Allie Beth is Maybe Right Against Biden, But Wrong on Some Else

No, Jesus Didn’t Die for Your Student Loans | Ep 668*
29.VIII.2022 | Allie Beth Stuckey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypT1a3JGLfc

1:28 Indeed. I stopped two main blogs before they came to that number, because I had no plausible candidate for either Beast of False Prophet.

Only on the third main blog did I actually go that far an beyond, since I had a candidate.

I actually was already doing things when the draft made the total, drafts and published 666, but here is to 666th published post:

28 + 258 (2013 + 2014) = 286 - remainder 386.
386 - 336 = 50 (we're now past 2015)
50 - 27 = 23 (we're past January)
23:rd post in February is : Answering Krzystof Charamsa

"Who is he? / A priest who is not just same sex attracted but confesses to being in a (presumably) sodomitic relationship."

What a coincidence! Or not.

I may have counted wrong, or the post that's 666 back when I wrote it may be so overall:

Some of the Main Suspects (February 9, 2016) - is five posts before the one on Krzystof Charamsa.

1:59 I could perhaps see the episode with Sophia sound off. Subtitled.

I wouldn't want to be judging her, but the scars involve a voice somewhat too deep for a woman ...

7:38 "even if you graduate, you may not have the ticket that graduating once offered"

Student loans are part of it (my Swedish one is pretty close to a Pell Grant).

But only part.

Other parts are:

• new subjects meant to teach you only a critical attitude with no body of facts tied to something else than that (women studies, race studies ... lot's of subjects ending in "studies")
• inflation in graduates, meaning they become as employable as farm boys in New York once were ...
• and lowering of the wage tier where graduate studies are meant as a requisite.

This also works out for the worse for those who studied much and perhaps learnt much (at least the former is my case) but didn't take a Licence or Masters, let alone a PhD.

8:14 Sweden is very different from the US in what you just said.

The medium study loan debt for someone living in Sweden is 143 265 SEK (13 432.62 USD). It's higher for those living abroad. And I have more than most.*

Hence my clear unwillingness to start living off a bad paid unqualified job, instead of my writing, since it would drain what I gain to do that deal.

10:40 I have not been badgering the CSN (our study loan authority) about cancellation.

I have been telling them more than once "I don't have this money you are asking" or "if I paid what you ask, I'd have insufficient on the account for paying rent, if I should find sth"

And I have been badgering moralists - come on and look at my actual work, someone except just myself might profit from making money from it and the voluntary royalties would enable me to actually pay back something!

12:17 This side of the equation does not exist in Sweden.

The most prestigious universities in Sweden - basically as close as we get to OxBridge - are Lund and Uppsala.

The fees for getting inserted as a student (pays for lectures, for student amenities getting opened, for doing exams - I paid inscription during military service to catch up on exams) are set by the government, and no private university, if any even exists in Sweden, is prestigious enough to take vastly higher tuition, possible exceptions for business schools where you may start earning your own money and perhaps pay for all tuition before you even graduate if that's that word.

It could be a more profitable deal to on the one hand this once remit student loans, but for the future limit tuition fees, so that Harvard could be busted if charging what I think you say they charge now ...

13:00 Theatre is not that obscure and often allows some paying back - well, depends on if you participate in casts that are so avant-garde no one sees them too, perhaps.

If I had taken theatre or music - I'd perhaps be more successful now.

15:15 Buying votes - one of the drawbacks with parliamentarian democracies, and presidential republics.

Are you arguing for the kind of régimes that don't have to, like some Fascist régimes and Monarchies?

I am obviously not speaking of racist Fascism (NS + last part of Italian F) or of Antichristian Sultanates, but there were some of some other type!

17:00 It's a great tool, as long as those who handle it use it honestly.

In the Library Georges Pompidou, I had the blog of a Catholic friend from UK blocked, it was called Red Cardigan, and the block reason given was "pornography" ... er, no, definitely not her style.

At a certain municipal cyber facility, my blogs were being blocked for being on blogspot - what was the block reason? Drugs. Blogspot ends in the letter sequence of - yeah three letters - and so obviously all the millions of users of blogspot must be very interested in certain plants of a slightly different variety from the ones used for ropes. And they had such a huge trust in the infallibility of their AI powered filter that they refused to take my correction.

19:01 There was no tax paying involved in the years of Jubilee.

Yes, it did involve property transfer, but it was property transfer of real estate back to original owners, so as to avoid property concentration vs impoverishment.

Like pre-Capitalist laws were in Europe, like in Sweden up to 1860's : you could be in such an impoverished position that you needed to sell - but depending on whether it was where you lived or where you had your shop or whether it was a farm, first, people who cared for you had a right of pre-emption. The different categories could involve family or neighbours or colleagues in the trade, depending on type of property, and they were offered before anyone else was. And within a year of the transaction, you had the option of red-emption, of buying it back not at market price, not to give the one you sold to a profit, but identic price.

19:11 At Sabbatical years, debts were in fact cancelled.

Obviously, either Jubilees or Sabbaticals would be incompatible with certain types of transfers. No government would be able to do Pell Grants if living under Sabbatical years.

And with Jubilees, real estate market value would be going down and down since it was so obviously a lease of property for shorter and shorter time.

20:29 Yeah, if some rich people made student loan debt cancelling charities from their pockets instead of wanting more in them from cancellation by tax payers ...

But in all seriousness, it does also depend on how many lives are bogged down due to student loan debts.

If it's sufficiently many, there is a reason for the state to step in, even if the tax payer doesn't understand the need, and to do this before some of the groups indebted start doing very stupid things.

21:18 Year of Jubilee was not the most frequent cancellation of debts, Sabbatical years were.

During and after a Sabbatical year, it was unlawful to reclaim a debt contracted before that Sabbatical.

If you have heard of Hillel (the first) and Shammai, Hillel was the pragmatist who found ways to get around this. And that type of pragmatism is very probably and in some cases very clearly what Christ is condemning as "traditions of men".

22:11 Borrower being slave to a lender is actually OT law. Our Lord in a parable describes how it worked, but this does not mean it is a legislation point for NT law.

Ver. 7. Servant. He might be sold, &c. Ex. xxii. 3. Matt. xviii. 25. Gell. xx. 1. Plato (Leg. viii.) would have nothing sold on credit. These laws appear to be severe; but they are founded on wisdom, as nothing impoverishes more than the facility of borrowing.

22:03 Did you say 37:1 for Psalms?

In a Catholic Bible, this would be 36:1 (we follow LXX division of the book of psalms).

Here is what it says, adding next verse so you can check it's the right passage:

A psalm for David himself. Be not emulous of evildoers; nor envy them that work iniquity. For they shall shortly wither away as grass, and as the green herbs shall quickly fall.

Wait, 37:21! I heard "one" when you said "twentyone" a bit quickly!

The sinner shall borrow, and not pay again; but the just sheweth mercy and shall give.

This is a question : does this verse mean, borrowing and not repaying constitutes sin, and giving constitutes justice?

Or does this mean the sinner shall be put to need and the just shall be able to indulge his will to show mercy?

Is it a condemnation and a praise or is it a contrast between curse and blessing?

Previous verse : Because the wicked shall perish. And the enemies of the Lord, presently after they shall be honoured and exalted, shall come to nothing and vanish like smoke.

Following verse : For such as bless him shall inherit the land: but such as curse him shall perish.

Given that in OT times not paying back was a threat of slavery, being brought to that was a clear instance of very bad fortune, like after a curse.

And the previous and following verses and context of the whole psalm say this is a contrast between curses for the wicked (who seem to prosper for a time) and blessings for the just (if you go back : even if it doesn't show immediately).

So, when you say the Psalm is condemning the non-payment of debt, you are quotemining.

The Haydock comment is not right now at least speaking to the first part of the verse, only to the second part:

Ver. 21. Give. Having both the will and the power to be liberal. H. --- "He shall lend without expecting any advantage, while the wicked falls into such misery as not to be able to pay his debts. This is not always the order of Providence. C. --- But the just is often enabled by economy to relieve his brethren, at the same time that the libertine wastes his estate, (Bert.) or at least unjustly defers to pay his debts. M.

The commenter M is distinguishing between a just and an unjust deferring of payment of debts.

22:14 Getting quickly out of debt if possible or not getting into it in the first place, is obviously ideal.

I have not looked at offers on loans, sometimes perhaps even big sums, that have spammed me, bc of this.

Here is the Haydock comment:

Ver. 8-9. But that you love one another. This is a debt, says S. Chrys. which we are always to be paying, and yet always remains, and is to be paid again. — He that loveth his neighbour, hath fulfilled the law. Nay, he that loves his neighbour, as he ought, loves him for God's sake, and so complies with the other great precept of loving God: and upon these two precepts (as Christ himself taught us, Matt. xxii. 40.) depends the whole law and the prophets. Wi.

It does not state that the first part is a universal prohibition on remaining in debt when the means of getting out are dauntingly bleak, bordering on suicidal.

23:50 Some taxation actually does. The tithe.

St. Severine of Noricum had trouble convincing people to levy a tithe (10 % of income) which he was mainly using for relief to those impoverished by the then ongoing remake of the Roman world, like onslaught of Barbarians (he negotiated with Odoacar so Romans from Noricum could be evacuated South, to Italy, after he died, and left in peace as long as he lived : his biographer St. Eugippius resettled to Naples).

So, God made miracles on his behalf.

In Sweden, just before the Reformation, we had two taxes. Tithe, paid to the Church - 10 % of income. Part of which was still for poverty relief (2/9 of the cereals tithe). And real estate tax, corresponding to c. 5 % of a typical year's harvest, paid to the crown for defense purposes.

Sum total : 15 % taxation.

24:01 I am indeed working very diligently as a writer, and therefore that verse should not be used to condemn my ways, but rather Wisdom 5:1 - 5 to condemn those who organise an editors' boycott around my writings.

One is taking away my work, not just if one is unfairly gaining from it, but even more, if one is preventing me to gain fairly from it.

24:20 And while I am an ex-convict, it was not for property delinquence - not for stealing.

24:41 God did forbid Israel to charge interest on loans, if the debtor is a brother - a fellow Israelite, or possibly even Edomite or Egyptian.

[withdrawn, since following could not be added]

Now the word poor certainly occurs in both Leviticus 25 and Exodus 22.

However, it is explained as a circumstance leading to the borrowing.

And in a society where having real estate was the default, not having enough money to start one's business clearly counted as poor.

Which (confer Jubilees every 50 years) was a type of society that Israel was.

Can one extrapolate that interest would be OK when lending to a rich person? I'd not say that. Especially, as there is something else than what we call lending that would better describe when taking more would be OK - if the borrower is successful. That transaction, according to St. Thomas, involves what we would refer to as buying and selling back a share to the company owner in his company. If he gets a 10 % boost overall for the company over the time of the loan, he ows a ten % boost to the lender, but if he gets a 50 % set back, the lender also gets a 50 % setback.

