The American Spectator : Gray Matters

Text Size

Gray Matters

By Christopher Orlet on 10.14.10 @ 6:07AM

Sometimes a little doubt is a good thing.

“The whole problem with the world,” declared Bertrand Russell, “is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”

As much as I hate to gainsay Lord Russell, I suspect few of the world’s intractable problems can be alleviated by greater humility and circumspection — but I take his point. The answers to so many larger problems seem neither black nor white, but myriad shades of gray. And the grayer I get, the grayer the answers appear to be.

“Only God and certain madmen have no doubts!” thundered the great malcontent Martin Luther. Nowhere is this more evident than in the misdeeds of the endless supply of death-wishing fanatics queuing for kamikaze duty. Confident their cause is righteous and holy, they have no doubt that God’s approbation — to say nothing of a passel of virgins — awaits them in their Muslim-only country club version of an afterlife.

From its launch, Christianity seems to have accepted the inevitability of doubt. There was the apostle known as “Doubting Thomas,” granted sainthood despite his rational disposition. Early church father Augustine of Hippo confessed to tearing his hair and banging his head in an (evidently successful) attempt to dispel his nagging doubts. And Mother Teresa, a shoo-in for sainthood, claimed to have undergone long periods of doubt throughout her life. While the church has never come out and praised doubt, it does seem to suggest that doubt is inevitable. I tend to disagree with the church (shocking, I know). I consider doubt both wise and inevitable.

I don’t claim to be one of Bertie’s “wiser people,” and I certainly don’t pretend to have very many answers. This is one reason I would make a lousy talk show host. I sometimes listen to talk radio on my morning commute and I am amazed how the hosts can ramble for hours without pausing for breath, let alone contemplation. Granted, much of what they say is wind, so much so that I quickly grow bored and find myself digging through the glove box for a book on CD.

This is also why I have no interest in appearing on one those Sunday morning television talk shows (not that I’ve been asked). My performance would be a disaster — and not just because I am easily stage struck and would immediately begin hyperventilating and have to thrust my head between my knees, but because I have the very un-TV-friendly habit of looking at all sides of a subject. Viewers don’t have the patience for that. They want someone whose ideas on every conceivable subject are simple and fixed, someone who has no doubt about anything.

The same applies to the writing of opinion pieces. I’ve written my fair share of op-eds and the one thing you don’t want to do is appear wishy-washy. Readers do not want to waste two minutes of their precious time only to find the writer has not taken a strong stand on the issue and that his piece is loaded with ifs, ands, and buts. Strong stands, however, are not my forte. I might read something by Murray Rothbard that makes me conclude that anarcho-capitalism is the best philosophy, and the next day a piece by David Brooks will snap me back to the center. I’ve yet to read anything that sends me over to the Left’s camp, but lately I do find myself preferring, in the late Joseph Sobran’s words, “a literary, contemplative conservatism to the activist sort that [is] preoccupied with immediate political issues.” That, too, is subject to change.

FORTUNATELY, MY DOUBTS are not of an existential nature, like those of a younger Woody Allen. “I am plagued by doubts,” he said. “What if everything is an illusion and nothing exists? In that case, I definitely overpaid for my carpet.” My doubts are more mundane and arise in large part because I sense most of life’s great problems (war, poverty, rush-hour traffic) are insoluble. History teaches that all grand fix-it schemes (Marxism, Internationalism, the Welfare State) are doomed. Apparently, that is one lesson humanity will never learn.

As another election season creeps up on us, I am steeling myself for the inevitable blitz of politicians who seem unable to fix the most basic things — like the giant pothole in front of my house, the one with so much gravitational pull that light cannot escape — yet continually promise that given a few years and a large enough slice of our paychecks they can solve all our problems.

Needless to say, I doubt it.

About the Author

Christopher Orlet writes from St. Louis.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (151) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Brian Mc| 10.14.10 @ 7:22AM

It will never cease to amaze me how some will believe that the more government we have the simpler life will become when all facts point to the opposite. How's about the "Leave Us the Hell Alone" Party...?

Curly Smith| 10.14.10 @ 8:04AM

Sorry, I don't agree. The world's intractable problems are black and white, we turn them into infinite shades of gray because we don't like the answers. We twist ourselves into pretzels to justify doing what we know we shouldn't or to not do what we know we should. We pat the intelligentsia on the back for proving that criminal behavior isn't and that the Constitution doesn't say what it clearly does but, instead, says what it clearly doesn't. The black and white world is a world of personal responsibility and freedom; the gray world is a world of ambiguity, contradiction, irresponsibility and oppression.

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 11:51AM

Right on. You nailed it.

buddha8| 10.14.10 @ 12:30PM

In Catholic Christianity,Buddhism,Hinduism,Confucianism,
and Taoism: rational doubt is the sine qua non for
enlightenment and/or wisdom that is essential for
overcoming the excesses of fides(faith) and
the sophistry of agnosticism. Intellectual doubt
(which asks deep questions) also goes beyond
simplistic moralisms:all is good/bad or right/wrong. The goodness of any human act
derives from its linkage to the true ultimate
goal of human life and ultimate truths about
The Eternal One, the Human Soul, life-beyond
death, and the truly great souls in religious history. That is not goodness by intent nor
goodness by context, nor goodness-for-me
(according to me), nor goodness-by-group
opinion etc.

The truly wise, spiritual and deeply religious
have no fear of such reasonable doubts. The
legions of believers, the indoctrinated, the
politically correct, the righteous moralists etc
fear doubt because it enshrines the mystery of reality, and repudiates all legalist & subjectivist & relativist ethics and moral codes.

Only legalist religions like Islam and Judaism
reject such doubt--and all other dogmatic
indoctrinated politically correct.

As a Taoist proverb puts it: those who know
do not speak; those who speak do not know.
In sum, doubt and our own vast ignorance, demand silence not verbosity.

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 1:08PM

Heh. That's funny. But I still don't doubt Him.
Believe what you wish.

Eric Cartman| 10.14.10 @ 1:25PM

"As a Taoist proverb puts it: those who know
do not speak; those who speak do not know."

Well then, according to the Toaists, Obama doesn't know shit from shinola, then. You can't shut the guy up! Dittos for Bite Me, Barney Fwank and Dems in general. They are too busy telling you how much you don't know and how superior they are.

buddha8| 10.14.10 @ 2:45PM

Eric:

You've got it !!

Vacuous blowhards(braggart narcissists like Obama
and his sychophant Democrats + media-chorus)
Do Not Know--so they fill that Vacuum with
Incessant BS Talk.

Sadly, Most Americans Hear and Believe--have Faith!--in these morons precisely because they too are Ignorant, and Want to Believe(have faith)
Illusions , not Reality!

Some of them even voice this fideism(belief
in belief for its own sake without doubt or
evidence:a heresy Catholicism condemns)
on this website!

But you, Eric, are perspicacious. So Speak!

Madge| 10.14.10 @ 5:11PM

I'll whip your ass Buddahead !

victor| 10.14.10 @ 3:06PM

buddhaha:
"simplistic moralisms: all is good/bad or right/wrong."

In other words, are you saying that there are no absolutes when it comes to right or wrong?
That is, there are things that were wrong last week, that are right this week?
And things that were right yesterday, that will be wrong tomorrow?
Here are two things that no matter how you rationalize or explain them, will always be wrong and you can never make them right.
Rape and the Holocaust.

Take all the time you need. You have until Christ returns and not a minute more.

"The goodness of any human act derives from its linkage to the true ultimate goal of human life"

And what is the "true ultimate goal of human life"?

Is it Eccliastes 12:13: The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man.

That is God's view of things, perhaps your view differs from God's?

Quartermaster| 10.14.10 @ 6:21PM

Buddhism is an atheistic religion. They have no conception of God or god.

Alan Brooks| 10.14.10 @ 9:01PM

"I suspect few of the world's intractable problems can be alleviated by greater humility and circumspection"

So much for sincere piety.

Reflector| 10.15.10 @ 11:45AM

100% right on, Mr. Smith.

The Big E| 10.14.10 @ 8:54AM

I once heard a Pastor preaching on doubt describe it as the cutting edge of faith. That makes sense to me, for it is also the point at which we probe into the unknown and the uncertain.

Maybe those who lack doubt are incapable of solving serious problems because they lack the imagination to see beyond what's been done before, or the courage to go (as they said on Star Trek) where no man has gone before.

Bill| 10.14.10 @ 9:12AM

Bertrand Russell might have taken his own advice when he was sitting on that gussied-up war crimes commission he founded to blame the United States for horrors allegedly committed by its soldiers in Vietnam about 40 years ago. He was pretty self-assured of the unassailable moral rightness of his position back then.

Alan Brooks| 10.15.10 @ 1:39AM

Russell was right, America had no right to conscript all those men--
boys actually.
America got what it deserved, just as the Confederacy did. God trampled the vintage where the grapes of wrath were stored.

PJ| 10.14.10 @ 9:30AM

I find it interesting that the more knowledge a person acquires through experience &/or classroom learning the more he/she realizes they really don't know much. And if they don't; they should.

GW| 10.14.10 @ 5:43PM

Yes, our increasing amount of negative information. Watch a Science Channel show about cutting edge physics and realize how much more there is out to be discovered.

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 12:26PM

Mr. Orlet,

This gave me a chuckle:

"I might read something by Murray Rothbard that makes me conclude that anarcho-capitalism is the best philosophy, and the next day a piece by David Brooks will snap me back to the center."

If David Brooks can bring you back to the "center"...

maybe reading someone like Thomas Sowell or David Horowitz could could bring you back to reality. Sowell, a world class conservative has no doubts at all and Horowitz slices straight through all the doubts you may ever have or could have about exactly what and why Leftism is where it hides, which masks it hides under and as and will clear it all up for you in about a half an hour. He's got numerous books out, as well as does Sowell.

As to doubts and doubting~ A man in the Bible said to Jesus "If you can" do something about his son, who was posessed by demons:

"And Jesus said to him, "If you can! All things are possible to him who believes." Immediately the father of the child cried out and said, "I believe; help my unbelief!"

We all have doubts but there are no ifs ands or buts with God. "No variation or shadow due to change". (Jas. 1:17).

