RECENT COMMENTS

By pilgrim kate on August 27, 2007 at 10:39 am [comment link]
From the entry: A NY Times Editorial: The College Credit Scam

I would imagine that the New York Times was in the vanguard of undermining the principle of ‘in loco parentis’ 30 or 40 years ago. Once that principle was consigned to the trash heap, college and university rules to promote moral sexual behavior were abandoned, and students were given permission to pursue so-called sexual freedom without hindrance, leaving thousands of them with damage far greater than debt loads.  Now the NYT wants colleges to “do more” to rescue students from credit card debt.  Their concern is touching.



By Phil on August 27, 2007 at 10:27 am [comment link]
From the entry: Jason Zengerle: Evangelicals Turn toward...The Orthodox Church?

This is a pretty good article.  While not an evangelical, Orthodoxy is the path I’m likely to take once Anglicanism collapses for good - in fact, even if it doesn’t.  The first time I visited an Orthodox church, it was bewildering (and it would have been worse without the internet to provide some preparation).  Now, on my “non-Orthodox” Sundays, I really sit in church and think a lot about how much I miss it.  Really, the more I learn about and experience it, the more it just makes sense.  That isn’t something I can explain in a systematic way, not having kept careful notes over these many, many months, but I’ve had that feeling over and over.

I encourage everyone to learn more about Orthodox Christianity and spiritual practices, even if you have no desire whatsoever to leave Anglicanism.  It can’t hurt, and it might help.  After all, we’re all Christians, and what the Orthodox have preserved to a great extent is the way of the early Church - our ultimate forebears.



By the roman on August 27, 2007 at 10:17 am [comment link]
From the entry: Jason Zengerle: Evangelicals Turn toward...The Orthodox Church?

Thank you for your comments. I understand better. Perhaps I reacted emotionally to the statement inferring Romes’ “relegating the Holy Spirit to a lesser place.”  I must have missed catechism that day because in my life I do not recall that being a part of RC dogma. Please excuse my thin skin.



By Sherri on August 27, 2007 at 10:12 am [comment link]
From the entry: A NY Times Editorial: The College Credit Scam

When I first went to college, I received a credit card - even though I had no visible means of support. Luckily, I had sense enough to know that someone would have to pay the bill and that I couldn’t afford to, so it was initially only used for real emergencies, then immediately paid. I still have the card, and it’s the only one I’ve ever used. But I’m still amazed that they would offer me one like that.



By Lawrence on August 27, 2007 at 10:10 am [comment link]
From the entry: Harriet Baber: How to survive in a violent world

Mr. Nelson,
Not nonsense and the only thing I got wrong was the date, it was ‘39 not ‘33.  You are stipulating that Congress which passed the National Firearms Act of 1934 did so for public safety reasons, which is correct, but safety was not the determining factor with whether the law conflicted with the second amendment when it came to the Supreme Court.  In that argument (Miller v United States, 1939) regarding the National Firearms Act of 1934 it was determined that since a sawed off shotgun with a barrel of less than 18 inches did not have “any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia” the previous determination in the Western District of Arkansas extending second amendment protection to a sawed off shotgun did not exist.  The Supreme Court thus stipulated that a sawed off did not fall under the second amendment precisely because it was not a legitimate militia weapon and thus upheld the NFA of 1934. 
You are more than welcome to read the actual court decision if you do not believe it.
Here is the link:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/miller.txt



By Philip Snyder on August 27, 2007 at 10:06 am [comment link]
From the entry: Jason Zengerle: Evangelicals Turn toward...The Orthodox Church?

Actually, Skippy, the filioque was first added in Spain during the moorish invasion to preserve the divinity of the Son, Jesus.  The Moors insisted that Jesus was not divine and to combat this, the Spanish Christians started to say that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father, and the Son to show that the Son was coequal and consubstantial with the Father. 

YBIC,
Phil Snyder



By chips on August 27, 2007 at 10:00 am [comment link]
From the entry: Darryl E. Owens--Note to Muslims: We didn't yield free speech on 9-11

I fear that the answer to Words Matter questions is “yes”.



By Ed the Roman on August 27, 2007 at 9:58 am [comment link]
From the entry: Jason Zengerle: Evangelicals Turn toward...The Orthodox Church?

I am exercising my constitutional right to believe what I am taught because it is taught on the Filioque without having an understanding of my own.