* See also:

The Imaginative Conservative : Should We Forgive Student Debt?
By David Deavel|August 30th, 2022
https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2022/08/forgive-student-debt-david-deavel.html

JP was wrong at that video (Message to the Christian Churches)

Jordan Peterson’s weird authoritarian rant
28th Aug 2022 | Genetically Modified Skeptic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NvID5SiDUw

6:17 See how much toxicity there is in a term like "narcissist" ...

One of the perks with actually believing what the Catholic Church teaches is, knowing the accusation of "narcissism" is meaningless.

What would a Protestant say about St. Thérèse of Lisieux (meaning a conservative not overly supranaturalistic Protestant, like not too likely to sympathise with Catholicism or evince terms like narcissism)?

What would the pagan father of St. Barbara have said about her decision to have Jesus as spouse instead of taking the one he had chosen? I mean of course, if he had had the term "narcissist" available.

9:05 I have some (slight) hopes about Jordan Peterson mending.

But as to what he has been so far, one cannot count me as being on his side.

It's like saying the late Kaczynski was on Putin's side. Somewhat disingenious when suspicions are Putin was behind the air plane accident. Kaczynski was (and arguably still is, in Heaven or Purgatory) a true believer in Catholicism. Putin is as far as I can tell, very much not a true believer in Orthodoxy, any more than Patriarch Kirill is. I am a true believer in Catholicism. And arguably, Jordan Peterson is not a true believer in whatever Church he's now attending, even if he's not an Atheist any more. Hope he doesn't stay that way.
9:56 And large hordes of young men who join a Church without really caring what it says and whether they believe it is a recipe for that Church getting swamped in unbelievers.
If the conversion of the Roman Empire had happened as some Protestants like to imagine, the result could have been what they describe in theses like Hislop's The Two Babylons (written while Assyriology was a very just starting science, which the Presbyterian clergyman in CoE arguably had no idea of) - what came closest to it was arguably the vogue for Arianism. Fifty years after Nicaea, people who had opted Arian because they didn't really care what the Church taught and Arianism was fine with that would have to chose between Catholicism, becoming Goths to remain Arian, hoping to bring Paganism back (a hope soon dashed), or hypocrisy. But hypocrisy would not have been the obvious only option.

11:06 As an Austrofascist, I agree with you.

Have you heard of Monsignor Ignaz Seipel? He was a chancellor of Austria before the Austrofascists, but same party as they : Christian Social.

The party relied fairly much on his books, one about the relations between people, nation and state, but one which is called "Wirtschaftsethische Lehre der Kirchenväter" - The Doctrine of Church Fathers on the Ethics in Economy. One Church Father he cites much is St. John Chrysostom. And one thing St. John Chrysostom said about rich not giving alms is "si non pasti occidisti" - if you didn't feed, you killed. As the quote is in Latin, it's actually St. Ambrose, but St. John Chrysostom said basically the same thing.

Hence, Austrofascism involves a moderate welfare state. Not providing for abortions or contraception obviously, but providing for quite a lot of other things. Not as lavish as Social Democratic régimes in Sweden or Spain or Portugal - but also without the backlash, when Sweden made old age pensions dependent for sufficiency on what you lay aside to certain pension funds, after all my youth up to then not being so. As I had studied much and worked little, it was somewhat of a blow in my face, back in 2003. And Spain and Portugal are basically under tutelage from creditors.

11:25 You are IN the group that says "being queer is OK" - you say YOUR group has no "special access to morality" ... do I spot a logical contradiction?

Jared Levine

No, that's not a logical contradiction at all. It's not even a regular contradiction. 'Special access' means something very different from 'I believe I am right'.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jared Levine I think by "special access" he is targetting Churches and Church men who think their values should influence legislation and the point is, he thinks his group (not limited to sexually LGBT persons, but clearly LGBT liberal thinkers) should inluence legislation - where is this not a double standard?

Jared Levine

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Uh, no, 'special access' refers to the idea that morality comes from a place that only a small group of people have access to. In this particular instance, the place is 'god'. The church says that it has a monopoly on morality and that right and wrong can only come from god, and in fact that you cannot come to moral conclusions without god.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jared Levine "In this particular instance, the place is 'god'."

Not a "small place" and not something that only a small group of people can access.

Given your name, this may not apply to your ancestry, but lots of us (including me) have huge chunks of ancestry in populations where entire nations were Christian.

Your reference on what the Church says seems - ill-informed.

The Catholic Church does not say it has a monopoly on morality, but a monopoly on getting everything in moral teaching correct. Like a Jew might miss out on not taking interest from fellow men (the Mosaic dispensation was meant for enemy nations like Canaaneans and Babylonians) or a Muslim missing out on how small quantities of alcohol are licit, or some Protestants missing out on both.

We also say that morality actually comes from God twice over : first by His creating us in His image and second by His revealing it. Non-Christians will definitely get some things right. Like a Muslim not taking interest, a Jew not calling someone drunk for drinking a can of beer most evenings, or even the Protestant I meant could get it right that giving alms is a necessity.

But the Catholic Church is not asking certain legislations because of that monopoly, but simply because they are right.

Jared Levine

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "The Catholic Church does not say it has a monopoly on morality, but a monopoly on getting everything in moral teaching correct."

Yeah that's the same thing.

That's the special access. The idea that moral truth comes from god, (or, more specifically, through a set of documents and interpretations of documents that have been ascribed to a particular character of god) and anyone not using that particular avenue is, at best, guessing.

I don't think that morality requires a god. If you think I am categorically wrong, then you think you have special access to morality.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jared Levine "Yeah that's the same thing."

No, it's not. It certainly is a special access, but it is only relevant to legislation insofar as this means a certitude of being right.

If he can require laws for acceptance of LGBT people because he's certain that's right, then the Catholic Church can require laws condemning LGBT acts as well as contraception because that is right.

And in this question, indeed any question, the Catholic Church says the right solution can, by a purely natural process, be discovered by any man, not any Catholic, any man of good will.

"I don't think that morality requires a god."

I think you have kind of heard some people misstate the "presuppositional" proofs for God in ways we Catholics do not share.

Your being moral requires you to be created by God, which all men are, not your believing in God, which a minority do not believe in, except as for the morality towards God, and it also doesn't require you to believe in the right God.

"The idea that moral truth comes from god ... through a set of documents and interpretations of documents that have been ascribed ... and anyone not using that particular avenue is, at best, guessing."

Not what we believe.

God has created us moral, like God has created us mathematical.

God has also given us a key, in Bible and Tradition and Magisterium, which is like the key a math teacher provides. That some pupils get certain equations wrong without the key doesn't mean they are guessing, it means they are inattentive, to the law God wrote in their hearts, and that the key could have cured such moments of inattention.

Jared Levine

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Okay, we're talking about a couple of different things here.

Members of the Catholic Church are of course entitled to advocate for and pursue legislation that conforms to their personal values.

But in that sense they are equal in that pursuit to the Jew, the Muslim, the Hindu, the atheist, etc. What GMS and I are saying is that regardless of where you believe your morals come from, you still have to do the same work of convincing other people that your ideas have merit and are worth codifying. As opposed to believing that only one group has or should have the right to codify their ideas. I believe I'm right but accept that I could be wrong, and for that reason I would not want a system of governance where my beliefs cannot be challenged, especially legally.

"the Catholic Church says the right solution can, by a purely natural process, be discovered by any man,"

Well I'm a man of good will and I believe that LGBT people are normal and should be treated as such, so I'm curious how you reconcile that with anyone believing otherwise.

"Your being moral requires you to be created by God, which all men are, not your believing in God"

I wasn't talking about where moral beliefs come from, I was talking about where morality comes from. I believe that morality very much exists in the absence of a god, not merely in the absence of belief in one.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jared Levine To some of the other points you raised: We are not likely to get the Inquisition back, and I would not advocate for it, as I think it's too late, we are too close to the time of Antichrist.

And now to this one:

"Well I'm a man of good will and I believe that LGBT people are normal and should be treated as such, so I'm curious how you reconcile that with anyone believing otherwise."

If LGBT people are normal, contestable, depends on how far they go in acts, certainly quite a lot of LGBT acts are not normal, as in not normal means of getting babies, and therefore likewise not normal means of getting sexual satisfaction.

And if you pretend it doesn't hurt anyone, look at what declining birth rates are doing to old age pensions.

If you consider LGBT are very marginal compared to "normal" contraception, true.

But it would be impossible to convince normal people they shouldn't use a condom if there was a big exception getting even further from a normal coitus for a group like LGBT. It would even be somewhat unfair.

@Jared Levine "I believe that morality very much exists in the absence of a god not merely in the absence of belief in one."

That could be true if Atheism were true. It's not. And claiming it's not true doesn't make the believer privileged in accessing the natural law, since your morality equally is from the God you don't believe in (except the erroneous parts, that are like doing some sums wrong, but worse).

Jared Levine

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "That could be true if Atheism were true. It's not."

Well that's the big question, which we obviously disagree on.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jared Levine Explain objective morality on evolutionary grounds?

And before you say you weren't claiming universal validity for your morals, consider you were talking of being right or wrong. That implies universal validity is what's talked about.

You can't be right or wrong in a personal preference for oranges or apples.

Jared Levine

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Well, first of all, it's a false dichotomy to say that evolutionary grounds are the only grounds from which objective morality can arise.

Morality is a matter of improving individual and social welfare and avoiding causing suffering. Evolution describes why certain things cause welfare and why certain things cause suffering. I avoid causing suffering because I do not want people to cause me suffering. I try to improve the welfare of others because I want others to improve my welfare.

It's about as objective as morality can be, given that it's about the interactions between moral agents, which are necessarily subjects.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jared Levine No, no, no.

Objective morality involves an objective assessment of whom one is obliged to interact with so as to limit their suffering or promoting their welfare, individual or social, and also how far one is obliged to do so.

Those are the only types of issue you would be differing on some points with us Catholics on.

And already on this ground, you can condemn contraception, unless a man is rich and can buy friends, it guarantees a lonely old age, and accepting it on a legal and countrywide basis is what has made old people degrade so much in the respect they get. As mentioned : LGBT acts are contraceptive acts.

Jared Levine

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Okay, so we agree on what morality *is*, that's good. Now, presumably, if I could make a compelling and positive case for contraception, you would, if you wanted to be consistent in what you're saying here, have no choice but to believe that contraceptives are a morally good thing, regardless of what any religious documents say, right?

Like, for the sake of argument, if there was no material and earthly harm to contraceptives, that would render them above condemnation, because of the reasons you have just stated, yes?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jared Levine Being without a next generation is harm.

Chosing it for yourself, without a just compensation for that kind of choice (like monks are both frugal and tend to get a next generation of vocations) is therefore self harm.

Encouraging that self harm on the scale of a society is harming all of the society, both old who get neglected after decades of it and young, who are overburdned by demands of old, and the population which is in danger of needing input from other parts of the world, which input can tend to steal the show after a while of growth.

