Since his elevation to the head of the Catholic faith, I have become a fan of Pope Francis — a pontiff who has become truly revolutionary in his faith and his lifestyle. As someone raised in the Catholic Church, I have never seen his equal. He has washed the feet of a Muslim female prisoner, declined the pomp and formality of past popes, and remained a humble priest in his lifestyle. Now, Pope Francis has written a long letter to a non-Catholic saying that he believes that even atheists can go to heaven and that God cares more about your heart than your profession of religion. At one time, such views would have gotten you burned at the stake. Even today, conservatives in the Catholic Church, like those associated with Opus Dei, are grumbling about this new Pope. Mark recently discussed the same view of the Pope on non-believers and now there is a report of a possible consideration of dropping celibacy for priests.
What is interesting is to see the continued effort to make Pope John Paul a saint when Pope Francis may be the most truly revolutionary man to ever hold that religious office. In his letter to the founder of La Repubblica newspaper, Eugenio Scalfari, Francis stated that non-believers would be forgiven by God if they followed their consciences. He said “You ask me if the God of the Christians forgives those who don’t believe and who don’t seek the faith. I start by saying – and this is the fundamental thing – that God’s mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and contrite heart. The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience. . . . Sin, even for those who have no faith, exists when people disobey their conscience.”
It is a remarkably tolerant and enlightened view of faith at a time of extreme orthodoxy and religious intolerance. It is all the more remarkable given the increasingly antagonistic language directed against non-believers. There is obviously a rising concern among political and religious leaders that faith is declining in society. Thus, even though the non-religious is now a majority in places like England, politicians are ratcheting up such rhetoric. The Pope’s words are in stark contrast to those of people like Tony Blair with his comparisons of atheists and agnostics to terrorists.
The Pope’s reforms also now include the possibility of allowing priests to marry — a major change in religious doctrine. Italian Archbishop Pietro Parolin, the Vatican’s second-in-command, told Venezuela’s El Universal newspaper that celibacy is not dogma. As such, it is not unchanging divine law. Many have argued for years that marriage could bring a broader array of people to the priesthood and reduce the sexual scandals that have plagued the church.
I have been thinking about the procreation issue. The state would have first amendment and privacy problems if they started making revelation of motives a requirement for getting married. Lots of people get married who have no interest in having kids, are infertile, or are simply too old. Fertility as a requirement for marriage is a non-starter.
The real reason people get married is companionship, and with it comes shared financial rights and responsibilities. I think freedom of association is in there somewhere as well. Marriage is not an agreement to have children.
OS – I agree with what you say about privacy issues, but your failure to recognize the traditional purpose of marriage is a bit short-sighted in my opinion. Do some people marry for simple companionship without the purpose of creating children and a family? Sure. But the purpose of reproduction is still paramount to many individuals, and marriage is a vehicle for procreation that builds the fabric of society. Some of the most ancient laws made infertility a legal reason for polygamy or divorce. Furthermore, there is legal cause for dissolving a marriage if one of the parties refuses to have children if the purpose for entering into the marriage was to have children and raise a family. Representing the desire for a family prior to marriage, then using means to block fertility at the objection of one of the spouses would be fraudulent. The woman has an obligation to her husband to bear children in marriage. Your simple contract perspective of marriage makes such rights superfluous, and this is another reason why gay marriage is bad for heterosexual marriage. As I have said many times, it completely changes the definition and expectations of marriage, expectations that until our generation have never had to be spelled out in written form. In the end, both the woman and the man lose rights, duties and obligations when we embrace gay marriage.
Randy,
I’ve previously cited copious cases to back that contention. However, you assume laws against incest are primarily about procreation. They are not. They are a moral prohibition and I think most jurisdictions prohibitions against incest wouldn’t pass a strict scrutiny analysis if challenged. Where those laws when properly focused concentrate on emotional control (a type of imbalance in power) and valid consent (which includes the age of the parties). As for age of consent, that also goes to contractual capacity, not ability to procreate.
“It is not discrimination for the state to define the legal contract of marriage, within the bounds of man/woman unions any more than it is discrimination to deny another marriage license to a person who is already married.”
Yes, it is discrimination because it flies in the face of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection and Happiness Clauses. The Supremacy Clause by extension means that the Constitutionally impermissible discrimination trumps any state interest in defining contracts within their borders (although this is a battle soon to be fought in the guise of Full Faith & Credit which is an inevitable consequence of the patchwork of court cases dealing with homosexual marriage in lieu of a Federal statute).
