One of our participants (Steamroller Philosopher) posed a question to me that is the subject of this post. It has to do with Jesus’ statement in Matthew 11 regarding the Jewish villages that rejected him. I will get to this in a minute. First, let me set the stage in reference to the question. It has to do with the subject of evil and what is known as the best possible world. Often it is claimed by non-believers that if God is truly all powerful and all good than He would not create a world in which there is suffering or evil. A full response to this is beyond the scope of this post; however, the usual response moves along the line that God has created the best possible world given that He has chosen to create free creatures. The point is, that inherent in creation of free creatures is their ability to do evil things.
My position on the “best of all worlds” issue is that God’s creation of the world was not necessary and, therefore, God’s freedom is such that no possible world needs to be chosen to exist. That being said, God’s gift of freedom does imply that there will be certain things inherent in this actual world. Inherent in freedom is the ability to make decisions that are wrong and evil. Those things that can exist are only those things that do not involve a contradiction. Those things that are absolutely impossible involve a contradiction (i.e. a round circle) and, therefore, are non-things. The fact that absolutely impossible things cannot be created does not indicate any defect in the power of God, but, rather, these things are not feasible in the real world. These absolutely impossible things are not things at all but simply descriptions of what cannot be. Consequently, there cannot be creatures with contingent ability (freedom of will) that do not have the potential for moral fault (choosing evil). When God gave freedom, the freedom to do good and evil came with it.
Now the question, Jesus issues some woe statements in Matthew 11 that have troubled some people:
Matthew 11:20-24 Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. 21 "Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. 24 But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the Day of Judgment than for you."
The concern here is that God (incarnate in Jesus Christ) did not choose to do the best thing. Jesus tells the citizens of Korazin and Bethsaida that if he had performed miracles in two non-Jewish cities (Tyre and Sidon), the people living in those cities would have repented. Instead, it appears that Jesus wasted both his time and miracles on unrepentant cities.
My response to this falls along a slightly different line of thought than “the best of all worlds” argument. My response is within the context of the actual world that God has created and has to do with divine Providence which is God’s planning and ordering of things for one purpose which is the divine goodness. I think people underestimate the order that God has planned in all things. God is not capricious. In short, after the fall in the Garden of Eden, God set about in an orderly fashion to implement salvation history. Notice these verses:
1 Cor 15:22-24 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.
Here in 1 Corinthians 15, in the broadest context possible covering Adam to the Second Coming, Paul notes that there is an order to God’s providential work of salvation. Then Paul says this as well:
Gal 4:4-5 But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5 to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.
In Galatians 4 Paul proclaims that the time of Christ’s coming had to “fully come” and that He needed to be born of a woman under the law—Jewish. All these things speak of order and planning.
Finally, notice this statement by Jesus to His disciples just before He sends them out to evangelize. This is from Matthew 10, just one chapter before the woe sayings in Matthew 11.
Matthew 10:5-7 These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’
Here is the point. In the actual world that God has created, He has providentially planned and ordered things for His goodness. This necessitates that all things be done “decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:40). Therefore, since salvation history began with one man, Abraham the father of the Jews, then salvation had to first be offered to God’s covenant people at just the right time through a Jewish messiah. This, of course, is exactly what Paul says in Romans 1:16 (“…the Jew first and also for the Greek”). Consequently, we must understand that Jesus’ woe statements to the Jewish communities in Matthew 11 simply describe their hardheartedness and not a failure of God to do the best thing. God did the best thing by first offering salvation to the Jews. This underscores God’s goodness, faithfulness, order and justice. The Jews’ failure to respond to Jesus only describes their unwillingness to avail themselves of God’s blessings.
Perhaps you have a better way to approach this question.
|
I would raise the issue that Matthew's Gospel was written to a particular context - to a Jewish audience. The Jewish Christian audience apparently didn't get really excited about the Gospel going to the Gentiles. So author of the Gospel of Matthew who probably lived in Antioch (so most modern scholars have proposed) was writing his Gospel in such a way as to remind his Jewish audience the costliness of rejecting Christ as their Messiah.
Obviously, I'm not privy to the details of the discussion. Is this happening on a message board or blog that I can look at?
In any event, I get the feeling that Leibniz's theodicy is involved in the story, namely that this is the best of all possible worlds because it is the one created by God. I take it that insofar as as Tyre and Sidon were not privy to Jesus' miracles, the citizens of Tyre and Sidon might argue that a better world (for them) would involve Tyre and Sidon being privy to Jesus' miracles.
I don't think this makes sense from Leibniz' standpoint. I think Leibniz would agree that the best of all possible worlds means a "possible" world and a possible world is a real world where having one good thing may mean that another good thing - a less good thing - can't be had as well. The best of all possible worlds isn't a world where you can have your cake and eat it too, its simply the best world out of the worlds that are possible. (And then Leibniz is also tied up in the theory of the monad and how our bodies are machines that God coordinates with our mind, all of which gets fairly weird.)
So, God made the Jews the "Chosen people." That meant necessarily that He didn't make the Tyreses and Sidonese the Chosen people, which means they weren't chosen, but the world in which the Jews were chosen rather than the Sidonese might still be the best of all possible worlds if choosing the Jews had better results than choosing the Sidonese. We can speculate about that, but we can't really say that a better world would have come about by choosing the Sidonese.
But, then, look at the passage and note that Tyre and Sidon not being privy to Jesus' miracles is not necessarily a disaster for Tyre and Sidon. Jesus says at Matthew 11:22 "It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you." Tyre and Sidon will actually be in a better position on Judgment Day because they weren't privy to Jesus' miracles and, so, will be given more lenient treatment than Bethesda.
This ties into Thom's point (in the previous post) about much being expected from those to whom much is given.
It also ties into a point made by Father William Most in Grace Predestination & Salvific Will of God: New Answers To Old Questions. Most makes the point that we need not despair of the salvation of pagans and unbelievers who are "invincibly ignorant" because their ignorance mitigates against the culpability of their sin, unlike those of us who know or should know what is a sin and what isn't. Father Most speculates that God may be working out His universal salvific will by placing those who are naturally predisposed to good among the pagans and putting the hard cases among the Christians where they have more direct access to God's truth and grace, but again that is all speculation.
I don't know if this helps, but these are just a few thoughts from reading your (Steamroller's) comment.
Below are two more opinions of that text from two fellas I appreciate a bunch:
Paul Copan said in an email, "Hello, Jonathan.
Jesus is speaking hyperbolically here, emphasizing the greater
responsibility that Israel faces with his ministry in their midst than did Sodom. Keep in mind that Jesus also said in Lk. 16 (the parable of the rich man and Lazarus) that even if someone comes back from the dead, this won't convince people if their hearts are not responsive to God's revelation in the Law and the Prophets. Jesus knows that miracles in themselves won't bring people into a right and loving relationship with God.
The Scriptures are full of this: The Israelites have the presence of God in their midst (a pillar of cloud by day and fire by night, manna each day, etc.), but they grumble and complain. Jezebel's murderous response to Elijah's victory at Mt. Carmel in 1Ki. 19. Jesus raises Lazarus in Jn. 11, but Jesus' enemies then want to kill Lazarus as well as Jesus. Despite God's miracles, people regularly resist.him.
This raises the whole question of the hiddenness of God: there is
enough obscurity if people want to look for loopholes and avenues to
justify non-belief, but ample evidence for those whose hearts are open to God, willing to receive whatever indicators of God's presence are available. Much has to do with one's attitude---will we demand signs of God ("I won't believe unless God does X") or steadfastly seek and gratefully receive any signs God might reveal? It's also interesting that at the end of the same chapter, Mt. 11, Jesus's prayer indicates that God hides himself from the proud, but makes himself known to the humble and unpretentious ("babes").
I hope this helps. Many blessings,
Paul Copan
(I love this dude!)
AND-->
Why Not Tyre?
________________________________________
A Question of Fairness?
James Patrick Holding
______________________________________
Matthew 11:21-2 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. (parallel in Luke)
Not long ago a couple of people asked me about this passage: "If this is true, and Tyre and Sidon would have repented, why didn't Jesus go there and do some miracles? Those souls could have been saved, right?" I responded first by noting that Tyre and Sidon were likely among the first mission fields for the church, and that there could be little doubt that such signs were done in those cities at some point. I would still say this is true, but now would say that it would have no relevance to this passage. Jesus is not speaking of the Tyre and Sidon of his day, but of those cities hundreds of years before.
The first thing to notice is that Jesus refers to these cities doing the "sackcloth and ashes" bit -- not turning to him and submitting to his lordship. Sackcloth and ashes were "common public tokens of repentance" (Blomberg commentary on Matthew, 191), as they were for Nineveh. They indicated a change in behavior, but said nothing about the person's eternal salvation. All that Jesus is saying is that the cities would have done a moral U-turn, like Nineveh did. (And of course, Nineveh eventually reversed that U-turn and went evil again...we are not talking permanent effects here, nor of any lasting allegience to the true God.)
Taking it further, Jesus refers here not to the "modern" first century cities, but rather to the cities as they existed in Isaiah's time. His comments about Tyre and Sidon allude to Isaiah 23:1-12. (His comments about Capernaum likewise echo the condemnation of Babylon in Isaiah 14.) Therefore there is no moral dilemma about God not sending Jesus to Tyre and Sidon for a turnaround. The implications of such a visit are not as eternal (except in the sense that there are, or may be, gradations of punishment in hell), nor as relevant, as the question supposes.
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/tyresidon.html
Isaiah says, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness." [Isaiah 5:20]
When the Pharisees accused Jesus of working miracles by Beelzebub, he immediately tells them that the blasphemies against the Holy Ghost should not be forgiven. [Mark 3:22-30] Similiar examples are found in the Book of Mormon.
Far be it that Jesus had "wasted his time"! If miracles were not intended to convince men of the truth, Jesus never would have upbraided the cities wherein most of His mighty works were done, because they repented not. But He pronounced a heavy woe upon Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, (as you remark) because they had rejected the mighty works which He had done in them, and said, that it should be more tolerable for Tyre, Sidon, and the land of Sodom, "in the day of judgment than for them." [Matthew 11:20-24]
All these examples afford ample evidence that the two supernatural powers can be distinguished from each other with the most unerring certainty.
