy has no say in our government in the United States in having it kill claimed heretics on their behalf . Roman Catholicism has a real bad history in this without question. And to think of all the instruments that were used is even more sickening. And I do question how many of the people were actually guilty of heresy. Your remarks to me are no better than that of Islam with what they do to those who rejects their false religion in the middle east. Heresy is a church problem and not a governmental problem.

ChaferDTS said...

"You seem to forget the idea that God has rights over life and death, and he can impart his authority over this matter to the head of the community who is charged with the common good."

The thing is only Israel in the Old Testament was ever given that authority by God and no other human government. And surely that authority was never passed on down to the papacy or Roman Catholicism much less Biblical Christianity. The aspects relating to the civil aspects and cermoninal aspects of the law of Moses was not repeated in the Law of Christ for the Christian Church. Only the moral aspects of the law are repeated as part of Christ's commandments for the Church. We find very easy 9 of the 10 commandments restated in the Law of Christ. ( The Sabbath not repeated for the Church ) . We find no penalities relating to physical death for Christians for sins. All we find is excomminucation. You have no verses in Scripture for your claims.

"I can't kill a heretic, but the leader of the community can. God gave this command to the Old Testament leaders. It didn't just become intrinsically evil over night after Jesus came. Heresy, I assure you, is more dangerous than any bodily harm you can do to another. "

See you ignore the historical context of it much as all Roman Catholicism does on the matter. You see Israel was a human government under the direct authority of God and was expressly given in it's civil aspects of the Law of Moses on what sins were punished by. Whereas in the Christian Church was never commanded or authorized by God to kill claimed heretics. We are told what moral sins are in the law of Christ but never do we find any commands of them being physically put to death but rather to be excomminicated. The Christian Church is not a human government while Israel was . Roman Catholicism itself is guilty of what we read of in Rev. 17:6. I personally find that the Church of Rome the heresy hunter is itself bound in heresy.

"I already said that today it would not be prudent to kill heretics. I just assert that there is nothing worng with doing so in itself."

I praise God each and every day that the Papacy has no say in our government in the United States in having it kill claimed heretics on their behalf . Roman Catholicism has a real bad history in this without question. And to think of all the instruments that were used is even more sickening. And I do question how many of the people were actually guilty of heresy. Your remarks to me are no better than that of Islam with what they do to those who rejects their false religion in the middle east. Heresy is a church problem and not a governmental problem.

ChaferDTS said...

"You seem to forget the idea that God has rights over life and death, and he can impart his authority over this matter to the head of the community who is charged with the common good."

The thing is only Israel in the Old Testament was ever given that authority by God and no other human government. And surely that authority was never passed on down to the papacy or Roman Catholicism much less Biblical Christianity. The aspects relating to the civil aspects and cermoninal aspects of the law of Moses was not repeated in the Law of Christ for the Christian Church. Only the moral aspects of the law are repeated as part of Christ's commandments for the Church. We find very easy 9 of the 10 commandments restated in the Law of Christ. ( The Sabbath not repeated for the Church ) . We find no penalities relating to physical death for Christians for sins. All we find is excomminucation. You have no verses in Scripture for your claims.

ChaferDTS said...

"I can't kill a heretic, but the leader of the community can. God gave this command to the Old Testament leaders. It didn't just become intrinsically evil over night after Jesus came. Heresy, I assure you, is more dangerous than any bodily harm you can do to another. "

See you ignore the historical context of it much as all Roman Catholicism does on the matter. You see Israel was a human government under the direct authority of God and was expressly given in it's civil aspects of the Law of Moses on what sins were punished by. Whereas in the Christian Church was never commanded or authorized by God to kill claimed heretics. We are told what moral sins are in the law of Christ but never do we find any commands of them being physically put to death but rather to be excomminicated. The Christian Church is not a human government while Israel was . Roman Catholicism itself is guilty of what we read of in Rev. 17:6. I personally find that the Church of Rome the heresy hunter is itself bound in heresy.



"I already said that today it would not be prudent to kill heretics. I just assert that there is nothing worng with doing so in itself."