Jared Levine

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I understand that that's your belief. What I'm asking is, if I could demonstrate that there is no harm, or that the harm is acceptable and/or outweighed by a good, would that make it moral to you, regardless of what any other religious documents say?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jared Levine I don't think you can, but if you want to try, do.

By the way, the extra qualification "or that the harm is acceptable and/or outweighed by a good" has fairly much hollowed the point.

@Jared Levine Note also, the extra qualification again appeals to an objective morality of the sort you are not explaining - that's where you find "acceptable harm" or "outweighed".

Jared Levine

@Hans-Georg Lundahl How does it 'hollow the point'? Dentistry often inflicts pain but we recognize that people are much better off with functioning teeth, right? Is that not an example of an 'acceptable harm'?

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Anyway, I think there are a ton of problems with the objection that you're raising with contraceptives here, to the point that if I were less charitably inclined, I'd accuse you of sophistry.

I think the most obvious place to start here is that morality pertains to how we interact with *others*. I don't think you can really make a case that an action's morality can be determined by how it affects you. Otherwise, something like going to community college when you could be going to university, or smoking a cigarette, becomes immoral, which is bizarre to me.

So the idea that it's immoral to take contraceptives because you might be denying yourself some future well-being falls totally flat for me.

I have a lot more to say but I don't want to just send huge walls of text back and forth so let's start with this.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jared Levine "Otherwise, something like going to community college when you could be going to university,"

Chosing a lesser good is not chosing a positive evil. And that means that there can be individual compensations, like the talent you want to cherish more, or a person you want to stay in touch with - each being not less but more important than certain types of education.

"or smoking a cigarette, becomes immoral, which is bizarre to me."

Smoking twenty fags a day is immoral. That's a level pretty cancer risked.

When below that level, the act is moral, unless you have an obligation to others (as you mention) or to keep your throat in singing shape.

Why, because the harm, if any, is not a very big one.

"So the idea that it's immoral to take contraceptives because you might be denying yourself some future well-being falls totally flat for me."

It's absolutely not just "some" future well-being, it is THE normal well-being for an old person : being supported by his own.

Getting a lower pay is nothing compared to having a caring home rather than one's own family around when one dies.

Jared Levine

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "And that means that there can be individual compensations"

By that same token, you can prioritize the aspects that a child-free life gives you over having children.

That of course assumes that the choices are 'child-free until you die' or 'have children' which is not the case- people can and do use contraceptives to hold off on having children *until they are ready*. My girlfriend and I are planning on having kids eventually. We are not currently ready for them. We will use contraceptives until we are.

You're also assuming a status quo in which people can only be cared for in their old age by their direct offspring. What if that isn't the case? What if we lived in a society where the community cared for its elders, regardless of whose grandparents they are? Then it seems to me like your entire concern disappears.

Also, the idea that there is some risk of cancer at which smoking cigarettes becomes immoral seems pretty arbitrary to me. Certainly not something I would expect out of an objective morality.

More broadly, your argument here implies that everyone should have children, not merely that everyone should abstain from contraceptives. If you believe that the state should be able to ban access to contraceptives, do you believe that the state should mandate everyone to have children?

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Also, as an aside, you know LGBT people can have kids, right?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jared Levine "Also, as an aside, you know LGBT people can have kids, right?"

Exactly my point: LGBT people can have children. LGBT acts can't make children.

"By that same token, you can prioritize the aspects that a child-free life gives you over having children."

There are monasteries. While monks don't make children, they get novices.

An 80 year old man can usually not survive and especially feel well without younger people around. A very rich man can commit LGBT acts or "more normal" contraception and still make sure to have young people around. It does not follow that all men can do so. Unfortunately, that exact thing is likely to be forgot by a rich man, and when some rich people do forget it, they get on and push other people to do the same to their own destruction, individually or collectively or both.

"That of course assumes that the choices are 'child-free until you die' or 'have children' which is not the case- people can and do use contraceptives to hold off on having children until they are ready."

Two problems : makes for fewer children, and getting the things you want in order first can take longer than you think or her fertility slot could be shorter than you think.

A third, precisely like LGBT getting normalised, normalising this also makes for normalising "child free" lives.

And a fourth, the ideology of having this or that or sundry ready before you make children is costing lives. Teen mothers may not be the most aborting, but they are probably the most symbolic. And the meme behind that is "she isn't ready to be a mother yet" ...

"You're also assuming a status quo in which people can only be cared for in their old age by their direct offspring. What if that isn't the case?"

I actually didn't assume that. I am saying the BEST way to be cared for is by direct offspring or inlaws, or by younger monks or nuns in a monastery. I know sufficient of how old people are cared for these days to have a pretty sharp idea on this one.

"What if we lived in a society where the community cared for its elders, regardless of whose grandparents they are? Then it seems to me like your entire concern disappears."

This may be insulting to you if you or your girlfriend work in old people's homes or visiting old at home. But those solutions actually are pretty bleak. The general population died less in Covid than people in old people's homes, except for Paris, in France. Because they are old and frail? Not just that. Because such homes crowd them. In Sysslebäck, a village in Sweden, I was neighbour with a lady of a certain age, and she complained the visitor who was changing her diapers was often late.

"Also, the idea that there is some risk of cancer at which smoking cigarettes becomes immoral seems pretty arbitrary to me."

I think 20 fags per day is a fairly secure bet on cancer. That's not more arbitrary than saying 2 litres of wine per day lands you with cirrhosis.

"Certainly not something I would expect out of an objective morality."

Because you expect it to be divorced from facts?

"More broadly, your argument here implies that everyone should have children, not merely that everyone should abstain from contraceptives."

Not really. Again a strawman. If some monks have spiritual heirs instead of physical ones, fine - is even an option when livelihoods are especially hard to come by (but not an excuse to accept policies making it harder). If one man with bad breath could get no wife - well maybe he's lucky with the neighbours' children visiting him each day (as they'd also do with widows whose children are far away), so his neighbours make up for what he lost. Such individual either choices or misfortunes are very different from socially accepted contraception.

@Jared Levine I missed your dentistry observation.

Dentists do not always restore functioning teeth, some actually offer to pull out all teeth and replace that with gums.

On that level the harm is certainly not acceptable.

But suppose we deal with a person of mostly good dental health, and the dentist bores a hole and fills it with ceramic, that is the opposite of contraception. Contraception is a pleasure that deprives you of later pleasures, good dentistry is a pain meant to protect you from later pains.

Jared Levine

@Hans-Georg Lundahl What is an 'LGBT act'? There's only one kind of sex act I can think of that couldn't also be done by a straight couple. And so what is they don't lead to kids? Neither does straight people kissing! Not every action needs to be in some direct service to a moral good.

Anyway, I think you're going to have to convince me why doing something that doesn't harm anyone else can be immoral. I don't think smoking any number of cigarettes can be immoral. I don't think anything can be immoral merely because it affects the person doing the act negatively. Morality for me is about how you interact with others.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jared Levine "Neither does straight people kissing!"

It should if you go on in bed and do not use a condom. Not directly, but by what it inspires to.

"why doing something that doesn't harm anyone else can be immoral."

Ooops ... you are actually the person on whom you test what you are doing to others. The more bad you accept doing to yourself, the more bad you are likely to do to others.

Plus obviously, making yourself a burden to an undermanned next generation, that certainly is doing harm to them.

Spain and Portugal are under restrictive measures for state debt. Sweden individualised the old age pension, since the "guarantee pension" unlike the older "people's pension" is calculated to be insufficient. Germany is (at least I heard so in Berlin) so aged that young people are too harrassed to get into work and pay taxes to be able to successfully make couples and start having children. Japan is now doing robots to take care of old people. In each case, you have decades of contraception, and the result is an old generation that's too big for the young generation.

11:44 Actually, it doesn't - since the Bible says (Proverbs 12:10) The just regardeth the lives of his beasts: but the bowels of the wicked are cruel.

12:25 I do not just find it possible, but definitely overwhelmingly probable it is your case - just on some issues (LGBT was mentioned), an illinformed compassion.

Hence my tries to get into debate with you.

Error of Interpretation is Not Hoax + Perspectives on IE : Family or Not?

A very important line to understand my view on more matters than this one is : I tend to the latter one, I don’t think “the indo-european language family” is a hoax, it is more like an error of interpretation.

Q

The so called "Indo European language family" is nothing more than a hoax, it's laughable sometimes with even "Proto Indo European" and other nonsense, why not look for homeland of Santa Claus?
https://www.quora.com/The-so-called-Indo-European-language-family-is-nothing-more-than-a-hoax-its-laughable-sometimes-with-even-Proto-Indo-European-and-other-nonsense-why-not-look-for-homeland-of-Santa-Claus/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amateur linguist

3 years ago

We have lots of words for which a common origin is necessary over more than one “branch of indo-european” or more than one “indo-european language family” (as opposed to hypothetically “the indo-european language family,” what you are talking about).

There are basically two possibilities to explain this:

• Indo-European language families belong to one language family, the indo-european one.
• Indo-European languages have early on borrowed from each other, before each of them got written.

I tend to the latter one, I don’t think “the indo-european language family” is a hoax, it is more like an error of interpretation.

To give an idea why we are talking of the subject, the word for foot is related in many languages. Foot in English and similar in similar Germanic; pedem (I take the accusative, which shows the root better than the nominative) in Latin, from which pié, pied, piede in Spanish, French, Italian and similarly in similar Romance; poda (same remark) in Greek, since I couldn’t look up Sanskrit, here is Hindi pad, which in wiktionary is given first meaning foot, second footstep and a few more, while Armenian votk’ (if Google translate wasn’t meddled with) just could be related too. Oh, Slavonic is the odd man out, noga is definitely not related, but Lithuanian, which is Baltic, has pėda. Welsh has troed which is, like noga an outlier.

To give you an idea of why there are doubts on the single origin hypothesis, the word for hand is hand in English and similar in similar Germanic languages, ranka in Lithuanian and ręka in Polish, and similar in other Baltic or Slavonic languages, cheira in Greek, manum in Latin (again giving accusative on both), and from Latin you have mano, main, mano in Spanish, French, Italian. In Armenian you have tzerk, while haath is Hindi. In Welsh you have llaw, and, interestingly, a word mun which could be related to Latin manum and to a very oldfashioned Germanic word, mund.

Hungarian and Finnish are supposed to be related in a way a bit similar to two different branches of Indo-European, and here we have, for foot, jalka in Finnish, láb in Hungarian, not related, käsi and kéz (obviously related) for hand in Finnish and Hungarian.

Other perspective, Persian and Arabic (Indo-European and Semitic) seem to share more vocabulary than English and Russian (Germanic Indo-European and Slavonic Indo-European). Both cases, too much for pure hazard. However, Persian and Arabic words from same (often Classic Arabic) origin are more similar, since the common origin in form of borrowing is more recent.

We can definitely say, the words in common between English and Russian, unless modern international vocabulary, have become so dissimilar that the common origin, whether common ancestral language or mutual borrowing, would probably be further back in time than 900 AD when Persian reemerges in writing with lots more Arabic words than previously.