Now as I stated earlier, Miracles when taken alone, are no evidence whatever of the divine mission of anyone; but when taken in connection with a pure, holy and infallible doctrine, they are evidences of the strongest kind, and if rejected, will bring that generation of vipers under the greatest condemnation. That is the point made by your unusual effort to quote from the Bible.
His rebuke need not be repeated by other prophets to other peoples for the woe to apply. Many prophets have been sent with a divine revelation to man, who have never wrought any miracles confirming of their mission, and yet the people were condemned for rejecting their testimony.
If God has sent on a regular errand prophets among men without confirming their mission by miracles, and has condemned the people or generation to whom they were sent, because they would not receive their testimony; how much more will He condemn a people or generation to whom He sends a message confirmed by miracles?
As applied to your scripture: If Sodom and Gomorrah were condemned for rejecting a divine message without miracles, how much greater will be the condemnation of that people who reject that greater testimony accompanied with miracles?
Today we have dissolved into a people who will not believe in a prophet without miracles. We are a people who tempt God to dance for us. Unless he does, there can be no prophet.
I enjoy and respect reading everyone on this blog, but I found I needed to take some time away and reflect why it was that I came here in the first place. I think this is an interesting topic, and everyone's had awesome insight, however, I feel we're making "much ado about nothing." I will leave you all with some more quotes from MY favorite Thomas, Thomas a` Kempis...He can say it MUCH better than I can.
"There are many things the knowledge of which does little or no good to the soul, and he who concerns himself about other things than those which lead to salvation is very unwise."
" What good is much discussion of involved or obscure matters, when our ignorance of them will not be held against us on judgement day?"
" What, therefore, have we to do with questions of philosophy? He to whom the eternal Word speaks is free from theorizing."
I hope you all understand my point in sharing these quotes. I guess in the end, I agree with C.S. Lewis when he said that if philosophy is good for anything, it's to discount bad philosophy. I think I've come to the point where I'd like to spend my time making myself a better person,( which is quite an arduous task,) rather than discuss pre-destination. I don't know why Jesus did some of the things he did, but I know I wouldn't have it any other way. God bless
On a side note, I do find it interesting that Jesus wasn't able to do any miracles except lay his hand on a few of the sick so that they were healed in his home town. It makes me wonder that the real miracles aren't the healings and such, but the changes made to the peoples lives on a deeper level than their physical healing.
●Hey, I actually agree with you. I do think, though, that there are some awesome miracles being done through God’s people that demonstrate God’s power and compassion and are signs of the truth of the gospel.
Gunns: you wrote, I think this is an interesting topic, and everyone's had awesome insight, however, I feel we're making "much ado about nothing.
●First, it is good to have you back and I do agree that it is easy to mistake theologizing for obedience. It is better to be obedient to God with the little that we know than to know a lot and deceive ourselves that our knowledge is the same as godliness. On the other hand, I also agree with C.S. Lewis in that the value of philosophy is that one can refute bad philosophy (likewise with theology). Consequently, the question would be, how important is this topic. Well, it is, in my view, a “classic.” Thoughtful non-believers and seekers often wrestle with how God can be good and yet there be so much evil in the world. Christians need to be able to intelligently address this issue. Rarely do they accept the statement that the “Bible says God is good and there is evil, so I believe it.” We have to be able to help them understand how a loving and all powerful God could allow so much suffering and evil to exist. I think Peter put everything into perspective when he wrote:
1 Peter 3:15 But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,
Just a thought
Personally I think there are a lot of things that get called miracles, that simply, by definition, are not. Jesus walking on water, is a miracle. Someone having cancer, then getting treated and living is not a miracle. It's just my opinion, but I feel that it's easy for us to cheapen what a miracle really is. A little off topic, I know. Just a thought. God bless.
"What good is much discussion of involved or obscure matters, when our ignorance of them will not be held against us on judgement day?"
Such a statement supposes that reasons for our ignorance are not a point of consideration for salvation. supposing this itself is ignorance. This world is very unforgiving for those who claim ignorance. Ignorance is when we don't take the time to learn. In my book, ignorance is next to faithlessness. What intellignece we have in correct gospel principles is foundational to our actions. Yet, there is much written here that is error. Believing wholeheartedly in a wrong principle will not bring us any reward and will likely do us significant damage. Getting it wrong is ignorance.
I wonder, then, why you intentionally choose ignorance when attacking Christianity by misusing terms and generally constructing arguments based on oppinion (yours) over facts? I know it is not because the correct information has been withheld from you. In fact, I know that you have been told multiple times deffinitions for many terms you still misuse/misunderstand.
When ignorance is intentional that becomes foolishness, according to the Bible as found in the book of wisdom, and foolishness is the real sin, not ignorance.
A detailed description of those LDS Gospel Principles can be found at the official LDS website: http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,11-1-13-1,00.html
It was you who made an appeal a few topics ago for some cooperation in the sharing of the wealth brought in by the visitors to local crusades. I agree. But no cooperation will be found when the bottom line i$ a$ I $ay.
Actually there is a great deal of cooperation between Christian denominations and I have pointed that out. Still, there should be more cooperation. Moreover, I believe that the quote you are refering to was not referenced to cross denominational works. In that vein, I also pointed out that many mega churches to come along side smaller churches.
Again another example of where you refuse to learn and so intentionally remain ignorant. Here you have tried to distract from what I actually said by painting a totally different picture feigning ignorance of what I did say. As you continue this, you will continue to hold to your ignorance inspite of the availability of correct information, which is foolishness.
"(Orthodox)Christianity started out in Palestine as a fellowship; it moved to Greece and became a philosophy; it moved to Italy and became an institution; it moved to Europe and became a culture; it came to America and became an enterprise." Sam Pascoe, American scholar
I suppose there are miracles in (enterprise) business also...depending upon our meaning.
More specifically, the text of that name can be found in pdf form at http://www.lds.org/gospellibrary/materials/gospel/Start%20Here_01.pdf
It is the text used for instruction in that Sunday school class... They were the first instruction I recieved as a new member, converted about a quarter century ago. It really hasn't changed since then. Imagine that.
Not nearly as heady as you imagine.
Puri responded: Actually there is a great deal of cooperation between Christian denominations and I have pointed that out.
Stealth then wrote:Yes, cozy relationships you have here in America…I suppose there are miracles in (enterprise) business also...depending upon our meaning.
Hmm…speaking of $$$ and “enterprise” and “business,” check out this little section from Time Magazine:
TIME has been able to quantify the church's (LDS) extraordinary financial vibrancy. Its current assets total a minimum of $30 billion. If it were a corporation, its estimated $5.9 billion in annual gross income would place it midway through the FORTUNE 500, a little below Union Carbide and the Paine Webber Group but bigger than Nike and the Gap…The top beef ranch in the world is not the King Ranch in Texas. It is the Deseret Cattle & Citrus Ranch outside Orlando, Fla. It covers 312,000 acres; its value as real estate alone is estimated at $858 million. It is owned entirely by the Mormons. The largest producer of nuts in America, AgReserves, Inc., in Salt Lake City, is Mormon-owned. So are the Bonneville International Corp., the country's 14th largest radio chain, and the Beneficial Life Insurance Co., with assets of $1.6 billion…Most churches take in the greater part of their income through donations. Very few, however, impose a compulsory 10% income tax on their members. Tithes are collected locally, with much of the money passed on informally to local lay leaders at Sunday services. "By Monday," says Elbert Peck, editor of Sunstone, an independent Mormon magazine, the church authorities in Salt Lake City "know every cent that's been collected and have made sure the money is deposited in banks."… the Latter-day Saints employ vast amounts of money in investments that TIME estimates to be at least $6 billion strong. Even more unusual, most of this money is not in bonds or stock in other peoples' companies but is invested directly in church-owned, for-profit concerns, the largest of which are in agribusiness, media, insurance, travel and real estate. Deseret Management Corp., the company through which the church holds almost all its commercial assets, is one of the largest owners of farm and ranchland in the country, including 49 for-profit parcels in addition to the Deseret Ranch. TIME MAGAZINE, AUGUST 4, 1997 VOL. 150 NO. 5
Besides the LDS sent $60 million off in charity last year.
Which is a remarkable figure when you consider that Catholic Charities in 2005 was able to deliver more than $3 Billion in aid (with 90% of every dollar donated going into charitable programs and not into overhead - probably due to all of those unpaid volunteers, as well as the many underpaid Franciscans, Carmelites, Ursulines and Vincentians, who have taken the "apostolic counsels" of chastity, poverty and obedience.)
Again, I don't judge the LDS for what it does with it's members money - since I'm not LDS, I don't have any standing to be critical - and every bit of charity they engage in is welcome and a tribute to their commitment to Christian charity.
But this obsession by an LDS member about the internal affairs of denominations that he doesn't belong to isn't very edifying.
Taking it further, Jesus refers here not to the "modern" first century cities, but rather to the cities as they existed in Isaiah's time. His comments about Tyre and Sidon allude to Isaiah 23:1-12. (His comments about Capernaum likewise echo the condemnation of Babylon in Isaiah 14.) Therefore there is no moral dilemma about God not sending Jesus to Tyre and Sidon for a turnaround. The implications of such a visit are not as eternal (except in the sense that there are, or may be, gradations of punishment in hell), nor as relevant, as the question supposes.
●I think that Holding’s exegesis is helpful and mitigates the question regarding Jesus and the 1st century cities of Tyre and Sidon. However, it does not seem to answer the larger “best of all worlds” question. Why would God send his prophets and Messiah to a hardhearted people when there are and were (Isaiah’s time) receptive people-groups just a few miles away? In my view, Holding has only moved the question back one step and we are left wondering about God’s larger plan. This is why I think the answer must be grounded in God’s nature and the nature of things. Simply put, I think the answer is found in God’s justice and man’s contingent actions.
AMEN!
Do you think it has anything to do with the fact that God knows the very depths of our hearts, so He did ministry according to who and what would best further his kingdom? Just a thought. God bless
The good news for Thomists...
...is that the entire corpus of Thomistic writings is on-line.
The bad news - for those of us raised post-Vatican II - is that they are in Latin.
The only person I know who could read them is Edmond, and he doesn't have a computer.