Denial of a marriage license to one who is already married is 1) endorsing the criminal act of bigamy which has been a crime at common law since before we were a nation and 2) a prohibition on an improper contracting practice, namely contracting to multiple parties for the same item(s) of value which is counter to the explicit exclusive nature of the contract as defined at law. You can’t sell the same horse twice. That’s fraud.
Sorry. Still wrong, Randy.
OS In response to your post about end of life situations. That is why I am very much in favor of civil unions to take care of such legal problems,which from what I can understand can be dealt with by a simple power of attorney.
As for Gene. H I have read the Mass Supreme court ruling mandating gay marriage, and they DID use procreation as a reason to uphold prohibitions against close relatives being married. They aslo upheld the RIGHT of the government to take away ones life by legislation as in the military draft. They observed that your right to life takes a back seat to the needs of the government. While I can appreciate your guess as to how those laws will fare given a test case, all you have is speculation instead of facts or case law.
I would agree with you on the illegitimate discrimination under the 14th Amendment if the state had a law mandating that only proven heterosexuals could get a marriage license. Then that would be illegal discrimination since it would deny gays the same rights as all other citizens to enter opposite sex unions, and that the state MUST have a rational basis for denying gays the right that all others have. Using Loving, the SCOTUS ruled that ONLY one man/one woman marriages are a right. To say otherwise is simply a fraud since gay marriage had not even been thought of at the time. You cannot simply change the meaning of words to suit your preferences to make a case. If that were true, then polygamous marriages would be considered to be encompassed by Loving as well. Polygamy has an actual history of being legal in a part of the US, and the term marriage can thus be construed to include that as marriage as well using the Loving decision. What proponents of gay marriage are doing is distorting the Loving ruling into something that Warren and the rest would never have sanctioned. As you point out, the states now define marriage as only extending to two partners, exclusively, and that the law prohibits more than one partner. That is also unfair discrimination by denying Mormons, Muslims, and others their rights to practice the norms of their religions. Those people are certainly just as deserving of their rights in marriage as gays. My difference with you is that I don’t think that there is much valid reason to establish gay marriage by judicial fiat. If the legislature does as New York did and pass a law to allow this, I have NO problem with that, other than to say, I think it is not terribly important to society one way or the other. I think the same way about polygamy. If the legislature in Utah, Nevada, and Arizona wish to allow that, so what? It will not affect me or my rights, nor will it mean the end of my marriage, unless I wish to avail myself of such a law. Then I will be reverted back to one woman whether or not I like it.
Randyjet wrote: “I would agree with you on the illegitimate discrimination under the 14th Amendment if the state had a law mandating that only proven heterosexuals could get a marriage license. Then that would be illegal discrimination since it would deny gays the same rights as all other citizens to enter opposite sex unions, and that the state MUST have a rational basis for denying gays the right that all others have.”
Very well stated.
Randyjet wrote: “You cannot simply change the meaning of words to suit your preferences to make a case.”
Another excellent point. Gene constantly violates this principle and then does not understand why others do not agree with him.
Randyjet wrote: ” What proponents of gay marriage are doing is distorting the Loving ruling into something that Warren and the rest would never have sanctioned. ”
Another excellent point.
The homosexual rhetoric has consistently changed the meaning of words to advance their agenda. Gay no longer means what it use to mean. Straight no longer means what it use to mean. Marriage is the next target, to make it mean something completely different and thereby hijack laws written years ago when nobody even imagined a concept like gay marriage.
David,
Doesn’t love his neighbor as himself…. Or maybe he does…. And that’s why he is a Pharisees ……
“My perspective about same sex unions being treated differently than opposite sex unions is based in logical analysis of facts. It is NOT based upon some religious creed or religious doctrine which a religion requires me to embrace.”
Except for insisting on using a religious definition of marriage instead of the legal/contractual definition of marriage.
Which is obvious to anyone who has read what you’ve written.
Procreation is not a valid state interest in marriage as a legal fact, no matter your wishful thinking and cherry picking.
“I know that Matt is a false teacher because he claims to follow Christ yet he contradicts the teachings of Christ. Matt condemns those who believe in keeping the commandments of Christ. That makes him a false teacher.”