I praise God each and every day that the Papacy has no say in our government in the United States in having it kill claimed heretics on their behalf . Roman Catholicism has a real bad history in this without question. And to think of all the instruments that were used is even more sickening. And I do question how many of the people were actually guilty of heresy. Your remarks to me are no better than that of Islam with what they do to those who rejects their false religion in the middle east. Heresy is a church problem and not a governmental problem.

ChaferDTS said...

"I can't kill a heretic, but the leader of the community can. God gave this command to the Old Testament leaders. It didn't just become intrinsically evil over night after Jesus came. Heresy, I assure you, is more dangerous than any bodily harm you can do to another. "


See you ignore the historical context of it much as all Roman Catholicism does on the matter. You see Israel was a human government under the direct authority of God and was expressly given in it's civil aspects of the Law of Moses on what sins were punished by. Whereas in the Christian Church was never commanded or authorized by God to kill claimed heretics. We are told what moral sins are in the law of Christ but never do we find any commands of them being physically put to death but rather to be excomminicated. The Christian Church is not a human government while Israel was . Roman Catholicism itself is guilty of what we read of in Rev. 17:6. I personally find that the Church of Rome the heresy hunter is itself bound in heresy.

ChaferDTS said...

"I already said that today it would not be prudent to kill heretics. I just assert that there is nothing worng with doing so in itself."

I praise God each and every day that the Papacy has no say in our government in the United States in having it kill claimed heretics on their behalf . Roman Catholicism has a real bad history in this without question. And to think of all the instruments that were used is even more sickening. And I do question how many of the people were actually guilty of heresy. Your remarks to me are no better than that of Islam with what they do to those who rejects their false religion in the middle east. Heresy is a church problem and not a governmental problem.

Turretinfan said...

"The thing is only Israel in the Old Testament was ever given that authority by God and no other human government."

Well, all human government has the authority to execute criminals who are worthy of death. That's why their authority is called "the sword."

-TurretinFan

misterkellywilson said...

TurretinFan,

John Francis is no `servant of Rome.`

Let`s get serious. Your blog gives far to much credibility to individuals whose Catholicity wouldn`t be recognized by the leadership of the Catholic Church.

Bellasario? John Francis?

Now, to your credit you don't just limit yourself to these guys. I've read plenty of your posts where you do interact with the Church's doctrinal authorities, but these "internet apologists," just don't qualify.

Turretinfan said...

Naturally, I agree that neither Bellisario, John Francis, nor most of the other Roman Catholics with whom I've had dealings on the Internet are properly considered doctrinal authorities within Roman Catholicism.

- TurretinFan

steve said...

misterkellywilson said...

"TurretinFan, Let`s get serious. Your blog gives far to much credibility to individuals whose Catholicity wouldn`t be recognized by the leadership of the Catholic Church."

Well, I'm sure that TFan would rather debate Benedict 16, but I don't the Pope has TFan on speed-dial. So sometimes you have to go through the foot-soldier to get to the general.

ChaferDTS said...

" Well, all human government has the authority to execute criminals who are worthy of death. That's why their authority is called "the sword "

I do agree with Romans 13. I did not forget about it. :) The question would be what crimes warrent the death penality and authorized by God for human governments outside of Israel ? I don't see heresy as being one of those for outside of Israel. I believe only Israel was authorized for that specifically under the Law of Moses. We each can agree that the death penality for Murder is a given for a crime in all nations including Israel that is authorized by God. My main issue is really the abuse of the church using human government to give the death penality for claimed heretics. I consider heresy a church problem and dealt with by means of excomminication, a refuting of that heresy and to warn others of it. My fear is really would be on whom such governmeny favors at the time. I am disgusted by alot of the killings in which the church used to kill claimed heretics. We seen this historically what Roman Catholicism has done to claimed heretics and some strains of Protestantism. Or the pagan Roman Empire on what they did to Christians in the early church. Or an atheist or agnostic government killing people of various religions. I am open to listen what you have to say on this issue. Thank you and enjoy your week end.

Turretinfan said...

"The question would be what crimes warrent the death penality and authorized by God for human governments outside of Israel ?"

