Quotes of the day
posted at 10:44 pm on February 10, 2012 by Allahpundit
“It was no secret inside the West Wing that Bill Daley, a Catholic with deep connections to the church hierarchy, vehemently opposed the administration’s proposal to require church-run hospitals and universities to give their employees free contraception.
“But it was the way he pushed his case that aggravated some women on President Barack Obama’s senior staff, according to current and former administration officials. In early November, without consulting them, Daley set up a four-man Oval Office meeting for himself, Obama, New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan and Vice President Joe Biden, who both shared the view that the policy would sink the president with Catholic voters.
“Obama, a person close to him tells POLITICO, hadn’t made any final decision, hadn’t fully analyzed the dueling arguments, hadn’t expressed a strong policy preference, and felt ‘mildly uncomfortable’ being put on the spot.”
“The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) have issued the following statement:…
“These changes require careful moral analysis, and moreover, appear subject to some measure of change. But we note at the outset that the lack of clear protection for key stakeholders—for self-insured religious employers; for religious and secular for-profit employers; for secular non-profit employers; for religious insurers; and for individuals—is unacceptable and must be corrected. And in the case where the employee and insurer agree to add the objectionable coverage, that coverage is still provided as a part of the objecting employer’s plan, financed in the same way as the rest of the coverage offered by the objecting employer. This, too, raises serious moral concerns.
“We just received information about this proposal for the first time this morning; we were not consulted in advance. Some information we have is in writing and some is oral. We will, of course, continue to press for the greatest conscience protection we can secure from the Executive Branch. But stepping away from the particulars, we note that today’s proposal continues to involve needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions. In a nation dedicated to religious liberty as its first and founding principle, we should not be limited to negotiating within these parameters. The only complete solution to this religious liberty problem is for HHS to rescind the mandate of these objectionable services.
“We will therefore continue—with no less vigor, no less sense of urgency—our efforts to correct this problem through the other two branches of government.”
“Republican Study Committee Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) says Obama’s revised version of an ObamaCare mandate still violates the Constitution:
“‘This ObamaCare rule still tramples on Americans’ First Amendment right to freedom of religion. It’s a fig leaf, not a compromise. Whether they are affiliated with a church or not, employers will still be forced to pay an insurance company for coverage that includes abortion-inducing drugs.’…
“Amy Ridenour, chairman of the National Center for Public Policy Research, agrees:
“‘Isn’t the compromise just a big spin and an insult to churches, because it implies that they just want an ‘out’ to permit them to pretend that they aren’t providing coverage they believe is immoral?’”
“‘Quite frankly, he’s adding insult to injury,’ Donahue said. ‘He must think the Catholics are stupid.’…
“Donohue said the new Obama stance contains a ‘devious element,’ in that it seeks to divide what he calls “a rather loosely formed and tenuous coalition of liberal Catholics joining with conservative Catholics on this issue in opposing Obamacare. This is designed to peel off the liberal opposition in the Catholic community, bring them back into the fold,’ he said…
“Said Donohue: ‘We’re not going to forget this in November.’”
“This is, of course, a dodge — a quite clever and positive one. Everyone gets to say that the religious institutions aren’t ‘paying for’ contraception. But if covering contraception ends up costing them money, you can be sure those costs will be passed along, as costs always are, to customers.
“The beauty of this dodge is that it is entirely possible, even likely, that adding the coverage will not raise rates. Easier, cheaper access to contraception means fewer pregnancies. Pregnancies — and the resulting babies — cost insurers far more than birth control pills. For example, according to the Guttmacher Institute, the federal government reported no increase in costs after Congress required coverage of contraceptives for federal employees in 1998. Think of it as immaculate contraceptive coverage.”
“The direct costs of providing contraception as part of a health insurance plan are very low and do not add more than approximately 0.5% to the premium costs per adult enrollee. Studies from three actuarial firms, Buck Consultants, PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC), and the Actuarial Research Corporation (ARC) have estimated the direct costs of providing contraception coverage..
“However, as indicated by the empirical evidence described above, these direct estimated costs overstate the total premium cost of providing contraceptive coverage. When medical costs associated with unintended pregnancies are taken into account, including costs of prenatal care, pregnancy complications, and deliveries, the net effect on premiums is close to zero. One study author concluded, ‘The message is simple: regardless of payment mechanism or contraceptive method, contraception saves money.’
“When indirect costs such as time away from work and productivity loss are considered, they further reduce the total cost to an employer.”
“‘The boundaries of religious freedom and identity are being trespassed,’ said Hunter, who still writes weekly devotions for Obama and visited the Oval Office last week; he said he keeps his spiritual guidance separate from any policy recommendations he funnels to the president. ‘I do think this will have political repercussions in the religious community,’ Hunter added. ‘This has the potential to be a breaking point.’…
“The relationship of religion and politics could influence the outcome of the 2012 election in battleground states with large Catholic communities, including Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, Green added. ‘The real problem for the Obama administration would be if the [birth-control] issue moved some of those less religious Catholics,’ Green said. “The issue might also move the regular Mass-attending Catholics to vote even more Republican.’…
“[I]f the GOP succeeds in wrapping the issue in the mantle of religious liberty, Obama will struggle to rebuild the diverse coalition that put him in the White House.”