Does that include Matthew 22:35-40? “Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
Because denying your neighbor equal rights and equal protection under the law doesn’t seem particularly loving, David.
Procreation is not a valid state interest in marriage as a legal fact, no matter your wishful thinking and cherry picking.
Gene That is simply not the case as a legal fact. The laws against marrying a close relative are valid according to all the court rulings, as are legal ages of consent laws. While procreation may not be the sole reason for marriage, the state has a valid interest in making sure that genetically good offspring are the result of a legal contract for marriage. Likewise the ability of a woman/child to successfully bear and rear children are the basis for age of consent laws, among other considerations.
While I do not see any advantage to the state in granting same sex marriage, it is without question the right of the state through the legislature to define marriage as they please. I will be in favor a same sex marriage when gay sex results in children being conceived. One cannot base the sole reason for opposite sex marriage on the basis of procreation alone since not all heterosexual marriages will produce children. But it is true that the chances of that occurring is confined to that class of marriage alone. Requiring an opposite sex couple to prove their ability to have children would be discrimination if that were to be the basis of the legal marriage contract. It is discrimination if a gay man/woman had to prove through a straight test to get a marriage license to marry a person of the opposite sex. It is not discrimination for the state to define the legal contract of marriage, within the bounds of man/woman unions any more than it is discrimination to deny another marriage license to a person who is already married.
Gene H wrote: “Except for insisting on using a religious definition of marriage instead of the legal/contractual definition of marriage.”
You have provided NO LEGAL basis for defining marriage as a simple legal contract. In contrast, I have provided a plethora of court cases that make it clear what common sense already makes clear, that marriage is MORE THAN A CIVIL CONTRACT.
I have NEVER used a religious definition of marriage. Never once have I quoted a religious creed or document, nor have I argued from the Bible or other religious texts. My primary source has been Maynard v. Hill and other court cases for an understanding of marriage.
e.g.
“Marriage is something more than a mere contract, though founded upon the agreement of the parties. When once formed, a relation is created between the parties which they cannot change, and the rights and obligations of which depend not upon their agreement, but upon the law, statutory or common. It is an institution of society, regulated and controlled by public authority. Legislation, therefore, affecting this institution and annulling the relation between the parties is not within the prohibition of the Constitution of the United States against the impairment of contracts by state legislation.”
“Nor is such legislation prohibited by the last clause of Article 2 of the Ordinance of the Northwest territory, declaring that “No law ought ever to be made or have force in said territory that shall in any manner whatever interfere with or affect private contracts or engagements bona fide and without fraud, previously formed,” which clause was, by the organic act of Oregon, enacted and made applicable to the inhabitants of that territory.”
“The consent of the parties is, of course, essential to its existence, but when the contract to marry is executed by the marriage, a relation between the parties is created which they cannot change. Other contracts may be modified, restricted, or enlarged, or entirely released upon the consent of the parties. Not so with marriage. The relation once formed, the law steps in and holds the parties to various obligations and liabilities. It is an institution in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
Adams v. Palmer:
“When the contracting parties have entered into the married state, they have not so much entered into a contract as into a new relation, the rights, duties, and obligations of which rest not upon their agreement, but upon the general law of the state, statutory or common, which defines and prescribes those rights, duties, and obligations. They are of law, not of contract. It was a contract that the relation should be established, but, being established, the power of the parties as to its extent or duration is at an end. Their rights under it are determined by the will of the sovereign, as evidenced by law. They can neither be modified nor changed by any agreement of parties. It is a relation for life, and the parties cannot terminate it at any shorter period by virtue of any contract they may make. The reciprocal rights arising from this relation, so long as it continues, are such as the law determines from time to time, and none other… It is not, then, a contract within the meaning of the clause of the Constitution which prohibits the impairing the obligation of contracts. It is rather a social relation like that of parent and child, the obligations of which arise not from the consent of concurring minds, but are the creation of the law itself, a relation the most important, as affecting the happiness of individuals, the first step from barbarism to incipient civilization, the purest tie of social life, and the true basis of human progress.”