What's so great about this is, we don't have to rely upon ourselves to be perfect, but upon Him who is.

"My Grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." 2 Cor. 12:9.

buddha8| 10.14.10 @ 12:37PM

Margie,

You parsing of words attributed to J, and taking refuge in maxims from Paul(the most arrogant
self-righteous "apostle")and James(the most
"Judaic" apostle) betrays your serious unfamiliarity with the hermeneutics(principles
of interpretation) of modern scholars of the
Christian New Testament.

You betray yourself as simplistic and moralist.

Not to fear, a little doubt, and lots of learning,can overcome your naivete.

FYI:the healing dialogue is probably not an
authentic saying of/by Jesus:it is Kerygma.
Paul and James are totally Kerygma--no shred
of Jesus can be found in either of them.

Vern Crsler| 10.14.10 @ 1:09PM

Amen to Margie. Why all the religious intolerance from buddha8?

buddh8| 10.14.10 @ 1:27PM

Vern, since you take my name in vain, and
caricature the substance of my comments, I
tell you: I am a Professor of Christianity &
Comparative Religious Studies. I know whereof
I speak.

Telling the Truth is not an act of Intolerance.
Indeed Tolerance of lies and fantasies is not
a Christian virtue, or a virtue in Any world religion. It is psycho-socio-political babble
that seeks to assuage the ignorance of its believers
It is also merely a slogan. The liberal tolerant
do NOT tolerate those whose views or beliefs
are politically incorrect(e.g. those who do not
approve of homosexual behavior, arbitrary
abortion, or hug Islam as a "religion of peace"
on a par with the religion of Jesus,Hinduism,Buddhism,Taoism et al.

Truth does not Tolerate BS propaganda!!

A. Murray Kahn| 10.14.10 @ 1:46PM

There must be a close parenthesis around here somewhere. Have you looked under the desk? By the way, whereof you speak? Assertions can sound pompous when over capitalized and over punctuated.

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 2:08PM

LOL I can't get past "the Liberal tolerant can't tolerate" part, no less the rest of it.

buddha8| 10.14.10 @ 3:03PM

Margie:
I said "The Liberal tolerant DO NOT tolerate . . . .

You present yourself as a Tolerant Liberal, but cannot even Tolerate reading what I offer, because
it raises doubts of your views veracity.
And doubt is not a possibility in your
fideism.

Must be great having no doubts--like having no mind!

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 3:12PM

Oops I made a boo-boo.
Thing is, budhaha ha, all flesh is like the grass, it's here for a little while, withers and dies. Our lives are but a mist.

I put no confidence in the flesh. Of myself I am nothing. It is in Christ that I put my confidence is all. Can't you get that?
God bless.

JKS| 10.14.10 @ 4:43PM

He can't get it because he is a professor...that alone explains a great deal.

Evanston2| 10.14.10 @ 3:08PM

Man, this is hilarious. Buddh8 should go on tour. He and other "modern scholars" decide what in the Bible is true or false, as an example of being "tolerant." Disagree and Buddh8 will tell you that "you take my name in vain." Look who has made himself God. We understand hermeneutics, Oh Great Buddh8! When Christ says He is the way, the truth, and the life and that you can only get to heaven through Himself, it's really a shame that He violated your kerygmatic principle. Once you finish editing the Bible, what is left? Nothing worth studying in your classes, nor giving to -- it's cheaper and less time-consuming to subscribe to TIME magazine. Comparing religions? There are only 2: human, self-improvement (yours) and salvation by faith in the substitutionary atonement of Christ. Yes, Christians are narrow minded. Or as our Lord said: 'Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.'

Madge| 10.14.10 @ 5:15PM

Now you have really done it Buddahead ! I'll be tracking you down.

Quartermaster| 10.14.10 @ 6:32PM

The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy that many of Buddh8's types use to put down anyone that does not agree with their eisegesis. The attributes he assigns to Paul are from his own imagination, not scripture.

His claim of the healing dialog being unsubstantiated is simply from sources which cares to accept, and rejects the sources that challenge him. This is typical of the liberal, so called, "Higher Criticism" and Jesus seminar trash which is nothing more than cafeteria theology.

The truth is indeed amoral. It simply exists. Telling someone the truth is not an act of intolerance, but telling someone that you are a prof and act as if everyone should be bow before your superior knowledge is nothing less than silly.

Incidentally, Kerygma doesn't mean what you apparently think it means. Just one indication that you are probably lying about being a prof of religion. And, if you are, it indicates you should not be.

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 1:11PM

I'm sorry that you have doubts.
Jesus Christ is Lord.
Believe what you wish.

"He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God." Jn. 8:47.

buddha8| 10.14.10 @ 1:32PM

Margie: two points for you to consider:

1. Jesus in Jn 8 was talking directly to the Jewish
leaders(scribes,rabbis,priests-devoted to the
TORAH). So He was rejecting their beliefs!!

2. It is a real possibility that this ch 8 is mostly or entirely the Kerygma of John and his group--not Jesus own words. Nonetheless, Jesus Rejections
of the Judaism(s) of the 1st CE is a dominant theme in ALL 5 Gospels!

Isogesis is dumb!

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 2:20PM

Jesus never rejected Judaism, He came to fulfill it~ ya know, the Messiah and all that there stuff. But you must have missed that somehow.

Jesus did upbraid the Jews who refused to believe in Him, well of course He did. But many did believe. Many Jews believe in Him today. And may non Jewish people also do not believe. The admonitions are the same to all, since Christ died for the sins of the whole world.

The type of theology you espouse is false, plain and simple. That Jesus came to fulfill the prophecies in the Old Testament should cancel out the Law and the Prophets is a blatant and demonic lie.

"Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them." Mt. 5:17.

buddha8| 10.14.10 @ 2:53PM

Margie, this is the Only saying attributed to Jesus in support of the "fulfillment" of Judaism Kerygma in the New Testament.

But the Matthaean Gospel goes no to have Jesus utter numerous explicit and direct rejections of Judaism(of 1st CE) errors and serious inadequacies. These Judaism flaws make a hybrid
Judaeo-Christianity impossible; they require an either/or choice:Jesus as Master of Moses et al as
Master(s); Jesus as Voice of ABBA, or TORAH +Rabbis as Voice of Adonai/YHWH.

Clearly you've decided to be Judaeo-Christian.
Many Matthaean disciples(1st century) made the same choice--only to be rudely awakened @ Jamnia in 90 CE when the Jewish community
rejected any such fulfillment Judaism:it was
an either/or demand by the Jewish leaders themselves!

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 3:52PM

It may be the only "saying" as you refer to it, but it is still Jesus Himself saying it. And that's enough for me.

You and your ilk constantly preach about throwing Paul to the lions, and now you want to crucify Christ all over again?

"But even if we, or an angel from Heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed." Gal. 1:8.

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 2:43PM

Sorry, I ought to have included the next two following verses as well:
"For truly, I say to you, till Heaven and Earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these Commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven." Mt 5:18 & 19.

Evanston2| 10.14.10 @ 3:11PM

Margie, this Scripture applies well to Buddh8: 2 Tim 3:1 But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. 2 For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, 4 treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. 6 For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, 7 always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 3:56PM

Evanston2,

It does apply. May he come to his right mind before it's too late.

This does too:
"A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion." Prov. 18:2.

God bless.

Ken (Old Texican)| 10.14.10 @ 1:18PM

Hey Buddah,

Your idols were broken by the Islamists.
Question:
Is "Kergma" something like toe-jam, like you?
Heh.
There is a similar word...smegma. Is that what you are preaching here?
Heh.
Go back to your navel.
Thank you.

buddha8| 10.14.10 @ 1:39PM

My ID is buddha8(note spelling); I am not
a social member of any Buddhist community,
but I deeply admire Buddhist spirituality,Hinduism,Taoism, and
Neo-Confucianism.

So My idols were not destroyed in an act of
barbaric religious intolerance by Taliban Muslims!

Obviously you do not comprehend what Kerygma
is, nor the importance of making a distinction between Kerygma(of apostles) and Jesus own
words(Ipsissima Verba Jesu). Call youself what you are: a disciple of one or more of Jesus
apostles, including the "apostle" who never met
or heard the historical Jesus.

What's your "navel" fixation?

Madge| 10.14.10 @ 5:19PM

Now you better stop Buddahead, this is your last warning, I mean it now.

Quartermaster| 10.14.10 @ 6:38PM

Buddha8 is no Christian. There is nothing to admire in the "spirituality" of any in his list. None of them is centered in Christ which is the *ONLY* valid spirituality.

Anselm| 10.14.10 @ 12:58PM

As Natalie Wood said in "Miracle on 34thStreet," I believe, I believe, tho it's silly I believe. I don't believe you can parse the Testament and decide you can through out the Apostles. I do believe that only faith can rescue us from doubt. Jews still await the Messiah but they also say we have to act until the Messiah comes.

Vern Crisler| 10.14.10 @ 1:14PM

"The whole problem with the world," declared Bertrand Russell, "is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."

Call Russell's statement "x". Is x asserted with requisite doubt? Or is x just a claim made by someone who is so certain of himself?

Given Russell's dogmatic pronouncement of x, it seems safe to conclude the latter, which means that Russell is not a wise man, but rather a fool and a fanatic.

Additionally, the claim that issues are never black and white is itself a black-and-white claim, so refutes itself.

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 1:16PM

Oh man, that was great! You have a firm intellect about you, dear sir!

Bill| 10.14.10 @ 2:01PM

It's right up there with the comment Bertrand Russell wrote in his autobiography that he made when he was at college: "Great God in boots! The ontological proof is sound!"

Patrick| 10.14.10 @ 2:32PM

Bertrand Russell...

All I can really say regarding him is that he should have heeded his own advice.

Patrick| 10.14.10 @ 3:14PM

As it is, there is a great deal of difference between doubt and Doubt.

One is a question and a problem (sometimes vexing) on the mind, and the other is a formal position. One is something of a growing pain, that leads to deeper understanding, the other is rejection. One is in need of convincing argument, the other won't listen.

Of course, the danger lies when one simply forbids any interior appraisal of any kind, but will scream and snarl and rail rather than work out a problem. This is a fanatic.