Nevertheless, I have read that the word translated into English as procession has divergent meanings between Latin and Greek, and that it may be that the Latin refers more to the way in which we receive the Holy Ghost than His ontology.  That we do not receive Him without the Son is pretty well established from Scripture.  How He is I am content to be told.



By Katherine on August 27, 2007 at 9:46 am [comment link]
From the entry: A NY Times Editorial: The College Credit Scam

You’d be horrified, Laocoon, to know how many of my daughters’ friends have emerged from college with tens of thousands of dollars of credit card debt, which they then “pay off” by making only the minimum monthly payment, the worst thing they could do.  Apparently none of them had parents who would tell them not to do this.



By Jeff Thimsen on August 27, 2007 at 9:41 am [comment link]
From the entry: A Soldier Named Alison K. Speaks out from Iraq

Dragon’s teeth.



By skippy on August 27, 2007 at 9:38 am [comment link]
From the entry: Jason Zengerle: Evangelicals Turn toward...The Orthodox Church?

“they also thought the East was right to insist on equality among the Holy Trinity, rather than relegating the Holy Spirit to a lesser place than God the Father and God the Son. “

I think this is an error. I thought it was Rome who insisted that the Holy Ghost was of the “same substance” as the father while Constantinople argued that He was of “similar or like substance”. If so then how does “Filioque” relegate the Holy Ghost to a lesser place? I may be confused or mistaken on this point so please feel free to enlighten me. Thank you.


The “filioque”[and the son] was added precisely to show the equality in the trinity. It was added to combat the heresy that the Holy Spirit was not a person and equal to the Father and Son.



By Nikolaus on August 27, 2007 at 9:36 am [comment link]
From the entry: Jason Zengerle: Evangelicals Turn toward...The Orthodox Church?

Roman, the issue is procession not substance.  As written in Nicea, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.  Rome amended the phrase to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son.



By AnglicanFirst on August 27, 2007 at 9:19 am [comment link]
From the entry: A Soldier Named Alison K. Speaks out from Iraq

Alison is like a whole lot of naval/military personnel with whom I have served.  If it weren’t for people like Alison, the United States and the rest of the world would be in far worse shape than they are
today.

And maybe this article about Alison best answers the previous article on patriotism as patriotism is lived and breathed and acted out by our service personnel.



By Rick S on August 27, 2007 at 9:15 am [comment link]
From the entry: Harriet Baber: How to survive in a violent world

Remember New Orleans!

Defenseless on the Bayou
New Orleans gun confiscation was foolish and illegal.

Dave Kopel

During the weeks after Hurricane Katrina, the government of New Orleans devolved from its traditional status as an elective kleptocracy into something far more dangerous: an “anarcho-tyranny” that refused to protect the public from criminals while preventing people from protecting themselves. On the orders of New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, the New Orleans Police Department, the National Guard, the Oklahoma National Guard, and the U.S. Marshals Service began breaking into homes at gunpoint, confiscating lawfully owned firearms, and evicting the residents. “No one is allowed to be armed,” said P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of police. “We’re going to take all the guns.”

Those thousands of New Orleanians huddled in the Superdome and the New Orleans Convention Center got a taste of anarcho-tyranny. Everyone entering those buildings was searched for firearms. So for a few days, they lived in a small world without guns. As in other such worlds, the weaker soon became the prey of the stronger.

In the rest of the city, some police officers abandoned their posts, while others joined the looting spree. For several days, the ones who stayed on the job did not act to stop the looting that was going on right in front of them. When homes or businesses were saved, the saviors were the many good citizens of New Orleans who defended them with their own firearms.

These people were operating within their legal rights. The law authorizes citizen’s arrests for any felony, and in the 1964 case McKellar v. Mason a Louisiana court held that shooting a property thief in the spine was a legitimate citizen’s arrest.

The aftermath of the hurricane featured prominent stories of citizens defending lives and property. Most of New Orleans lies on the north side of the Mississippi River, while the neighborhood of Algiers is on the south. The Times-Picayune detailed how dozens of neighbors in one part of Algiers had formed a militia. After a carjacking and an attack on a home by looters, the neighborhood recognized the need for a common defense; residents shared firearms, took turns on patrol, and guarded the elderly. Although the initial looting had resulted in a gun battle, once the patrols began the militia never had to fire a shot. Likewise, the Garden District of New Orleans, one of the city’s top tourist attractions, was protected by armed residents.