“‘And it’s not just about the women,’ Pelosi said. ‘It’s about their children and the health of their families as they make serious decisions and use contraception to determine, as I said, the size and timing of their families. That will be a debate that we welcome.’
“‘It’s a sad one,’ she concluded. ‘We shouldn’t have to be to a place where people are saying—when the overwhelming practice is going in favor of women’s health—‘we want to pull that back.’ And use the excuse of religious freedom, which, of course, this is not.’”
Click the image to listen.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air
Menendez – Looks like we don’t have the votes for that immigration bill after all
America in decline – Bars selling rubbing alcohol as “scotch”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5
Your disbelief is based on the very same faith as that of the believers.
Cindy Munford on May 25, 2013 at 9:53 AM
Well, a lot of Catholicism is working your way to Heaven so why wouldn’t they be able to? Christianity itself says as long as you accept Jesus into your heart, are repentant, and believe he is the true Son of God then you will go to heaven. You can decide you are an atheist at some point after, but as long as all those prerequisites are met above then you are still saved.
Honestly, I couldn’t care less what the pope thinks. He doesn’t lord over my faith or Christianity and thinking that one man can change what is actually in God’s Word is ridiculous.
Sammo21 on May 25, 2013 at 9:54 AM
AP,
Two parts.
-First The Pope discusses Christ. Jesus is the Redeemer. He died on the Cross for All. We are redeemed by His blood. Christ died once for All. So The Pope is addressing Christ’s saving Grace.
-Second As Christians we believe we are called to do good deeds
Here The Pope addresses atheists to
He is saying: We can all agree to do good deeds. can we not? Let’s start there which is a beneficial path towards peace. Salvation is a discussion yet to come, he wants to offer common ground which is beneficial to mankind and then one can assume a discussion of Salvation is to follow.
PS – The Catechism points out that God gives us a path to Salvation but God Himself is not limited. God ultimately decides who enters Heaven.
aigle on May 25, 2013 at 10:21 AM
You need to get some different Evan friends. What they are telling you is not correct.
I can show you thousands of Protestants who will disagree with your hard-core Calvinist friends who tell you that you cannot lose your your salvation. The “Once save, always saved” mantra is flawed.
davidk on May 25, 2013 at 10:27 AM
Actually, it’s about the same thing the Romans have been saying since they sent Paul (aka Saul) in to take selected Jesus’ teachings as their own, i.e. the Gentiles. They ignored the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus said that the Law of Moses must remain in force (Matthew 5:17-19), and made Paul the ‘real Christian’ (Pauline Christianity) authority over “Jewish Christians.” Roman Emperor Constantine finalized it all by destroying all opposition (mainly from Arians) at Nicaea, e.g. only about 300 out of 1800 bishops attended (fearing Roman Emperor Constantine’s threats). The edict against Arius and his followers pretty much put an end to all opposition…the edict pretty much destroyed all writings by Arius, and promised death for anyone caught hiding any writings. No wonder the other 1200 bishops failed to even show up at Nicaea. The modern New Testament began with Constantine’s first canonized versions…17 books, if I recall correctly.
Karmi on May 25, 2013 at 10:28 AM
I have no idea what you are speaking here about unless you are trying to imply that somehow I’m somehow doing something different that you are doing…..“arguing” with you, but that …..you are not doing the same with everyone on this board, even with me and in such a disdainful manner? How is that?
You’re sounding a bit smug here.
Again, more than a bit smug. You say you “know” about God, but deny that I can say the same thing??? Haughtiness (Uppidy, Arrogance, Disdainful, Proud and disdainful; having a high opinion of one’s self, with some contempt for others; lofty and arrogant; supercilious) is not an admirable thing. See Prov.16 and 2 Corinthians 12:7–10.
This attitude being displayed is a product of thinking that somehow you are free to do/say whatever in whatever disdainful manner you choose to use because somehow you can’t fall from grace with such an attitude. You are so wrong. This is one of the things that caused me to leave the Baptist church. This smugness and lack of humility while pointing fingers at everyone else couldn’t possibly be a part of the fruits of the Spirit.
Yes, after baptism and the new birth, the old man of sin is gone and one becomes a new man after baptism, but there is nothing to say this is permanent. Nothing.
[In order to back up your claim, I notice that you keep inserting the word "supernatural" (which supernatural happening "can't be undone"). This word is a concoction inserted into the bible lessons being taught, but which is not found in the bible. No where, no how.]