People can be all sorts of fanatics. Whether it is believing every year that a given football team will win the Superbowl, or whether carbon dioxide will destroy the world, the object of fanaticism brooks no challenger. As such, when the knowledge of the fanatic is exhausted, the fanatic begins with the ad hominems.

And yes, athiests can be fanatics too. There was a Youtube video of a debate involving C. Hitchens absolutely losing it. Priceless.

buddha 8| 10.14.10 @ 1:19PM

Anselm(and Margie):
Did you mean to say "throw out the apostles"?

Do you know the difference between KERYGMA
and IPSISSIMA VERBA JESU: apostolic faith and Jesus own words?

Jesus Himself--on multiple occasions narrated by the apostles themselves--said:
(1)the apostles DID NOT UNDERSTAND what HE said & did.
(2)the apostles stubbornly clung to their OWN
FALSE INTERPRETATIONS of Jesus teachings
and religious identity, and religious activity, and
religious mission:e.g cling to belief Jesus is the MASHIAH come at the dawn of an apocalyptic age, come to create a hybrid Judaeo-Christianity,
come to assure a life-after-death in a Jewish paradise to all(Not only Jews, but Gentiles too) . . .

So it is JESUS HIMSELF who warns His true disciples to DOUBT the KERYGMA of His
apostles--which did NOT include Saul/Paul
as a Jesus appointment.

To follow Jesus means --quite often-- to abandon the apostles faith as narrated in the 4/5 Gospels,
the Apostolic Letters, and the Christian Apocrypha. JESUS made this demand Himself:
be My disciple, not the disciple of Paul,Peter et al.

Patrick| 10.14.10 @ 3:55PM

First, you started strong on your first post, and should have left it at that. This _is_ after all, the internet, and flamewars have been around since at least the 80's. If you wished to defend your position, you would certainly need to dedicate hours to the effort. It's a vain effort, and I do not need to lecture you on the "mode of the receiver", but please keep it in mind.

As for the above analysis of the NT, tossing out some Greek is not going to get you anywhere. You have very neatly eliminated all that pertains to Jesus that does not fit a Buddha mold. I note that his own words include his sending the Paraclete, which does in fact change things entirely.

A. Murray Kahn| 10.14.10 @ 2:02PM

Twelve different men who lived with Jesus, spoke with him for hours each day, argued with him and, no doubt, were corrected by Him didn't get it? Paul, who claimed to have met the risen Christ, got it all wrong? In fact everyone for 2000 years got it all wrong except the nameless blogger who uses capital letters to raise his writing voice? Hmm. Please pardon me while I have one of those doubts. May I have another?

Bill| 10.14.10 @ 2:10PM

Doctrinal problems didn't arise in Christianity until the the church fathers were trying to put together a church, which Christ himself mandated for St. Peter to build. It was when the questions of whether or not Christ was divine and human, or divine only, or human only, the nature of the relationship between Christ and God the Father, conceptualizing the Trinity, deciding if good and evil are separate forces or not, whether or not priests and other leaders of the church should be free from sin, how people would be baptized, whether or not Christians should be circumsized, and other problems that Christ never dealt with in His life, is the point at which opinions (and dogma) began to very. Up to that point, Christians were primarily concerned with surviving the lions.

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 2:32PM

Yeah but all of those things you mentioned turned into warped Catholic doctrine. For example there is no Trinity in the Bible, it is not a thing, ie. noun. It does not exist. The Bible speaks of course of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit as separate entities and nowhere does it say in the Bible to "worship" the Holy Spirit. God says that the Holy Spirit, also called the Comforter, will come and guide us into the truth, and that we receive the Holy Spirit inside of us when we are called by God. But there is no "Trinity" (noun) in the Bible, therefore it is false doctrine.

As for Baptism, there is also no infant baptism in the Bible.

And all of the confusion comes about when men decide to create their own doctrine and not stick to the Bible itself.

Heh, which some 2,000 years later those of us who do stick to it are still being "thrown to the lions."

Vern Crisler| 10.14.10 @ 3:24PM

Margie, looks like someone is pretending to be you again. Whoever it is, needs to read Walter Martin's *Kingdom of the Cults* -- who is a Protestant defending the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith against modern day heresies.

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 3:45PM

Vern,
No it is me speaking, and I stand by it. I cannot explain it any better than I did above. I'm not a Catholic and object to and reject its usage of nonbiblical doctrines.

I'm not a "Protestant" either. Strictly Biblically speaking, I am a non-denominational believer. My "church" is "where two or more are gathered in His Name" (Mt. 18:20), and the Bible is my "Religion."

I may have now lost you, because I said that about the "Trinity" but to reiterate, I reject the term and the imposition of it as a noun, an "item" as it is non-existent in the Bible. The Catholic doctrine has created this, not God.

Bill| 10.14.10 @ 4:20PM

Christians who were a lot closer to Christ in time inferred the Trinity from the Bible, and they held so strongly to the concept, both in the Roman Church and in the Eastern Church, both Orthodox and the variety of sects (Nestorians, Jacobites, Copts, etc.), that the Muslims (particularly the Ottoman Turks) accused them of being polytheists.

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 4:37PM

Got any evidence of that, Bill?
And even so, it isn't in the Bible so it doesn't matter.
You see, Jesus' words themselves are good enough for me. And nowhere does He refer to a "Trinity."
He does teach us everything we need to know, though. That He and the Father are one, that He is the Son of God and Son of Man. That the Holy Spirit is a Counselor and guides us into all truth and is given to those who ask God. Nowhere does He say we are to "worship" a "Trinity." He does say to worship God through Him, and Him alone, through Christ the only Mediator between Him and God. And it is done through the Holy Spirit.

Since Jesus Himself didn't teach any such thing, I reject the doctrine utterly.

Bill| 10.14.10 @ 5:01PM

There are many points of dogma in Christian sects that aren't in the Bible. I can assure that they matter very much to the people who subscribe to them. Many wars have been fought over these points of dogma.

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 5:06PM

And that's exactly the problem. Denominations, sects, et al. When Christians stick to the Bible itself and nothing else, there aren't such wars and disunity. Hard to find that these days, sadly. But they do exist. Look for a non-denominational Bible based church. They're out there.

Bill| 10.14.10 @ 5:20PM

Yes, that would be fine if it weren't for the fact that Christ enjoined his disciples to go out into the world and spread the gospel, with the specific injuction to St. Peter that he be the rock upon which Christ's church was to be built. So Christ wanted a church. Within 500 years after the crucifixion Christianity had a number of churches.

You can refuse to belong to a church, that's a matter for your free will and your conscience together with your understanding of the Bible; although I was raised a Presbyterian, and attended church services for many years, I don't go to church these days - that's my business.

But there's no doubt that Christ intended to have a church that worshipped him. He said so. So if you don't belong to a chruch, you're not doing what Christ wanted.

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 5:42PM

Wrong:

"Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made with hands; as the Prophet says, 'Heaven is My throne, and earth my footstool. What house will you build for Me, says the Lord, or what is the place of My rest?" Acts 7:48 & 49.

The Bible says it and so if you don't believe the Bible you're not obeying God.

"For where two or three are gathered in My Name, there am I in the midst of them." Mt. 18:21

What more proof do you need than this? Church is where He says it is.

At Pentecost was where the first men believers started receiving the Holy Spirit, after Christ ascended into Heaven. That is how Christ's church began. And every individual who believes in Him and is born of His Spirit is a member of His church. And no Religion in the world can lay claim as "The true Church" since it isn't a physical building but the body of believers themselves.

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 5:44PM

oops. leave out "men" it should just be "believers."

Madge| 10.14.10 @ 5:31PM

Margie your an Arain. Well I never !

Madge| 10.14.10 @ 5:33PM

Sorry Margie , I meant Arian.

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 6:18PM

Wrong, Timmy*.

Quartermaster| 10.14.10 @ 6:44PM

I see nothing to mark Margie as an Arian. Some aberrant beliefs, yes, but not heretical.

Margie, as for the passage from Acts you quote, "a text without a context is a pretext" is one of the strongest warnings of hermeneutics. You would do well to heed it.

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 7:49PM

What's your issue with Acts 7:48 & 49? Doesn't fit in with your theology? The Bible says God does not dwell in houses made by hands. And there are plenty of other verses to back that one. So I don't think your issue is with me, but with the Bible.

Margie| 10.15.10 @ 12:35PM

"Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body." 1 Cor. 6:19 & 20.

Heh, that's where He dwells, inside of His people. No one can make themselves the authority over God's own words. No matter how smart they think they are.

Evanston2| 10.14.10 @ 3:55PM

Margie, the term "Trinity" (like any other word) is a label. If it is Biblical, that means it accurately summarizes a concept from Scripture. Does it? There are many, many web sites that discuss this issue. The key is to recognize that the Bible defines for us what GOD MEANS, even when using everyday words like "Faith" or "Love" or "Peace." That is, His Word usually defines its words in the immediate context (if people would bother to read more than a snippet from the text) and reinforces these concepts by parables, by examples in actual lives, and ultimately in the person of Christ as we know Him from Scripture. You may eventually find that the term Trinity accurately reflects a truth from many Bible passages. You're correct in knowing that belief in the Trinity is not the same as the Gospel, but please realize that they are related. The question, as asked by Christ in Luke 9 or Matt 16 or Mark 8, is "Who do you say that I am?" If you believe that Jesus was just another man, then his life and death are just examples of personal goodness or selflessness that cannot save you. Of course, you do not believe this...but do you believe that Jesus is God (incarnate as the Son of Man)? This, arguably, is a necessary condition for His perfect life and sacrificial death to save us (and not, as Jehovah's Witnesses and others might claim, that He was just an angel or one of many Gods). The bottom line is we need not fully comprehend a reality in order to apprehend it. We all know that trees exist and what they are, but do you really fully comprehend them? So it is with the Trinity. God tells us in Is 55 that "My thoughts are not your thoughts" and when Job demands an explanation of God, the answer is essentially 'I don't owe you an explanation.' So getting back to the original article, this is where a rational faith should exist. We can apprehend the Trinity but not fully comprehend it. I hope I'm not "talking down" to you here, I don't mean to, and FYI you're right that infant baptism is very difficult to establish Biblically.