Also, in historic times, there are no obvious occasions on which English and Russian could have borrowed from each other previous to modernity, so, if mutual borrowing, or common borrowing from a set of languages borrowing mutually even earlier, these are just as prehistoric (to when the history of these regions and languages starts to be known in written documents) as the other possibility, common ancestral language.

We know where English and Russian borrowed words like kosmonaut (=Russian astronaut) and so on, namely in modern media and dictionaries, but where English and Russian came from or what area they borrowed nose / нос (pronounced noss) from each other, that is something one needs to look for and speculate about, if one is curious.

By the way, the old homeland of Saint Nicolas is Myra, in what is now Turkey, and his relics are or to recently were in Bari, in Italy.

Puritan Correction of Presumed Sinners

Catholic Apologetics Space : Christians: Is it ok to question someone else’s salvation? What does the Bible say about questioning someone’s salvation?
https://catholicapologetics.quora.com/God-says-that-he-DOES-NOT-want-us-to-remain-silent-if-we-see-a-brother-or-sister-sinning-It-is-our-DUTY-to-help-lead-th

The answer is by one "Christian Blogger/Author. Studied Bible and Religious Study Thu" [25.VIII.2022, St. Lewis IX of France] and his handle on quora is Brandon C. He also describes as "Following God's Mission, Entrepreneur, Investor, Economist, Counselor, Author" which clearly shows he is not a clergyman. If he wants to speak up for the Bible, he should rely on clergymen, including writers of catechisms, including old ones, from before Vatican II (not sure how many real Catholic Catechisms have been actually written after that). If the subject is at all dealt with, and correction of sinners, unlike Babel = Ziggurat or Eridu vs Göbekli Tepe, is so.

I'll not cite all, if you want to read all, click the link, but only the conclusion and it's "proof text", as that is where my answer started, here:

[...]

Although we shouldn't judge on our accord, Paul tells us that we can use the Bible to judge the behaviors and actions of others.

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.’ (2 Timothy 3:16–17)

Conclusion:

As you can see, it is not only ok to question someone else's salvation but it is also our DUTY as Christians if we see someone who is contradicting the teachings and laws of God.

Hope that helps.

Now for the dialogue:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

26.VIII.2022

Two observations. Starting with the first.

II Timothy 3:16–17 with the words “for correction, for instruction in righteousness” are adressed to a man St. Paul set up as a bishop.

It doesn’t mean laymen should go around and judge other laymen, whenever they see them.

And there is a certain procedure here, which is meant to avoid that kind of nagging.

• 1) talk in private
• 2) talk with witnesses
• 3) take it to the Church
• 4) ignore them if they will not even hear the Church.

Once it has been taken to the Church, nagging has to stop, either the sinner agrees or one agrees to ignore him as no longer a brother.

Second.

Seeing a man in situations like:

• 1) begging in the street
• 2) drinking small quantities of alcohol
• 3) doing no work when you watch
• 4) finding him in an “awkward situation” while no one including yourself was meant to watch

… none of these things, not even if repeated multiple times, over years, can warrant your considering him a sinner.

Brandon C.

28.VIII.2022

You Said:

“II Timothy 3:16–17 with the words “for correction, for instruction in righteousness” are adressed to a man St. Paul set up as a bishop. It doesn’t mean laymen should go around and judge other laymen, whenever they see them.”

My Response:

Says who? Could you imagine Paul saying the Bible is only good for bishops and church leaders but if laypeople read it it's not sufficient?

As readers of the Bible, we should understand that God holds everybody on the same level. Remember, God is no respecter of persons (See Romans 2:11). What you are suggesting is like borderline “elitist" thinking which is not of God.

Do you think when God was teaching his apostles in the Bible that it was only meant for them? Do you think when he told them to go into the world and preach the message and baptize, that it was only meant for them? Do you think he intended for all his teachings to die with the apostles and those they taught in the new testament?

Of course not. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Jesus views all people as equals and his teachings to his apostles directly apply to all of us…just as the teachings of Paul and others God called is meant to apply to everyone as well.

You said:

“And there is a certain procedure here, which is meant to avoid that kind of nagging.
talk in private
talk with witnesses
take it to the Church
ignore them if they will not even hear the Church.”

My Response:

Agreed…but do you notice the first step starts with us as individuals. In other words, the first step is for one believer to correct another. How do we do this? By using the teachings of the Bible as our source. The rest of the procedure is mainly for the benefit of the one committing the sin in question. If they don't believe us, maybe they will believe others. If they don't believe others, maybe they will believe the church. If they still don't want to believe or listen by then, then we should treat them as they are…a non-believer.

You Said:

“Seeing a man in situations like:
begging in the street
drinking small quantities of alcohol
doing no work when you watch
finding him in an “awkward situation” while no one including yourself was meant to watch … none of these things, not even if repeated multiple times, over years, can warrant your considering him a sinner.”

My Response:

The Bible also teaches us not to judge on our own accords. We should only use Biblical teachings and laws to determine if someone else is in violation of those teachings. In this way, we ourselves are not doing the judging but it is the Bible (God's teachings) who is judging them. In other words, we are just the messengers (As the Bible asks us to be) but it is ultimately God that has judged them.

God's commands and teachings aren't suggestions. They are instructions that we as disciples must follow. Loving God and loving others also means aiding our brothers and sisters to do the same.

The Bible gives us instruction on what God expects of people. It is simple enough for anybody to understand. God even gave parables to reiterate his teachings. All TRUE followers of Christ should be equipped with his message and as long as we are equipped with his message, than we are equipped to help others follow that message as well.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

28.VIII.2022

First things first. The Bible.

“the Bible is only good for bishops and church leaders but if laypeople read it it's not sufficient?”

You know, the things said in II Tim are in fact adressed primarily to precisely bishops and church leaders.

2 Timothy 1:6 is adressed to people who hold a clerical dignity by the imposition of hands. The link is in Latin, but if you click DRBO in the top field where it’s next to Vulgate, you will get it in English.

We laymen are when reading II Tim overhearing what God is telling someone else than us, namely bishops and by extension other clergy.

“Jesus views all people as equals and his teachings to his apostles directly apply to all of us”

Not the least. Above the general disciples, He set the 72. Above the 72, He set the 12. Above the rest of the 12, He set St. Peter.

The words in Matthew 16:18–19 are important for all of us, but very certainly do not apply directly to all of us. They apply directly to St. Peter and his successors, the Popes (last of whom so far died Aug 2, Pope Michael).

“do you notice the first step starts with us as individuals”

Indeed. How long do some people continue with this “first step”?

At what point is the refusal to go on to next step and the ones after that a harrassment, that Christ precisely by this procedure was giving the Church a means to avoid?

“How do we do this? By using the teachings of the Bible as our source.”

What about using the Church as your source for limits? The Bible clearly condemns drunkenness and as clearly recommends a little wine. It does not state whether “tipsy” is an acceptable side effect of “a little wine” or whether “tipsy” is a light but even so offense of the sin of drunkenness. It also does not state what to think of people who drink without getting tipsy a quantity that might make you tipsy. Such limits are not for a lay Bible reader, but for the Church to keep track of.

And the Church has stated that the mortal sin “drunk” is when speech or mind is affected, that is when you start thinking or saying things you wouldn’t want to say when sober. Tipsy is either a venial sin, if intended as primary goal of drinking, or not sinful if it happens when one has another reason to drink. And yes, the calling out of someone else is about mortals, not venials.

“God's commands and teachings aren't suggestions. They are instructions that we as disciples must follow. Loving God and loving others also means aiding our brothers and sisters to do the same.”

The instructions are very definitely not detailed enough for a lay Bible reader to know when some things are overstepping the commandments OR NOT.

Brandon C.

29.VIII.2022

“The instructions are very definitely not detailed enough for a lay Bible reader to know when some things are overstepping the commandments OR NOT.”

Now, keep in mind, I was never suggesting that ANYBODY can accurately interpret scripture. What I was implying is that anybody who is filled with the Holy Spirit can interpret scripture and use it for correction/etc as Paul tells us.

If a believer is not filled with the Holy Spirit, then they should make sure that they full well understand the complete interpretation of the Church before attempting to correct others.

St Paul makes clear who is able and unable to interpret scriptures:

“Now we have received not the spirit of the world but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. And we speak of these things in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual things to those who are spiritual. Those who are unspiritual do not receive the gifts of God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness to them, and they are unable to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. Those who are spiritual discern all things, and they are themselves subject to no one else’s scrutiny.” (1 Corinthians 2:13–15)

Those filled with the Holy Spirit should likewise understand the church's interpretation in its entirety as well. The understanding of a person filled with the Holy Spirit would correlate to the understanding of the Church as long as the Church's interpretation was also derived from the Holy Spirit. It is ultimately the Spirit that does the correcting/rebuking and not the “layperson".

“Indeed. How long do some people continue with this “first step”? At what point is the refusal to go on to next step and the ones after that a harrassment, that Christ precisely by this procedure was giving the Church a means to avoid?”

I am in agreement with you that we should follow the instructions as laid out. We should attempt to correct somebody just once on our own. If they refuse to listen, we should confront them with others. If they refuse to listen to them, then we should take it to the Church.

In all actuality, that's like “3 strikes you're out". Each strike involves the aid of more and more believers. By the third step, it would only be their pride and closed hearts that prevent them from seeing the truth. This is a direct resemblance to the non-believer…which Jesus tells us they are.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

29.VIII.2022

And as today there are more than one option on which is Christ’s Church and who are the real unbelievers, there may come a day when Puritans should definitely cease to try to correct a Catholic trying to live a Catholic life.

Nope, I do Not Approach This from "Sola Scriptura"

It's not every day that CMI or AiG are defending Sola Scriptura directly, their usual work coincides with a Catholic Tota Scriptura approach. Here there is an exception.

Why Believing God Used Billions of Years Is WRONG.
26th Aug 2022 | Answers in Genesis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh7_6lzHHKo

I thought this exception was an occasion to make a call for them to make a Catholic conversion. Here are my comments. Numbers refer to time stamps.

10:33 "calling the Church back to Sola Scriptura"

Two problems with an allegation like this one.

1) You show when the Church HAD been Sola Scriptura? Certainly not in the NT era! It is not in all of Scripture and no, II Tim 3 involves a utility and perfection, but certainly not sufficiency of Scripture.
2) If Sola Scriptura is both true and an important truth (say more important than whether Babel is Göbekli Tepe as I hold or Ziggurat of Eridu as Petrovich holds) and they needed to call the Church back to it, that means that an important doctrine had been lost and had to be found again. This is in direct contradiction to Our Lord's orders and His promise to assist the Church in carrying them out.

Matthew 28 last verses can be resumed as : Apostles have been sent with successors to all peoples, all periods (up to doomsday) and with all Christian truth, and God Omnipotent made True Man is every single day assisting them therein.

That being so, an important truth cannot be lost to all of the visible Church for a Century even. Let alone centuries on end between St. Gregory (whose successor Calvin considered to be the first Pope who was Antichrist) and Reformers.