Nothing in the bible speaks about that after becoming a new man during baptism, that it is a permanent condition. In fact,even Paul used himself as an example to encourage the brethren in Corinth to work hard and be diligent in their service to God, saying, “but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified” (1 Cor. 9:21). Are you saying that he wasn’t “saved” to begin with?
Peter says it like this, “Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble; for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you” (2 Pet. 1:10-11).
avagreen on May 25, 2013 at 10:32 AM
That’s a very crude way of putting. it.
We are all born into sin. The only way to the Father is by perfection. Jesus lived a perfect life, but suffered for the sins of us all. He fulfilled the law, but took our punishment on Himself. Jesus’ suffering satisfied God’s justice.
We are now able to experience God’s mercy by accepting Jesus’ finished work.
The debate about one’s losing his/her salvation will continue til Jesus comes. I have read and studied the Scriptures and have come to the understanding that one can reject his/her salvation.
I wish it were otherwise, but I fear not.
davidk on May 25, 2013 at 10:34 AM
Re Sauerkraut
People who are happy don’t try to hijack & bully on threads to promote antitheism.
They just don’t.
22044 on May 25, 2013 at 10:39 AM
You misunderstand the Scriptures and history.
Jesus did not abolish the law; He fulfilled it.
He also taught that the entire law can be summed up in “Low God with all you being and your neighbor as yourself.”
That is the standard by which we will be judged. if we are not “covered by the Blood” we will be cast into eternal darkness.
davidk on May 25, 2013 at 10:40 AM
davidk on May 25, 2013 at 10:47 AM
The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction.
davidk on May 25, 2013 at 10:48 AM
.
Politely disagreeing with Cindy’ ……. faith that believes in God comes from hearing (or reading) God’s word.
Any other type of “faith” (or lack thereof) is based on an individual’s perception of the chaos that is experienced by all of us, in this current world condition.
Each individual person perceives the chaos in a different way.
But those who have heard (or read) God’s word have a more sure foundation upon which to base their faith.
listens2glenn on May 25, 2013 at 10:57 AM
Even though that word does not fully express my thought? Since I won’t call you merely, “determined,” I guess we aren’t good?
I see you as more than just “determined”; the more someone like you tries to tell me you’re not obsessed, the more obsessed I realize you are! You should be asking yourself why you get defensive, why you can’t simply accept my unflattering opinion of your behavior.
I fully expect you to deny what I am saying here, and again, that only reinforces what I already see about you.
btw I notice you never did explain how someone like you who believes that “perfection is boredom” isn’t stuck in a nutty circuit! :)
Anti-Control on May 25, 2013 at 10:58 AM
Pambi! you’re quite the theologian.
davidk on May 25, 2013 at 11:00 AM
He actually is twisting himself into knots and doing mental gymnastics on Francis. Yes, Bergoglio is a Catholic priest and therefore is going to be against abortion and the devil and love Mary. However, Francis clearly isn’t focused on the liturgy and could care less about Father Z’s and co’s ridiculous obsession with the TLM. There is no way there would be any liturgical changes if Bergoglio had been elected in 2005. I also think that he would probably chastise traditionalists for focusing solely on the liturgy. For instance, when is the last time any of the people who comment on that blog did charity work? Visited a soup kitchen? Do the traditionalist churches they attend have active social justice ministries? Or are they so obsessed with the proper form of the Mass that they’ve forgotten the big picture?
I’m glad everyone is calmed down and pleased that Bergoglio is indeed Catholic. (Although why would they expect otherwise?) Hopefully, they’ll get Francis’ message now.
Illinidiva on May 25, 2013 at 11:04 AM
True but he isn’t going to hear the word of God, he’s going to run from it. He doesn’t even have science to back him up on his belief in the nonexistence of God. Coming right out with the admission that I am far from a biblical scholar, how in the world does anyone read the Bible and consider it a text on warring with other religions? I can maybe see that in the attitude of man’s desire to claim his way of worship is the “best” i.e. denominations, but you can’t just go to the word and find justification of violent acts for differences in belief.
Cindy Munford on May 25, 2013 at 11:10 AM
1) There is a difference between simply disagreeing, and arguing; I see you being guilty of the latter, not the former. Anyone who believes that an argumentative spirit might come from God is not on the same page as I when it comes to Christianity. With that said, you should be able to understand why I’ve expressed disdain in your direction.
2) I see you calling me “smug” to be a projection, and if you don’t like, it’s not my problem! :)
Anti-Control on May 25, 2013 at 11:10 AM
Maybe this will help put things in perspective.
http://www.hellofide.org/
Know It All on May 25, 2013 at 11:11 AM
.
Christianity is NOT … a “religion”.
It has been corrupted by some to appear as any other religion.
Christianity is a relationship with the living God.