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 4:03PM

Evanston2,

I refer you to my original post. There is no "The Trinity" in the Bible, anywhere, thus I reject the term completely. I explained what I believe in same post. Please re read.
Thanks.

Evanston2| 10.14.10 @ 7:14PM

Margie, I did read your original post and my reply was meant to directly counter your assertion that a word must be in the Bible in order to be Biblically accurate. I evidently failed. Let's try something different. Liberals tell us that the word "homosexual" is not used in the Bible. This is true. Therefore, it's OK to be a homosexual, right? Uh, we both know that's not true because the Bible describes homosexual activity (for example, Rom 1:27) and condemns it. But still, the Bible does not use the word "homosexual" or even the word "Sodomite." There are a host of other sins that are never even described in the Bible, no less labeled. Pedophilia? Not mentioned, so must be OK. Insider trading? There were no stocks in Bible times, so must be OK, right? Well, we know that's not true. The Bible describes principles (such as all sex outside of marriage of man & women is sin) that apply.
So is the word "Trinity" different in any respect from using the word "homosexual?" Well, you may rightly say that it tries to capture a concept (three persons, one essence) instead of a physical activity. Still, those who believe this word is accurate and truly Biblical do so based on Bible passages. They point to how the Father, the Son, and the Spirit act independently, have personality (such as emotions and their own wills), yet act in unity and also have powers that only God has (for example, creation or omniscience that make them a unity...that is, one in essence). To risk repeating myself, you definitely do not have to believe in the "Trinity" to believe the Gospel. But to say that this word is not tied to specific Bible texts is just plain incorrect. Google around, you'll see many articles that discuss this by chapter & verse. If you're a Jehovah's Witness you won't read the web articles, but if you attend a Bible-believing church then you should look at the verses before you reject the label "Trinity." Just like the Bereans in Acts 17:10, read the Scripture to see "if these things are so."

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 8:14PM

Sorry Evanston2,

God arranged the Bible just as exactly as He wanted it to be. It isn't in there and so it isn't meant to be. There is no such thing, Biblically speaking, as a "Trinity." It is not a noun, a person, place or thing. So as a Christian, my duty is to serve God and His Truth, according to the Bible. I really don't care what anyone has to say about it.

All of the verses about God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are completely self explanatory and written just as God meant them. I know you mean well but I'm going to stick with the words in the Bible.

p.s. Here's a question: Why is it necessary to create a doctrine over something that isn't in the Bible? It's wrong.

Evanston2| 10.15.10 @ 7:35PM

Margie, you're right about relying on the Bible and I'm glad you stick with it. That said, if you ever use the word "Rapture" then stop. Not in the Bible. The phrase "Second coming." Not in the Bible. I could go on. But I'll just end with the word "Bible." Stop using it. Not in the Bible.

I've already answered your question, repeatedly. People who use the word "Trinity" can cite chapter & verse to tell you why it IS a doctrine taught in the Bible. I'm guessing here...but I doubt you've even bothered to give them a chance by reading anything online or elsewhere where they cite chapter & verse. If you are indeed condemning them without even checking, you condemn yourself as not valuing God's Word. You say that "I'm going to stick with the words in the Bible" but then not bothering to read them. Unless you're a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon, I recommend you talk to your pastor or someone else you trust about this. You may believe I'm being harsh here, but I could care less if you believe in the Trinity, it is not necessary for salvation. Nonetheless, what you claim to be a Biblical approach to this matter is actually the opposite.

Margie| 10.15.10 @ 9:17PM

Hi Evanston2,

I am so thrilled to be writing to you again today. It is because I found a really cool website explaining about the Trinity in excellent Biblical terms.

Yes, I understand what you're saying about the word itself not being in the Bible, but that the concept is. I have tried to explain to you to no avail, and also to other Christian Catholics here why it is that I denounce their doctrine on this subject. (I don't know if you personally are Catholic or not, though I don't think so). In any case it is not that I do not believe in God, Jesus and know that there is in existence His Holy Spirit (which is not to be worshipped directly as He is the guide that God uses to show us all the Truth that is in Christ and He reveals what God wants us to know). It is that what I reject is the Catholic doctrine.

Hopefully reading this page I posted will help you to see what I believe, which is, again, completely Biblical!

The Biblical explanation of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit does not refer to them as a noun. The writings in the Bible are in of themselves sufficient to explain exactly everything God wants us to know. And I am in 100% with everything written therein.
So, please do not assign to me something that is not true. I hope the link works, but lately they haven't been so you may have to cut & paste, sorry.

http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-catholic-nicene.htm

Evanston2| 10.16.10 @ 7:12PM

I was baptised Catholic, though my family was "Chreasters" (attending only Christmas and Easter). In high school I was a youth leader at (what is now) a Presbyterian USA church. The town I grew up in was a mix, but Catholics were the largest group. In college I took a Christianity 101 course, learned from a "modern scholar" like Buddh8 and was happy to hear that the Bible is just a bunch of opinions and therefore I could do whatever I want. So I spent much of my adult life as an agnostic or atheist, take your pick. Then God worked on my heart. All along I had kept a respect for the "wisdom" in the Bible but as I gained more power, etc. I noticed how I got worse and so was receptive when I heard that true Gospel that a sinner is what I am (not just an occasional outcome of what I do). I also saw that the Bible was extremely adult and realistic. Beyond all, I saw that God is truly good, and it is a miracle that He loves me despite what I am and that He paid for my sin. So I try to show folks like Brian Mc and Buddh8 that what they hold to is self-defeating, but know that ultimately God must work on their hearts. I share your contempt for Roman sacerdotalism and syncretism that have crowded out or outright rejected the Gospel. Also liberal notions like the universal fatherhood of God and the universal brotherhood of man because the Bible says the opposite. All heresies try to supplant God's Word with the wisdom of men. So I share your love for the Lord and respect your 1 Thess 5:21 attitude ("...test everything, hold fast to what is good"). I believe the Trinity is a truly Biblical concept and at my church we have a class that goes through Scripture to demonstrate why this is so. You will find that most Bible churches hold to it, but you are not the first to find it difficult or unnecessary. Keep up the good fight.

Margie| 10.17.10 @ 1:28AM

I just now saw your post and am so encouraged to read your words! I love testimonies, as all Christians do, and I loved hearing yours. Praise God! My testimony is that like that old song says, "I was sinking deep in Sin, far from the peaceful shores..never to rise again.. Jesus rescued me, now safe am I. Love lifted me, love lifted me."

By the time I was 19 years old I knew the depths of depravation and despair. God allowed me to to sink so low into the darkness of Sin yet I didn't understand what was happening to me. I thought there was something wrong with me as the Devil himself tormented me in that way. I had no idea that there was a God that was truly living and a Devil that was just as real and entrapped young girls into a life of Sin in order to completely destroy them even before they hit the age of 20. For years I struggled with trying to figure out what was wrong with me and took to psychology books and words of famous old Poets thinking maybe they had some wisdom into the human condition that could help me. I looked for hope in the writings of man but to no avail.

I even experimented with drugs one night and went temporarily blind but God gave me my vision back by His mercy and Grace and I saw again. Not too long after that Jesus called me with such compassion and love so as to completely overcome any doubts I could ever possibly have of Him and made me one of His. I met a Christian brother and sister one evening and they told me about how Jesus says in the Bible that I must be born again. I never heard of it before and so I was leery but I prayed according to the verse that said "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." Rom. 10:9. And I asked for the Holy Spirit to come inside of my heart. I had also done that as a child, not knowing fully what I had done and this I did understanding what I was doing. From that night on I began my relationship with God. He set me free from the Law of Sin and death and set my feet upon the Rock, which is Him. He changed me from the inside out like He does with every single human being that calls out to Him admitting that Sin is the problem and He promises to take forgive ALL of our sins that we ever committed. Talk about a clean slate that is what He does! I realized that it was my Sin that was killing me and taking me to Hell, that there was nothing "wrong with me" but that it was Sin and guilt. And now I know that that is the problem with every human being. The Sin that separates us from God. And only He can take it away.

I was reading last night about the early church fathers and why it was that this doctrine even had to come about of the Trinity. It had to do with when they got together to arrange the books of the Bible and there was a trouble maker who threw this monkey wrench in to the situation and tried to claim that before Jesus was born here on earth, He didn't exist. That He wasn't and isn't the Alpha and the Omega. His name was Arious or something like that (thus the term Arian). So Constantine was all worried about it and insisted that they come up with a doctrine for the Christian churches. (Referred to as catholic (meaning universal) Christian church.

Because of this round and round nonsense that's what they did. They ought to have kicked this guy out of there. He was a fraud and no real Christian. After all, He was denying the very words of Christ! So that's where and why it began. Very interesting and I never knew this before. It seems to me that the whole thing was perhaps a big mistake. (Having to come up with this doctrine) because it has given so much opportunity to the Devil and gotten so twisted. If this would have been left alone, not made into a doctrine, but just allowed the words of Jesus Himself as they were written.. there wouldn't be this issue.

It's amazing the wealth of information online now and I'm off to read more about this entire subject.

God bless you!

Bill| 10.14.10 @ 4:28PM

Infant baptism comes from about the 3d or 4th Century, when Christian parents, concerned that their children would be born in Original Sin (a concept first enunciated by St. Augustine), but when infant death rates were very high, insisted that their babies be baptized because they were concerned if their kids didn't get baptized, they would spend eternity in Hell because of not being baptized. And the Church adopted infant baptism as an acceptable church sacrament.

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 4:43PM

If they did this they were not thinking right, and must not have read the Bible.
That's all I can say about that. These ridiculous doctrines have been passed on for centuries but it doesn't make them right.
There are no "sacraments" in the Bible. No infant baptism.

The Bible teaches this:
"And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts 2:38.

Children cannot know what it means to repent as infants, and it obviously is speaking to adults and those old enough to have the awareness of sin. To say anything otherwise is just plain false doctrine, and silly.

Bill| 10.14.10 @ 5:05PM

What gives you the insight to determine in any objective sense that they weren't right? Because it's not in the Bible? The Bible doesn't forbid it, either.