Jesse Bryant

1. When are we directed to a source other than the Bible? The Scriptures say they are sufficient, so does that make the Bible false or you a liar?
2. What?
Matthew 28 can be "resumed"? Who told you that? Oh, the RCC, your true final authority. (As fallacious as that whole idea is.)
What important truth are you talking about?

ThePinkBinks

The code was divinely added when people needed it. People needed it because they were having trouble hearing God directly. The words in the old printed copies of the Bible change miraculously quite often. I’ve seen it happen. (I don’t mean new printed copies of old versions - I mean the printed words literally change in copies that are hundreds of years old).

Oh but I hear you say, old printed copies can’t have their words change. That’d be some supernatural miracle. I don’t believe in the supernatural and science tells me words in a printed book can’t change. But why must you limit God? Of course He can change the words.

Of course he can create galaxies that appear billions of years old. He made them to be old. If he popped a new mountain on earth today He’d make it look many thousands of years old.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jesse Bryant 1. We are not directed to any specific books other than the Bible, but we are definitely directed to another THING. The Church. More than once. The Scriptures very much nowhere (including II Thess. 3:14 - 17) say they are sufficient. In II Thess 3:14 St. Paul directs St. Tim to something outside the then available Scripture (which he had studied since youth!) namely what he had learned and he is directed to the person of WHOM he had learned it. In verse 15 he is told the OT Scriptures can save through faith in Jesus Christ (a faith not yet formalised in the NT books, or not all of them, and St. Tim certainly hadn't read even St. Matthew's Gospel in his youth). In verse 16 he is told all Scripture is USEFUL, but it doesn't say sufficient. And in verse 17 he is told that they are useful for a particular kind of person, namely the man of God, that meaning not each and every Christian, but someone dedicated in a special way, usually a bishop, monk, priest or sth.

2. I was not bothered to go to Matthew 28 to copy paste from it, but now I need to do so.

[16] And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. [17] And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. [18] And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying:

This is where I get it from the Apostles, with their successors are the mandatories of Christ, of God in the Flesh.

All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.

This is where I took my resumé (mine, I didn't copy it from a Catholic priest) that the help offered (see verse 20) is Almighty.

[19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

This is the geographical catholicity : all nations.

[20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:

Doctrinal Catholicity : all truth.

and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

The Almighty is assisting them (see verse 18) in these tasks, and chronological Catholicity, all days of all years of all centuries to Harmageddon and Doomsday.

What exact part of my resumé is not supported by Matthew 28:16 - 20?

And no, the RCC is not "my final authority" it is part of my final authority, with Bible and Tradition. As the Bible says it should be.

"What important truth are you talking about?"

If you had noted what I quoted, the gentlemen were considering Luther and Calvin as "calling the Church back to Sola Scriptura" - this means THEY are treating Sola Scriptura as an "important truth" as one of the things Christ commanded the Apostles (with their successors, otherwise the promise in verse 20 becomes meaningless) to teach all nations, and promised His Church to help it to keep every day.

The options are : 1) Christ's promise has been kept every day, as He promised, and no one ever had to call the Church back to an important but longforgotten truth, meaning 1a) Sola Scriptura was never lost (hard to argue that in Church history, especially after what they said of the Reformation) or 1b) Sola Scriptura was never an important truth, either untrue or at least no big deal; 2) Sola Scriptura is in the NT, or even the OT, and that meant Christ did not make the promise or did not keep it.

Catholicism or Apostasy are the logical options, Reformation is a dead end.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ThePinkBinks Hecklers like you are pretty much out of the debate.

When new mountains rose after the Flood, they didn't look old, they looked pretty fresh, like rising mud, higher one day than the day before in some places.

But between Flood and Babel - that's 5000 to 4500 years ago, and that is old.

That's why the mountains look dry and hard : because they have had the time to dry and harden.

God's not changing the words he offered as a Revelation.

ThePinkBinks

@Hans-Georg Lundahl You clearly didn’t understand what I mean on any of that so I won’t argue with you. I know you can’t prove either of those things but I’ve seen proof it’s true. Will I share that proof with you? No. Quite simple really. I could.

Go on. Pics of you there at formation of those mountains please. Show me the evidence of how what I talked about didn’t happen - I’ll compare it to what I saw happening. A video of it happening your way would suffice.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ThePinkBinks I did not claim to be an eyewitness.

I don't think you are in a real position to claim it either.

14:02 According to St. Augustine, you have an Earth and a Rotating Light Source for the first three days.

By the way, the delimitation of day and night in creation goes with Jerusalem time zone where Adam was created, buried under Calvary and redeemed by Christ Crucified above him.

Jesse Bryant

According to St. Augustine? Well, that's gospel truth for ya! What?? As for your other claim... Where are you getting that information?

t0neg0d

@Jesse Bryant from the book of Trustmebro

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jesse Bryant St. Augustine is a Church Father, a Saint.

As Catholics we are obliged to interpret the Bible with the Church Fathers, not against them.

The second line also refers to St. Augustine of Hippo, and more precisely not "Trustmebro" but "De Genesi ad Litteram Libri XII" - "Twelve Books on the Literal Sense of Genesis."

Apart from the information on Adam's burial, which is common in iconography of Calvary. Ever seen a Crucifix above a skull and cross bones? Well, the skull and cross bones in that symbolism are those of Adam. Golgatha means the place of the skull, and traditionally we believe the skull and whole skeleton of Adam was lying there.

As he (St. Augustine) and you and AiG are all agreeing with me that Earth is a globe and something rotated while something else was still, this means once God had divided night from day, when it was day on one place, it was night 180° E/W opposite side of the globe. This means, as St. Augustine saw, that the six days involve a time zone problem, not one he exploited (at least in book I where he deals with this) to argue against the literal days, but one he solves elegantly, by saying Adam was created on the time zone of Jerusalem.

He was created somewhere West of Eden, and Eden certainly involved some of the time zones now common or near common to the four rivers (Euphrates, Tigris and both Niles).

So, his option Jerusalem time zone (he didn't use the phrase time zone, but that's what he meant) certainly fits part of the Biblical narrative and contradicts none of it.

Next question?

[The following is from an extra comment, taken away from the thread, perhaps on policy of allowing no external links ...]

Here is the book by the way, not on the internet, but available over the internet:

St. Augustine: The Literal Meaning of Genesis (Ancient Christian Writers Book 41) (English Edition) Format Kindle
Édition en Anglais de John Hammond Taylor (Auteur)
https://www.amazon.fr/St-Augustine-Literal-Meaning-Genesis-ebook/dp/B006JMPVT8

(English translation by John Hammond Taylor).

Robert Campbell

@Jesse Bryant Yanking it out of his backside.

Jesse Bryant

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
He is? Who said it wasn't? Dude... Hey, good to know that you trust the interpretation of another instead of investigating for yourself. Kind of negates the purpose of actually reading it at all... Which may explain why so few Catholics do! Now, as for the rest of your bloviating...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Robert Campbell I note the link to the book has disappeared from the thread.

Convenient.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jesse Bryant "you trust the interpretation of another instead of investigating for yourself."

If that's your attitude, why are you on a video by AiG in order to trust their interpretation?

In fact, there is no place in the Bible which says everyone is supposed to investigate the Bible himself rather than trust another, at all times, and if you try to cite the Bereans, they were people who both had good expertise in advance in OT Scripture, and were not yet decided whether to become Christian or not.

In fact, there is not even any place saying every Christian has to read the Bible at home. The first Christians heard OT readings and Gospel readings, later on Epistle readings, in Church.

And no, doesn't even kind of negate the purpose of reading it oneself at all, one can always profit from another guys extra reading and reflections - at least if he's Catholic.

Jesse Bryant

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
I'm not. That is your assumption. But then, why are you here?

And yes, the Bible actually says:
"Study to show yourself approved..." And the Berean's are praised for searching out the truth of Scripture, the Pharisees reprimanded for not knowing the Scriptures, and Jesus himself admonished that we "search the Scriptures."

If you actually do read or study the Word for yourself, you should know these things.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jesse Bryant "I'm not. That is your assumption."

Fairly reasonable, how did you find my comment otherwise.

"But then, why are you here?"

Most usually for good content. Nine times of ten, AiG are good, sometimes even then there's som quibble to comment on. First ten videos of this one were fine. AND as said, I believe in reading other people's comments, unless contradicting the Church Fathers, which YEC doesn't.

Now, before I get to your proof texts, let's be precise exactly what I don't think the Bible says and by contrast, what it does say. Some people definitely DO need to study. Each and every Christian - no. It would have been physically or at least economically impossible before the Gideons.

2 Timothy 2:15 - St. Paul was writing to St. Timothy, whom he had consecreated bishop. Bishops are FORBIDDEN not to know Scripture, and even not to read it daily. The chapter devisions we have in the Bible was by a bishop who loved hunting and knew the Bible by heart, and he did all the chapter divisions while on a hunt. This proof text says nothing about each and every Christian.

" the Berean's are praised for searching out the truth of Scripture"

As a synagogue, they were competent!

Also, the truth was not one in the OT Scriptures alone but one between the OT Scriptures and what St. Paul had said. They still exist, there is a Church in Viria (modern Greek for Berea) which arguably has had Christians since St. Paul's day without interruption. They are Greek Orthodox.

"the Pharisees reprimanded for not knowing the Scriptures"

As a body of experts, they should know them! It's like a Mathematician not able to get 2 + 2 = 4 right. Or at least not to have a clue on equations with two unknowns.

John 5:39 - for the narrator's "the Jews" (5:16) - don't read the Synoptics' "the crowd" but do read the Synoptics' "the Pharisees" or "the Scribes" or some other body of experts. St. John is resuming all Hebrew and non-Samaritan opponents of Jesus as "the Jews" - meaning those that took that name by the time his Gospel was written.

The crowd would not have made a persecution on their own (as in blaming) without their Pharisaic leaders around.

Have any more quotemining out of context?

Jesse Bryant

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yep, just pointing out the fact that you were the one making the assumption, not me.

YEC doesn't contradict the Bible or the early Church Fathers? I concur!

Also, yes, each and every Christian does need to study. To say that they do not is absurd. And if you have no teachers—how did these folks become believers?

Bishops are forbidden? But then, we are ALL commanded to learn—which requires study. The text in question absolutely applies to ALL Christians.

They were competent? And you aren't? How does one become competent? Through study. Who has access to the Word of God today? ... Hm...

Christians since Paul's day? So what? How is that relevant to this discussion?

As a body of experts? No kidding! But how does one become an expert? Through study! I can't believe you're defending ignorance and Christians NOT reading the Bible. Are you being serious?

John is resuming... So what?

The crowd would not have? So what?

Why do you lie about quote mining?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jesse Bryant "I concur!"

Fine we are agreed on something.

"Also, yes, each and every Christian does need to study."

Nowhere in the Bible.

"To say that they do not is absurd."

