Then details, please, & in a way which proves *necessarily* YHWH, the God of Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob. What you have so far is merely a vague declarative statement, not a lengthy chain of reasoning, in the manner of Aquinas (Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Q2, Art. 3).
N.B., God is not a physical body that set another one in motion, like a billiard cue ball. This creates a logical problem in attempting a regress to a First Cause.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Well, of course, the KJV isn't a good Bible for adults, let alone children.
Speak for yourself. While the KJV has obvious archaisms & some translation deficiencies, including Dynamic Equivalence like the NIV, it's not as bad as you claim. This is why I avoid your embarrassing, silly debates with KJV jihadists, for you have managed to find the worst possible arguments against it (e.g., Genetic Fallacy, Appeal to Novelty) in spite of there being much better ones (e.g. Double-Standard, Petitio Principii).
It is ironic that many secular, unbelieving humanities scholars have far more respect for the KJV than you do. At least they admit its lasting literary significance, which you despise. I'll take their word for it.
I think you mock the KJV for the same reason you mock Repubs: to spite fanatics.
Notwithstanding our distaste for Dumbed-Down Bibles & other literature (underlying assumption, as with Sunday Schools: children are stupid & can't absorb anything mature), the 1560 Geneva Bible has illustrations in it, including one of Noah's Ark which doesn't look like a bathtub toy & agrees well with modern Creationist drawings.
Anytime someone promotes something as Fun in Christian circles, ask them which verse tells us that one of man's duties before God is to Have Fun.
Thomas the Doubter wrote: Where is the church told they should celebrate christmas? I missed that one.
A rhetorical question, I know, but the Feast of the Nativity seems to have been instituted by Early Church Fathers, such as Chrysostom, around the 4th century. Charles Dickens & Prince Albert also helped things along; after publication, "A Christmas Carol" was a bestseller in both the UK & USA.
The only force more powerful than the pull of winter holiday customs is a Black Hole. Every other tradition can go to blazes, but don't touch Christ-mass or you are a Scrooge.
Besides, when else can retailers turn a profit? Remember Paul & the Ephesian silversmiths. And it's a great time to fill the pews, so don't wait for pastors to halt proceedings, either.
SteveR wrote: 2000 years ago, young children were most definately part of most households.
Evidence for this from ancient sources, please? Did Rome have census bureau statistics? Which BTW, aren't inspired canon, so you must ignore Sola Scriptura to make this appeal, as you also must do in making the "Early Church Fathers" argument (cf. the Appeal to Antiquity Fallacy). The Reformers themselves attacked the error of this line of argument, while ignoring it with respect to pĂ¦dobaptism. Can't admit those crazy Anabaptists might've been right about anything.
Reformed must violate their own stated principles, & logic itself, to argue for pĂ¦dobaptism. They blatantly resort to Special Pleading in appealing to Circumcision when there is no ambiguity in the NT church record necessitating this. The church baptizes *credibly professing believers*, full stop. Whether they're actual believers is beside the point.
BTW, even the papists admit (in Catholic Encyclopedia) that the early church practiced immersion, & the E. Orthodox continue to immerse, but this is ignored by Presbys.
"It is possible that people today are indeed less deserving of trust than Americans in the past, perhaps because of a decline in moral values."
For a change, this is journalistic understatement. According to a recent sermon at our church, Gallup observed that even professing Christians have ethics not substantially different from unbelievers. I wish I asked the pastor where he got this, but I think it's entirely plausible.
Matt. 5:37 is about as plain a Bible doctrine as can be: Once a Christian makes a vow, he's supposed to keep it, period. It should be as good as a notarized contract.
A sign that keeping vows is out of fashion generally, & that pragmatism rules instead, is how rarely one hears people even promise to keep their word, let alone do so. Back in the Victorian era, keeping faith (or at least appearing to do so) was socially vital.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Neil, capitalism doesn't work with Laissez-faire(Roughly translated, "Survival of the Fittest," and to follow "Natural Law") We can see what happened when "Enron" Bush, and even Billy Clinton was in office.
Definition of â€ślaissez-faireâ€ť: literally, â€ťto let, to allow.â€ś Not at all equal to the tautology â€śSurvival of the Fittest,â€ś not even close. Anyhow, capitalism cannot function w/o rule of law; courts resolve business abuse, so your comparison is an absurd misrepresentation.
I'll take the â€śtyrannyâ€śÂ & instability of free markets any time over the far worse, real tyranny of a managed economy. The latter is the direction we're taking, not classic socialism as such (outright state ownership). The financial sector has long been in chains, so I expect more economic decline to come.