Adult baptism in Christianity is a function of the practices of whatever sect John the Baptist belonged to, and to the custom of people preferring that one choose Christianity when one is old enough to exercise his or her free choice.

As previously stated, the custom of infant baptism is a function of people being quite reasonably concerned for the souls of their children, who might die before reaching maturity.

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 5:13PM

"Because it's not in the Bible?" Yes. Are God's words not the authority on how Christians are to behave?

"He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God." Jn. 8:44.

I'm

Margie| 10.15.10 @ 10:01PM

That was supposed to read Jn. 8:47, not 44. So sorry.Jn. 8:47 is the verse I stand on so as to not get lead astray. That is how I meant it,
God bless.

Gigglebedee| 10.15.10 @ 2:12PM

You state problems didn't arise till the Christians began trying to put together a Church. Surely, any religion needs organizational structure - why would the Christians be different?

buddha8| 10.14.10 @ 2:59PM

From buddha8 to A.Murray Kahn:
who capitalizes his letters?

Yes, you should doubt all the apostles, and especially Saul/Paul precisely because Jesus has warned you or their (1)errors and (2)own
fabricated misinterpretations.

Your choice! The apostles and Jesus are not the same thing, not the same voice, but many voices
(of many apostolic communities) struggling to
be the Voice of Jesus--knowing they did not
Understand Him while they were with Him!!

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 3:24PM

"But even if we, or an angel from Heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed." Gal. 1:8.

Bill| 10.14.10 @ 4:35PM

So, let's assume that the Protestants are right, and that salvation depends solely on God's grace, and good works avail nothing (as in Roman Catholicism, where the requirement is for both faith and good works); an atheist who says nothing about such things is more blessed by God than a believer who accepts one of the two views as his dogma? Do I have that right?

Bill| 10.14.10 @ 4:37PM

Excuse my error; I meant to say that the believer accepts the Roman Catholic idea of good works plus faith = salvation.

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 4:48PM

I don't know that "Protestants" believe what you say they do.
Christians read and believe the Bible. ALL of it.
God bless.

Bill| 10.14.10 @ 4:55PM

One of the earliest, and most persistent, distinctions between Protestants and Roman Catholics is the insistence on Protestants that one cannot "buy" one's way into salvation by doing good works. Protestants (all of them that I know of) believe that all of us are wholly dependent on God's excercise of His grace for salvation. Early Protestants even believed in predestination and promulgated the idea of the society of the elect and the society of the reprobate. Presbyterians and Dutch Reformists (and other Calvinist sects) still believe that.

Roman Catholics believe that one can obtain God's grace by living a good mortal life, and be saved by having Christian faith and in addition doing good works.

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 5:03PM

The Bible tells us exactly what is and isn't acceptable to God, and what He requires. I don't concern myself with Religions or their doctrines.

The New Testament tells us everything we need to know.
Thank God. If I had to follow a Religion instead of Christ I would never bother. Jesus isn't a Religion, but a person. He says this:

"Jesus said to him, "I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father, but by Me." Jn. 14:6.

It's about a relationship, not a Religion. The Bible tells us we can come to know Him, or rather be known by Him.

Jesus' Way is easy. Religion makes it very, very hard!

Christianity means follower of Christ, the person, and His words.

Rom. 10:9, Jn. 3:3-21.

Bill| 10.14.10 @ 5:08PM

If you don't concern yourself with religions or their doctrines, why are you discussing them?

When I entered this discussion, one of the things I pointed out is that the Christian Church involves following the things Christ said, and also developing a reasoned approach to the methodology of worship that takes into account answers to questions that Christ never raised. Different Christian churches have different dogmas. Which of them are "wrong?"

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 5:27PM

Uh, because you were seeming to pretend to ask me questions.. was I hallucinating or something?

The church is the Body of believers who have been born of God and come into a relationship with Him according to the Bible. Rom. 10:9. The church is not a physical building.

There is no "methodology" of worship. Sounds like legalism to me. That isn't what being a Christian is all about. Christians have a relationship with Christ when they repent and receive the Holy Spirit. They seek fellowship and pray with other Christians and study the Bible together. As a body they seek to preach the gospel, do missionary work to feed and clothe the poor and forsaken of this world.

Questions that Christ never raised? If you have to conjure something up you're trying way too hard.

Madge| 10.14.10 @ 5:38PM

Margie you, you , person !

Bill| 10.14.10 @ 5:44PM

Example of question that Christ never raised: He talked about his Father in Heaven. What is Christ's relationship to the Father in Heaven: is it subordinate or co-equal? Christ never said anything about that, but people ask the question.

What about Christ being divine. Was He entirely divine? Couldn't be could it? But the Bible says he was God made flesh. So what's the effect of that? And what about the crucifixion? If God can be crucified and killed, He's not superior to man, is He? But Christ was human, too; how human was He? Human enough to be killed, that's for sure. That's why He was here, to save mankind from sin. But the Bible doesn't say that man had Original Sin; it only says that man after Eden must "live by the sweat of his brow." Original Sin is a concept first explored in any formal way 400 years after the crucifixion by Saint Augustine.

All churches have certain rituals and doctrines that determine how their acolytes will worship. That kind of thing is what I'm talking about the "methodology" of worship. All churches have them. For example, in Roman Catholicism, people can have communion very often, but in Presbyterianism, communion is reserved for only a few times a year. In the Baptist Church, some sects believe that total immersion is necessary; other churches only require the splashing of a few drops on the person. These are the kind of things commonly referred to as "methodologies." You can call them something else if you want to, but that's what they are.

See, it's not so hard to come up with some interesting twists and turns on Christ's teachings when you read the Bible.

Bill| 10.14.10 @ 5:50PM

One more thing: you say, "Christians have a relationship with Christ when they repent and receive the Holy Spirit." Actually, Christians have a relationship with Christ before that, don't they? And what you say isn't what is believed by many Christians. Roman Catholics (and probably Eastern Orthodox) Christians believe that one's proper way of disavowing sin is to "confess my sins, do penance, and amend my life." Do you believe that? If so, you have a dogmatic belief shared by tens of millions of other Christians. Christ only said "go and sin no more."

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 5:58PM

He didn't say anywhere in the Bible to "go and do penance." Guess what, Bill? It isn't in the Bible! Whew, and am I glad. What a rough life that would be.

And He didn't say ONLY to go and sin no more. Yes He said it but He also explained the way of Salvation.

John 3:3-16, Rom. 10:9 & 10, Jn. 6:37, Jn. 1:12. And there are many others explaining how one comes into a relationship with Him.

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 5:51PM

Bill,

Those questions really really are answered in the Bible. If it isn't in there, God meant it not to be in there. What can I say?

He arranged the Bible for us just exactly as He wanted it to be, after all, He is the Creator of the Universe and is in control of everything. Unless of course you think that some haughty individuals should know better, and you'd rather listen to them.

Yep. God had a plan. We're all in it. One way or another.

RCV| 10.15.10 @ 7:42PM

Do some study, Marge. It was a "demonic" Roman Catholic church council that arranged The Bible for you, not God. You're perfectly content to listen to those haughty individuals, so why criticize Catholics who listen to others?

Margie| 10.15.10 @ 8:29PM

I criticize the false doctrine as is my right and duty as a Bible believing Christian.

And the Catholic church didn't start till after the last book of the Bible was written, and there is no Catholic anything in the Bible. The word itself isn't in there and neither are 99.9% of the doctrine.

Where's Purgatory? Not in the Bible.
Where's infant baptism?
Where's the "confessional booth?
Where's setting up a Pope?
Where's praying to Mary?
Found a website with a list of them all:

http://www.bible.ca/catholic-doctrine.htm

RCV| 10.15.10 @ 11:40PM

"the Catholic church didn't start till after the last book of the Bible was written." But who was it who decided what books would be included in the New Testament and added to the Jewish Bible, Margie. That's the question you're unable to answer, or avoid answering, because you don't want to dig too deeply into the truth. Who decided Paul's letters should be treated as "scripture"? A Catholic Church Council, Margie. You know, the "Demons".

Margie| 10.16.10 @ 1:07AM

I rightly criticize false and unbiblical doctrine, RCV.

I called no one a demon, but I did say one person behaves like one who has a few. Sorta like Saul of Tarsus before he God called him Paul.

So, stop lying. But that's what lawyers do for a living.

And the Bible is where I quoted the verse calling the doctrine of forbidding Marriage Demonic. I agree with God!

Margie| 10.16.10 @ 1:10AM

Wrong. I listen to God, and His words which are contained in the Bible, which He arranged to be in there. What I don't listen to are haughty Catholics who believe in false doctrine, like yourself.

RCV| 10.16.10 @ 12:38PM

Still avoiding the question, Margie.

Margie| 10.16.10 @ 3:15PM

Anyone can google Nicene council to see who put the books together, Mr. Lawyer.

The early church fathers referred to the Christian church as catholic Christian church, small "c". They said that their faith was the faith of Jesus Christ, not the "Catholic" Church.

My faith is the same faith, of Jesus Christ.

The Catholic Church of today is NOT in agreement with the early church Fathers. In fact if you knew your history big guy, the history you seem to want to avoid~ the wonderful Catholic Popes (unbiblical by the way) persecuted and murdered millions of Bible believing Christians for trying to either read or translate the Bible into their own languages. In 600 A.D. the "Church" took it upon themselves to forbid the Bible to be read or translated in any other language than Latin, knowing full well no one knew how to read Latin. (The original language of the Bible was Hebrew and Greek),~ thus making themselves God.

Their doctrines have been demonic ever since.

Now what was that you were saying about not wanting to deal with the truth?

RCV| 10.17.10 @ 5:15PM

Oh Margie, if only you spent a little time learning the history of what you falsely worship as the "word of God" in treating letters of a flawd and fallible human being, Paul, as "scripture". It was not the Nicene Council which decided those works were to be included in what Christians today call the Bible.