Perhaps in certain situations today, but overall in the 2000 years, no.

"And if you have no teachers—how did these folks become believers?"

Well, the teachers certainly DO need to study the Bible and that very definitely IS in the Bible as the quotes and references you gave.

"The text in question absolutely applies to ALL Christians."

The text written to St. Timothy, a bishop, certainly applies to all Christian BISHOPS. And given some other instructions, elsewhere, presbyters and deacons as well.

"They were competent? And you aren't?"

I didn't say I wasn't, I said a layman does not have an obligation to be so. I became so anyway while a Protestant and along my conversion to Catholicism. A layman is not forbidden to be competent. As in competent = knowledgeable. But competent also means things like "the competent judge" and that laymen ordinarily aren't.

"So what? How is that relevant to this discussion?"

Well, as you always point out the nobility of the Bereans, why not tell you they aren't Protestants today?

"As a body of experts? No kidding! But how does one become an expert? Through study!"

There is a difference between being expert - knowledgeable - and being part of a defined body of experts. Precisely as between being good at theology and being DD (doctor of divinity = accredited teacher of theology).

"I can't believe you're defending ignorance and Christians NOT reading the Bible."

Most Christians don't have time to get good at it, stick to false explanations told by pastors (like II Tim 2 cited verse applying to laymen).

And over the centuries most Christians have not been economically able to afford a Bible even one in each house.

Your so what's are an example of your not being good at the Bible.

And if you are not conscious of having quote mined yourself, it's perhaps because you trust your pastor too much.

None of the passages except just possibly St. John 5 could even remotely be a proof text for laymen having to read the Bible.

In close analysis as I provide it, even St. John's Gospel, chapter 5 isn't so, and anyway some of you have a rule of needing two proof texts.

So, no, I do not defend ignorance, but I do defend laymen having the knowledge, mainly, portioned out to them in Catechisms - extracts and concentrates of Bible truth. Around Creed, Commandments, Our Father and Hail Mary and finally the Seven Sacraments.

If someone has the leisure and bent to go beyond that, fine - as long as it doesn't land him in heresy.

Jesse Bryant

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yes, we do agree on something. Imagine that!

Nowhere in the Bible? Except for all the places where believers are admonished to study and that if you don't study (or aren't at least taught by those who have)... This is the 21st Century bud. The only way you know about living the Christian life is through the Bible. Stop being so obtuse. You think ignorant believers = good thing? Of course you don't! (I think you're just being difficult because you need to defend your unbiblical stance. Can't and don't or won't are NOT the same thing. I mean, the teachers do? Well duh! And how did they become Christians and later teachers... Funny how that works! And you think that passage was ONLY for Timothy and is merely a historical artifact and not meant to be applied to any who seek to know and understand what it means to be a Christian and live accordingly? Dude...

Okay, this is both tedious and absurd.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jesse Bryant Wait a little moment, I may just yet have something to enlighten you, especially at the end of this answer.

"Except for all the places where believers are admonished to study and that if you don't study (or aren't at least taught by those who have)."

Exactly.

OR AREN'T TAUGHT BY THOSE WHO HAVE - especially of course the Catholic bishops, whom the Apostles instituted as their successors as authorised teachers.

"The only way you know about living the Christian life is through the Bible."

AND TRADITION, AND MAGISTERIUM. AND - by being taught by people having read the Bible in the light of Tradition and enjoying the authority of the Magisterium.

"You think ignorant believers = good thing?"

No, but I think a little learning well mastered from a catechism is way better than lots of learning from the Bible ill mastered and mixed up with lies from your illegitimate pastors.

"And how did they become Christians"

By now mostly usually by infant baptism. And by reading the Catechism.

"and later teachers"

By dedicating all of their time (or most of it) at seminaries to study the Bible and the Church Fathers and the Magisterial pronouncements. You are obviously dedicating most of your time to something else, to judge from your level of understanding of the Bible words you quote.

"And you think that passage was ONLY for Timothy"

For all in his position (bishops) and all in similar positions (priests, deacons, monks, nuns - and in my own case lay apologists).

Still very far from every single Christian, these are a minority, they may be one to one hundred in a given parish.

"and not meant to be applied to any who seek to know and understand what it means to be a Christian and live accordingly?"

Now, if YOU are a seeker, I'm not, by the way, how about having the humility of the Eunuch of the Candace? A clear indication the verse is not meant for seekers, by the way:

Acts 8:[30] And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? [31] Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

And as in your circles TWO proof texts are a minimum requirement, here is one which was the sign from God to my confirmation sponsor's confirmation sponsor:

Romans 10:[14] How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher? [15] And how shall they preach unless they be sent, as it is written: How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, of them that bring glad tidings of good things!

So, no, the way to become a teacher is certainly to study the Bible, but the way to become an instructed Christian is to trust someone sent by someone who was sent by someone who was sent by someone ultimately from the Apostles and they from Christ and Christ from the Father.

Jesse Bryant

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mindless babbling. Nowhere in the Bible does it ever instruct any believer not to grow in their understanding of the Word and mature as believers—which comes only through the Word. You can defend a mindless faith all you like, you can't use the Bible to support such a notion.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
Now, regarding your clearly Catholic and yet mindless appeal to the regress to the Apostles as if ONLY they could understand what the Word says and it is impossible to learn unless you learn directly from them—too many of whom have been demonstrated to be heretics, homosexuals, pedophiles, etc. You're delusional! Not to mention that the claim you just made—can't be found in the Bible ANYWHERE. We are always instructed to go back to the source, the Bible, not to men who taught men who taught men who taught men... Who are part of a heretical and hierarchical organization that teaches a false Gospel known as the Roman Catholic Church. You need to go to the word yourself—and stop blindly believing what those who claim to part of some unprovable apostolic succession. Believe God, not man.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jesse Bryant "too many of whom have been demonstrated to be heretics, homosexuals, pedophiles, etc."

You are mainly talking of modernists, even before Vatican II, the scandals started when the Vatican became soft on Evolution (Romans 1 and all that, and Pagans also descend from communities which once had the true religion).

"You're delusional!"

I think it was verse 22 in the 5th chapter of Matthew that Our Lord said something about what you are calling me ...

"Not to mention that the claim you just made—can't be found in the Bible ANYWHERE."

You forget Matthew 28:16 - 20. Plus the many passages (including II Tim 1:6) of the NT that detail how the Apostles took care to get successors (and no, St. Paul was in the episcopal quality not a de novo apostle, only in his witness capacity, he did get episcopal powers together with St. Barnabas, see Acts 13).

Again : the NT does not encourage any multitude of different denominations, it was ONE Church, with a visible unity.

Verse 16 shows, the Great Commission was given to the Eleven.

Verse 20 shows, it is valid for all days to the end of time.

How this could NOT mean what I have just said is beyond me, and arguably beyond you too, since you are content to blind yourself to the obvious, while arguing against the conclusion, from a Church that is not the Roman Catholic Church.

"We are always instructed to go back to the source, the Bible, not to men who taught men who taught men who taught men..."

Oh yes, Romans 10 precisely DOES instruct us to appeal to men who have been taught by men who have been taught by the Apostles and by Christ. If you don't see that, you haven't learned to read.

"Who are part of a heretical and hierarchical organization"

No one should be part of a heretical organisation. Like your denomination or like the Vatican II Sect. All should be part of an organisation that is as hierarchical as Christ and the Holy Ghost left the Church when the 7 deacons were chosen.

"and stop blindly believing what those who claim to part of some unprovable apostolic succession."

This is not for you, blind benighted man, but for our readers (yes, this debate is mirrored on a blog of mine).

The Apostolic succession is proven from Matthew 28 and from the other passages (like Romans 10 or II Tim 1).

Protestants lack it. They therefore WANT to believe such a claim is unprovable. Not your lucky day, it may land you in Hellfire.

If you pretend it was not extant in NT times, you haven't read the NT. Not what reading normally means, like some guys who think Sauron was Hitler or Stalin would not have been reading the LotR. If you think the succession was lost after the Apostles, you have forgotten about the "all days" clause in Matthew 28:20.

I did stop blindly believing people with your agenda, decades ago.

"Nowhere in the Bible does it ever instruct any believer not to grow in their understanding of the Word and mature as believers"

And neither am I recommending that. But different people have different capacity for growth, and your self importance in knowing many Bible passages, but less Bible truth is the cancer type of growth.

Growing doesn't have to mean knowing more Bible passages. If that were the case, the man who knows all of the Bible (yes, such exist, one of them gave us the chapter division, he was a Roman Catholic bishop) could grow no more. This means, you can grown in understanding of the truth without knowing more of the Scriptures. And this may be the ideal dose for some : the Catechism. Obviously a Roman Catholic one.

Jesse Bryant

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
Okay, I'll count to 5...
1. Apparently you haven't been present for the past century and aren't aware of recent events...
2. Not remotely. I don't think there is anything "light" regarding the heresies of Roman Catholic Church—or the absence of the Gospel from their teachings. Nice try though!
3. And you think that applies to our present day why and how exactly? Oh! My bad. That's what your Church told you... And you think that is passed down to heretics, pedophiles, and perverts through... touch? Uhm... Okay...
4. Who said that the NT does encourage any multitude of anything? I know I didn't! I speak of the Bible and you speak of denominations? And you seem to be forgetting your own denomination... and all the atrocities, heresies, perverts, corruption, infighting, contradictions, etc., that go along with it.
5. The Great Commission? Catholics don't ever express concern for people's souls or witness or anything. Sir, you must be joking! Not one time in my life has any Catholic expressed concern for my soul or shared their faith with me. Not one time. And I've spent a good deal of time online pleading with Catholics to share the Gospel. They don't know what it is. Do you? Hans, have you been born again?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jesse Bryant "1. Apparently you haven't been present for the past century and aren't aware of recent events..."

I think you are referring to the Vatican II Sect. While certain prequels to the major pedophile period (now exchanged for a gay period) were before Vatican II, they were leading up to it.

"2. Not remotely. I don't think there is anything "light" regarding the heresies of Roman Catholic Church—or the absence of the Gospel from their teachings. Nice try though!"

Are we counting same things? What I count here would be And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. - and now you speak of heresy?

"3. And you think that applies to our present day why and how exactly? Oh! My bad. That's what your Church told you... And you think that is passed down to heretics, pedophiles, and perverts through... touch? Uhm... Okay..."

Why it would apply to the present day? Well - I do have a reason from within the text. Matthew 28:20 specifies and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. And last time I checked, Harmageddon hadn't happened and Christ hadn't called up dead from tombs to judge them yet.

Whether or not an utterly unworthy person can have apostolic succession is beside the point. The point is, your options for the NT Church are the ones that realistically claim Apostolic succession. These being : Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Copts, Armenians, Nestorians (a k a Assyrians).

There are theological reasons to eliminate non-Chalcedonians. This leaves RC and EO. There are more "spiritual" and less hard and fast reasons to prefer RC over EO.