What additional warrant is needed for a civil government to apply laws (including criminal codes) like those of Israel?

-TurretinFan

misterkellywilson said...

Steve, it`s not who TF would rather debate. It`s who he presents as representative of Catholic teaching.

A person who believes that there is nothing evil about burning heretics is not representative of Catholic teaching. The Catholic apologists/idiots of the United States are not representative of Catholic teaching.

This isn't a difficult issue.

Turretinfan said...

"Steve, it`s not who TF would rather debate. It`s who he presents as representative of Catholic teaching."

In fairness to me, they present themselves that way, and the hierarchy does next to nothing to stop them.

"A person who believes that there is nothing evil about burning heretics is not representative of Catholic teaching. The Catholic apologists/idiots of the United States are not representative of Catholic teaching."

You will notice that I pointed that out, by observing that JF and B16 would have to agree to disagree.

"This isn't a difficult issue."

I'm not aware of anyone alive today above the level of priest in Roman Catholicism that advocates burning heretics.

But there are plenty of historical Roman bishops who obviously did endorse such practices.

-TurretinFan

natamllc said...

Steve:

"....Well, I'm sure that TFan would rather debate Benedict 16, but I don't the Pope has TFan on speed-dial."[sic]

But Steve, I thought you did believe in miracles?

Yes, now of course, his IPhone might be with AT&T like mine and doesn't have any bars like others who use their competitors in Rome? :)

Be patient, AT&T's claim that their international reach is to all the world isn't like those across the Tiber!

ChaferDTS said...

"What additional warrant is needed for a civil government to apply laws (including criminal codes) like those of Israel?"

I am not againist civil laws within any country. Governments are granted this in Romans 13. The unregenerate do have the moral law of God written in their hearts ( Rom. 2 ) since man is created in the image of God though since the fall he is totally depraved. And thus judged according to his conscience which becomes a law unto them. At least 9 of the 10 commandments is in our conscience.From this good civil laws can be formulated by any government. The exception being the sabbath which appears to have only been given to Israel. My only concern is of the issue of heresy. I believe that is a church issue rather than a governmental one. And is subject to great misuse and abuse depending on who is in control of what ever government it is. Roman Catholicism used this to kill many reformers as heretics. Likewise some strains of Protestants used government to kill heretics. Or in places where Islam is in control and kill Christians. I do believe the civil aspects of the law of Moses would be a good manner in which nations can pattern their own civil laws. My concern is limited to the issue of religion on it punishing claimed heretics.

John Francis said...

Given the commets of Mister Wilson, this is precisely the reason why I think burning heretics would be imprudent today. There is a certain feeble mindedness today, along with the influence of "we are the world" progressive humanism which causes young minds like Mister Wilson's to suffer tremedously with the thoughts of burning a heretic. Notice that he did not argue to the contrary of my position that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with burning a heretic. He didn't argue against the position itself.

Does Mister Wilson also think that the Angelic Doctor isn't a good representative of the Church? What about the Fathers of the Church? Would he go that far, or is he simply naive?

Aquin.: SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 1/2

I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

Aquin.: SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 2/2

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Gal. 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame."

Turretinfan said...

JF:

I think I will be speaking rightly to say that Mr. Wilson doesn't think that Aquinas represents the place where his church is today. Quoting Aquinas means missing out on all the post-Aquinas development.

If you're stuck in the middle ages, you haven't kept up with the third leg of the proverbial stool.

-TurretinFan

John Francis said...

Sir:

So that we all stay on the same page, what you are claiming is still not an argument from Mr. Wilson's misguided perception against the principles I have claimed. If he chooses to claim why it is intrinsically wrong for a heretic to be burned for medicinal purposes, just punishment, and as something contrary to the common good then he needs to supply an argument not just assertions. If he is going to put some of the current day theologians and the current theological opinions against the entire history of the Church and the most celebrated Doctor of the Church, forgive me for expecting a little more out of him than simply claiming that Aquinas doesn't represent the "Church's doctrinal authorities."

Turretinfan said...

The fact that Aquinas says something may give it more prestige than if he does not, but it doesn't convert his opinion into "the Catholic position."