The good gun-owning citizens of New Orleans and the surrounding areas should have been thanked for helping to save some of their city after Mayor Nagin, incoherent and weeping, had fled. Yet instead these citizens were victimized by a new round of home invasions and looting, these government-organized, for the purpose of firearms confiscation.

The mayor and Gov. Kathleen Blanco do have the legal authority to mandate evacuation, but failure to comply is a misdemeanor; so the authority to use force to compel evacuation goes no further than the power to effect a misdemeanor arrest. The pre-emptive confiscation of every private firearm in the city far exceeded any reasonable attempt to carry out misdemeanor arrests for persons who disobey orders to leave.

Louisiana statutory law does allow some restrictions on firearms during extraordinary conditions. One statute says that after the governor proclaims a state of emergency (as Blanco did), “the chief law enforcement officer of the political subdivision affected by the proclamation may…promulgate orders…regulating and controlling the possession, storage, display, sale, transport and use of firearms, other dangerous weapons and ammunition.” But the statute does not, and could not, supersede the Louisiana Constitution, which declares that “the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.”

The power of “regulating and controlling” is not the same as the power of “prohibiting and controlling.” The emergency statute actually draws this distinction in its language, which refers to “prohibiting” price gouging, sale of alcohol, and curfew violations but only to “regulating and controlling” firearms. Accordingly, the police superintendent’s order “prohibiting” firearms possession was beyond his lawful authority. It was an illegal order.

A week after the confiscations began, the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed a joint lawsuit in federal court. The parties were represented by Stephen Halbrook, one of the nation’s leading Second Amendment attorneys. (Documents from the suit can be found at stephenhalbrook.com.)

Attorneys for Orleans Parish (New Orleans) and St. Tammany Parish (which also confiscated guns) capitulated, under the judge’s threat that he would issue a preliminary injunction against them. The parishes and the plaintiffs signed a consent decree in which the parishes asserted (implausibly) that there was never an official government policy of confiscating guns, and also admitted that they had no authorization to confiscate guns pursuant to Louisiana’s emergency powers statute. The parties agreed to accept that the court’s injunction forbids them from confiscating guns, and orders them to return all guns which have been confiscated.

There will doubtless be many lawsuits that will seek to discover precisely which uniformed looters were responsible for the theft of which guns. (Like the other looters, the uniformed thieves did not give their victims receipts. ) And all over the country next year, there will be bills introduced in state legislatures to make sure that emergency powers cannot be abused to confiscate guns when good people need them most.

After Katrina struck, we saw an awful truth in New Orleans: There is no shortage of police officers and National Guardsmen who will illegally threaten peaceful citizens at gunpoint and confiscate their firearms. We also saw some noble truths: that citizens with firearms will defend law and order even when the government fails. And that our federal courts, as well as civil rights organizations such as NRA and SAF, continue to play an important role in defending constitutional rights against the depredations of lawless “law enforcement” officers.

Dave Kopel (.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)) is research director of the Independence Institute.


“When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe.
Luke 11:21 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society



By AnglicanFirst on August 27, 2007 at 9:12 am [comment link]
From the entry: Schools Fight for Teachers Because of High Turnover

My previous comment was about a K-6 school in a rural township.

This comment comes from a family friend who has been a substitute teacher in the Fairfax County schools of Northern Virginia.

Prospective substitute teachers were given classroom scenarios to which they had to provide appropriate answers in order to be acceptable for employment.

One such scenario was
“If you are teaching a class and there are three or four students in the back of the classroom who are rudely disrupting the class, what is your appropriate action as a teacher?”

The accepted answer is
“I would go to the back of the room and ask the students if there is anything that I (as a teacher) can do to help them.”



By Sarah1 on August 27, 2007 at 9:00 am [comment link]
From the entry: Jason Zengerle: Evangelicals Turn toward...The Orthodox Church?

VaAnglican, I agree with you.

In the business world it’s called “opportunity cost”—the cost of something *lost* when an opportunity was not pursued and another path chosen.

A business may choose to pursue as its “target customer” for a vastly appealing gizmo all boys under the age of five.  But the opportunity cost of *not pursuing and not selling to* the little girls age 10 and under who would have loved such a vastly appealing gizmo, while at the same time their closest competitor pursues that target market and “mops up” is “ginormous”.

They may make sales to little boys under five, but those are far exceeded by the sales they might have made to little girls 10 and under.