The Council which decreed that was a Roman Council in the late Fourth Century, presided over by a Pope, Damasus. He rose to the Papcy in a wave of violence, his supporters murdering those of his rival in a three-day splurge of blood so disruptive that the Emperor had to restore order. The Synod he called together of Roman Catholic (with a big C) bishops to put together an official list of worthy Christian writings was to counter the prevalent Arian heresy and to include those writings which wool shore up the institutional church. They did so, and specifically incuded writings that supported their theology of the Trinity, and excluded those writings used by Christians who were Arians, who saw the three persons in the Trinity as distinct entities. There was at the time no uniform agreement on which writings should be considered holy. Indeed, the first list that any scholar has encountered that conforms to our present-day Bible is that of Eusebius, dating from the early fourth century, shortly before the Roman Synod.

Thus, your assertion that St. Paul's musings are "God's words" rests on nothing more than the decrees of the "murderous" and "demonic" Roman Popes you rail so vehemently against. I long ago recognized that Popes are not infallible. You apparently still cling to the notion, unbeknownst to yourself. John II is right about you returning to the bosom of the Holy Mother Church. It's so much easier than thinking for yourself.

Margie| 10.17.10 @ 10:55PM

Well RCV,

It's sad that you accept the false teachings of Catholicism but reject the words of the Apostle Paul as Divinely inspired.

I may not be an intellectual or as scholarly as you, but I can recognize the false from the true.

You really ought try and be more honest though~ I take care not to say the Bible is the Word of God. Jesus Himself is the Word of God, as written in John chapter one. He's the Word become flesh, praise God!

No, I understand the difference between God's Word and God's words. The Bible and all of its books, both old and new Testaments are Divinely inspired by God's chosen people, the Prophets and the Apostles.

Your arrogance in rejecting the Apostle Paul is astounding to me. And while you haughtily and condescendingly look down at your nose at and belittle me (or try to), I know in whom I believe, and I know who not to believe.

Jesus Christ is Lord, not the haughty Catholic church or its Popes, and especially not its demonic doctrines.

May God have mercy on your soul.

Margie| 10.17.10 @ 11:10PM

I suppose RCV goes along with this low life who calls the Apostle Paul a liar?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgAZfE-zYzA

Margie| 10.16.10 @ 3:20PM

Forgot to add: catholic "small "c"~ the word means universal. It meant ALL Christians world wide who share the faith of Jesus Christ. It is NOT the Catholic church of today.

Brian Mc| 10.14.10 @ 6:04PM

Margie,

Where is it stated in the Bible that Jesus said, "Only the Bible counts"?

Sola Scriptura is not "Biblical" by any stretch and for me, I will continue to work out my salvation through "fear and trembling"...God's Grace provided, of course.

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 6:09PM

"He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God." Jn. 8:44.

That's funny though, Brian. You say that and then you quote a verse. If you don't think the Bible is the authority then what are you doing picking and choosing which of His words to believe in?

Brian Mc| 10.15.10 @ 7:25AM

Margie,
Thanks for answering my question.
Or, did you?

Margie| 10.15.10 @ 12:15PM

Yes, I did but perhaps you didn't like it.

The answer is John 8:44. You obviously want to regard teachings outside the Bible. If those teaching to do not match up with the Bible then you allow yourself the opportunity to believe whatever the flesh is pleased with hearing.

Like Catholic doctrine, or any other of the myriads of false and demonic teachings.

There are teachings written by millions of men, but are they Biblical? That is supposed to be your standard.

Unless you want to try and say that the Bible isn't where you find God's words?

Brian Mc| 10.15.10 @ 8:35PM

Margie,

You are scary. John 8 vs.44 did not answer my question but insinuates by your use that you believe me to be of the devil. Your interpretations are vicious and vile towards anyone who harbors a thought that goes counter to what you have to say, let alone believe. Why such a heavy chip on your shoulder, girl? Your diatribes are cruel and thoughtless. And by so doing, you seem to have a propensity towards pleasing your own flesh without even realizing it.

God bless you and yours and I pray that his Grace showers you with contentment and love as you progress on your pilgimage through life.

I am still waiting for an answer to my question.

Margie| 10.15.10 @ 9:36PM

Brian,
The verse's address should have read Jn. 8:47, it is the verse that I spelled out, above, not 8:44. I sited the correct verse but typed the wrong number. Sorry about that.

Let me be clear: Jn. 8:47 is the verse I spelled out above, in order to show that Jesus Himself says that we need to be believing His words, and that verse is one of the ones that I really stand on. It helps me to be able to reject teachings that aren't Biblical.

As to Sola Scriptura, I can't say that I completely agree with it as I don't know that much about it. All I know is what I believe and try to stay Biblically based.

God bless.

Evanston2| 10.15.10 @ 8:54PM

Margie, As cute as you may think it is to accuse someone of being the devil's spawn (citing John 8:44) this really doesn't answer Brian Mc's question. Regarding Jesus' view, a nice place to start would be Matt 15 or Mark 7. In these texts, our Lord admonishes the Pharisees for using their tradition to override the commandments of God. You are indeed, free, to have all sorts of traditions. To call them "Christian" when these traditions are not from the Bible, however, is akin to me saying this is Brian's teaching when you have said no such thing. Or consider our Lord's encounter with Satan in the wilderness. He fought by quoting Scripture. You may argue that your traditions do not contradict God's commandments as the Pharisees did. Still, they often obscure God's word. In fact, many Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, and others who hold strongly to tradition have pews full of people who believe in salvation by baptism & Eucharist/communion, pray to Mary and "the Saints" as they would to our Lord, and practice faith like a game of hopscotch where it's not about internal love for God but external foot placement. Does your church teach its people to live by "every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD" (Deut 8:3, Matt 4:4) or delight in the law of the LORD and meditate on it night and day (Psalm 1:2)? You can always point to treatises that sit on bookshelves in Rome and elsewhere, but if in actual practice your tradition has "crowded out" knowledge of God's Word among His people, then you may be in a Matt 7:21-22 position. To rely on activities of your choosing instead of dependence on God's Word is lawlessness that shows no love for Him...if you know Him (and before that, He knows you) you will obey His commandments (Matt 7:24, John 14:15 & 15:10). In sum, the Bible clearly teaches Sola Scriptura. Venture further with care in establishing your own traditions (Deut 12:32, 2 Tim 4:3, Rev 22:18).

Evanston2| 10.15.10 @ 8:58PM

I may have failed to be clear: the comments immediately above are mostly directed to Brian Mc, although Margie may find that the Bible can answer for itself quite effectively if you take the time to look up chapter & verse.

Margie| 10.15.10 @ 9:58PM

Hi Evanston2,

I have argued from the Bible and perhaps I have not done a good job. (I also inadvertently typed the wrong addy above when I used Jn. 8:44~ it should have been 8:47 as you can see a few posts above, I actually typed out the entire verse but typed the wrong number). Please forgive the typo!

Now~ can we get back to some normalcy here? I do hope so.

I had written a good post to you and my browser crashed and now I have to re post. I've lost the desire to continue though... God bless.

I was going to say that I was looking online and found a really good website that explains what I was trying to say about the "Trinity." I still put it in quotes since it isn't mentioned in the Bible, even though you made quite an issue out of it. (Words that aren't in the Bible). Yes, I of course get what you mean about that, but where I'm coming from is the teaching.

Margie| 10.16.10 @ 2:40AM

Evanston2,
Ah well it turns out the post I thought I lost did come out and it's above...
10/15 @ 9:17

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 6:16PM

Tim* is posting as Madge again. As I've said before you can tell it is him because he cannot place his periods and commas right after his sentences. What a ridiculous existence this man has!

Madge| 10.15.10 @ 11:15AM

Margie yur know Christiin women Huw darr you critisize my grammaarr .

Tim*| 10.14.10 @ 6:45PM

Madge punked your stupid Ass again Paranoid Psychotic Crank Lady Margie .

This is my first post , since ya took my name in vain for the umpteenth time .

I got ya winding your ass and scratchin' your watch , lookin' under the bushes for me .

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 7:06PM

Don't think so, snake. I'm in God's Hands.

Tim*| 10.14.10 @ 7:18PM

That's because you're A Worldclass Stupid Ass Paranoid Psychotic Crank Lady ,who sees Tim behind every bush.

Madge is laughin' his or her Ass off at you and you're to stupid to get it.

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 7:25PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b5aW08ivHU

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 7:15PM

Name in vain? Heh, that's what budda8 said. And which name would that be? Madge, or budda8?

Tim*| 10.14.10 @ 7:24PM

Uh Oh !
Now , I'm supposed to be budda8 .
You're Complete Paranoid Head Case .

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 7:27PM

Nah, but you sure are having a good ol' time.

Tim*| 10.14.10 @ 7:36PM

Wrong Stupid Ass Paranoid Psychotic Crank Lady Margie .

Some man or lady is havin' a good ole tlme punkin' ya & you're too Stupid Ass to see it .

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 7:45PM

Meh.

Tim*| 10.14.10 @ 7:55PM

Schmuck .

Margie| 10.15.10 @ 12:37PM

"Surely there are mockers about me, and my eye dwells on their provocation." Job 17:2.

Tim*| 10.15.10 @ 8:02PM

And if your eye offend you, pluck it out, Schmuck .

Ken (Old Texican)| 10.14.10 @ 6:56PM

Margie...Bill

I have appreciated your conversation...a lot.

Heh...I spent six years at "Jerusalem on The Brazos" (Baylor University) at the feet of the finest Bible scholars in our world...except possibly
Georgetown or Notre Dame...

At the end of the day.....(years)..... we came to the conclusion that we couldn't understand.

So.....we are all consigned to trusting in Jesus Christ via the Holy Spirit, and try to do our best because Jesus would like that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 7:21PM

Thanks, Ken.

I'd say the Holy Spirit is the best Teacher, and as a matter of fact, that's what the Bible says.

"When the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak, and He will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take what is Mine and declare it to you." Jn. 16:13 & 14.

Glad you enjoyed the conversation. Great song too, thanks!

Margie| 10.15.10 @ 12:32PM

He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High, who abides in the shadow of the Almighty, will say to the LORD, "My refuge and my fortress; my God, in whom I trust." For He will deliver you from the snare of the fowler and from the deadly pestilence; He will cover you with His pinions, and under His wings you will find refuge; His faithfulness is a shield and buckler. You will not fear the terror of the night, nor the arrow that flies by day, nor the pestilence that stalks in darkness, nor the destruction that wastes at noonday. A thousand may fall at your side, ten thousand at your right hand; but it will not come near you. You will only look with your eyes and see the recompense of the wicked. Because you have made the LORD your refuge, the Most High your habitation, no evil shall befall you, no scourge come near your tent. For He will give His angels charge of you to guard you in all your ways." Ps.91:1-11.