If you claim to be a Christian, go to church, give to the poor, etc … etc … but don’t practice a personal relationship with God, then you have a religion.
listens2glenn on May 25, 2013 at 11:13 AM
davidk on May 25, 2013 at 10:40 AM
No, davidk, it is you who misunderstand the Scriptures and history. Especially non-Biblical history, which was around in written form long before there were any Hebrews, and thousands of years before there were any Hebrew writings. Since all the Abrahamic Religions (mainly Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are based on The Tanakh, that is where one must start…which creates a major problem for the Abrahamic Religions. Judaism as a religion wasn’t actually formalized until about the same time a Christianity, and a lot of plagiarism occurred – mainly in Genesis and Exodus , from ancient Sumer and Egypt. Basically, there is no non-Biblical evidence that shows a people called Hebrews until a very brief possible mention around 1000 BC and not much else for another 300-500 years. Moses, no such person, etcetera.
Karmi on May 25, 2013 at 11:19 AM
.
Touche ….. I didn’t back-track to read SauerKraut‘s comment that you were replying to.
My fault.
listens2glenn on May 25, 2013 at 11:22 AM
Still, don’t you think that atheists and believers working together for the common good of the community could be a powerful and helpful alliance?
Cindy Munford on May 25, 2013 at 11:23 AM
No problem, Darlin’, I knew your comment was a friendly one. In these threads I have only my faith to sustain me since I am so poorly educated compared to most.
Cindy Munford on May 25, 2013 at 11:26 AM
.
b l u s h … : )
listens2glenn on May 25, 2013 at 11:29 AM
Yes, it was. So what? :)
And my understanding of, “once saved, always saved,” differs from yours.
I find that you mentioning “fear” is telling, because we as Christians understand that perfect love casts out all fear – I see fear like yours as a sign that you are not saved.
I believe that from a logical point of view, believing that a person can lose her or his salvation diminishes the power of God when it comes to protecting His own church – I take it as proof that those who believe such nonsense are stumbling blocks, still operating in their fleshly emotions & understandings, never having totally given over their egos to Jesus, which is a requirement for salvation.
Here is another way to express my thought on the obviousness of salvation as a one-time event: Jesus is the gallium, we are the aluminum, and once the gallium touches the aluminum, the aluminum is permanently altered, never to return to its previous condition! :)
Gallium Induced Structural Failure of a Coke Can
Gallium Induced Failure of a Heat Sink
btw, I am so gonna put some gallium on all of Axe’s heat sinks, if any are aluminum, that is! :)
Anti-Control on May 25, 2013 at 11:32 AM
Aaaand a mediocre one at that…built on a very flawed premise that John the Beloved in DaVinci’s Last Supper Fresco is really a female.
A casual observer would have to be blind and ignorant to buy that one…
Brown synthesized the warped theories of iconoclasts that for a hundred years have been floating around on the fringes of serious study in a number of semi-related academic fields.
Mildly clever hooey…Now Brown takes on Dante most likely with predictable and profitable results.
There’s a sucker born every minute – PT Barnum
*shrug*
workingclass artist on May 25, 2013 at 11:34 AM
Oh My…
Your screed sounds like the screed of a spanked liberal (c)atholic troll.
But do continue…It’s mildly amusing.
workingclass artist on May 25, 2013 at 11:38 AM
The Abrahamic Religions have been fighting over the Ownership of God for…well, for about 1400-2000 years, and that’s not likely to change for at least another 1500 years.
Karmi on May 25, 2013 at 11:45 AM
.
That last line tells me all I need to know ….. but I’ll continue, anyway.
.
.
“f a c e p a l m”
.
.
Any document . . . . . . . . . . . . . that contradicts the Bible record is worth less than the pig excrement on the bottom of my work shoes … period.
That’s not negotiable.
“Judahism” was formalized between God and Abraham looooooong before anyone understood the ‘New Blood Covenant’ (Christianity).
listens2glenn on May 25, 2013 at 11:47 AM
ehemmm…
http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=hsJPK0PIJpH&b=689705&ct=8385919
workingclass artist on May 25, 2013 at 11:49 AM
‘God’ and ‘Heaven’ may simply be delusions that many in samsara cling to. Merely shadows of Mara eclipsing minds.
DarkCurrent on May 25, 2013 at 11:50 AM
Karmi on May 25, 2013 at 11:19 AM
You seem to mis-understand the basics of tradition development in cultures…much less theology.
workingclass artist on May 25, 2013 at 11:53 AM
.
Christians who “fight over the ownership of God” are immature zealots.
There’s nothing to fight over, except the good fight of faith.
That’s not a fight over a singular claim to “ownership of God”.
This world as we know it now, won’t be around for another 1500 years ….. or even 150 years (maybe not even 15).
listens2glenn on May 25, 2013 at 11:55 AM
And, they may be something other than that, too! :)
PS how could a place without suffering that I can conceive of, “Heaven”, be some of delusion?
Anti-Control on May 25, 2013 at 12:10 PM
*be some sort
Anti-Control on May 25, 2013 at 12:11 PM
Oh, ok. I’m arguing(when I confronted you), but you are merely disagreeing when you confronted me and others even while laughing at them. Got it.
