â€śDo as I say, not as I doâ€ť is the 1st Commandment for church leaders & Progressive politicians.
If Esquire Phillips's new church knows about him, then they probably shouldn't accept him as a member until the [possibly dubious] lawsuit is resolved; if they don't, then they must be in Siberia or the like.
Christine wrote: between the Pope and the Queen, poverty could be eradicated across this entire planet.... the hypocrisy is becoming quite comical...
The track record of Progressivism & Marxism should be enough to refute the superstition that all poverty can be eliminated with money alone. It is a complex issue with few materialistic solutions like that. And BTW, Jesus said, "For ye have the poor always with you."
Rome's hypocrisy isn't the whole story; there is much history & philosophy behind it. Enmity towards banking & capitalism starts at least with Aristotle, whose critique of interest & market prices was repeated by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica, virtually a 2nd bible for the Catholic Church. It was John Calvin who suggested (with much reluctance) that not all loans are usurious; this inaugurated the association of Protestantism with Free Enterprise. This is not to say that Protestants have been consistent about it since then, esp. now.
Irony is, the RCC in its heyday depended upon the Medici, Bardi, Peruzzi, & other Italian bankers, who used Bills of Exchange to earn what in effect was interest.
"The church is not an NGO with lots of old buildings â€“ it is the Church of God, rejoicing in the realities of cultural diversity in a way never known before"
Which god, I wonder? If he's referring to his Anglican Church, it's been a compromised state policy & propaganda tool ever since the Tudors. This is the only reason I can see why a country full of skeptics & unbelievers doesn't disestablish it.
Secondarily, it has served as a sinecure for countless aristocratic sons.
Vendre wrote: God tells us to fast and He would not tell us to do something which is bad for us.
On the contrary, a Christian profession has guaranteed many a shorter lifespan. Folks in Western countries, I suspect, tend to forget this.
And nowhere do I see Biblical evidence that fasting has any health benefits, or is intended to have them. If you're going to fast, do it for Biblical reasons, not because some White Smock thinks it's Good For You.
Jim Lincoln wrote: and yes, Neil, most of Americans expect a healthcare plan out of the Republicans,
Brooks didn't say that. Looks like you're playing evasive games, bringing up the distraction of an alleged Bandwagon this time. But if Americans do think this way, that's nothing to me: I say they're foolish to fall for a con like that. That's not the proper role of the Fed gov't, nor has the Fed gov't shown any evidence of competence in this field.
Since you now say "trogolodyte" instead, that's enough for me to conclude that you have no intention of repenting from your bigoted, juvenile name-calling. Bigots like to believe that whole classes of people have a monopoly on virtue (e.g. Israelis, Communist Democrats) or evil (e.g. Repubs).
Brooks has a faulty premise, possibly intended as a trick to shift ground: many Repubs oppose Fed healthcare altogether; hence, they are not obliged to offer any alternative at all. And if only they would likewise reject a Fed role in the financial sector; here, I expect no alternative from them either, & repudiate nationalized banking, which is what we effectively have.
You yourself have said before that the Repub Plan is to let people die or similar nonsense, as if inaction equals murder. So which is it, Jim? You can't have it both ways.
It is those who demand that other people pay their financial obligations, or bail them out of fiscal irresponsibility, who are greedy. This is lost on Marxists like yourself.
SteveR wrote: How are men judged that have not had access to the Holy Scriptures? Just by the glimmer of innate knowledge that men still retain after the fall? Or something else?
Don't take my word for it: Rom 1:19 "Because that which may be known of God is manifest IN THEM [emphasis mine]; for God hath shewed it unto them." And not by observing invisible things either (v. 20), that would be absurd. What too many commentators forget is, not every use of the verb "to see" in Scripture is speaking of eyeballs or optic nerves; even today, people still use it as an idiom for *understanding* by the mind.
See also Rom. 2:14-15. Despite centuries of misrepresentation by Evidentialists, the Bible is clear about the natural man's knowledge & responsibility. Not even the blind & deaf have an excuse for unbelief, nor can skeptics complain about any unfairness towards those who never heard.