"4. Who said that the NT does encourage any multitude of anything? I know I didn't! I speak of the Bible and you speak of denominations? And you seem to be forgetting your own denomination... and all the atrocities, heresies, perverts, corruption, infighting, contradictions, etc., that go along with it."

It is remarkable how many copouts you can accumulate. You belong to a division of Christians that are a minority of the persons, but not just a majority but a near totality of the number of denominations.

I am not the least forgetting Roman Catholicism - or its parodic shadow, the Vatican II Sect, which each decades gets further from it. In 1988 I could confuse the two, now I can't.

"5. The Great Commission? Catholics don't ever express concern for people's souls"

Not the way you do - we think it bad manners to tell a man "I am worried about your soul" - and no where in the Bible does anyone I can think of use such words.

Plus, if you look at verse 16, it was given to the 11 (and given verse 20, to their successors).

"or witness or anything."

We also believe such witnessing is a risk of presumption on one's standing with God.

"Sir, you must be joking! Not one time in my life has any Catholic expressed concern for my soul"

You have no Catholic parents. A certain Charbel's mother was very concerned with his soul when he was close to becoming a Muslim.

"or shared their faith with me. Not one time."

Oops, I have been sharing my faith with you pretty long now, more than just today, as I recall ....

"And I've spent a good deal of time online pleading with Catholics to share the Gospel."

If I haven't shared all of St. Matthew's Gospel, I have at least shared select verses from chapters 5 and 28.

"They don't know what it is. Do you?"

Don't tell me it's pretending John 3:16 proves "faith without works" is saving faith ... as the Dimond brothers pointed out, the end of the chapter shows very clearly, the faith Christ is requiring is a faith that obeys, therefore that does good works.

"Hans, have you been born again?"

Actually, yes, in Regent Hall, at age c. 10. And I have become a Catholic to keep my salvation.

Updated

dialogue:

Jesse Bryant

Last one first: Hans, have you been born again?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jesse Bryant [1 Peter 3:15] uses the plural "you" and does not textually require me to give testimony about my life.

St. Peter is telling the Church (and laymen can fulfil it usually by referring to priests) to give satisfaction about reasons for the hope that is in the Church.

Nevertheless, yes, I am Catholic. I am born again of water and spirit in a sacrament called baptism. On your view, however, I would have been born again before that, at age 10, when accepting Jesus as my Saviour, from sins which would otherwise damn me, so I can go to Heaven by Him instead of to Hell by my sins.

On my view, that was at least a preparation for my Baptism, and we are not supposed to go around being sure of our state of Grace. Ecclesiastes 9:1

Jesse Bryant

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
Hans, have you been born again? And no, the Bible does NOT teach that the act of Baptism is what it means to be "born again." Also, Ecclesiastes 9:1 does not say what you suggest it does. And if it did, it would be a contradiction of what John writes 1 John 5:13 and what the gospel of John tells us, etc. So who or what exactly are you trusting for your salvation? How can Jesus be your Savior if you don't know if you are saved? How about we stop the "my view", "your view" and talk about the biblical view? And you can fulfill the admonition of 1 Peter 3:15 by deferring to another?

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
PS: As for my previous 5 points... No comment on any of those?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jesse Bryant Did you miss my answer?

Has it been taken down?

You can still find it on my blog Assorted Retorts, right now 3:rd from top. [actually 6th]

@Jesse Bryant // And no, the Bible does NOT teach that the act of Baptism is what it means to be "born again." //

You have missed John 3.

// Also, Ecclesiastes 9:1 does not say what you suggest it does. //

What does it say on your view?

1 John 5:13 These things I write to you, that you may know that you have eternal life, you who believe in the name of the Son of God.

In case you missed it, the text uses the plural you. The Church collectively is depository of eternal life, St. John didn't turn to one man and tell him "that though mightest know" etc.

1 Peter 3:15 is also with a plural you, and means the Church to whom St. Peter wrote had to be collectively capable or ready to do so. Not that each person had to be it. Therefore a person of minor standing, is perfectly justified in deferring to someone of major standing - except on occasions where one has mistrust those who are.

Jesse Bryant

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
Your answer to what? No, I see no answer whatsoever...

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
John 3 doesn't say what you claim it does. If you think it does, please quote it.

Ecclesiastes 9:1 doesn't say what you're claiming it does. It is not my job to explain to you a passage you cited that you made no effort to substantiated.

And no, the Church is NOT the "depository" of eternal life, that is available ONLY through Christ. (John 14:6)

Your Church (which is your true final authority) has lied to you about this verse referring collectively to the Church—an interpretation that makes no sense. Hans, what IS the Church and why does it need to believe?

Also, you see no reason to defend your own faith? So much for the Great Commission, eh? Oh, I guess that's the Churches responsibility to, not the believers? C'mon man...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jesse Bryant I hope you will see this link (some updates due) - and answers on your five question just above bolded time stamp 14:25, here:

https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2022/08/nope-i-do-not-approach-this-from-sola.html

@Jesse Bryant A few I missed:

"How about we stop the "my view", "your view" and talk about the biblical view?"

What my and your views are about is exactly what is the Biblical view.

"John 3 doesn't say what you claim it does."

Verse 5:
Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

"Ecclesiastes 9:1 doesn't say what you're claiming it does."

Being worth love means having Christ in one, being worth hatred means being slave of sin.

"And no, the Church is NOT the "depository" of eternal life, that is available ONLY through Christ. (John 14:6)"

Who is available through His Church. His Church literally is the depository of His continued presence in the Eucharist and in the teaching of the things He commanded.

"Also, you see no reason to defend your own faith?"

My faith is not me being in a state of grace, my faith is in Christ, not in myself. I do defend the faith which the Church holds. As long as I am not canonised it's not a dogma that I am a saint.

I'd have plenty of things to say about myself in other contexts, but not in this one.

"So much for the Great Commission, eh?"

Give to the eleven, see Mt 28:16.

"Oh, I guess that's the Churches responsibility to, not the believers?"

It's mainly the clergy's responsibility, since the eleven were clergy. Therefore, not of the simple believers, the laymen.

Many Catholic clergymen (if "Catholic" is still an appropriate word for them) do less than their share. I do beyond the normal duties of a layman.

Jesse Bryant

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
1. Should be! But...
2. Verse 5: And how does that say what you claimed previously?
3. You would need to argue for whatever it is you are actually claiming.
4. There is no such presence. And the RCC teachings many extras-biblical and heretical teachings...
5. Who said anyone's faith was being in themselves? What are you talking about? And I guess how you respond to this will demonstrate whether or not your defend the false gospel of the RCC or not. Dude, I'm not asking YOU about YOU. What?
6. Oh, so you think only the eleven were supposed to go out and preach the Gospel to everyone? If that's the case, the Gospel would have died with them...
7. Mainly the clergy's responsibility? Says who? The clergy should lead the flock/body, the body should be a witness to the world. And you do so much more? I'm having a hard time believing that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jesse Bryant Your numbering this time doesn't correspond to the previous numbering.

I can't find what you are referring to with the numbers. I'll try to find some things I can recognise, though.

@Jesse Bryant With some hesitations on what you meant, and would you stick to this new numbering now?

1) // And no, the RCC is not "my final authority" it is part of my final authority, with Bible and Tradition. As the Bible says it should be. //

What is your "but"?

I am claiming my authority is the authority the Bible tells us is the right one : Bible, Tradition, Magisterium.

Or is it this one?

// No one should be part of a heretical organisation. Like your denomination or like the Vatican II Sect. All should be part of an organisation that is as hierarchical as Christ and the Holy Ghost left the Church when the 7 deacons were chosen. //

Here is the obvious but this one : but people like you have irrational prejudices against Hierarchical Churches and chose to stand outside the one Christ founded.

2) Verse five : the rebirth involves both water and the Holy Spirit. Obviously you meant John 3.

3) You are not referring to a specific point, as the numbering is not the previous 1 - 5 one. If this 3 = 3 in the 1 to 5, the case against Churches that do not have apostolic succession is obvious enough, and is all you need for now, even if singling out RC among the 5 candidates may be less obvious for now.

4) Denying the real presence, which I suppose you refer to, will land you in Hell with the disciples who left Jesus in the John 6 speech and with Zwingli. The completely unbiblical heresy is yours.

5) "Dude, I'm not asking YOU about YOU."

You were asking if I MYSELF was saved. That's asking me about me. And as for a comment you made about Jesus couldn't be my saviour if I didn't know I was saved, well, He still would be because I know there is no other one, and also because I know He has saved from sin on previous occasions.

6) "Oh, so you think only the eleven were supposed to go out and preach the Gospel to everyone?"

How many disciples did Jesus have at this time? At least 500, right?

Whom does He speak to, single out? Eleven, and not just any eleven but THE eleven. His highest tier of clergy in the Church He organised while on earth.

I mean that not all of the 500 were required to be sent out. Mary Magdalene wasn't sent out. Neither was the wife of Cleophas, or a few more. The eleven were.

"If that's the case, the Gospel would have died with them..."

Not with the pains they took to not just get successors, but good ones. Theologically, St. Paul was independent of their witness, he witnessed the risen Christ himself. But sacramentally and in the mission, check Acts 13:

[1] Now there were in the church which was at Antioch, prophets and doctors, among whom was Barnabas, and Simon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manahen, who was the foster brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. [2] And as they were ministering to the Lord, and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas, for the work whereunto I have taken them. [3] Then they, fasting and praying, and imposing their hands upon them, sent them away. [4] So they being sent by the Holy Ghost, went to Seleucia: and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.

That is when Sts Paul and Barnabas became successors of the Apostles, and the occasion means that some others had become so too in the meantime. It doesn't mean that all the 500 were Apostles or that the women were so (Andronicus and Junia were "apostles" insofar as Andronicus was bishop and Junia bishop's wife, she was not bishop herself).

"7. Mainly the clergy's responsibility? Says who?"

Jesus and St. Matthew, the latter taking pains to show (28:16) that the Great Commission was given at that time (with an implicit promise of successors) to the CLERGY Christ had chosen in Matthew 10:1.

"The clergy should lead the flock/body, the body should be a witness to the world."

So the world should never be the flock? That's once again against Matthew 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

He is not saying, unlike the JW pseudo-translation, to make disciples of men from out of all nations, a kind of holiness club in each. He is saying entire nations and ideally all of them, should be made His disciples, as Israel had been in the desert and in entering the Holy Land and up to the Crucifixion (with some defection on part of the ten tribes).

This means, "flock witness to world" is meaningless for situations like Romans being Christians in 500 AD or Franks being so long before 550. The flock is the world, and it's the clergy that witnesses to them.

"And you do so much more? I'm having a hard time believing that."

I never claimed to do much more than YOUR idea of what laymen should do. I claimed to do more than the Catholic (and truly Biblical) idea of what we are normally required to do.

Jesse Bryant

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
1st post: It wasn't supposed to. See, you didn't use the numbers so that we could keep things straight so I just addressed each of your claims/comments/assertions as presented—and numbered them as I went.