“… the Chief Justice cites in support of this view of the case of Maguire v. Maguire, 7 Dana, 181, 183, and Ditson v. Ditson, 4 R.I. 87, 101. In the first of these, the Supreme Court of Kentucky said that marriage was more than a contract; that it was the most elementary and useful of all the social relations, was regulated and controlled by the sovereign power of the state, and could not, like mere contracts, be dissolved by the mutual consent of the contracting parties, but might be abrogated by the sovereign will whenever the public good, or justice to both parties, or either of the parties, would thereby be subserved; that being more than a contract, and depending especially upon the sovereign will, it was not embraced by the constitutional inhibition of legislative acts impairing the obligation of contracts. In the second case, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island said that “marriage, in the sense in which it is dealt with by a decree of divorce, is not a contract, but one of the domestic relations. In strictness, though formed by contract, it signifies the relation of husband and wife, deriving both its rights and duties from a source higher than any contract of which the parties are capable, and, as to these, uncontrollable by any contract which they can make. When formed, this relation is no more a contract than ‘fatherhood’ or ‘sonship’ is a contract.”
Wade v. Kalbfleisch, 58 N.Y. 282,
“”The general statute, that marriage, so far as its validity in law is concerned, shall continue in this state a civil contract, to which the consent of parties, capable in law of contracting, shall be essential, is not decisive of the question. This statute declares it a civil contract, as distinguished from a religious sacrament, and makes the element of consent necessary to its legal validity, but its nature, attributes, and distinguishing features it does not interfere with or attempt to define. It is declared a civil contract for certain purposes, but it is not thereby made synonymous with the word ‘contract’ employed in the common law or statutes. In this state and at common law, it may be entered into by persons respectively of fourteen and twelve. It cannot be dissolved by the parties when consummated, nor released with or without consideration. The relation is always regulated by government. It is more than a contract. It requires certain acts of the parties to constitute marriage independent of and beyond the contract. It partakes more of the character of an institution regulated and controlled by public authority, upon principles of public policy, for the benefit of the community.”
Noel v. Ewing, 9 Ind. 37
“Some confusion has arisen from confounding the contract to marry with the marriage relation itself. And still more is engendered by regarding husband and wife as strictly parties to a subsisting contract. At common law, marriage as a status had few elements of contract about it. For instance, no other contract merged the legal existence of the parties into one. Other distinctive elements will readily suggest themselves which rob it of most of its characteristics as a contract and leave it simply as a status or institution. As such, it is not so much the result of private agreement as of public ordination. In every enlightened government it is preeminently the basis of civil institutions, and thus an object of the deepest public concern. In this light, marriage is more than a contract. It is not a mere matter of pecuniary consideration. It is a great public institution, giving character to our whole civil polity.”
Gene H wrote: “Procreation is not a valid state interest in marriage as a legal fact…”
Procreation is a fundamental civil right, and it is this reason that the State must stay clear of regulating it. However, marriage is clearly a vehicle for procreation, and as such, the State has indeed regulated marriage with concern for how it affects procreation. Many States have laws that require sexual consummation to complete marriage, and issue annulments instead of divorce for marriages that have not been consummated. Such States include Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Ohio, South Carolina, Vermont and Wisconsin.”
Gene H wrote: “Because denying your neighbor equal rights and equal protection under the law doesn’t seem particularly loving, David.”
Which is why I have always stood up for equal rights and equal protection for every human being, and why I am not deceived by your rhetoric that gay marriage is an equal rights issue. They have every right to enter into the same kind of marriage relationship as anyone else, the natural marriage relationship between a man and a woman. We all also have the right to enter into civil partnerships in those states that recognize them, whether male or female. This is true equality, and not your goofed up nonsensical idea that cheapens marriage into being some kind of simple civil contract.
David,
You owe everyone on this blog an apology for speaking against gay marriage by stating it has nothing to do with your (now) “Christian” beliefs (or did you describe it as ‘theism’ earlier on), when in fact it has everything to do with it.
David said: “My studies have led me to believe in Christ, but I do not follow any of the various Christian religions because they are filled with hypocrites who do not actually believe the words of Christ or adhere to his teachings. They squabble over various minutia in Scripture and forsake the greater issues of Justice and Truth.”
You are practicing the exact same ‘dogma’ by accusing Matt Slick of being a false prophet (or was it a Protestant or both). If you are a Christian, then you would not judge someone you don’t know (especially, if he knows more about the Gospels than you or what you think you know). Instead why not contact Matt and discuss your differences with him. He will be delighted to speak to you, and he has a blog.