But I think there are other possibilities too, namely, that God refrained from giving excessive light to Tyre, Sidon, Sodom, and Gomorrah because they already had sufficient light to repent. Another possibility that I believe has warrant is that as a result of their judgment, more folks would be brought to repentance in the end (their pain, more peoples gain). This kind of response works because it's not as though we don't take circumstances into account--for example, lying is wrong all things being equal, but when this means protecting innocent Jewish lives from Nazi killers, you try to deceive them to protect life. This kind of hierarchy of ethics is biblically warranted--the Hebrew midwives in Ex. 1, God himself in 1 Sam. 16:1ff.).
What say you?
Amen. Call me a Zealot instead of obsessed though. There are many who have been edified. Half our current members (5,000,000+) were once Orthodox. When they began to look with an open heart, each felt so edified as to leave family and friends in favor of the truth they found.
For those of the Orthodoxy who are likewise obsessed with the LDS, I say edify me with the truth. Show me the truth if it departs from what I see the Lord requires! Don't whine about not being able to see or hear. SPEAK.
Peter, you wrote, "But this obsession by an LDS member about the internal affairs of denominations that he doesn't belong to isn't very edifying."
Amen. Call me a Zealot instead of obsessed though. There are many who have been edified. Half our current members (5,000,000+) were once Orthodox. When they began to look with an open heart, each felt so edified as to leave family and friends in favor of the truth they found.
First, a matter of perspective: there are over a billion Catholics in the world - 1 out of 6 people on the planet is Catholic. If all 5 million came from Catholicism, which they don't, that would amount to a rate of .5%! I suspect that a greater percentage demonstrate far worse examples of questionable judgment, such as stamp collecting or watching Laverne and Shirley.
Second, your obsession with the size of the LDS - an amazing 10 million members!! - isn't very edifying. If that's what your self-esteem is based on, be careful: the growth of American Catholic population since 1990 has been larger than the entire population of your denomination.
I'm sure that you really don't want to base your triumphalism on population numbers.
Stealth wrote:
For those of the Orthodoxy who are likewise obsessed with the LDS, I say edify me with the truth. Show me the truth if it departs from what I see the Lord requires! Don't whine about not being able to see or hear. SPEAK.
Uhmmm....haven't you been reading the stuff you think you're responding to?
Dori, at my Communio group, tells me that we are skipping Chesterton tomorrow and doing God's Providence.
All people of good will are invited - Protestants, Catholics, LDS, Thomists, Kantians, Nominalists, Wittgensteinians and the odd Post-modernists (and are they odd.)
This would really be an excellent opportunity to bone up on hair-splitting distinctions that you can toss into your comments whenever Thom brings up one of his three most favorite ideas.
Unfortunately, the next Thursday, December 7 - aptly falling on Pearl Harbor Day - we are doing "predestination" and blood should run in the streets as free will-obsessing Catholics learn that predestination ain't for TULIP-waiving Calvinists anymore.
We're really going to need you on that one, Thom, if only to pry Dori's hands from Edmond's neck.
Avi Ano Coffee Shop at 7:30 pm on the Northwest Corner of Bullard and Palm Tomorrow, Thursday, November 30, 2006.
Debating you is like trying to wrestle a greased pig. You throw out one attack, so I dispute it, and then you throw out another attack saying my point is meaningless when it clearly counters your initial point, and you even admit it.
Just to be clear, you said, "But no cooperation will be found when the bottom line i$ a$ I $ay." and I stated there is cooperation. You have now agreed that I am right, but try to say, "[my]point is meaningless." Your entire argument is based on money, but the statement that I have countered has invalidated your argument. Let me break it down for you.
But no cooperation will be found when the bottom line i$ a$ I $ay.
There are two assumptions made in this statement,
-there is no cooperation
-money is the bottom line
These are contingent statements. If one is false, both are false.
I have proven, and you have accepted, that the first statement is false.
Based on the contingency of the second assumption, it becomes false by default.
In summary, there is cooperation so, by your own statement, money is not the bottom line.
I hoep you understand how this is not meaningless, but rather full of meaning (aka meaningful).
Moreover, I think that the wide reaching, fingers in everything moneywise, portfolio of the LDS church looks much more like the mafia than any Christian church.
I think you are right on many different levels.
Concerning the original topic, I'll play: why isn't the relevant passage about "the costliness of rejecting the messiah"?
Specifically, Jesus says things about how the treatment of Sidon and Tyre will be more lenient than Bethesda on the day of judgment. From this we don't know if Tyre and Sidon will be spiritually saved or merely put in a more desirable region of Sheol compared to Bethesda. We simply don't know what happens to Tyre or Sidon; all we know is that there treatment is better relative to Bethesda.
Which presumably is the message: however bad or good the treatment of "invincibly ignorant" cities, the treatment of those who reject the truth they should recognize will be worse.
Also, it seems to me that there is a false comparison going on. The description of what would have happened to Tyre, Sidon and Sodom if they had seen the miracles Bethesda saw all involve their temporal happiness, e.g. Sodom would still exist today and Tyre and Sidon would repent. These temporal goods, however, aren't spiritual goods, which Bethesda loses by knowingly rejecting the messiah.
I'm not sure what that last means, but I throw it out as food for thought.
Interesting - for me, at least - your point about the costliness of rejecting the messiah and the ambiguous status of Sidon and Tyre's salvation calls to mind one of the more controversial sections of the 1994 Catechism, which states:
Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338
I've bolded the relevant language about "Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it" which seems to be in line with spirit of the Matthew passage we've been discussing.
The point of the passage isn't to say that those who are outside the Church aren't saved; rather it is to say that once you know the Catholic Church was founded by by God through Christ as necessary for salvation, then and only then are you in a different kettle of fish for not following through on the implications of your knowledge.
So, again, I'm tempted to read the Matthew passage in the same light; we don't know that Sidon and Tyre weren't among the "invincibly ignorant" who might have been saved through the grace of Christ because of their own nascent, unknown, secret desire for baptism, but we can be fairly sure that those in Bethesda who knew or should have known that Jesus was the messiah but rejected him are not.
This reading would also answer the question of the putative divine unfairness of ignoring the far more receptive cities.
Anyhow, I think that Ron is right about the gist of the message being about those who reject the messiah, not about those who are invincibly ignorant.
You wrote "From this we don't know if Tyre and Sidon will be spiritually saved or merely put in a more desirable region of Sheol compared to Bethesda."
Is Levels of Hell more pallatable than levels in Heaven? We should know where they went or are to go. So many of you know with certainty where people like the LDS are going today. Why not then? AH, because it reveals cracks in your one kingdom of the saved.
Curious no?
●This sub-topic may not be very edifying but it is entertaining. Puri, your point about Mr. Stealth’s greased pig approach to argumentation is spot-on and I’m still chuckling about your twist on the Mafia.
Ron wrote: The Jewish Christian audience apparently didn't get really excited about the Gospel going to the Gentiles. So author of the Gospel of Matthew who probably lived in Antioch (so most modern scholars have proposed) was writing his Gospel in such a way as to remind his Jewish audience the costliness of rejecting Christ as their Messiah.
Peter wrote: So, again, I'm tempted to read the Matthew passage in the same light; we don't know that Sidon and Tyre weren't among the "invincibly ignorant" who might have been saved through the grace of Christ because of their own nascent, unknown, secret desire for baptism, but we can be fairly sure that those in Bethesda who knew or should have known that Jesus was the messiah but rejected him are not…This reading would also answer the question of the putative divine unfairness of ignoring the far more receptive cities.
The Passage:
20 Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. 21"Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. 24 But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."
Reflections
(1) If Ron is correct, and I think he is, that Matthew was written to a complacent Jewish-Christian audience, then the primary message of the passage is to remind the readers of the “costliness of rejecting Christ.”
(2) The choice by Jesus to use the ancient wicked cities of Tyre, Sidon and Sodom appears to be to highlight the outrageous sinfulness of rejecting Christ.
(3) Because Jesus clearly states that these pagan cities would have “repented” in “sackcloth and ashes,” I believe we must assume that Jesus meant that they would not have rejected Christ but received him as Messiah.
(4) We learn that even the ancient wicked city of Sodom (meaning its inhabitants) will receive a lesser punishment than will Korazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum. I take this to mean that no human can escape responsibility to God because the law of God is written into nature; but, the direct presentation of the gospel brings greater moral/spiritual culpability; hence, the 1st century Jewish cities were more culpable. To whom much is given, much is required.
(3) The point in the comparison between the two sets of cities is not to justify the ancient wicked cities (because of their ignorance); but, to make it clear that the greatest sin is the rejection of Christ.
(4) In relation to the “best of all worlds,” Steamroller’s point that the best world would be one where the most people are saved, I believe, brings us back to God’s justice. God’s salvation history justly unfolds over time through His chosen people and it’s Messiah. For a whole host reasons, this unfolding process is the best means to reach the most people given the actualities of the real world that God has created. During this unfolding process, as Paul notes, God has “overlooked such ignorance” (Acts 17:30) as idolatry in the past. Ultimately, we must trust God’s goodness.
First I am sure you meant a "square circle". Your premise loses power with a God who is not limited to what a minister describes as "absolutely impossible".
"And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
For with God NOTHING SHALL BE IMPOSSIBLE. And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her. (Luke 1:34-38; CAPS added)"
and also if once is not enough: God tells us what WE can do with authority from Him:
"Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out? And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and NOTHING SHALL BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU.
Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. (Matthew 17:14-21; CAPS added)"
Isaiah 59:20 And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.
Romans 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
Answer: How about Jesus.
You wrote: Any day we choose to make a new beginning is a day when we can draw strength from the Lord's promise, "Nothing shall be impossible."
●Have you counted to infinity yet?
Good thoughts bro!!! I really liked your point on the lying for the good of others take on the topic, and the examples you gave. Again your intellect makes me want to learn more, as do the rest of the people on this blog.
Although, I still must admit that I feel that anything that God does, or did will always be according to what gives him glory. As to the why? I haven't a clue. I guess I just figure that it's better that He has the answer to that, instead of me.