SteveR wrote: The concept of General Revelation is a powerful one, so you are fighting an uphill battle.
Sure it is, but your meaning is different from mine. I say it means this: Man is born with innate knowledge of God, as Romans 1 says; he does not learn it from nature by observation like countless disciples of Thomas Aquinas believe. This view was destroyed two centuries ago by David Hume. Evidently, few Christians study the history of philosophy, no thanks to pastors who teach it's a waste of time. It's not.
Confessions mean nothing to me unless they demonstrably recapitulate what Scripture says.
DanUSA wrote: Wine is used here as medicine, sure it can cure, but medication also improves as time goes by. Knowledge is a gift from God otherwise will be like apes and orangutan.
So you believe, like many deluded Christians, that knowledge comes from nature. I deny this; only Scripture is a source of truth.
And you still haven't proven that Timothy could have benefited better from modern medicine. That is pure speculation. But it gets worse for you: How do you know that even you or I could do better than using wine if we get sick to the stomach? Since the Scientific Method is logically fallacious, for two reasons, that is impossible to say. It requires repeated experiments & control of conditions, neither of which can be safely done.
DanUSA wrote: Really? Itâ€™s 21st century; crude medicinal wine for stomach treatment is obsolete, if not, unnecessary.
How do you know? Did you go back in a time machine & interview Timothy to ascertain his exact problem? Paul's writings are the very words of God, so his recommendation to Timothy is not obsolete just because medicine has changed since then.
And it isn't so outlandish an idea anyway, as some modern authorities think wine can aid digestion. But science never has the final word, of course. Paul is correct because the Bible is inspired, not because fallible scientists might agree with him.
MG wrote: See Jeremiah 35, considering the Rechabites who didn't drink. I still know drinking is not a sin, but there are also valid reasons not to.
I have! The point of them, IMHO, was not so much about alcohol or country living, but about faithfulness to their godly father's wishes (Honor Thy Father & Mother), in contrast to Jerusalem's disobedience to YHWH's commands in more important things. We are bound to honor delegated authorities like parents or bosses; in so doing, we also honor God.
Incredible as it may seem, a Wine-Only Communion guy I know concluded that the Rechabites were somehow being reproved here. He overlooked the final verses!
MG wrote: Here's an interesting one concerning priests.
Interesting but irrelevant, since OT Tabernacle laws are inapplicable to NT believers who (except for farmers & butchers) don't need to wield knives slaughtering sheep & goats. And Christ wasn't a Levite, but after the order of Melchizedek, Ps. 110.
Stevenr wrote: I believe that the Cup (communion/ Lord's Supper) MUST be unfermented, as the Passover was a picture of Christ. In the Passover, leaven was completely avoided as a picture of sin.
Faulty premise. Passover wine was not part of the original Mosaic ordinance, it was apparently a human invention which Christ appropriated for Communion. He offered no explanation about fermentation & what it meant, so that is Adiaphora, a Thing Indifferent.
Moreover, leaven was not always symbolic of sin; in Passover, unleavened bread connoted HASTE, Deut. 16:3. No time for the dough to rise! Thus you cannot logically infer that unleavened bread for Passover implies an unleavened cup for Communion.
Silofolous wrote: For clarification, I am a tee-totaler by choice. I have tasted alcohol, but the very taste disgusts me.
And that's fine! I voluntarily abstain too. Another good reason: It's more expensive than soft drinks these days; check out the prices at Costco.
Yet there are some Christians (Primitive Baptists, some Presbys) who insist that wine is the only acceptable Communion beverage! Too bad if you're a recovering alcoholic or a minor. However, they have NO Scriptural proof that the Cup *must* contain a fermented drink, just because it happened to be this way at first. What will they do about 1st-century bread recipes? Are we supposed to imitate Palestinian furniture & clothing, too? NO! Not every detail of the Ordinances must duplicate original conditions.
There are divisive extremes on both sides of the issue.