No projection of the smugness….it’s apparent for all to see. Even this last post of yours was smug (highly self-satisfied).
That aside…..was Paul “saved” or not when he made his statement: “but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified” (1 Cor. 9:21).
avagreen on May 25, 2013 at 12:15 PM
Do you mean how could a place you can imagine not be some delusion?
DarkCurrent on May 25, 2013 at 12:20 PM
Anti-Control, in your answer to davidk, it is obvious that you do not read the whole bible.
Just more smugness, coupled with blatant ignorance of the Word of God. Please!…. get your head out of your quarterlies and your Baptist books with its cherry-picking of scriptures. Again, this is why I left the Baptist church.
“Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” (Phil 2:12, 13 KJV)
avagreen on May 25, 2013 at 12:25 PM
“self-satisfied,” as though I’m only amusing myself, and you aren’t the one amusing me? :)
If I were in your position, thinking I was so wrong, I would have dropped the conversation already…you keep picking at me, and you do not understand why you are doing so.
Feel free to continue as you wish, but know in advance what my reaction will be!
Anti-Control on May 25, 2013 at 12:26 PM
I’m not reading through the entire thread to see if anyone came up with this before, but Francis is – pretty obviously – referring to the following verses:
But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes …refers to the non-saved (those who have not recognized the Christ). Francis was referring to this in acknowledging that believers will see people in heaven whom they hardly expected to see (from their earthly existence).
Many of Paul’s writings/verses are the warning (if you will) from the next part of v48: For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more. From the saved – i.e., Christians – much is, indeed, required. “More”!
My apologies if someone has previously introduced this in the thread.
davisbr on May 25, 2013 at 12:31 PM
I mean, since I can conceive of Heaven, it does exist somewhere; who is anyone else to tell me it could only be a delusion to believe I will one day fully exist there? What kind of person would say that to another? That is what anti-theists do, and they do not understand how unauthoritative and ridiculous that argument is. I am not lumping you in that category, just to be clear.
When a person is free from Samsura, would you consider that they are free from eternal suffering?
Anti-Control on May 25, 2013 at 12:34 PM
I understand perfectly why I’m doing so……..I’m refuting your complacency and illustrating that your understanding of the bible and it’s teaching is wrong and that you are misleading people with your misunderstandings of what the bible says. I see that you are about doing the same thing. ??
To illustrate: Again, was Paul “saved” or not when he made his statement: “but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified” (1 Cor. 9:21).
avagreen on May 25, 2013 at 12:41 PM
workingclass artist. Given my crush on Paul Ryan, I don’t think I’m a liberal. However, the traditionalist Catholic types and their narrow mindedness ruined my experience with Catholicism. B16 sadly enabled them over the past eight years. I’m so glad that they’ve finally been repudiated. And really hope that we get enough years of lady foot washing and social justice from Bergoglio that his vision of the Church sticks. I also hope that Chicago gets a new archbishop who ascribes to Francis’ pastoral vision rather than a Burke clone.
And my criticism still stands. That blog is basically people whining about the fact that their friends and neighbors aren’t keen on having 1950s Catholicism foisted on them. I haven’t heard a peep about how they serve their communities.
Illinidiva on May 25, 2013 at 12:42 PM
“If you don’t agree with my interpretation of Biblical verses, you are a smug cherry-picker, probably bound for Hell!” -typical, smug, obnoxious Christian (or other type of believer) who doesn’t have a good, close relationship with humility nor with persuasive argumentation…
I don’t argue with deluded people like you who beclown themselves with projected insults (I include you with others like non-nonpartisan, Shallow HAL, and verbaloser here) – take your bait elsewhere!
I am confident you will insult me again, as you try to “maturely” explain why I am wrong for thinking this way. Have fun with yourself now! :)
Anti-Control on May 25, 2013 at 12:49 PM
Yes.
See Acts 9.
22044 on May 25, 2013 at 12:50 PM
Yes, he was saved.
He was preaching discipline to others, and feared being disqualified AS A HYPOCRITE, not disqualified of his salvation/eternal life.
pambi on May 25, 2013 at 1:04 PM
I doubt the pope would want to describe a limit on God’s ability to save whomever He wishes, for whatever reason. Only God knows our hearts. At any rate, acting as if you believe is the easy part of being a believer. Unlike salvation, acting as a believer (e.g., doing good) is the part you can accomplish without divine intervention – thus easy enough for believer or unbeliever, alike. Put another way, let believer and Atheist alike agree to do right, and not wrong – regardless of where either of us think the authority for doing so derives.
Knott Buyinit on May 25, 2013 at 1:04 PM
Sure. In that sense Santa Claus exists too.
Yes, by definition
DarkCurrent on May 25, 2013 at 1:05 PM
I dispute that they’re the same thing, and I believe that you honestly do, too.