Tim*| 10.15.10 @ 8:06PM

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
-Matthew 7:3-5

PlankBroad Margie Has Us " Board " .

RCV| 10.15.10 @ 11:41PM

Margie and Tim* -- Do you two realize how childish your little bickering is to the adults who want to have substantive discussions on these posts?

victor| 10.16.10 @ 12:53AM

How about Margie's posts, which make up most of the substantive discussion on this here thread as well as other threads.
You just like what she has to say because it disagrees with your "theology" and so you take a swipe at her here by lumping her in with our resident sociopath or psychopath as the case may be. (Paging Norman Bates, perhaps?)

And her only mistake is that she responds to him at all.

And what's so "substantive" about your posts, eh?
Seems you spend all of your time trying to NOT answer a question or trying to answer it from both sides.
Oh, I forgot, as a lawyer, you're trained to answer both sides of an argument and sound convincing with either side.
That then dilutes your whole point because no one really believes you anyway or takes you seriously.

Don't you have anything "substantive" to say to add to the conversation?
We adults would like to know.

RCV| 10.16.10 @ 11:33PM

I was not speaking of Margie's substantive posts of which there are many and which I enjoy reading. I was speaking only of the back-and-forth-name calling with Tim*. I fully realize that he is the instigator of the childishness -- he is genuinely a low-life person and I have often called him on his name-calling to Margie. But it just doesn't help to answer each of Tim's junior hi epithets with a similar response. Just sayin'. People can do what they want.

John II| 10.16.10 @ 11:26AM

Gosh. I just read through this entire thread, and I want to thank all of you for reminding me, if inadvertently, of the desperate need for Church authority among Christians. Ain't no two ways about it: my doubts are dispelled. You've all confirmed me in my papist ways, I reckon.

As to the posts of buddha8, a few stray thoughts. Your rather longwinded comments, Boodie, suggest that you don't really believe the Taoist wisdom you cite (he who speaks doesn't know, etc.)--unless your intent was to prep your readers with a sly wink to the effect that you truly know that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Professor of Comparative Religion, eh? Fascinating. Where I work, there's an entity called a "Religious Studies Department," which appears to be a specialized branch of anthropology. They are very much into comparative religion--and, in their hiring practices as well as their declamations, explicitly (at faculty meetings) hostile to theology, which they apparently know little to nothing about. They stand on their titles too, inhabiting one of the few departments in which the term "Professor" is prominently displayed on the name-plaques attached to their office doors. In this regard, they seem to be kindred spirits to those who inhabit the social sciences.

Anyhow, Boodie, I am reminded of Ronald Knox's passing comment (in "The Hidden Stream," published in 1953) to the effect that there has been no subtler attack on the Christian faith devised by its enemies over the preceding century than the attack made in the name of "comparative religion."

Well, it may have been subtle sixty years ago, when Knox made the remark in the context of discoursing on the utter uniqueness of Christ among the "world's great religions," but it's been wearing thin over the past few decades even as it's become firmly entrenched in "religious studies" departments of the trendier academies.

And so I have only this to say, Boodie: your insistence that exegesis is the only correct hermeneutics is itself nakedly isogesic.

And now back to "The Miracle of Our Lady of Fatima" (1952), another dastardly Cold War effort to elicit sneers from chic lefty film critics.

Margie| 10.16.10 @ 3:25PM

Well John II,

You could have joined in the conversation. Always easy to come in and say how bad we all were.

Yet the Bible is perfect, and that's what I try to go by, and all my attempts were for the sake of the Truth. If I have erred may God forgive me, I try my best.

God bless you kind sir.
Margie

John II| 10.16.10 @ 5:13PM

Well, God bless you too. But Marge--how could I have joined the conversation when I didn't even arrive until two days later? I can't possibly keep up with this stuff day by day. After all, I have my career to think of. More important, I have my wife to answer to.

Besides, there's no way I'm going to come between you and Tim* when he's busy denouncing your heresy and you're busy buttering his necktie. I might get killed, and how could I explain THAT to my grandkids?

Anyhow, I DO enjoy your passionate defense of Holy Writ. I can only say that I detect a distinctly Catholic tint to the passion, so that it won't surprise me at all if one day you return to the bosom of your nemesis, Holy Mother Church. If so, and in case I'm dead when it happens (I'm almost as old as your dad, and certainly old enough to be your dad), I shall say now that you will be in a much more authoritative position to take Tim* to task (check the ominous alliteration in that last phrase: almost as good as "Titania the Titmouse Toppled Ten Towers"), I say, to take Tim* to task for defending Holy Mother Church in such a characteristically Irish Catholic but nonetheless churlish manner. In short, and by way of fraternal correction, you'll be able to slap the shit out of the boy to set him straight in his mode of discourse.

And now back to "The Bells of St. Mary's" (1945), in which the libertine Bing Crosby teams up with the loose Ingrid Bergman to pay affectionate tribute to Holy Mother Church, with whom they were personally on the outs but professionally deferential. Boy, those were the good ol' days.

Margie| 10.16.10 @ 6:54PM

John II,

Here I was raking the leaves and pulling some more weeds when hubby comes out and tells me of your post, thus cheering me up & putting a smile on my face! I says, "Gotta love him, ya know he's a Professor, (do I have that right, or a teacher), and he's not a Liberal, he's a rare bird, indeed!"

And of course you have to answer to your wife, heh. And mind your career. :^) Or is it mind your wife and answer to your career. Anyhow~ thanks for your reply. I enjoyed it because unlike some Catholics you don't hate me with such frothy hatred (like Libby Reader used to say), but instead you can appreciate where I'm coming from.

And here's the rub. If I were ever astray from "Holy Mother Church" it'd be one thing, but I'm not. In fact I share the faith of Jesus Christ with the rest of the Body of Christ, which is the same faith that the earliest Apostolic Christians shared. Back then there was no Catholic Church, big "C". It was the universal (witch the word catholic, small "c" means) Christian church. Later, the Catholic church became a corrupt empire unto themselves and did not practice Biblical
teachings, but their own created unbiblical doctrines. You do know the history of the Papacy putting to death anyone who "dared" read or translate the Bible on their own, don't you? So, being that the Bible is the standard amongst genuine Christians and not the Catholic doctrines, my stand is the correct one and therefore it is not me that rejects Christianity and needs to return to the christian church and the faith of Jesus Christ, but those who deny the Bible over Catholic doctrine.

The same fierce hatred toward Bible believing Christians is alive and well amongst those who do not adhere to the Bible as it was during the days of the bloody murderous Papacy.

And now back to Father Knows Best. where Father really does know best. God the Father, that is, and Jesus Christ His one and only begotten Son.

John II| 10.16.10 @ 11:10PM

Hi Marge. As to the first part of your response, I have a brief story. One day many years ago, a student looking for some information poked his head into my office and asked, "Are you a professor?"

To which I responded with a certain sharp dryness: "Actually--no. I'm a teacher: I WORK for a living!"

The student was somewhat taken aback by my belligerent wit, and even seemed a bit crestfallen as I was answering his question.

At that moment, it dawned on me that, whatever I may feel about the idiocy of academic titles and the idiots who cling to them, it makes the STUDENTS feel important to be able to address their teachers by such titles. So I cashed in that little witticism for good, and I am consequently forced to answer you thus: yes, I'm a professor.

More to the point, however, and to borrow the rueful witticism of that great Catholic comic Lou Costello: "I'm a baaaaaaad boy."

So that, as to the second part of your response, when you do indeed return to the bosom of Holy Mother Church after a deeper inspection of the history of Christianity and the development of Catholic Christian doctrine (i.e., not a change of doctrine but a fuller understanding of its meaning--that's what "development" means in this context: cf. the writings of the Blessed John Henry Newman), please offer a novena for the repose of my soul. For I shall most probably be residing in Purgatory then, and I'm a good enough Catholic to know that I'm a baaaaaad boy.

Margie| 10.17.10 @ 12:29AM

Greetings John II,

I remember that story now that you mention it, you did tell us that before. I always like your posts, and get a kick out of hoe you always end them with a movie that "applies". I've always loved old movies ever since I was a teenager and used to stay up so late at night till the regular stations would sign off watching them. I used to down so much potato chips & Pepsi it's amazing I'm still living. Thank goodness a few years after that I got saved and went cold turkey to smoking, drinking and horrible eating habits.

You see, when Christ dwells inside of your heart rather than just viewing Him as a Religion with rules and regulations to be followed, He empowers you to to overcome the slavery to Sin. (Jn. 15:5).

That's the difference between true worship (God is Spirit and those who worship Him must worship in Spirit and Truth). Jn. 4:24, and Religion.

Religion is man's way to God. Jesus is THE Way to God. (Jn. 14:6). Unless we're regenerated from above (Jn. 3:3) we're only able to pay lip service rather than come into an actual relationship with Him.

We're all baaaad boys n' girls. Who really wants to stop sinning? The flesh is hostile to God.

"For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's Law, indeed it cannot; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to Him." Rom. 8:7-9.

How do we receive His Spirit? By asking:

"What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will instead of a fish give him a serpent; or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!" Lk. 11:13.

That's what the Bible teaches, it's what Jesus says. If we ask Him, He will give us His Spirit! No Religion required. A simple asking. THAT is His way.

There's no such thing as Purgatory. It isn't in the Bible. But Jesus' easy Way saves. He saves us, not Religion, and not man. So, when you are dead it will be too late for me to pray for you. Pray to Him, and ask Him for His Spirit to enter into your heart, and He will do it! He promises. I did over 30 years ago and He's never failed me yet. I've failed Him, but He never fails us!

God bless you.
p.s. In that horrible thread a few days back a stupid troll tried to say that I was calling you a nazi or whatever it was in my post, and I was not. I wrote to you but you didn't respond. Please know that I would NEVER say or think that about you, and never EVER have!