I'm convinced that clergymen, Protestant & esp. Catholic, simply do not understand economics & trade, having been trained in the cloister instead of the marketplace. Talk with a business owner if you think it's easy to run a business & make money, esp. now with all the tax & regulatory hassles.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Neil, I would say that God's existence is obvious from observation,
So Where's the Beef, Jim? Easy to say, hard to do. I already said below that the Empiricist take on Romans 1 is not merely faulty, it opens a lot of holes which Aquinas, a brilliant man, spent volumes trying to fill, yet unsuccessfully at that.
It is ironic that in spite of all the eager attacks on the RCC on this site by you & others, so many â€śProtestantsâ€ť here apparently embrace the philosophy of Rome's most important theologian.
Mike wrote: Sounds like a Democrat to me, what with imagining politicians are able to provide work, healthcare, and education.
Quite right; Catholic Social Teaching fits Progressivism very well, regardless of what National Review may say. No wonder Cardinal Francis Spellman, nicknamed â€śThe Powerhouse,â€ť was a confidante of FDR.
â€śWell, they're going to elect that 'superman' Hoover, & he's going to have some trouble. He's going to have to spend money. But he won't spend enough. Then the Democrats will come in & they'll spend money like water. But they don't know anything about money." â€“Â Calvin Coolidge, 1928
Unprofitable Servant wrote: I Timothy 5:17,18 "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. For the scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward." I Corinthians 9:14 "Even so has the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel."
You didn't demonstrate what those texts have to do with clerical tax perks. They discuss the duty of the church towards teaching elders, *not* the duties of civil taxing authorities.
And it is not impossible to have a full-time secular job *and* preach effectively, especially when multiple elders share the burden of teaching. But whether preachers are full- or part-time, they should be compensated proportionately.
Of course there is General & Special Revelation, but as I've said below, that is beside my point. It is *how* General Revelation works that is my question: â€śAquinas believed we could learn about God by studying the world.â€ť
Exactly. And this project has been a miserable failure, an easy target for subsequent skeptics over many centuries. This is just one way Rome & her Protestant imitators make Christianity look foolish & perhaps hastened the modern meltdown in organized Christianity.
And as a practical matter, Aquinas's â€śproofsâ€ť in Summa Theologica, borrowed from Aristotle, are complex, voluminous, & thus hard for laymen to digest. No wonder Rome insists that theology is best left to professionals. And it also implies negligence in Special Revelation; why didn't the inspired writers prove God's existence this way?
I say God's existence cannot & need not be proven, as man already knows about Him from birth without observing a thing.
Without excusing government-mandated costs already imposed upon hospitals, if you want to see how much they waste, just ask for an itemized bill the next time you or a family member is hospitalized. We did, & discovered they were (probably due to staff carelessness) overcharging our insurer. It took considerable effort to get the insurance company to recognize that *they* were getting ripped off; but they finally woke up & corrected the bill from the hospital in their favor. So don't always assume insurance companies are predatory; in this case, they were the victim.
This suggests to me that patients themselves have little awareness of or interest in containing costs, so the institutions run open-loop & waste everyone's money. Remember: every little thing the hospital provides, right down to Tylenolâ„˘, gets added to your bill, just as in a hotel.
penny wrote: the women changed their "natural use into that which is against nature" the men, leaving the "natural use" because they did not retain God in their knowledge (the mind corrupted), they became all these evil things. yes, a protestant will have a hard time with catholic natural law...
If that was intended to convince me of Natural Law, it doesn't, for it commits the Fallacy of Equivocation. What grounds do you have to infer that because Paul refers to nature, he uses it in the same sense Aristotle or Aquinas did? That is, did Paul gain his knowledge of â€śnatural useâ€ť from empirical observation like Aristotle? Not necessarily: the natural use of man & woman can be learned from Genesis 4 with no observation whatever.
And even if he does mean the same thing, you still cannot by induction assume everything else Aristotle/Aquinas taught about nature is sound.
mourner wrote: What do you think qualifies you to refute the Puritans exegesis you haven't read? â€¦ I'm not trying to be smart but why do you think you are so vastly intellectually superior that you can question all past and present interpretation?
The Puritans wrote a lot of sound stuff; I'm just saying, so far as I can tell, they neglected to exegete this passage the way they did elsewhere, despite being far better scholars than I am. I just looked at Calvin, & he also gave it short shrift, paying no attention to the Greek, & making an obscure allusion to Hebrews about a mirror. Can someone find it?
Past negligence is no excuse for continuing it now. Do we believe in Semper Reformanda or not?