Since I believe that you aren’t going to be serious enough for me about this topic, I’ll take a pass on discussing it further with you…
In your opinion, are those freed from Samsara consciously aware of their status?
If you say, “yes,” you believe in Heaven just like I do – we just label it differently.
Anti-Control on May 25, 2013 at 1:18 PM
In my understanding outside of samsara there is no individual consciousness nor immortal souls.
DarkCurrent on May 25, 2013 at 1:36 PM
Your vision is faulty…
The difference between us is this: we both believe the other is wrong, but unlike you, I am not pursuing a discussion in order to change your mind, because I’ve already decided that you are blatantly wrong, obstinate, and in denial.
I see that true salvation occurs when a person puts both feet in Christ’s circle, not just one. Once that’s happened, Jesus will spiritually brand you, and under no possible scenario will He unbrand you, not even if you tell Him you want Him to – as a good parent, He knows what He’s doing! :)
Not only do you reject that idea, you seem to believe that a person can be spiritually branded after putting only one foot in, and I don’t buy that that person is ever able to receive a branding, having never met the minimum requirement of, “both feet in, or you don’t get the prize!”
Anti-Control on May 25, 2013 at 1:45 PM
I’m sorry.
pambi on May 25, 2013 at 1:46 PM
Christ asked Peter: “Who do you say that I am”….what are we to do with Him? Either He is the Son of God, a lunatic, or a liar. I’m with Peter on this one. I believe one question may be posed to each of us when we stand before God “What did you do with my Son”
ziggyville on May 25, 2013 at 1:53 PM
“The daughters of Māra appeared to him glittering with beauty
Taṇhā, Arati, and Rāga
The Teacher swept them away,
as the wind sweeps away bits of fallen cotton”
- Māra-saṃyutta
DarkCurrent on May 25, 2013 at 1:57 PM
I once asked my sister .. “ok, here’s the important, scriptural question .. who do you say He is ?”
She replied ‘I’m not familiar with that question in my bible. Is it some sort of regional thing ?’
We’d just recently moved to Texas, and she actually thought our bibles would be different !!
Well, it was obvious that HER bible was different than mine, but not cuzza the Bible Belt ! oy.
pambi on May 25, 2013 at 2:12 PM
That’s one way of saying what happened to Paul, but Pentecost is a Jewish holiday, and something particular happened to a particular set of people on THE PENTECOST — the one us Catholics celebrate in our liturgical season.
As for Paul, the road to Damascus wasn’t his Pentecost — in which the Holy Spirit came to him [I assume that's what you mean by the word] — no, that happened in Damascus where Ananias healed him — when the scales fell from his eyes, so to speak.
But you will note what happened prior to the healing. Had Saul not prayed, had not accepted what Jesus desired of him — what would have happened?
We’ll never know, but Saul always had free choice as to whether he became Paul. Even on the road to Damascus he could have chosen otherwise.
unclesmrgol on May 25, 2013 at 2:19 PM
Those who see salvation as a singular event in the middle of life don’t understand how salvation works.
unclesmrgol on May 25, 2013 at 3:07 PM
Don’t get testy, now.
1 Corinthians 13:4-5
Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful.
The only thing that I’m denying is your version of the Truth, which is more than a little judgmental.
I have no idea of what you are talking about here in these last two paragraphs. What is the scripture that backs this up?
Thank you, pambi. Yes, I know that Paul was saved. It was a rhetorical question on my part. However, regarding the “disqualified” part, now that you mention this, I do remember a sermon in which this was discussed as the most likely meaning, especially the part where he feared as being viewed as a hypocrite (he, of all people, was mindful of that). The actual word he used was adókimos:
Thayer’s Definition
1.not standing the test, not approved
a.properly used of metals and coins
2.that which does not prove itself such as it ought
a.unfit for, unproved, spurious, reprobate
http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/gwview.cgi?n=96
Here is a bible study on this very subject on whether or not a Christian can fall from grace, which provides multiples of examples of the apostles’ words.
http://www.biblestudyguide.org/articles/salvation/salvation-fall-grace.htm
avagreen on May 25, 2013 at 3:18 PM
Do you believe that there is any consciousness at all outside of samsara, even if it is only a singular one?
Anti-Control on May 25, 2013 at 3:21 PM
This is silly…you believe that people can alternately achieve and lose their salvation, as though being “a new creature in Christ” is not an unchanging spiritual condition. How is such a mindset not susceptible to anxiety?
You have a fear-based psychology, which does not allow for room for a stable sense of peace & joy – how could it, when you fear that you might eventually lose your gift of salvation?
Anti-Control on May 25, 2013 at 3:27 PM
avagreen on May 25, 2013 at 3:18 PM
Where I stand is that one cannot ‘lose’ one’s salvation as you would your pen or car keys, even thru sins. Lost sheep and all that.