John II| 10.17.10 @ 4:21PM

You mean . . . I already told the story about the student and the title? Oh. Sorry.

Great. Here I am, delaying my retirement by half a decade so my youngest kids can finish college without being swamped by debt, and I'm already showing early signs of dementia: a garrulous old bastard telling the same stories over and over again.

Which reminds me of another story, but stop me if you've already heard this one too. One of my brothers-in-law, now retired, was a cop through most of his working life--first with the state police and eventually the chief of police in a small town here in the heart of the American wilderness.

We used to exchange war stories at Christmas dinners and the like--teacher work being similar in many ways to law enforcement, apparently. He once told me that, among the intermittent hazards of police work (and he always qualified such talk by saying that firefighting was a much more hazardous occupation: you can check with your dad about the plausibility of all this, Marge), the absolute WORST duty was responding to a "domestic disturbance."

I recall his saying, rather floridly, "Yeah--give me a night-time gang rumble, give me a high-speed car chase, give me a 911 for an armed robbery in progress--but please, oh please, DON'T give me a domestic disturbance!"

And so I'm back to my original point, Marge. Your dispute with Holy Mother Church is basically a domestic disturbance, and I'm outa here for that one. I can't think of anything more dangerous (for me) than a toe-to-toe confrontation between a mother and her daughter, positively the most ferocious of all domestic disturbances. I ain't goin' there. I'm a man of peace. More to the point, I'm a coward.

(Funny thing, though: After one of his rants, my sister would roll her eyes and tell us that my brother-in-law was particularly good at cooling down domestic disturbances, but that's another story--which I've probably already told too.)

Purgatory. Yeah--well, the tradition for that doctrine goes back deep into Church history-- long, long before the counter-tradition started (in the 16th century) of denying the doctrine. There IS a Biblical warrant for the teaching, but it's in the Second Book of Maccabbees (12:39-46), but most non-Catholic Christians subscribe to the tradition (notice how I'm smuggling that word in at every opportunity, Marge--you traditionalist, you!) of rejecting both books of Maccabbees as apocryphal.

Yet prayers for the dead do indeed stretch all the way back to the earliest days of the emerging Church, and the Church's tradition (whoa--there's that word again: it means a "handing down" from one generation to the next) on this topic is rooted in portions of Scripture which ARE accepted by the non-Catholic TRADITION (ahem) started almost 500 years ago with the Reform: e.g., 1 Cor. 3:15 and 1 Pet. 3:7.

As to the Popes, I could tell you another story, but I'm getting really nervous about doing so in my early stage of becoming addled. Suffice it that one thing which eventually brought yours truly inexorably into the bosom of Holy Mother Church was my bedazzlement over the actual record of the Papacy in the history of the Church. Out of some 265 popes since St. Peter (to whom Jesus gave the "keys of the kingdom": Matt. 16:13-20), only about eight have been sure-enough stinkers--and all those are clustered between the late ninth century and the early 16th, when the Church (surprise, surprise!) happened to be exercising considerable temporal power.

Eight out of 265, for crying out loud! That's impossible this side of the Final Passover! I mean, we all know the expression "Is the glass half full or half empty?" But who the hell ever heard of an expression like "Is the glass 99.9% full or 0.1% empty?" One doesn't measure human pessimism or optimism in such terms--and no merely human institution could ever possibly have acquired such a record of continuously honorable leadership, not in THIS world!

So I couldn't help taking the whole crazy improbability as an intimation of a certain other-worldly character in Holy Mother Church: "And lo," saith the Lord, "I am with you always, to the close of the age." (Matt. 28:20)

No need to fret over the popes, Marge. Plus, the current one and his immediate predecessor are among the greatest in the history of the Church, so I reckon these are important times.

And now back to "Keys of the Kingdom" (1944), with a youthful Gregory Peck in one of his more fetching roles.

RCV| 10.17.10 @ 7:22PM

I remember that fine film - with Roddy McDowell playing Gregory Beck's character as a boy. Good choice!

RCV| 10.17.10 @ 7:23PM

whoops.....Glen on the brain. Mr. Peck would be appalled.

Margie| 10.17.10 @ 10:15PM

Greetings John II,

I always enjoy your posts. Yes, I do know how the police feel about domestic disturbances, and I did learn that from my Dad. Thing is they hated them but they did their duty anyway, risking their lives. That's what Christians do, too.

As to the book of Macabees et al, the books that the catholic church added to the Bible, that's against God. Read Revelation where it warns what will happen to persons doing that, and it isn't good. And that's putting it lightly.

Read about it here:

http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm

I don't know why links aren't coming out as hyperlinks these days so you may have to cut & paste it. But John II:

"Besides this you know what hour it is, how it is full time now for you to wake from sleep. For Salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed; the night is far gone, the Day is at hand. Let us then cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of Light.." Rom. 13:11 & 12.

The traditions of men are not to be followed unless they are in agreement with the rest of the Bible, which are God's words inspired by the Holy Spirit. All of those teachings you mention are not Biblical.

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."

The books of the Apocrypha were neither taught by the Apostles nor were they written by them. They themselves, as evidenced by their own words never taught the demonic doctrines that the Catholic church now teaches, and has taught for centuries.
Take heed!

And now back to "House Hunters" where the houses are indeed built by human hands and where those who dwell therein are in dire need to hear the true gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, and not a different one than was originally preached. (2 Cor. 11:4).

Margie| 10.17.10 @ 10:22PM

Above verse left without it's address is: 2 Thess. 2:15.

Christian Louboutin | 6.23.11 @ 5:35AM

As much as I hate to gainsay Lord Russell, I suspect few of the world's intractable problems can be alleviated by greater humility and circumspection -- but I take his point. The answers to so many larger problems seem neither black nor white, but myriad shades of gray. And the grayer I get, the grayer the answers appear to be.

Adult toys | 7.4.11 @ 3:41AM

three drunk friends made a bet whoever can make their wives scream the longest during sex win 1000.next day when they met.
　　first guy:I made love to my wife 2.5hours and she screaming for 1.5hours;
　　second guy:I licked my wife for 2hours and she was screaming whole time and even 1/2hour after I was done;
　　third guy:that’s nothing,I made love to my wife 10mins and I came twice,wipe my dick on the curtain and my wife still screming at me up to now!

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|146 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|79 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|64 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|23 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|13 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|13 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|30 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|23 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Issa Recovers

Ross Kaminsky | 9:33PM

The Religion of Peace Strikes London Again

Aaron Goldstein | 9:12PM

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5:10PM

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5:07PM

U.S. Admits 4 Americans Killed by Drones

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 4:35PM

Colorado Governor Gives “Reprieve” to Murderer

Ross Kaminsky | 4:24PM

Steven Crowder: Jesus vs. Muhammad

Ross Kaminsky | 3:58PM

Kaminsky’s Corollary to I, Pencil

Ross Kaminsky | 3:22PM

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

The American Spectator

Another Perspective

Gray Matters

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (151) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Brian Mc| 10.14.10 @ 7:22AM

Curly Smith| 10.14.10 @ 8:04AM

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 11:51AM

buddha8| 10.14.10 @ 12:30PM

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 1:08PM

Eric Cartman| 10.14.10 @ 1:25PM

buddha8| 10.14.10 @ 2:45PM

Madge| 10.14.10 @ 5:11PM

victor| 10.14.10 @ 3:06PM

Quartermaster| 10.14.10 @ 6:21PM

Alan Brooks| 10.14.10 @ 9:01PM

Reflector| 10.15.10 @ 11:45AM

The Big E| 10.14.10 @ 8:54AM

Bill| 10.14.10 @ 9:12AM

Alan Brooks| 10.15.10 @ 1:39AM

PJ| 10.14.10 @ 9:30AM

GW| 10.14.10 @ 5:43PM

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 12:26PM

buddha8| 10.14.10 @ 12:37PM

Vern Crsler| 10.14.10 @ 1:09PM

buddh8| 10.14.10 @ 1:27PM

A. Murray Kahn| 10.14.10 @ 1:46PM

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 2:08PM

buddha8| 10.14.10 @ 3:03PM

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 3:12PM

JKS| 10.14.10 @ 4:43PM

Evanston2| 10.14.10 @ 3:08PM

Madge| 10.14.10 @ 5:15PM

Quartermaster| 10.14.10 @ 6:32PM

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 1:11PM

buddha8| 10.14.10 @ 1:32PM

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 2:20PM

buddha8| 10.14.10 @ 2:53PM

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 3:52PM

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 2:43PM

Evanston2| 10.14.10 @ 3:11PM

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 3:56PM

Ken (Old Texican)| 10.14.10 @ 1:18PM

buddha8| 10.14.10 @ 1:39PM

Madge| 10.14.10 @ 5:19PM

Quartermaster| 10.14.10 @ 6:38PM

Anselm| 10.14.10 @ 12:58PM

Vern Crisler| 10.14.10 @ 1:14PM

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 1:16PM

Bill| 10.14.10 @ 2:01PM

Patrick| 10.14.10 @ 2:32PM

Patrick| 10.14.10 @ 3:14PM

buddha 8| 10.14.10 @ 1:19PM

Patrick| 10.14.10 @ 3:55PM

A. Murray Kahn| 10.14.10 @ 2:02PM

Bill| 10.14.10 @ 2:10PM

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 2:32PM

Vern Crisler| 10.14.10 @ 3:24PM

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 3:45PM

Bill| 10.14.10 @ 4:20PM

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 4:37PM

Bill| 10.14.10 @ 5:01PM

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 5:06PM

Bill| 10.14.10 @ 5:20PM

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 5:42PM

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 5:44PM

Madge| 10.14.10 @ 5:31PM

Madge| 10.14.10 @ 5:33PM

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 6:18PM

Quartermaster| 10.14.10 @ 6:44PM

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 7:49PM

Margie| 10.15.10 @ 12:35PM

Evanston2| 10.14.10 @ 3:55PM

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 4:03PM

Evanston2| 10.14.10 @ 7:14PM

Margie| 10.14.10 @ 8:14PM

Evanston2| 10.15.10 @ 7:35PM

Margie| 10.15.10 @ 9:17PM

Evanston2| 10.16.10 @ 7:12PM

Margie| 10.17.10 @ 1:28AM