*Sigh*
Well, you noticed that I didn't speculate about Sodom and Gomorrah's being a population of "invincibly ignorant" Christians-wannabe's...because I thought that would be way over the top. Apparently, Tyre and Sidon are archetypes of wickedness like Sodom and Gomorrah. Where's the icon for "slapping forehead"? So, I presume that compared to Bethesda, they get sent to a less toasty region of Sheol.
But, in truth, isn't the point - Ron's and other's, maybe - that the reference to Tyre and Sidon repenting is entirely a literary device; that Jesus was speaking hyperbolically rather than describing a counterfactual scenario meant to suggest what would happen if he had appeared there instead of Bethesda?
For example, a man who told his girlfriend that "I love you so much that if I had the time I'd build you the Taj Mahal" isn't really suggesting that the only thing standing between his girlfriend having the Taj Mahal in her backyard is time; it may well be the case that the man lacks engineering skill and the building site may not support a marble structure? If we are fair, we understand that, in fact, he's really saying something meaningful about his feelings for her.
If so, then, can we simply respond to the Steamroler's atheist with the argument that he is making a "category error" by treating a rhetorical device intended to communicate intensity of feeling as counterfactual proposition about reality?
I suspect that kind of fair observation will produce the "are you saying that Jesus is a liar" resort to literalism so beloved by atheists. (Cf. this post and related link by philosopher Bill Vallicella)
Bring anything to mind?
●Well, first of all, Isaiah 59:21 is a promise from Yahweh to His covenant people that by His Spirit His words of salvation will always be forthcoming through them.
Isaiah 59:21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.
●Secondly, it is out of the covenant people that the Messiah comes forth. Paul picks up on this in Galatians identifying the “seed” quintessentially with Jesus.
Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
●Paul then identifies the people of promise as all those who are “children of God by faith in Christ.” They are the true seed of Abraham, the covenant community.
Gal 3:26-29 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
What this doesn’t mean, of course, is "All men and women are . . . literally the sons and daughters of Deity. . . . Man, as a spirit, was (not) begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father.” If this were true then it would mean that God, the Supreme Being of the universe, has a Supreme Being wife who would be the goddess of the universe. It would also mean that they have some sort of celestial sex. Such ideas were considered both blasphemy and an abomination to the Old Testament prophets and Paul would have called them “anathema.”
You wrote: On the task of counting to infinity, Is there a Protestant or Catholic amoung us who has the audacity to step forward to tell God He can't do it? With Him all things are possible.
●Please allow me to step forward. The point is that God doesn’t need to count to infinity—He is already there because He is infinite. However, anyone who thinks they can become divine must be able to count to infinity. Again, there can be only one infinite being and no finite being can progress to infinity. A finite becoming an infinite is a square circle—also known as an essential impossibility or a non-thing. The idea that we could “become like him, a god,” of course is blasphemy.
Ron and Peter: I’m going to hold out and maintain that Jesus was not strictly using a rhetorical or literally device. Let me add that I am not such a literalist that I cannot be sensitive to the various devises used by the biblical authors and those reported to be speaking in a text. That being said, here is why I believe Jesus meant what He said about the three pagan cities. In Luke 4, Luke gives the most detailed description of Jesus’ preaching in a synagogue. In my view, Luke had a similar agenda as did Matthew in the sense that he was explaining to Theophilus and his readers why the gospel had been generally rejected by the Jews and accepted by the Gentiles. Luke 4 provides a foundational text for this thesis. I’ll paste in a portion of it here:
Luke 4:24-29 "I tell you the truth," he continued, "no prophet is accepted in his hometown. 25 I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah's time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. 26 Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. 27 And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian." 28 All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. 29 They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him down the cliff.
(1) This saying by Jesus follows immediately after the people in the synagogue in Nazareth began to reject Jesus’ gracious words of salvation.
(2) Here, again, Jesus draws on OT examples of Gentile openness and Israelite hardheartedness. In this case Jesus points to the widow near Sidon (a center of Baal worship) that was blessed and sustained by Elijah while Israelites lived in famine and to Naaman the Syrian general who was healed while Israelites suffered with leprosy. In the biblical accounts of these stories, both of the pagans demonstrated faith.
(3) Jesus’ main point in both Matthew 11 and Luke 4 is that “a prophet is without honor in his own town.” The subtext point that absolutely galled the Jews is that pagan and idolatrous Gentiles were used by Jesus as a way to compare their hardheartedness to the openness of the unclean heathen. In both passages, the Jews must have reacted with hypertensive rage (which we see in Luke 4).
(4) My meaning here is that Jesus cannot be using a literally devise in Luke 4 and his point is virtually the same as in Matthew 11. This does not guarantee that Jesus was not speaking in pastoral hyperbole regarding the three pagan cities; however, given the Luke 4 text, I see no reason to give priority to a metaphorical interpretation of Matthew 11.
(5) If I am correct in my assessment of Matthew 11 then I cannot turn Steamroller’s atheist away from his argument by noting that he is making the categorical error of treating a rhetorical devise as a counterfactual proposition about reality. I have to find another way of convincing the atheist. Admittedly, it is much more difficult to explain the merciful justice of a process of salvation that unfolds gradually through God’s covenant people over time. However, Paul does just this sort of process explanation when describing the “seed” concept in Galatians 4 that I have been dialoguing with Stealth about.
Though it’s hard to believe Jesus is speaking hyperbolically given the Luke example, as Paul Copan argued, one could use Luke 16 (the parable of the rich man and Lazarus) where it says that even if someone comes back from the dead, this won't convince people if their hearts are not responsive to God's revelation in the Law and the Prophets. Jesus knows that miracles in themselves won't bring people into a right and loving relationship with God. I’m not convinced either way, but I tend to agree with you, Thom!
Either way, the Atheist must grant the possibility that God allowed these folks to stay spiritually blinded so that the maximum number of folks would be saved. Their pain, the worlds gain! There are lots of instances in scripture where God does the unimaginable i.e. he uses pain, suffering, and evil to bring about greater goods. This hierarchy of ethics has biblical warrant. I’m reminded of Joseph when he says, “Gen 50:20 "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.” God has sufficient reasons for what he ordains.
In my view, Jesus spoke the way he did so that his hearers would have a sense of urgency to give up their cause, their form of revolution, and join Christ in his. Urgency because there would be no greater light for these Jews, so take advantage of it while the ‘gettins good!’
I may see a few of you at the Thomas Aquinas Meeting.
Cheers!
If by ‘born gay’ you mean that an individual possesses a certain physical composition, call it a gene, which causally determines beliefs, I’d say heck no! Why? Well, for starters, no philosopher of mind (Christian or not) I’ve read has any clue how it is that humans are conscious let alone how parts could form metaphysical beliefs. Therefore, the idea that a ‘gay gene’ exists and determines beliefs seem far fetched at best. This ‘born gay’ notion was popular a few years back but hardly deserves attention today.
Paul Copan points out, “when we consult physics textbooks to understand what matter is, there’s nothing psychological, subjective, or mental about matter. Matter might be described as having the properties of spatial location, spatial extension, weight, texture, color, shape, size, density, mass, or atomic or chemical composition. But what will always be missing in these textbooks describing matter is consciousness as a characteristic or property of matter. The assumption is that matter is different from mind. We’re left wondering: How could matter produce mind? How could nonconscious material produce consciousness?” (Copan, 2005)
Hopefully someone will pick up where I’ve left off =) This is a great topic for discussion!!!
“How do you know you’re not wrong?” Paul Copan, Copyright 2005, Baker Books
This certainly is not a thought from Orthodoxy is it? You folks are so careful not to disagree with each other, it becomes very interesting to witness.
The notion that God uses evil for a greater good is anathema to God's character.
Your confusion has a great deal to do with your mistaking good for evil and evil for good.
I say: Your confusion and faulty faculties explain your allegiance to many gods.
Rom 8:28
Is there anything out there that measures belief systems that make the most difference in the believer's life when correlated with true spiritual well being? Now that would be something. Maybe correlated to longevity of marriage, actual volunteer service and giving per capita,...
●Steamroller has already responded to your point, Stealth; but, this seems like such an odd statement to me. All my life I’ve heard that God can use evil for good. This seems very unremarkable to me. Joseph told his brothers in Genesis 50:
Gen. 50:20 But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive.
●Additionally, if God could not use man’s evil for a greater good then this would be saying that some things do not fall under the Providence of God—they would be outside of God’s control.
Please tell us what useful form of Evil, God uses to bring to pass greater goodness?
Evil may be defined as those forces and decisions which are destructive to the progress and spiritual development of the individual. It is the opposite of goodness and opposite to the acts and counsel of God. Man brings evil upon himself through unfettered choice.
Where evil flourishes, it takes the most miserable of men to implicate God as being a co-conspirator.
I said, hey Stealtherama, LOOK! ---> Gen 50:20 "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive
Gen 50:17 So shall ye say unto Joseph, Forgive, I pray thee now, the trespass of thy brethren, and their sin; for they did unto thee evil:
There is no reference to God doing Evil here. Nor is there any reference that any good from doing evil.
LOOK! ---> Act 2:23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.
Where’s the acumen?
Response, No duh!!!
Stealth continues, "Nor is there any reference that any good from doing evil."
Response, Umm… you’re tilting at windmills again.
Have another drink
nite nite
There is only one god who uses evil to create good as defined by this world. He is the god of this world, Babylon your world.
Peter, I do want to point to our success by the numbers. Nobody becomes LDS purely by virtue of being born or being sprinkled upon as an infant. I fear those are the bulk of your numbers. I think conversion numbers are the most robust as evidence for the serious believer.
Stealth you are preposterous. You seriously expect to prove the superiority of the LDS by stacking up a paltry 10 million members against over a billion Catholics?
First, what's your evidenced for your claim that the "bulk" of Catholics are Catholic because they've been "born or sprinkled upon as an infant?" The answer is, once again, your bigotry.
Second, let's pretend that a mere 10% of Catholics are devout and 100% of Mormon are, that still leaves 100 million Catholics against 10 million Mormons. You lose.
Third, you are being deceptive again; Mormons are born in the covenant.
Fourth, your Mormon population figures ignore the Mormon converts who leave the LDS once the "love-bombing" stops. Nor does it take into consideration the TBM's who decide that they can't believe the farrago of absolutely wrong empirical claims about the world or become disillusioned to find that the esential heart of Mormonism is secret handshakes and pseudo-Masonic rituals. See also and this.) And what about the fact that the LDS was near bankrupt in the 80s because it overbuilt its churchs or that it spent more on land redevelopment than on charity over twenty years?