Hank is also a Christian Apologetic, and I have had a few discussions with him. Nevertheless, let’s look at Hank’s view of Catholicism:
“While Protestants continue to disagree over the issue, CRI firmly maintains that Roman Catholicism is a religious system which includes both orthodox biblical Christianity and elements of unbiblical or “cultic” doctrine and practice. In other words, we recognize that Roman Catholicism historically has affirmed the essential teachings of the Bible, while also teaching doctrines which are inconsistent with that affirmation and which seriously compromise the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.”
Hank furthers states that Catholicism is a ‘heretic’ religion.
Now, If I am a Catholic, I am not happy with Hank’s comment. I would be enraged because he (Hank) states that my ‘Catholic religion compromises the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.’
But it is good to know that you have found Christ. Now, it is time for you to ‘practice what you preach.’
RWL wrote: “You owe everyone on this blog an apology for speaking against gay marriage by stating it has nothing to do with your (now) “Christian” beliefs (or did you describe it as ‘theism’ earlier on), when in fact it has everything to do with it.:
My perspective about same sex unions being treated differently than opposite sex unions is based in logical analysis of facts. It is NOT based upon some religious creed or religious doctrine which a religion requires me to embrace. I have joined no religion. I have not quoted the Bible or other sources of religious authority in this forum to argue for how the law should treat same sex unions. Instead I reference legal cases and empirical observations of fact. I have always admitted to a theistic bias because when a person embraces theism as being true, it will guide his understanding of the universe and society in a way that differs from an atheistic bias. Theism leads one to perceive purpose and order to the natural laws that exist. I do not apologize for this bias like your wimpy form of Christianity would have me do. I simply acknowledge it.
There exists a lot of bigotry against religion in this forum. Your attempt to label me a Christian or my viewpoint as a “Christian belief” serves to stir up prejudice against anything I would say. I fail to see how that is helpful to meaningful dialogue based upon rational thinking.
RWL wrote: “You are practicing the exact same ‘dogma’ by accusing Matt Slick of being a false prophet (or was it a Protestant or both).”
You have a lot of trouble reading. Perhaps you should take time to go back and read it again rather than guessing poorly about what I said. I said he was a false teacher.
RWL wrote: “If you are a Christian, then you would not judge someone you don’t know (especially, if he knows more about the Gospels than you or what you think you know).”
I told you, I am NOT a Christian. Even if I was, I know enough about the Bible to know that Jesus taught us how to know false prophets and false teachers. He would not do that if he did not want us to judge who the false teachers were. I know that Matt is a false teacher because he claims to follow Christ yet he contradicts the teachings of Christ. Matt condemns those who believe in keeping the commandments of Christ. That makes him a false teacher.
RWL wrote: “Instead why not contact Matt and discuss your differences with him. He will be delighted to speak to you, and he has a blog.”
Point me to his blog, and maybe I will make time to debate him there. I suspect that as I expose him for the false teacher that he is, I will be kicked off his blog within the first month. False teachers like him have too much invested in their empire to allow someone like me to share my mind. He will crucify me the same way his kind crucified Jesus.
David,
You keep digging yourself in a hole everytime you speak.
David said: “I have always admitted to a theistic bias because when a person embraces theism as being true, it will guide his understanding of the universe and society in a way that differs from an atheistic bias. Theism leads one to perceive purpose and order to the natural laws that exist.”
Did you know that there are different types, terms, or categories and subcategories of theism? Which one do you follow?
Since you said that you believe in Christ and the Bible, how does this work with your affection for Theism (or the type of theism that you adhere to)? If you are familiar with the Bible, certain types of theistical beliefs-such as Open Theism-doesn’t fall in line with the teachings of Christ and the Bible, according to Hank and Matt Slick.
David said: “I do not apologize for this bias like your wimpy form of Christianity would have me do.”
David, you don’t even know or understand your own ‘form of Christianity’.
You have Matt Slick’s & Hank’s website in the link above.
I forgot to add: Then, David uses a Catholic Website to make the claim that Protestants are not Christians….LOL…
Why not use a unbiased, Christian source? Here is another Christian Apologetic expert:
http://www.equip.org/
Or are you going to call this person, Hank, a Protestant, too?
RWL – Hank does not agree with your position that Roman Catholics are not Christians. Why are you referencing him in this context?
David,
Your logic is bordering on the line of insanity.
David’s logic: I am not a fan of or follow NASCAR, but I think Dannica Patrick is a better race car driver than Tony Stewart. All you have to do is look at the tape, when the 2 of them were track at the same time, and you will see.