Yes, ‘once elightened, having tasted the goodness that is God’, one needs to make the consious choice to reject it all, and is therefore unable to return to the former state of salvation.
Sinning after salvation is inevitable, and our salvation is not voided by those. It’s as if salvation clothes us in a white garment, that our sins will stain. Even simply having to walk through this darkened world can dirty up the hem !!
God is faithful to convict us of those as we go along, and our repentance and his forgiveness washes those out.
pambi on May 25, 2013 at 3:36 PM
Which of us was the one who complained about “disdain” coming from the other? Was it me? :)
LOL you are uptight, unobservant, and delusional…
I know that you have no idea, because you do not approach the idea of salvation with a logical or a spiritual perspective – you use your ego and human emotion only, which is why there is no common ground between us on this subject – you are a cultist hopelessly mired in your dogma as far as I am concerned, which is why I’ll stop talking to you now! :)
Anti-Control on May 25, 2013 at 3:37 PM
We both know the answer: Jesus is the High Priest, and His was the Final Sacrifice to God for the sins of the world.
So let’s examine the concept of the High Priest, and determine what He does. First of all, He is a teacher of those things which we must do which are pleasing to God. Second, He is the mediator between us and God. Thirdly, He is the fulfilment of the Levitic priesthood — no more first sons are needed after His full and pure sacrifice — and this in spite of the fact that He is of the House of Judah!
But that does not absolve you from the consequences of your personal sin. The sacrifice has been made, so you don’t need to. But you must first acknowledge the damage your sins have caused, and then work diligently to repair the damage they have caused.
We know that Jesus has the power to forgive sins — that is mentioned over and over in Scripture. Yet, at the same time, Jesus gives that power to other humans (Peter first, and then to the other Apostles later) in the binding and loosing verses of Matthew. If Jesus is always to be approached directly, then what need for any of what was given to Peter or the Apostles?
What need is there for approaching a Christian wrongdoer to bring an end to the wrongdoing if the sins of the wrongdoer are dismissed by Jesus in the moment of their commission?
While Hebrews describes the natural consequences of the Eucharistic act (Jesus does tell us to “do this in memory of me”), the rest of the New Testament describes, outside of that Sacrifice, what to do to live in a manner pleasing to God.
With respect to the priesthood of the faithful, we Catholics call our more educated individuals “priests” and, by virtue of the powers given to Peter and handed down through the ages, those men inherit the ability to bind and loose.
The actions associated with binding and loosing — Confession/Reconciliation, and Penance, are described repeatedly in Scripture.
You do not need to sacrifice to God for your sin (Jesus has done that for you) but you do need to acknowledge the sin to the community and make whole the damage you have done.
The big question: Does Jesus’ Sacrifice cover wilful and unrepentant sin? Does Jesus’ Sacrifice render moot the Ten Commandments?
If you say yes, then nothing we do on Earth, for good or ill, affects our Salvation, and we might as well just toss our Scripture into the trash and cease any attempts to do what said Scripture says we ought to do.
unclesmrgol on May 25, 2013 at 3:40 PM
Anti-Control on May 25, 2013 at 3:27 PM
Having been set free from that abominable fear (taught in many religions)is what I believe is the Amazing Grace.
:-)
pambi on May 25, 2013 at 3:41 PM
Lambs can become lost, and sometimes the shepherd can’t bring them back.
We are indeed to fear the Lord. In the Catholic mind, that means both loving Him and wanting to do what He wants us to do, and believing that wilful disobedience to his strictures will result in punishment.
And it’s not a matter of losing my Salvation — it’s the matter of not having it at all if I don’t do what is necessary to accept it.
It is not a gift given to me without strings.
In the parable of the prodigal son, what did the prodigal son have to do to be restored?
unclesmrgol on May 25, 2013 at 3:45 PM
I confess my sins BOTH to him, and to others, when I’ve sinned against them as well.
Are my personal confessions and his sweet forgiveness illegitimate, without having confessed it to a human ?
Don’t think so.
I do not need a RELIGION to follow Him, hear Him, please Him.
I find that most often ‘religions’ can become/replace God, and idolatry is not a good thing.
pambi on May 25, 2013 at 3:56 PM
God as a powerless shepherd? Ahhhhhh!
You believing that a spiritually-renewed person could ever possibly become separated from God says to me that you don’t understand the omnipotence angle of God very well.
This isn’t a difficult, complex process: all you have to do to accept salvation is to release your grip from the sinking (worldly) ship you’ve been clinging to, which necessitates having the faith that Jesus will (spiritually) pull you into His rescue vessel.
Jesus does the saving, the work – we only have to let go. Once onboard His rescue vessel, it’s not possible to revert back – believing otherwise is to belittle the supernatural aspects of salvation.
Anti-Control on May 25, 2013 at 4:05 PM
Describe this “letting go”. Isn’t that what most of Scripture is trying to tell us how to do? But you must have a shortcut to make it be so easy.