Opportunity cost.



By Sarah1 on August 27, 2007 at 8:53 am [comment link]
From the entry: Anglican Churches Down Under face Mass Auction

Thanks, MargaretG, for that bit of research!  ; > )



By Terry Tee on August 27, 2007 at 8:51 am [comment link]
From the entry: Nashville teacher can't pin Shakespeare down on religion

I think the recent book by Clare Asquith Shadowplay and the older work by Peter Milward Shakespeare’s Religious Background make a convincing case for his Catholic sympathies.



By Laocoon on August 27, 2007 at 8:51 am [comment link]
From the entry: A NY Times Editorial: The College Credit Scam

Colleges, which often allow solicitation on campus, need to do more to protect their students from taking on credit card debt that can severely damage their economic prospects once they graduate from school and join the world of work.

Yes, like giving them an education.  Is someone really college educated who can’t figure out on her own the consequences of using a credit card?



By Sarah1 on August 27, 2007 at 8:49 am [comment link]
From the entry: Schools Fight for Teachers Because of High Turnover

A close family member of mine teaches at such a school.

Every day is like going to a war zone.  Since the school administrators don’t get rid of the juvenile delinquents, assaulters, rapists, drug dealers, and other simply terribly behaved adolescents there—every child, of course, deserves a taxpayer-paid “education”—the children who are there to learn don’t, and the teachers burn out like flies under a magnifying glass on a summer day.

Good luck with the bonus idea!



By Newbie Anglican on August 27, 2007 at 8:48 am [comment link]
From the entry: Presbyterian Minister ruled guilty over gay weddings

Jane Spahr has been running rampant in the PCUSA for decades.  That she might finally, maybe, actually be disciplined is a pleasant surprise.
And, yes, her . . . persistance backs up what Vinnie said.



By john_nelson on August 27, 2007 at 8:26 am [comment link]
From the entry: Harriet Baber: How to survive in a violent world

#28 Dear Lawrence, that is a nonsensical fabrication.  Automatics are still banned for the reason I stated - public safety trumps individual rights per the examples I gave you.



By Fr. John Parker on August 27, 2007 at 8:09 am [comment link]
From the entry: Gary Anderson: Mary in the Old Testament

Larry,

I thank you for writing me back. If you have found me condescending, I ask your forgiveness.  Email is not a good method for showing emotion or intention.  I am trying to share with you what the Church has always believed, and this is rather difficult by keyboard, especially with one who insists he correctly interprets the scriptures over the way that they have always been read.  Therefore, this will likely be my last email with you, unless you’d like to be inquisitive sometime.  There isn’t a whole lot of sense in corresponding where there are few questions being asked.

I would like to leave you, though, with a few thoughts and questions to ponder.

Nicene Christianity is a package deal.  It doesn’t end with the Creed.  The third council was “brought to you” by the same folks (read “Church”) who established the Creed at 1 and 2 in 325 and 381; the same Church who made clear what you are refusing to accept, in 431; who defined against other heresies the two natures of Christ in 451 at Chalcedon, etc.  This is the same Church whom you trust for the canonization of the Scriptures, but whose interpretation of their own writings you do not.  Amazingly, you seem to trust your wife, your son, and a professor at a liberal arts college “who has been at this a long time”, (and therefore deserves some credibility?) more than you do Greek-speaking Orthodox Christians who have been ‘doing this’ since the New Testament was written—to them!  How does Colby trump all of that?  I want to suggest, once again, that you consider reading Church history, starting with the Apostolic Fathers, and then following with Irenaeus—Against the Heresies. And asking an Orthodox Christian, the first-degree relative of the writers of the NT and the subsequent writings.

I don’t understand why you believe that heresies don’t really matter, and why it would be okay if you (or I) were actually a heretic.  “Heresy” is listed specifically by St. Paul as one of the “works of the flesh” in contrast to the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5.  You’ll find it often translated as “party spirit” in v. 20.  Party spirit doesn’t me “like to get drunk and chase women” (Those are in the next verse).  The word—in Greek—is ‘heresy’.  St. Paul paints a grim picture for those who “do these things.”  If we find ourselves dividing the church with choice by choice (that is what heresy means), we are in deep kimche.