It is entirely your business if you believe that the Sun gets its energy from the planet Kolob or that Book of Mormon, which makes numerous errors in the history and ethnography of Pre-Columbian America, was divinely inspired or the incoherent portions of the BofM that show that Smith was making it up as he was writing it. But trying to pretend that there are more Mormons that Catholics goes beyond any other ludicrous belief you might happen to hold.
Stealth wrote:
Is there anything out there that measures belief systems that make the most difference in the believer's life when correlated with true spiritual well being? Now that would be something. Maybe correlated to longevity of marriage, actual volunteer service and giving per capita,...
How about longevity, size and an actual historically traceable connection to Jesus Christ?
If we want to look at charity, maybe you can explain why your larger, more committed denomination contributed over 20 years less than half of Catholic Charities did in one year? I mean, especially if they are so much larger and committed than Catholics who are merely "sprinkled on"?
Of course, maybe we should look at bankruptcies and notice that Utah leads the nation in bankruptcy filings, caused in large part by the mandatory 10% tithe paid by LDS members for salvation.
Personally, I'd measure beliefs systems by whether they are true or not, which would involve looking at the truth claims being made about science, morality and history, but you definitely don't want to go there.
Why don't you take a break from Mormon triumphalism and try some charity toward others. You might find it a refreshing change. I understand that it's an approach endorsed by the Bible.
Peter, thank you for you last post to Stealth - or is it Gecko??
you ask how god can use evil, but not be implicated in it. Pretty much the same way that Satan can quote scripture without being the author of it or having authority by it. Sorta like Joseph Smith did.
Actually, Stealth, believe it or not, this is a very good philosophical question. Allow me to lay out a few implications before I directly respond to your question. Here is why it is important that we understand that God can “use” evil for good.
●Dualists like Gnostics believed that God cannot in any way be connected to evil. In their minds, God must be transcendent or strictly separate from evil. This seems to solve the problem of God being somehow implicated in evil but creates many more problems. Chief among the problems are that it gives evil a substantive reality that is separate from God and that He did not create or have control over. The result is that in dualism there are things that someone else created that God cannot control. Christians believe that God created all things and has control over all things.
Response:
(1) Strictly speaking God does not “use” evil but “transforms” evil.
(2) Man’s evil cannot thwart God’s good.
(3) Evil is not a substance and cannot exist without the good. Evil is like rust on a piece of metal. Take away the metal and the rust cannot exist.
(4) The primary way that God transforms evil into good is through His justice. In other words, what God does is take the rusty piece of metal, cleans it up and polishes it.
(5) God can take even our evil actions, apply His justice and bring about a great good. The death of Jesus upon the cross is the classic example. Men intended evil toward Christ, but, God used the cross as a way to bring salvation to all men. God justly poured out His wrath upon Christ and made Christ the atoning sacrifice for our sins. This did not eliminate the moral culpability of those who crucified Christ, but, it allowed God to use the crucifixion for good rather than strictly for evil. All the while, God’s actions remain just and holy. God is the only one who can do this because of His infinite wisdom.
Hopefully, this helps.
You will have to pardon me. You read and get your disinformation from obscure antiLDS websites. Integrity is only found in commenting when going to unbiased websites, however. Or at least entertaining what they have to say on the subject.
I don't imagine you would care to argue the validity of the earth being flat after going to Samuel Birley Rowbotham (1816-1884) and argue the point based on his literal interpretation of certain biblical passages, or his personal opinions on the matter, unless you knew him to be of high integrity. Under those circumstances he would have a significant following, and plausible arguments, and his society would be growing by leaps and bounds - as is the case with the LDS. This is not the case with the followers of Rowbotham, so he is nearly entirely dismissed.
Thus, you might want to use the same wisdom here if you wish to be believed by the common man.
I enjoy the world of well researched facts presented in a sensible, open manner. That way we can get to the bottom of them.
From a Christian perspective, there is no doubt that homosexuality for both males and females is a violation of God’s divine and natural law.
●Leviticus 18:22 (NIV) " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
●1 Cor. 6:9(NIV) Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders.
There may be a case made that some people have a greater tendency toward homosexuality due to their background and family rearing (i.e. [data indicates] …that homosexuals described their fathers and mothers as more rejecting and less loving and that they were less close to their fathers than heterosexuals.” Source: Marvin Siegelman, School of Education, The City College, New York, N.Y.). However, some people have a greater tendency toward alcohol abuse or angry outbursts than do others. This, though, does not give them the excuse to violate God’s will in regard to the use of alcohol or anger. Likewise, the person that is attracted to a person of the same sex must seek God’s grace to help them overcome the temptation to engage in homosexual acts.
Peter,
You will have to pardon me. You read and get your disinformation from obscure antiLDS websites. Integrity is only found in commenting when going to unbiased websites, however. Or at least entertaining what they have to say on the subject.
You are a hoot!!!
By “unbiased websites,” I take it that you mean “pro-LDS apologetics sites.”
Because Utah’s “first in the nation for bankruptcy” rate isn’t a matter of opinion; it is a fact, and it is a fact because of the LDS 10% mandatory tithe, which goes in part to pay the salaries of your PAID apostles. (And wasn’t it Stealth/Gecko who said something about the profit-motive corrupting religion? Well, it looks like there is a direct, empirical and clear connection between PAID apostles and the fact that the tithe policy they set is bankrupting the rank and file, who don’t get PAID.)
And that doesn’t come from “obscure antiLDS websites.” It comes out of government data and the admissions you’ve already made.
By the way, I didn’t know any of this stuff until you spent a week prating about the evil of PAID Protestant pastors. I’m pretty sure that PAID Protestant pastors aren’t driving Protestants into bankruptcy because Protestants can pretty much up and leave and go to another church if any PAID Protestant pastor was foolish enough to try that stunt.
You know, the more you make me dig into this stuff, the worse it gets for you.
Why don’t you quit while you’re behind.
I also notice that you don’t say that that the ex-mo’s - who couldn’t take the constant self-deception that the LDS demands its members adopt on scientific and historical issues, and matters that are plainly before their eyes - are mistaken.
Why don’t you give it a rest and try to look for the good in other traditions. I’m sure that the favor will be returned.
Stealth wrote:
I don't imagine you would care to argue the validity of the earth being flat after going to Samuel Birley Rowbotham (1816-1884) and argue the point based on his literal interpretation of certain biblical passages, or his personal opinions on the matter, unless you knew him to be of high integrity. Under those circumstances he would have a significant following, and plausible arguments, and his society would be growing by leaps and bounds - as is the case with the LDS. This is not the case with the followers of Rowbotham, so he is nearly entirely dismissed.
Thus, you might want to use the same wisdom here if you wish to be believed by the common man
What the heck do you think you are talking about, and what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? What the heck does “believed by the common man” mean?
If this Rowbotham-person believed that the world was flat in the middle of the 19th Century, then he was a kook who played into the hands of the secularist project that aims at treating all religion as “kooky.” Moreover, if this Rowbotham-person existed, then his kooky flat earth idea was a giant step back in rationality, since, as the historian James Hannam documents, all intelligent people throughout the Middle Ages knew that the Earth was round and it wasn’t until the 18th Century that secularists invented the flat earth myth to savage religion.
One of the problems that I have with LDS is that it plays into the secularist project of discrediting religion by causing LDS to claim that they believe in scientific and historical absurdities, which discredits all religious people. I believe that there are LDS who are attempting to mediate between their faith and reason, and I applaud their efforts.
Stealth wrote:
I enjoy the world of well researched facts presented in a sensible, open manner. That way we can get to the bottom of them.
When you start putting that attitude into practice, I'll be the first to notice.
●An unbiased and well-researched study of the relationship between Free Masonry and Mormonism on the “Electronic Masonic Magazine:” http://www.freemason.org/cfo/may_june_2001/mormon.htm
●DNA tests and LDS claims: DNA tests contradict Mormon scripture, Los Angeles Times, USA, Feb. 16, 2006, William Lobdell, Times Staff Writer: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-mormon16feb16,0,5561316.story
●View of the Hebrews is a book written by Ethan Smith (1762-1849), which argues that native Americans were descended from the Hebrews. Numerous commentators on Mormon doctrine, including LDS Church Authority B. H. Roberts have recognized View of the Hebrews as a source for the Book of Mormon.
●Actual manuscript of View of the Hebrews: http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/ethn1823.htm
● LDS non-apologetic website listing the similar phrasing in the Book of Mormon and View of the Hebrews: http://www.lds-mormon.com/voh1.shtml?FACTNet
http://www.lds-mormon.com/voh.shtml
●Linguistic study of the Book of Mormon: http://www.wacklepedia.com/l/li/linguistics_and_the_book_of_mormon.html
●An unbiased statement regarding archaeological support for the Book of Mormon: "As far as I know there is not one professionally trained archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing [the historicity of The Book of Mormon], and I would like to state that there are quite a few Mormon archaeologists who join this group." ("Mormons and Archaeology: An Outside View," in Dialogue, A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol 8, No 2, (Summer 1973), p. 42.)
No, a good one is religioustolerance.com .......there are a bunch of others.
These are people who have no agenda. They give it to you straight. They are not a party to internet hoaxes that you printed. They do their own research. They validate. They have integrity.
This doesn't mean everything they write I would agree with, however none of it is absurd or outright filth.
The reason why going to websites bent upon persecuting the LDS is a bad idea is because that is all the info you will recieve.
You find there that "Mormons are born in the covenant." And think it equates to the Catholic infant baptism. So wrong.
They are not members of the Church until they get baptised at the age of accountability. I have known many an eight year old delay baptism until they were sure. Being born into the covenant speaks to issues after death.
You remark, "your Mormon population figures ignore the Mormon converts who leave."
All they need to do is write a letter asking us to take them off the roles of the LDS Church and they are taken off. If they want off, they are off. All our members are contacted as often as they care to be.
"what about the fact that the LDS was near bankrupt in the 80s?"
It is rather hard to go bankrupt when there is NOTHING that we presently pay interest on!! We pay cash for everything. It is a lie.