David is not a Christian, but he reads, not study, and misquote scriptures from the Bible.
David is not a Christian, but knows that Matt Slick is a false prophet. No wait, he is a Protestant, according to David.
David is not a Christian, but he knows the Bible and Roman Catholicism better than Matt SLick, who has a Masters Degree in Divinity.
David is not a Christian, but he knows that Protestants are not Christians, but Roman Catholics are.
Finally, David makes the statement of that you don’t have to be a Christian, in order to understand Christianity.
Why would you care either way? Why misqoute scriptues from the Bible-Christians’ compass to navigate the waves of life-if you are not a Christian. Why would read, and not study the Bible, and then misinterpret its’ meaning against someone who has a greater understanding of it than you? Why would anyone seek to understand Christianity and not become a Christian? You can’t read, and not study, the Bible, the same way as you would if you’re reading one of Scott Turow’s novels, and then misqoute scriptures from it?!?!?
However, I must remember: this is coming from the same person who believes that an alternative to being homeless is to become a slave.
RWL – You either are having a lot of trouble understanding me or you enjoy sitting in the seat of the scornful.
Protestants are Christians too. As you claimed Roman Catholics were not Christians, I simply pointed out a Roman Catholic who claimed Protestants are not Christians. The fighting among you and them is interesting, because before the different Christian religions actually came into existence, the name Christian was an epithet meant to denigrate those Jews who believed in Christ and followed his teachings. Now people like you and this Roman Catholic fight over who gets the honor of being called Christian. It really is quite bizarre.
My studies have led me to believe in Christ, but I do not follow any of the various Christian religions because they are filled with hypocrites who do not actually believe the words of Christ or adhere to his teachings. They squabble over various minutia in Scripture and forsake the greater issues of Justice and Truth. They forsake the poor while they build empires in the name of God. Ultimately they become the enemy of God just as the scholars and lawyers within Judaism did in the time of Christ. History has a way of repeating itself.
Atheists and “Believers” both come from the same cloth. Both rely on their beliefs and Faith, The former cannot prove G-d does not exist, the latter cannot prove He/She does.
David,
Let’s try this again: David (non-Christian) uses a non-Christian website (Wikipedia) to evalute Christianity.
Matt Slick (Christian Apologetic-Masters Degree in Divinity, ordained minister, wrote numerous articles and a few books on Christianity).
I am sure everyone will come to a logical conclusion that David and Wikipedia cannot provide an understanding of Christianity as Matt Slick can.
You know, David, that you can contact Matt Slick and have a discussion with him. He will be delighted to ‘share the Gospel’ with you.
RWL – I don’t have to be a Christian to understand what Christianity is, just as you do not have to be a Muslim to understand what Islam is. I’m pretty sure I don’t care to hear any more of Matt Slick’s false gospel. I’ve heard it all before, and the Bible warns about false teachers like him.
Matt Slick lists 7 doctrines which he claims defines Christianity. Where did he get these 7 doctrines? He made them up. He will claim that he gets them from the Bible, but he picks out only those elements he likes and ignores the rest. Worse than this, he judges others as being unworthy of following Christ if they do not agree with *HIS* doctrines that he has created from his own personal interpretation of the Bible.
Slick claims that Roman Catholics violate his fourth doctrine:
Salvation is by grace through faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8-9; Gal. 3:1-2; 5:1-4).
The truth is that Roman Catholics agree with the concept that Salvation is by grace through faith, but they also believe in true holiness, so they put an emphasis upon cooperating with grace and obeying Christ’s commandments. They also believe the brother of Jesus, James, who taught, “by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” (James 2:24). Martin Luther hated this verse so much he argued to exclude the book of James from the Bible. Slick’s understanding of faith apparently closely follows Luther’s, and his pride in himself and his personal doctrine is so great, that he condemns all who believe that the commandments of Christ must be kept.
Well, I can easily read the Bible for myself and see what Jesus Christ said. When a man came to Jesus asking what he could do that he might inherit eternal life, what did Jesus answer him? Did he give Matt Slick’s answer, that there is nothing he can do but accept God’s grace and believe? Did Jesus lead him into some kind of sinner’s prayer like Matt Slick might do? No. No. No. Jesus told him, “Keep the commandments.” And then Jesus went on to list some of the commandments, “Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not bear false witness, honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself” (Mat. 19:16-22).