I’m interested in knowing it. My sister who shoplifts and then confesses to the Lord knows it — I want to know it too — this method of managing to get around “what you did not do for the least of these, you did not do for me”.
unclesmrgol on May 25, 2013 at 4:22 PM
Saying that you used “disdain”(which you did and still are) in your replies in no way matches all the name-calling and accusations you’ve been doing throughout this thread…to everyone.
You really just don’t fit the image of a peace-filled Christian or do I see any Spirit-filled replies that would make anyone hunger for your type of understanding…. despite all your statements that you are. It’s just not evident. At all.
And, telling people they are lost just because they don’t fit your understanding?
Seems that you are the one doing the projecting.
If you could just let go of your ego and human emotion and let’s talk scripture, this would go much better. I’m a cultist, now? Hopelessly mired in my dogma? More name-calling.
Beyond all the name-calling….let’s get back to basics…..where are your scriptures to support your claims?
avagreen on May 25, 2013 at 4:26 PM
Anti-Control on May 25, 2013 at 4:05 PM
Well said. Whew, eh ?
The God I know is MOST capable of finding His lost sheep, and tending His flock.
pambi on May 25, 2013 at 4:27 PM
The far greater risk is that you construct your own God. I have behind me a Faith and Tradition stretching back to Jesus himself. I feel very comfortable that I am not constructing my own God.
In that faith, my chances of being led — or leading myself — into error are considerably reduced. Not made zero, but considerably reduced.
We Catholics require, as one of our acts of faith, an informed conscience. Self education is rarely the way to go in these matters, for it leads to an ill-informed conscience. Catholics are not immune to this problem — you just have to examine the supposedly Catholic utterances of Nancy Pelosi or Joseph Biden to understand that.
unclesmrgol on May 25, 2013 at 4:28 PM
Your sister believes a lie. I’ve heard that thinking referred to as ‘greasy grace’. That is FAR from ‘letting go’, it’s an offense to God himself, I’d say.
“Letting go” is NOT an easy step to take.
If he means the same as I understand it, it’s very much like Gethsemani.
It’s amazing just how much of US we need to release into His hands, to make room for more of Him.
pambi on May 25, 2013 at 4:36 PM
Hint: unclesmrgol disagrees with me, too, yet we are not having the same personal problem that I have with you – I suggest that you take a step back, and figure out the explanation for the difference first before you try talking to me again.
Anti-Control on May 25, 2013 at 4:40 PM
unclesmrgol on May 25, 2013 at 4:28 PM
Not that ‘living in danger of constructing your own god’ line, again.
Every catholic in my family throws that out at me. You’ve learned well, grasshopper. ;-)
We belong to a fellowship, with a pastor and plently of others for accountability. Bible study is a way of life for us all.
None of us have constructed our own God, but we havemet the one, holy, true God. We are no longer bound by religious traditions, yet He keeps us on our toes.
pambi on May 25, 2013 at 4:45 PM
Just give some scriptures to back up your claims and get off the personality part of this discussion.
I’ve yet to see a scripture, only talk and accusations against everyone.
Don’t you have scriptures?
avagreen on May 25, 2013 at 4:47 PM
The shortcut is, “faith” i.e. “I need to truly trust that God can run my life better than I can.”
To me, this starts to happen when a person finally realizes he isn’t happy going down the same old path, and needs to effect a cosmic shift in his life. It’s similar to what addicts must do in 12-step programs – until a person faces the roots of his discontent and sincerely admits he needs outside help, the problems he’s having will only reoccur.
Anti-Control on May 25, 2013 at 4:55 PM
:)
It’s nice knowing that we can never be lost, forgotten, or forsaken! I can’t imagine what it would be like to live life with a different attitude than that.
Anti-Control on May 25, 2013 at 5:00 PM
I find you to be bossy, rude, and unpleasant – what makes you think I might want to do for you what you want me to do?
Sorry, I am not interested! :)
Anti-Control on May 25, 2013 at 5:04 PM
Likewise, plus a delaying effort on your part.
Now…….the scriptures. If you won’t/can’t, I’m beginning to think there aren’t any. Are you a preacher, btw, and expect people to just take your word for whatever you’re putting out?
I really just want some scriptures…..you know….”Study to shew (show) thyself (yourself) approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” ~ 2 Timothy 2:15 – KJV
avagreen on May 25, 2013 at 5:24 PM
I am http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D88yJ36nwNs
davidk on May 25, 2013 at 7:16 PM
Love the Statler Brothers!
avagreen on May 25, 2013 at 8:01 PM
I would just warn people reading here to not get your biblical education from comments on a political blog. Do some research. Read the scholars and not just the sexy, popular ones who like to promote themselves with contrary propositions. Read the sober, well-respected scholars and educate yourselves. Then you can laugh at the internet experts who are less than a dime a dozen.
mbabbitt on May 26, 2013 at 12:16 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5