You add "It is entirely your business if you believe that the Sun gets its energy from the planet Kolob"
I do not believe the the Earth's sun gets its energy from the planet Kolob. That has never been brought to my attention nor have I seen it written anywhere. The fact that God lives somewhere and we believe it to be an actual place suggests that through His power all energy is dispensed. Do you believe something more plausible?
You state further: "The Book of Mormon, which makes numerous errors in the history and ethnography of Pre-Columbian America, was (not) divinely inspired"
I remark again: We covered that prior to your recent arrival. You are probably referring to the appearance of horses reported in the Book of Mormon. There are now ample Pre-Columbian evidence for all the purported "errors". I have written extensively about it in my blog. You should have taken the time to read it beiong a genuine article.
You add, "or the incoherent portions of the BofM that show that Smith was making it up as he was writing it."
Is this someone's opinion? It must be real old. It must be long refuted. For instance, Text analysis proves there were dozens of authors who contributed to the Book of Mormon. We have THAT technology now. We have references to specific locations and prophets not mentioned in the Bible but found in recently discovered texts.
You add, "But trying to pretend that there are more Mormons that Catholics goes beyond any other ludicrous belief you might happen to hold."
If I held that belief I would have to turn myself in. Sadly for you, no where do I suggest such a preposterous statement. Clearly the Catholics own the world. I am grateful to them in many ways and from the depth of my heart. As with other Christian forms of worship, they provide the basics for later adults to recognize the truth if it is finally presented to them.
I requested: Is there anything out there that measures belief systems that make the most difference in the believer's life when correlated with true spiritual well being? Now that would be something. Maybe correlated to longevity of marriage, actual volunteer service and giving per capita,...
You responded "How about an actual historically traceable connection to Jesus Christ?"
Indeed Peter, That is the power of both of our positions. Either you didn't Lose the Priesthood through the APOSTASY foretold in by many a prophet in the scriptures. OR we recieved it through the hands of Christ himself. That pretty much leaves everyone else out of the game.
You add, "If we want to look at charity, maybe you can explain why your more committed denomination contributed over 20 years less than half of Catholic Charities did in one year? "
Because we do not contribute through our own consolidated charity. And because we are much fewer yet giving a great deal more per capita.
You remark futher "Of course, maybe we should look at bankruptcies and notice that Utah leads the nation in bankruptcy filings, caused in large part by the mandatory 10% tithe paid by LDS members for salvation.
There is no correlation whatsoever that tithing causes bankruptcy in Utah or anywhere. First the majority in Utah are not LDS. Second, a minority of LDS provide a tithe. Utah is not LDS. Most of our members are not even in this country. The problem should be widespread among all LDS tithepayers wherever they live. But your assertion is simply not true, otherwise we would see it.
You remark further, "Personally, I'd measure beliefs systems by whether they are true or not, which would involve looking at the truth claims being made about science, morality and history, but you definitely don't want to go there.
I definitely do want to go there.
Even when discussing the astronomical position of the Earth in relation to the other planets. Or perhaps the notion that orbits are not perfect circles. Never have we attempted to gag science.
You remark further "Why don't you take a break from Mormon triumphalism and try some charity toward others."
charity has been characterized elsewhere as the perfect love of Christ, but avoided by the author of this blog. So, I am not sure you and I are talking about the same Charity.
I tithe. I care for the sick and the afflicted. I provide service as Christ did. I don't do any of it for pay or personal recognition of any kind. I am constantly changing my day to help others in spiritual need out of the goodness of my heart, not to benefit my lifestyle. I sacrifice my time, personal income, personal wants. I provide all my talents to do the promptings of the spirit in providing love and delivering the truth to help others find true happiness.
Now Charity is not sitting quietly when lies are being spread. Charity requires a strength of character earned.
Now, Peter, all that you raised are long resolved misconceptions and lies of long ago. If you want to contribute to truth, work on something new enough to be original and much better thought out. I know you have the ability to develop that for yourself...not just grabbing what you read that is offensive and pasting it here.
But then, that's all you have.
Don't you know that if there was an objection that has been around since Joseph Smith first started the LDS, then it is old and not relevent. You know, things like the book of Hebrews, and Peters Epistles that contradict LDS claims about the Priesthood. The Book of Leviticus is even older and more out of date even though it addresses so many things in the Temple that were supose to happen including the most sacred event in all of Judaism but does not mention obscure (read by LDS as Sacred) rituals like eternal marriage and baptism for the dead. You can just throw that out. Nope, you need to find something new, but make sure that it is from a Stealth approved website.
Now, when it comes to Stealth attacking Christianity, he can run to any website he wishes, even to fictional literature, but mostly to his own oppinions. Those oppinions can be 2000 years old and still valid.
I think I'll stick with wrestling greased pigs. At least when I finally wrestle them to the ground I can have some ribs.
Your comment to Peter: Text analysis proves there were dozens of authors who contributed to the Book of Mormon. We have THAT technology now. We have references to specific locations and prophets not mentioned in the Bible but found in recently discovered texts.
Lucy's Response: Name one discovered Text that is validated by someone other than the LDS church folklore. Just one…
Stealth, I can take you and introduce you to hundreds of followers of Jesus who live in my city and in other cities where I have lived who can give the same testimony. They are not members of the LDS church. My wife and I could write the same testimony and we are not members of the LDS church. I can even find a few people who don't claim membership in any church and are not sure if they would qualify as followers of Jesus who could write the same testimony.
So, Stealth, your point by this 'word of testimony' was what??
First of all, if God “lives somewhere” in an “actual place” (as in time and space—meaning within the temporal universe) then His power cannot possibly be “dispensed” to all places. This is a complete and utter impossibility unless you want to wait billions of light-years. The plausibility of God living on Kolob and dispensing his power to all places is exactly zero (0).
A few odds-n-ends about Planet Kolob from Joseph Smith:
(Kolob) “Is called in Egyptian Enish-go-on-dosh; (morning and evening star [venus]) this is one of the governing planets also, and is said by the Egyptians to be the Sun, and to borrow its light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash, which is the grand Key, or, in other words, the governing power, which governs fifteen other fixed planets or stars, as also Floeese or the Moon, the Earth and the Sun in their annual revolutions. This planet receives its power through the medium of Kli-flos-is-es, or Hah-ko-kau-beam, the stars represented by numbers 22 and 23, receiving light from the revolutions of Kolob.” This quote comes from the Book of Abraham, Facsimile Number 2, Explanation for Figure 5.
● Facsimile 1, Facsimile 2, Facsimile 3 and Facsimile B are stored in the Mormon church's archives and can be made available to qualified researchers.
●The facsimiles are Egyptian papyrus which Joseph Smith translated before hieroglyphics were completely understood. The actual Egyptian translation of Facsimile 2 can be compared with what Joseph Smith wrote here: http://nowscape.com/mormon/kolob-defined3.htm. To say that they are “different” is a huge understatement.
●In Smith’s translation of Facsimile 2, he reveals several other LDS celestial objects. These include the planet Oliblish and the planet Enish-g-on–dosh. Male inhabitants of Kolob can travel with their wives up to four times a year to the “Temple of Fertility” on Oliblish.
●The Mary the mother of Jesus lives with Moses near a city named Kli-tin-ur-gash, on Kolob. Joseph (husband of Mary) has remarried one-hundred-and-one fold and is the priest and administrator of The Temple on planet Oliblish.
● The heavenly mother’s name is Gonhorra. She is the number 1 wife of the Father.
Ever so briefly, do you really want to play the part of Korihor? Did His touch in your life not phase you? Need it come upon you? If you saw the hand of Christ at the door in Nauvoo, you would deny Him still. Wouldn't you.
Stealth, you never have dealt with a single item of objective, neutral, unbiased data that I've presented, e.g., Utah's bankruptcy rate, the tithing, the PAID apostles who set LDS policy just slide right by you like a true believer. So, I think that it is you who need to spend some time dealing with the objective, neutral data, rather than "poisoning the well" by claiming that anything you don't want to hear is "biased."
The point about the near LDS bankruptcy from overbuilding on infrastructure without membership comes from a devout LDS blog! They know about it; why don't you?
The points about anomalies and LDS doctrine come off of devout LDS blogs or from Ex-mos who know what they were taught. Since they and others have confirmed that it is part of LDS policy to obfuscate its odder teachings, why should we believe anything you write?
The point about the incoherence of the Book of Mormon has been adequately documented and I linked you to an Ex-mo book editor who pointed to one of many such passages.
Incidentally, the sad thing is reading about the testimony of the many, many Ex-mos who wake up one day and realize that they can no longer deny that they've been taught a bunch of fairy tales. And it's not the religious content that is the problem; it's the tendentious science, history and matters of common sense. One of the Ex-Mos I linked to listed the many, many claims of the BofM that have been proven wrong, but, of course, you can't deal with that.
I think it's particularly sad that the wreckage of the faith of these people threatens to turn them away from God entirely.
Now, I'm really glad that you've managed to wire-diagram your answers to your satisfaction, but it appears that your answers don't satisfy the many TBMs who have left the LDS church.
And given your many disingenuous claims - e.g., spending a week whining about paid Protestant pastors but concealing that the LDS pay their apostles - why should we believe you rather than these Ex-Mos who have sacrificed quite a bit in living up to the dictates of their conscience?
A final point concerning your charge of apostasy: for a person who likes to quote the bible, you seem to have missed this one:
Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
In my tradition, through this passage Jesus tells us that the the church is built on Peter - the rock - and that the gates of Hell will not prevail against that church - the same church founded on Peter to whom the keys were handed which has continued - against all human precedent - longer than any other institution in human history.
In the Protestant tradition, the rock is Peter's confession of faith in Christ, but nonetheless Protestants affirm that Hell will not prevail against the Church that Jesus founded, which is the universal church founded by Christ, that developed its doctrines through the ecumenical counsels and continues to exist today in continuity with the church of the First Century.
How inconvenient for you that there is no mention of the keys of the kingdom being handed to Joseph Smith and that the LDS was formed less than 200 years ago in upstate New York by a person with a vivid imagination and a fascination for Masonic ritual.
I was answer the query, have you no charity? I just like the people you mention have charity.
Did you not read the context? The context would have told you.