So according to Matt Slick, not only are Roman Catholic’s not Christians, but Jesus Christ himself is not, because Christ’s gospel is contrary to Matt Slick’s gospel. You can hardly find a better example of a false teacher than Matt Slick. List all the credentials you like about him. Anybody who can read can see that Matt Slick is a fraud.
For the flip side of Matt Slick, here is a link to a religious teacher from the other side of the aisle who argues that Roman Catholics are the only Christians and Protestants like Matt Slick are not:
Please, Don’t Call Protestants Christians
http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/m013rpProtestantsChristians.html
I wish these silly Christians would just quit judging each other to hell and embrace that which is good. The world would be a better place.
I am absolutely aghast! SANITY!
Feyd:
186,000, just barely broken in. 🙂
davidbluefish said: “Oh for Criminy sakes RWL, Jesus is coming back to kill us!!!!
Not the believers, only the unbelievers (non-christians):
“Revelations 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.”
“The sword from His mouth depicts judgment through His spoken Word (1: v.16; 2: verses 12 and 16; Isaiah 11: v.4; 2 Thess. 2: v.8). The Bible says that it is so sharp that it can divide the soul and spirit. Hebrews 4: v.12 “For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”
“Smite the nations: Christ will destroy all unbelievers (19: v.21; Matt. 25: verses 41 and 46; 2 Thess. 1: verses 8 and 9). Rod of iron: Christ will subject all nations to Himself, and destroy all His enemies (Psalms 2: verses 8 and 9; 1 Cor. 15: verses 24 and 25). Winepress: See 14: verses 17 to 20.”
“relating to wrath and anger are found 15 times in Revelation. We see how powerful this Word is. This “rod of iron” that He is to rule with just means that His law is absolute and unwavering. He never changes.”
“When we see this “treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath”, This wrath of God is for three and a half years of Tribulation, then after those, another three and a half years that is call the Great Tribulation, making a total of seven years of God’s Judgment and Wrath.”
For more info, read:
http://www.discoverrevelation.com/Rev_19.html
Beware, there IS a prophesy of an Anti-Pope.
“Pope Francis: Atheists Can Go To Heaven”
Well isn’t that kind of him, bless his little heart. As an atheist, I would like to reciprocally proclaim Mr. Francis’ right to decompose naturally, like the rest of us.
186,000 miles! How did he get my car?
Robin & Darren,
There are two kinds of comments about spelling and corrections. One is the grammar and spelling police person who makes snippy and somewhat nasty comments about errors. Those comments are left up so the world can see just how petty some folks can be.
Then there is a regular spammer who criticizes posts in a generic manner (even if there are no errors). The username and email is not always the same, which is how it evades the spam filter. However, the boilerplate text is recognizable. Whenever I see one of those, I go to the dashboard and mark it as spam. I have seen that same spammer on other sites as well. That one is trying to get people to click a link to a spam site. Upon checking some of those URLs, they lead to toxic malware.
Jonathan used to have a “Corrections” page, but it was being used (and abused) for all sorts of things unrelated to stories on the site. Some users carried pie fights over to Corrections. Finally, Jonathan took it down.
Good girls go to heaven. Bad girls go everywhere.
Robin:
I don’t know but it has been increasing lately. I think some are rather friendly, such as Elaine’s, but many are getting mean spirited and those seem to be the ones that are objectionable.
Admittedly one could proof read everything and have another person look it over for proofing but harping on someone just because of a few typos is really distracting when it should be more of what the author was trying to convey that matters. I would rather someone write from the heart and make a few errors than be deterred from contributing something for fear of being flamed for making a few harmless errors.
There are also people who English might not be their first language or there are those who have shaky hands and typos happen frequently. Not exactly welcoming when those folks are run out of town because of that.
My reaction to these pronouncements is sounds good but I’ll to see what the Church actually does. We will know the Church has turned the corner when women are treated as full members and are welcomed into the priesthood.
By the way has Cardinal Dolan opined on this letter? He has recently said that the pope cannot change the Church.
why is there always 1-2 commenters who pronounce themselves the spelling, sentax, sentence police? i mean really if a mispelling, sentax, or runoff in a sentence takes away from the complete understanding and meaning of the article. then maybe what you need is your own blog with a spell check. that way you wont have to worry about perfection. I MEAN GOD HIM /HER SELF ISNT PERFECT. but apparently you are..