And Vatican II is something less than a dogmatic definition, but something more than just "current day theologians," don't you think?

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

-TurretinFan

John Francis said...

Sir:

I have taught Dignitatis Humanae for years. Most of the time the document is not properly understood. Even though this is often the case, the document is flawed and unsupported by traditional teachings of the Church. With that said, to pretend that the document proclaims the right to religious freedom is absolute is to ignore the subtle distinctions in the document. There was an attempt to give voice to the current demands of feeble-mindedness of men like Mr. Wilson. Particularly in response to the crimes of Nazi Germany. Consider the following sentences:

"no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits."

"In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed."

The morality of the issue depends upon the situation of the state.

Consider Aquinas:

"On the other hand, the rites of other unbelievers, which are neither truthful nor profitable are by no means to be tolerated, except perchance in order to avoid an evil, e.g. the scandal or disturbance that might ensue, or some hindrance to the salvation of those who if they were unmolested might gradually be converted to the faith. For this reason the Church, at times, has tolerated the rites even of heretics and pagans, when unbelievers were very numerous. (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-IIae, q. 10, a. 11)"

John Francis said...

Sir:

I have taught Dignitatis Humanae for yeas now. The document is flawed and often misunderstood. The document doesn't give an absolute right to religious freedom. A few lines are important to consider. For example:

no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.

Secondly, pointing to this document doesn't directly address the point I was making. I never claimed that you can coerce someone to accept the faith. As Aquinas stated, "consequently it is contrary to the nature of the will's own act, that it should be subject to compulsion and violence." What I have stated is that there is nothing inherently immoral with burning a heretic in itself. It depends upon the situation of the state as well as other relevant factors taken together in consideration.

Again, I point to Aquinas:

On the other hand, the rites of other unbelievers, which are neither truthful nor profitable are by no means to be tolerated, except perchance in order to avoid an evil, e.g. the scandal or disturbance that might ensue, or some hindrance to the salvation of those who if they were unmolested might gradually be converted to the faith. For this reason the Church, at times, has tolerated the rites even of heretics and pagans, when unbelievers were very numerous. (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-IIae, q. 10, a. 11)

misterkellywilson said...

With respect John Francis, I don't feel the need to debate the intrinsic wrongness of burning individuals because to do so would give a certain dignity to the opposing position.

But for readers here, I have two questions.

1. Do you think John Francis would present John Paul II as only being opposed to the burning of a human person because it is imprudent?

2. How do you think John Francis would present the views of John Paul II?

As for me I deeply respect the impact of the Church Fathers & great saints throughout Christian history. But just because they might have thought it acceptable to burn a human person in their own context and under certain circumstances doesn't mean that I am bound to follow suit.

John Francis said...

Sir:


I have taught Dignitatis Humanae for yeas now. The document is flawed and often misunderstood. The document doesn't give an absolute right to religious freedom. A few lines are important to consider. For example:


no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.

John Francis said...

Secondly, pointing to this document doesn't directly address the point I was making. I never claimed that you can coerce someone to accept the faith. As Aquinas stated, "consequently it is contrary to the nature of the will's own act, that it should be subject to compulsion and violence." What I have stated is that there is nothing inherently immoral with burning a heretic in itself. It depends upon the situation of the state as well as other relevant factors taken together in consideration.

Again, I point to Aquinas:


On the other hand, the rites of other unbelievers, which are neither truthful nor profitable are by no means to be tolerated, except perchance in order to avoid an evil, e.g. the scandal or disturbance that might ensue, or some hindrance to the salvation of those who if they were unmolested might gradually be converted to the faith. For this reason the Church, at times, has tolerated the rites even of heretics and pagans, when unbelievers were very numerous. (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-IIae, q. 10, a. 11)

John Francis said...

I understand that Mr. Wilson does not want to engage the argument. I'm sure he also understands that John Paul II is no longer the pope.

With respect John Francis, I don't feel the need to debate the intrinsic wrongness of burning individuals because to do so would give a certain dignity to the opposing position.