No, not as in time at all for me.
But For the mind of the middle ages sure. You gag science just as in times of old. The most GIFTED modern day physicist of today is Stephen Hawking who says that time has no beginning (no first cause) and no end NOT because the universe is eternal but because time is an illusion; it does not actually exist. When God teaches, "I am the alpha (beginning) and the omega (end)" He is not describing the world, or time, he is describing his own eternity, which matches Stephen Hawking's statement perfectly.
I know it's all beyond you and denial is your only comfort. I do not fault you for your strident and dated view. It takes first a conversion, then your eyes will be opened.
You aren't even preserving anything Biblical in your First Cause (so dependent on your ancient view of time) and your antiquated view of the Universe. Don't feel alone, Preachers always and everywhere have run the big bluff, being the last to be dragged into the truth. They gotta be the answer men, don't they.
Here you pretend absolute certainty.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Answering your query concerning your assertion that space is finite....your challenge to traverse space.... Space has no boundary regardless. The Friedmann model declares that Gravity is so strong that space is bent round onto itself, making it rather like the surface of the earth. If one keeps traveling in a given direction on the earth's surface, there is no impassable barrier nor does one fall over the edge. Eventually you come back to where you started.
Here is the promised quote from Wendell Berry on reading the Bible literally. I am not sure I totally agree with Berry's understanding but I think it is intersting for us to consider - this is taken from The Burden of the Gospels, Christian Century, Sept. 20 2005.
"I need to say also that, as a reader, I am first of all a literalist, as I think every reader should be. This does not mean that I don't appreciate Jesus' occasional irony or sarcasm ("They have their reward"), or that I am against interpretation, or that I don't believe in "higher levels of meaning." It certainly does not mean that I think every word of the Bible is equally true, or that literalist is a synonym for fundamentalist. I mean simply that I expect any writing to make literal sense before making sense of any other kind. Interpretation should not contradict or otherwise violate the literal meaning. To read the Gospels as a literalist is, to me, the way to take them as seriously as possible.
But to take the Gospels seriously, to assume that they say what they mean and mean what they say, is the beginning of troubles. Those would-be literalists who yet argue that the Bible is unerring and unquestionable have not dealt with its contradictions, which of course it does contain, and the Gospels are not exempt. Some of Jesus' instructions are burdensome not because they involve contradiction, but merely because they are so demanding. The proposition that love, forgiveness and peaceableness are the only neighborly relationships that are acceptable to God is difficult for us weak and violent humans, but it is plain enough for any literalist. We must either accept it as an absolute or absolutely reject it. The same for the proposition that we are not permitted to choose our neighbors ahead of time or to limit neighborhood, as is plain from the parable of the Samaritan. The same for the requirement that we must be perfect, like God, which seems as outrageous as the Buddhist vow to "save all sentient beings," and perhaps is meant to measure and instruct us in the same way. It is, to say the least, unambiguous.
But what, for example, are we to make of Luke 14:26: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." This contradicts not only the fifth commandment but Jesus' own instruction to "Love thy neighbor as thyself." It contradicts his obedience to his mother at the marriage in Cana of Galilee. It contradicts the concern he shows for the relatives of his friends and followers. But the word in the King James Version is "hate." If you go to the New English Bible or the New Revised Standard Version, looking for relief, the word still is "hate." This clearly is the sort of thing that leads to "biblical exegesis."
My own temptation is to become a literary critic, wag my head learnedly and say, "Well, this obviously is a bit of hyperbole—the sort of exaggeration a teacher would use to shock his students awake." Maybe so, but it is not obviously so, and it comes perilously close to "He didn't really mean it"—always a risky assumption when reading, and especially dangerous when reading the Gospels. Another possibility, and I think a better one, is to accept our failure to understand, not as a misstatement or a textual flaw or as a problem to be solved, but as a question to live with and a burden to be borne."
(Your Reply to Lucy_
Lucy,
Ever so briefly, do you really want to play the part of Korihor? Did His touch in your life not phase you? Need it come upon you? If you saw the hand of Christ at the door in Nauvoo, you would deny Him still. Wouldn't you.
My Response: There you go back into Gramma's blackberry brandy - you are going to have to stop all his mumbo - jumbo - mystical stuff - it only makes me laugh and makes you look the "idiot"
And by the way - Where is the evidence I asked you for regarding Texts- found and verified that substantiate anything you are claiming - outside of the LDS folklore information. You can't just say it and make it so - You just don't have that power!
●Hawking is not denying the fact that to traverse the immense distances of space that it takes immense time even at the speed of light. It is even disputed that it is possible for a material object (bound by space and time) to travel at the speed of light. Additionally, Hawking is not saying that “time is an illusion.” Hawking has developed a series of equations which he maintains makes it possible to avoid an absolute singularity (a point of beginning for the universe). However, his equations have a large built in “fudge-factor” and are highly controversial. This argument does not dispute my contention that a god located in on a specific planet (Kolob) could not dispense his power throughout the universe in any meaningful way. It would be absolutely impossible—even at the speed of light.
You wrote: Answering your query concerning your assertion that space is finite....your challenge to traverse space.... Space has no boundary regardless. The Friedmann model declares that Gravity is so strong that space is bent round onto itself, making it rather like the surface of the earth. If one keeps traveling in a given direction on the earth's surface, there is no impassable barrier nor does one fall over the edge. Eventually you come back to where you started.
●Thanks for actually confirming my assertion. Friedmann’s model is one that attempts to prove that space is finite and not boundless. To be infinite is to be boundless. Friedmann’s argument is that space is bounded. Additionally, this has nothing to do with the immense distances within the known universe which cannot be traversed even at the speed of light without taking immense time. Hmm…I wonder how long it would take at the speed of light to go from Kolob all the way around the universe and back to Kolob…30 billion light-years?
●The point for Christians in our moldy old ancient view of God is that He is not bounded by time or space—He is not finite. Because He is not “located” on some planet somewhere and not made of “flesh and bones,” He can be both transcendent from the creation and immanent in all places at the same time—this is called infinite. Our antiquated view of God is that He has all of time and space available to Him simultaneously at a single glance. I know, pretty old fashioned, huh? Poor fellow, He doesn’t even need a space ship to travel to the moon to see the moon people who are nearly all six feet tall and “dress very much like the Quaker style” or to travel to the sun to see the “sun people.”
My own temptation is to become a literary critic, wag my head learnedly and say, "Well, this obviously is a bit of hyperbole—the sort of exaggeration a teacher would use to shock his students awake." Maybe so, but it is not obviously so, and it comes perilously close to "He didn't really mean it"—always a risky assumption when reading, and especially dangerous when reading the Gospels. Another possibility, and I think a better one, is to accept our failure to understand, not as a misstatement or a textual flaw or as a problem to be solved, but as a question to live with and a burden to be borne."
I don’t know exactly why it would be necessary to “accept our failure to understand” and take Jesus’ words about hating one’s father and mother “as a question to live with and a burden to be borne.” My understanding of good hermeneutics is that we are to do solid exegesis of a passage of Scripture giving fair weight to the context but also see each passage in relationship to the “full counsel of God.” For example (using one of our “beating-a-dead-horse” issues), the Christian should read Jesus’ teachings regarding loving one’s enemies in the light of Peter and Paul’s teachings about the purpose and responsibilities of government. If I do this I might well learn that I am to love my enemies and, also, see that the government has a God-given responsibility to punish evil-doers. Therefore, I won’t be running around meting out God’s wrath on people, nor will I, on the other hand, be demanding that the government love evil-doers. To me, Jesus’ statement in Luke 14 must be understood through the full counsel of God. When it is understood this way, it does come across just the way Berry states; it “is a bit of hyperbole—the sort of exaggeration a teacher would use to shock his students awake,” but with the definite purpose of saying that God’s kingdom must be top priority, even over familial relationships.
Stealth writes:
There is no correlation whatsoever that tithing causes bankruptcy in Utah or anywhere. First the majority in Utah are not LDS. Second, a minority of LDS provide a tithe. Utah is not LDS. Most of our members are not even in this country. The problem should be widespread among all LDS tithepayers wherever they live. But your assertion is simply not true, otherwise we would see it.
But the Salt Lake Tribune - hardly a bastion of anti-mormon bias - writes:
Within the next three years, the Mormon share of Utah's population is expected to hit its lowest level since The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints started keeping membership numbers. And if current trends continue, LDS residents no longer will constitute a majority by 2030.
Five points:
First, if LDS residents of Utah will no longer constitute a majority by 2030, that means they are now a majority, which means that Stealth is once again just "making stuff up" ("msu")because he thinks that it advances his current argument.
Second, because Stealth can't be trusted on being truthful or accurate on simple matters that can be easily verified, his credibility has been impeached, and everything he says must be discounted unless he can provide independent verification for his claims from unbiased sources. Likewise, if Stealth says "Black" and an Ex-mo says "white", I'm going to trust the Ex-mo who - of the two - hasn't been caught being untruthful or inaccurate on matters of basic information.
Third, the LDS.org claims that 75% of Utah residents are Mormon but they are apparently being dishonest; the number is really around 62% (Salt Lake Tribune, supra.) Since 62% or 75% of a population qualifies as a "majority", Stealth's claim that "Utah is not LDS" or that "LDS are not a majority in Utah" is deranged or disingenuously misleading. (See also About.com for the statistic that 62% of Utah's population is LDS.)
Fourth, isn't it fascinating that the Mormon's are losing their majority in Utah. So much for Stealth's triumphalism.
Fifth, this is precisely like playing whack a mole. Every time Stealth forces me to go look for data, it just gets worse for him.
Obviously I'm not a "hermeneutics guy" like you and Thom (and others.) I'm just a poor country lawyer who likes to pay attention to the text.
It seems to me that there is a great deal of similarity between law and religious interpretation. It may be the case that a given author at a given time may have an idiosyncratic and unique intention for a specific utterance, but in law and religion that unique intention has to be fitted into a larger body of texts, traditions and understandings. So, that when someone in the American legal system starts talking about "due process of law", it calls to mind the body of precedent and thought that was developed previously under the category "due process."
It may be the case that a given legislator meant something entirely idiosyncratic by his use of "due process", but we are going to assume that he had in mind what went before and that assumption is going to inform how we read his text. If this legislator really meant to cut loose his text from tradition, it behooves him to make it clear that he is doing exactly that.