2nd post:
1. But where did the Bible and tradition come from... according to your true final authority, the RCC? The Bible doesn't say that the final authority is the 3 things you listed. Or maybe you could cite those passages? And you did say "Bible" right? ... You're not seeing this? As for my denomination, what denomination is that? Also, you continue to assume what you have not argued for and also denied, that being that the RCC is your final authority. Also, what irrational prejudices? You're not seeing how you just keep piling on claims without actually arguing for or providing any evidence at all?
2. What are you talking about? YOU cited the verse, not me. I asked YOU about YOUR claim regarding the verse YOU cited.
3. So no argument whatsoever for the 3rd claim you made previously? Okay... Also, the Roman Catholic Church has no apostolic succession, but even if they did, so what? In all seriousness, what do you think that proves? That God hand-picks pedophiles and perverts? Seems to be lots of stuff the RCC just demands folks accept without evidence or argument or even good reason at all.
4. Nothing you just stated is biblical. What did Jesus say when the disciples expressed confusion? There's your clue! Fact is, what you claim would have been a violation of the 10 Commandments and Jewish Law and would make it the ONLY non-evidential miracle of all the Bible (requiring blind faith) AND would contradict the Bible itself, since it would mean that you are NOT saved via repentance and faith through the shed blood of Christ "once for all." Why should anyone accept blindly such a convoluted and problematic teaching?
5. You weren't asking about me? Then why the accusation, dude? What were you asking? Hans, are YOU saved or not and how do YOU know? When a Catholic says "saved" what do they mean?
6. Oh, so you are a disciple then and the commission is YOUR responsibility? You think that Mary never shared the Gospel? What? (Seems to me like you were doing little more than obfuscating.) Okay Hans, how about this: What is the Gospel of Jesus Christ according to the Roman Catholic Church? "...what must I do, that I may be saved?" << If you address nothing else, PLEASE answer this most fundamental question!
7. How do you know that is only to those who are "authoritative" in the Church and not all believers? Also, the world is NOT the flock... Teach ALL nations (the WORLD) so that they might believe and become part of the FLOCK. As for your final claim, here is your chance to prove that. (Please see #6 above.)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jesse Bryant 1) "The Bible doesn't say that the final authority is the 3 things you listed. Or maybe you could cite those passages?"

Bible AND Tradition:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
[2 Thessalonians 2:14]

"our epistle" = in the Bible
"by word" = oral traditions only later put down to writing

Magisterium:

And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
[Matthew 18:17]

"Also, you continue to assume what you have not argued for and also denied, that being that the RCC is your final authority."

I have argued for RCC magisterium being PART OF and have only denied RCC being ALL OF my final authority.

The one thing I have NOT argued much for is chosing RCC over EOC, Copts, Armenians and Assyrians.

"As for my denomination, what denomination is that?"

Very obviously one of the Protestant ones. If you are "non-denominational" that involves a Protestant view of the Church, and a radically such. Which one among 30 000, I don't know.

2) The phrase "born again" refers both to "from water" and "from spirit."

3) "Also, the Roman Catholic Church has no apostolic succession, but even if they did, so what?"

So, if RCC hadn't, which one of the following? EOC, Copts, Armenians, Assyrians?

The option "doesn't exist" is un-Biblical. The option "Baptist continuity" is unhistorical, and very wildly so.

"That God hand-picks pedophiles and perverts?"

God handpicked a carnal man who stole from the treasury and betrayed Him. The original twelfth.

If you are suggesting ALL RCC are that, even in the Vatican II Sect (which isn't Catholic, it's a new near-Anglican denomination founded in 1962-65, and less and less high Church) that would be a ridiculous statistic.

"Seems to be lots of stuff the RCC just demands folks accept without evidence or argument or even good reason at all."

I have been giving good reasons, but you have eyes and do not read. Like the Jews who rejected Christ.

4) "What did Jesus say when the disciples expressed confusion? There's your clue!"

He meant THEIR flesh was not a good key to understanding, as YOURS isn't.

If His flesh had been no use, why the Incarnation at all?

"Fact is, what you claim would have been a violation of the 10 Commandments"

Which one of them? How?

"and Jewish Law"

Eat nothing with blood? Applies to physically visible blood.

"and would make it the ONLY non-evidential miracle of all the Bible (requiring blind faith)"

Isn't the forgiveness of sins also non-evidential? Isn't being born again also non-evidential? Baptism, Confession-Absolution - as non-evidential as the Real Presence. Usually.

Bc, by now there are lots of Eucharistic miracles, making the Real Presence an evidential miracle through these ones.

"AND would contradict the Bible itself, since it would mean that you are NOT saved via repentance and faith through the shed blood of Christ "once for all.""

It is precisely through that shedding one is saved : because not just the Body and Blood, but also their once for all separation in sacrificial death on Calvary is present in the Sacrifice of the Mass. Your argument might hold some weight against Anglicans and Lutherans who affirm Real Presence and deny the Sacrifice.

"Why should anyone accept blindly such a convoluted and problematic teaching?"

Because it's what Christ said on the Last Supper and on the John 6 occasion. Because He also said blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed (John 20:29) and because the Disciples of Emmaus recognised Him in the breaking of bread (as they weren't there on the Last Supper, they had paid attention when He prepared them for this sacrament, like in John 6).

5) "You weren't asking about me?"

I was asking about the objective side of your faith - how you know your belief corresponds to what the Apostles taught.

"When a Catholic says "saved" what do they mean?"

When I say I was saved at 10, I mean what you mean. I thought I had eternal security. My beliefs were Evangelical. I hurried to become Catholic when I had screwed up so much I knew I needed confession, in my teens.

6) " Oh, so you are a disciple then and the commission is YOUR responsibility?"

I am not clergy, so no.

"You think that Mary never shared the Gospel?"

She obviously did more than once, but not as per the requirement of Mt 28:16-20. St. Luke was a disciple of St. Paul and a bishop, so She shared the Gospel by telling Him the facts She knew.

Again, one can as non-clergy do more than required of non-clergy, but that doesn't make one clergy or equally required as the clergy is.

"...what must I do, that I may be saved?"

He gave an answer in John 3:5 and it is followed up in Matthew 28:16-20. You need to be baptised in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, and you need to observe all things whatsoever Christ taught His clergy and you through them.

But they said: Believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Well, this belief includes belief in the things Christ taught them. Including the distinction between general disciples (laymen), 7 deacons, 72 disciples (priests), 12 disciples (bishops), St. Peter (pope). Including the sacraments. Things that Acts 16 doesn't explicitate, but they - Paul and Silas - did, at some length, see next verse:

And they preached the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house.

7) "How do you know that is only to those who are "authoritative" in the Church and not all believers?"

Because it was never "all believers" at any single time in the New Testament!

Your position requires you to argue when NT hierarchy ceased to oblige and when simple believers acquired equal standing of authority with for example St. Timothy.

"so that they might believe and become part of the FLOCK."

Exactly. At some point, different for different nations, a nation, not just a few Christians in it, become part of the flock. And then the flock and the world to some degree coincide.

Jesse Bryant

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Scrolling through to see if you answered the Gospel question... Nope. You didn't. Not a single mention of Christ's sacrifice, repentance, or faith! No, just extra-biblical nonsense and your own goodness—even though NONE of us are "good" according to Jesus himself. Typical. I guess we're done here. I want to discuss the truth of the Gospel, you wish to talk endlessly about religion. No thanks.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jesse Bryant I never mentioned any own goodness, blind liar!

He is

now blocked.

14:25 Reminds me, was any one of your congregations (your being in the same ministry doesn't equal your being in the same congregation) as strict about what God in the Flesh was saying in the context around Mark 10:6?

I recall a certain Hovind divorced and remarried, and he was often citing that verse.

As strict as the Catholic Church is.

WatchingMyLifeFlashB

@Hans-Georg Lundahl The Holy Roman Catholic Church is no longer ultra strict. Due to lowered attendance, membership, & parishioners becoming increasingly unwilling to follow Church edicts & ordinances, the Church is breaking with their strict traditions. In the same way that Catholics are no longer eating fish on every Friday, the Church isn't totally condemning cohabitation before marriage, divorce, raising children exposed to two different religions, women who have had abortions, even tolerating homosexuality. And the Ecumenical Movement, which the Pope instituted, is about bringing the Church's rebellious daughters, the Protestant denominations, back under her motherly wing. The Church Fathers have to slacken their authoritative vices in order to trick their escapees into returning into the fold. All in the name of peace, unity, & harmony. Fork tongued.

The book of the Revelation of John describes this reunification of the Church. The bumper stickers that read Coexist are fruits of this movement.

The Pope portrays that he respects the other religions, but anyone who is wise should remember that a tiger doesn't change its stripes, only camouflage, walk stealthily, & kkenly prepare to pounce when the time is right. Just like the Church assimilated pagan rites & idol worship to become inclusive of potential pagan converts. Compromise in order to encourage familiarity & assimilation. As Solomon said, Nothing new under the sun.

Jesse Bryant

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Strict in one area... heretical in so many others. And what does divorce or remarriage have to do with the verse you cited? You can't marry things that are the same... And in the Hovind situation, who left who? (Yeah, I don't know all the details of that unfortunate event.) I've got a lot of Catholic family members and they are the ones who were both promiscuous and who have been divorced and remarried. Not sure I'm tracking with your line of thought here...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@WatchingMyLifeFlashB Wait, aren't you referring to the Vatican II Sect, the Conciliar Church, the Montinian Church, the Modernist Antichurch in communion with Bergoglio?

"Just like the Church assimilated pagan rites & idol worship to become inclusive of potential pagan converts."

Except this one is not a truth about that Antichurch, it is a lie about the real Catholic Church.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jesse Bryant And what does divorce or remarriage have to do with the verse you cited? You can't marry things that are the same

The verse is in context not about gay marriage - an abomination Christ never directly in so many words mentioned - but about fidelity one to one, one man to one woman, not man to women or men to a woman.

And in the Hovind situation, who left who?

According to Christ's words irrelevant, since the one who marries a repudiated wife commits adultery, even if it was her man who left her.

THAT'S where Catholicism is stricter than you guys.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jesse Bryant " I've got a lot of Catholic family members and they are the ones who were both promiscuous and who have been divorced and remarried."

In that case, they are perhaps belonging to the Vatican II Sect, which would explain if they were heretical against Young Earth as well - Young obviously relatively speaking in comparison to moyboy, 7200 years is old.

Francine Williams

@Hans-Georg Lundahl It looks like you like to fight. Okay, nice for you.

The Father doesn't need humans to fight His battles. The Son said Follow Me.

The arguing & bickering seems secular, even if religious matters are the subject.

Bless you & hope you find enough peace to put it all in God's hands.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Francine Williams By arguing, I am in fact accepting what God gave me a good schooling for.

May seem like bickering to a lady, but I'm a gent. Heard of Maria von Trapp? On the Charismatic conference in Kansas City in 1977, often cited by ma since then, she said "always remember this : a man is a man, and a woman is a woman"