Mr. Wilson:

Would you not engage any issue that the Church condemns because "to do so would give a certain dignity to the opposing position"?

What about issues concerning abortion? Infanticide? Contraception?


But just because they might have thought it acceptable to burn a human person in their own context and under certain circumstances doesn't mean that I am bound to follow suit.


No you are not bound to follow suit, but don't dare pretend to diminish me, a professor of dogmatic theology for over 20yrs as being less than Catholic because I happen to espouse a position which you have yet to mount an actual argument against.

Turretinfan said...

"What I have stated is that there is nothing inherently immoral with burning a heretic in itself."

I assume you are not taking refuge in some principle that it would be lawful to burn a heretic who happened to be a witch or murderer.

How would burning a heretic for holding heretical views be consistent with religious liberty? The reason I ask is that I don't think Aquinas had a concept of religious liberty.

-TurretinFan

Fredericka said...

John Francis wrote, "I never claimed that you can coerce someone to accept the faith."

Why not? Your friend says so: "Secondly, because the other apostles were converted to Christ spontaneously, but Paul by coercion: 'He fell to the ground and heard a voice' (Ac 9:4). And this is of great value against heretics, who say that no one should be forced to the faith, because Paul was forced. And as Augustine says: Paul made more progress in the faith, although he was forcibly converted, than many who came spontaneously." (Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Section 904).

Whereas the Bible says, "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him:. . ." (John 6:44).

misterkellywilson said...

John Francis, I realize that JOhn Paul II is no longer Pope. However his articulation of the dignity of the human person has not been replaced by Pope Benedict, hence the point stands.

Regarding whether I`d have conversations about abortion or contraception, and even infantcide, yes I would, because these are issues that are actually being discussed, and the Church`s clarity would be an important influence in any such discussion. On the other hand very few people in our part of the world are debating the acceptability of burning heretics.

Matthew D. Schultz said...

John Francis writes:

No you are not bound to follow suit, but don't dare pretend to diminish me, a professor of dogmatic theology for over 20yrs as being less than Catholic because I happen to espouse a position which you have yet to mount an actual argument against.

Where do you teach? What are your credentials? I'd be interested to know why we shouldn't try to "dare diminish" you.

john said...

“I argue you are deceived flatly and wrong conflating what we all agree that you are putting forth a terrible thing by implying a spiritually incestuous relationship between Christ and His natural mother, the chosen virgin Mary!”

JM comment - Well I deny it and I’ve provided arguments against it.

“Whether you know it or not you agreed with Steve.

Whether you realize it or not you adhere to a terrible thing by saying this about Mary, the mother of Jesus:

If the church is the bride of Christ and Mary is the mother of Christ, then Mary is the quintessential bride of Christ.”

JM comment – If Mary is not a bride of Christ, then she was not a Christian.


”You imply a spiritually incestuous relationship now exists between Christ and his natural mother.”

JM comment – Demonstrate “spiritually incestuous” is possible. From the websters definition of incest, incest requires physical sex. Spiritual marriage does not permit physical sex. See the difference?

“I provided you with a Scriptural understanding from Luke's Gospel that refutes your claim. While we are under the laws of nature here on earth, we are either male or female; yet, we are not under that natural law when we pass to Heaven through our own personal death, nor does Enoch and Elijah, by their bodily assumption, but all of us are changed and are of the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus once born again. There has been a change for Mary. She has been born again and bears a spiritual body now, a part of the Bride of Christ. It is the same spiritual change we all will experience the moment we leave our natural, flesh body, once we too are born again and put on our Spiritual body. Mary is now fully a spirit being now that she has passed to her Eternal Reward.


JM comment – this has nothing to do with Mary’s spiritual marriage to Christ. The truths are all compatible.


”Here is a more specific and pointed assertion against your claim that Mary retains both her place as the "natural" queen mother of Jesus come from earth and is His "female" quintessential spiritual Bride in Heaven concurrently holding her nature as a "female" in body and soul:”

Your Galatians passage has nothing to do with Mary’s spiritual marriage to Christ. You are simply quoting a text without an argument. Your methodology is very poor.

JM

john said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
john said...
This comment has been removed by the author.