Jesus, it seems to me, knew about the tradition of honoring one's parents and he didn't say that he was cutting loose from that tradition. In fact, Jesus says something quite to the contrary.
Accordingly, it seems that we are in the position of harmonizing two (at least) texts that seem to be facially contradictory but - we may fairly assume - were not understand as contradictory in the mind of their author.
Of course, how harmonize those texts is not clear and fraught with risk, but I think that we must harmonize.
Thom's harmonization makes sense to me, but I guess one of the points of Jesus' rhetorical use of contradiction and hyperbole is to communicate that we shouldn't get too complacent. A tension between the two texts has to be recognized and I think that in religion it is the areas of tension that produce the most fruitful opportunities for reflection and the development of doctrine.
Luke Timothy Johnson makes the point that Christians resolved to live with tension when they canonized the four gospels with their often-times competing and conflicting texts. A more reasonable religion would have synthezized the gospels ala Marcion into one coherent text, but Christianity didn't. Moreover, it seems that every time some minority of Christianity decides to privilege one text at the expense of some other text, that has been a "leading indicator" that that minority has headed in the wrong direction. As Dale Alquist says in glossing G.K. Chesterton:
Heresy, it turns out, is usually a distinct lack of common sense. A heresy is at best a half-truth, but usually even less than that. A heresy is a fragment of the truth that is exaggerated at the expense of the rest of the truth. The modern world praises science and hygiene and progress. These are all very well and good, but they have been elevated at the expense of larger truths, such as faith and tradition and permanent ideals.
Smart guy, that Chesterton.
Thanks again for the dialogue.
●Brilliant insight, Peter. A homogeneous text might will have a much greater tendency to promote heresy. And, of course, I can’t restrain myself from reflecting on our recent discussion on Article 3. Whether God has immediate providence over everything? Thomas’ statement in “Reply to Objection 3.” says, “…for we cannot understand many things simultaneously.” A homogenized text would actually impede our “knowledge of what is better and higher” by distilling variants into one simplified whole which would falsely led us to believe that we, like God, can see “everything simultaneously.” The tension is good and has the benefit of reminding us of our limitations.
●I have been struck by how heretics are so sure of themselves.
I have puzzled over the "problem of tolerance."
It often seems that tolerance is merely a temporary stage between two moral or social paradigms. For example, Roman civilization went from persecuting Christians to tolerating Christians to persecuting pagans within 100 years.
In our age, we get taught that we have to tolerate, say, pornography because to do otherwise would have a chilling effect on free speech, but within 40 years we find ourselves unable to limit access to pornography in schools. As I mentioned, we start with pro-abortion arguments about hard cases and not long afterwards we find "pro- choice" demonstrators like this cretin carrying a sign that says "stop breeding" and the woman on this page with the "I (heart) abortion" t-shirt. This is more than about "choice." These people have gone beyond defining the ability to choose as a good and have taken the object of that choice - abortion - and made it a good as such.
Likewise, we want to affirm the civil rights of homosexuals, but somehow we find ourselves with gay marriage as a first principle of ordered liberty. But how did that happen? When was that decision made? How does protecting a group against discrimination - tolerating their behavior - turn into incorporating their value judgments into the body politic as a common public good?
It is popular now to sneer at the idea of "slippery slopes." Former Pennsylvania Senator Santorum's point that a court decision striking down sodomy laws as unconstitutional would lead to polygamy was considered so silly by the urban intellectuals, but guess what? Santorum was right.
So, why is that? I'm thinking - speculating - that Aquinas was right. We really can't hold two complex ideas in our head for long. So, if we think that sodomy laws are bad, then eventually people are going to think that sodomy laws are bad because sodomy is a good. Likewise, if we think that abortion is a good, then we are going to come to the point where we think that the unborn human that is terminated by the abortion is an evil.
Holding two ideas which are in tension is difficult, but the failure to do that distorts reality which requires that tension. It is possible for sodomy laws to be a social ill and for sodomy to be a social ill at the same time, or for an unwanted pregnancy to be a deficiency in the good of one's personal life - i.e., an evil - and for abortion to be an evil at the same time.
To take a leaf from the Dominicans, sometimes it's not "either/or", it is "both/and."
Anyhow, perhaps the project that we need to embark on in this simplistic time committed to simplistic reductionist thinking involves dusting off Aquinas' psychological insight.
This applies to Christianity. Christianity has been in tension from the beginning: Three persons in one god and one person in Jesus but with two natures.
The mind instinctively rebels from that kind of tension and we end up with...the Mormons and the Muslims, who both have a simple solution to this tension. For the Mormons, it is three gods and the person of Jesus Christ is a human person only (who then becomes divine by adoption.) For the Muslims, the answer is one god, one god and no human person at all.
What remains to be seen is whether those traditions can sustain any kind of intellectual life or whether they will be shunted into a back corner of the museum of intellectual history. In contrast, Christian intellectual contribution remains strong because the tension of its basic principles requires that it keep working out the implications of those principles.
I believe you are correct here. The tension is a creative tension which forces both ends of the pendulum to be recognized as the extreme to which you don't want to go. I think we call that an antinomy.
Definition of antinomy: "Philosophy. a contradiction between two statements, both apparently obtained by correct reasoning.
[Origin: 1585–95; < L antinomia < Gk antinomía a contradiction between laws. See [an-ti-nom-ik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation, an·ti·nom·i·cal, adjective
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006."
I actually find it helpful to think of theological conundrums like divine sovereigny - human freedom as antinomies. There are others as well.
Just some thought on your well spoken comments, Peter.
ron
Sorry for the inconsistancy. I pulled my number from the top of my head. Did not feel compelled to the exactness you prefer. Not that an exact number matters or truly really exists given all churches provide the media with the numbers they believe correct.
Try to work through it. And speak to the other issues.
First, not everything revolves around you. There are people trying to have an intelligent dialogue that doesn't involve you degrading every thread into LDS triumphalism. It might be worthwhile if you offered a thoughts informed by the LDS worldview, but not if that turns into some version of "you Protestants and/or Catholics are so inferior to the LDS because we're so moral and fair and honest and just and righteous compared to you sinners."
Second, it is not "OK" for you to "spin" inconvenient facts in order to propogandize your faith. Contrary to what you would have had us believe - if I hadn't taken the time to fact check your tendentious claim - Utah today is majority LDS - and that is what the LDS church is officially claiming!
It also leads the nation in bankruptcy and LDS policy is to have its members tithe and it has compliance techniques for that policy in ways not available to other churches and paying tithes is a financial strain that can lead to bankruptcy and there is a PAID LDS apostleship that benefits from tithing and there is no accountability for that PAID LDS apostleship that invests more in land redevelopment than it directs to charity.
So take up your quibbling and equivocations with your paid Apostles. I'm tired of playing "whack a mole" every time you write something.
I've got better things to do.
I spent nearly an entire evening researching the ten percent discrepancy where I underestimated the LDS population in Utah. Of course, I willfully misled so as to depress my own numbers (?)
What I found: The UTAH census was artificially increased by illegals (seasonal farm workers) not from Mexico but from California who are 99 percent Catholic. There is also a wintering population of harlots and prostitutes arriving from Nevada (mostly Catholic, the rest Protestant as you attest); there are Catholic Priests and their youthful entourage who are in constant movement from parish to parish throughout the United States who move through Utah. There is also a burgeoning prison industry in Utah where we charge California for caring for their mostly Catholic federally incarcerated scum.
Do you suppose that covers the ten percent?
What I found: The UTAH census was artificially increased by illegals (seasonal farm workers) not from Mexico but from California who are 99 percent Catholic. There is also a wintering population of harlots and prostitutes arriving from Nevada (mostly Catholic, the rest Protestant as you attest); there are Catholic Priests and their youthful entourage who are in constant movement from parish to parish throughout the United States who move through Utah (Editorial comment: what the heck is Stealth talking about? Mormons, not Catholics, are the ones with the "youthful entourage" that descend on other communities for mission work. Is Stealth once again engaging in "projection"?) There is also a burgeoning prison industry in Utah where we charge California for caring for their mostly Catholic federally incarcerated scum.
What a hoot!!! Nice way of taking me up on my suggestion that you practice the virtue - in your case "heroic virtue" - of charity.
First, certainly, the Catholic population of California - "scum" or not - is higher than Utah. Yet Utah has more per household bankruptcies and it has more Mormons per household than California - a majority of its population was and, despite your insulting and incoherent ratiocinations, remains Mormon, who are required to tithe by the PAID RELIGIOUS LEADERS, who benefit from tithing whether it drives the unpaid rank and file into bankruptcy.
Accept the truth or not as you wish. I suspect you will take the latter course and find a way to blame it on "Catholic scum" or "paid Protestant pastors."
Too funny.
Too sad.
Second, as my former boss used to preach, always check the assumptions. So, I went to Religious Tolerance - which you accept as authoritative - and discovered that Mormon divorce rates are higher than Catholics and Mormon divorce rates are the same as that of the general population. Here's the grid:
Variation in divorce rates among Christian faith groups:
Denomination (in order of decreasing divorce rate) % who have been divorced
Non-denominational (small conservative groups; independents) 34%
Baptists 29%
Mainline Protestants 25%
Mormons 24%
Catholics 21%
Lutherans 21%
So, since your favorite sociological marker for finding the true church points to Catholicism, can I sponsor you into RCIA? (Or, to be fair, the Lutherans might have you.
Again, I had no idea about those divorce rates until your posturing and prating caused me to look them up.
Don't you really want to give it a rest before you dig yourself an even deeper hole?
By your triumphalistic and chauvinistic reasoning, doesn't the fact that the LDS is losing its grip on its center of power - and to "Catholic scum" - suggest that the LDS have passed their "sell by" date?
(Incidentally, I'm not suggesting any such thing, but since you made growth rates that the basis of your triumphalism, I think you need to work that through for yourself.
I apologize for not picking up on your excellent point on antimony. That's a concept/word I don't think I've heard before, but once you defined I thought that it perfectly capsulized some nascent, inchoate ideas that had been ghosting around my thoughts.
But then I was sucked into the a dark and cloudy morass.