My friend, I am very sad that your seem to be trapped in logic, and that you seem to reject—as a result—much of the faith that saves.  I pray that the Lord open your eyes to see this, and I welcome your emails to me at frjohn at ocacharleston dot org.  I take my leave of you with Jesus’ words from St. John’s Gospel, once again,

“You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life” (John 5:39-40).

Pray for me, as I pray for you.

Fr. John+



By AnglicanFirst on August 27, 2007 at 8:04 am [comment link]
From the entry: Schools Fight for Teachers Because of High Turnover

Things are going well for the teachers in my township.  Class size is about ten to sixteen pupils per teacher and the teachers are assisted by teacher’s aides. 

Salaries are well above the median for this rural community and the benefits, retirement and medical, provided to the school’s total staff are beyond the means of many of the town’s taxpayers.

And this isn’t cheap.  To maintain the town’s schools as they are now managed, it is necessary to keep updating property assessments and to increase taxes.  Of course this is causing it to be more and more difficult for young people to buy property in the township in which their families have lived for generations.  The increasing taxes are also quite a shock to retired people and others of modest income.



By Chris on August 27, 2007 at 8:01 am [comment link]
From the entry: Notable and Quotable

He is a great guy as well, has with his wife adopted 14 kids:

http://www.patwilliamsmotivate.com/bio.htm



By the roman on August 27, 2007 at 7:53 am [comment link]
From the entry: Jason Zengerle: Evangelicals Turn toward...The Orthodox Church?

“they also thought the East was right to insist on equality among the Holy Trinity, rather than relegating the Holy Spirit to a lesser place than God the Father and God the Son. “

I think this is an error. I thought it was Rome who insisted that the Holy Ghost was of the “same substance” as the father while Constantinople argued that He was of “similar or like substance”. If so then how does “Filioque” relegate the Holy Ghost to a lesser place? I may be confused or mistaken on this point so please feel free to enlighten me. Thank you.



By VaAnglican on August 27, 2007 at 7:27 am [comment link]
From the entry: Jason Zengerle: Evangelicals Turn toward...The Orthodox Church?

The natural home for someone like the Rev. Ellsworth should plainly have been Anglicanism.  And I suspect it would have been—and the same as well for the many other hundreds that have left for big-O Orthodoxy, had it not been for the innovations in the Episcopal Church and the lack of any other reasonable Anglican outlet in most parts of the country.  Everything he says he was seeking he could have found in a (small-o) orthodox Anglican church (save perhaps those that have become indiscernible from the praise-band-PowerPoint worship groups he found so shallow).  But the revisionists have caused huge washed-out, unbreachable chasms on the route that once attracted “Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail,” forcing them elsewhere.  The damage done to the Episcopal Church cannot be measured only in the dollars lost, or the remarkable shrinkage in membership through the years, but also in opportunities lost, like those described here.  The extent of that damage, not just to the Episcopal Church, but also to the reputation of Anglicanism in America, won’t be fully known for some time—probably after it’s too late and most have gone away.  One can’t help but thinking when reading this, “You don’t understand. I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am, let’s face it.”



By Brian of Maryland on August 27, 2007 at 7:16 am [comment link]
From the entry: Jason Zengerle: Evangelicals Turn toward...The Orthodox Church?

If I remember my history correctly, it was this branch of the Orthodox Church that assertively moved into new circles when they ordained a group of Campus Crusade for Christ leaders in the 1970’s.  One of their early congregations was/is located outside Fulton, CA (inland from Santa Cruz).  When I was in the Bishop’s office out there we watched that congregation continue to grow (in pagan California no less), while our local ELCA congregation just couldn’t get moving and eventually closed.

I made good friends with an Antiochian priest while I was in Orinda, CA.  We’d let them use our facilities for their middle eastern festival, something that became all the more important after 9/11.  He was a pretty good recruiter - almost had me there…  grin  Pastors and priests looking to move on in an orthodox direction, they need faithful priests.  Ellsworth has made a great choice.

Maryland Brian



By Katherine on August 27, 2007 at 7:09 am [comment link]
From the entry: Mark Shea: Patriotism As Idolatry

One doubts that they meant it quite the way you took it, Duke.  And they can’t say, “For God and country” any more because they’re not allowed to mention God at all.



By The Duke on August 27, 2007 at 6:59 am [comment link]
From the entry: Mark Shea: Patriotism As Idolatry

I’ve just come back from the cinema (‘Stardust’.  Not bad.). 
Before the movie there was a commercial for Army recruitment.  I was expecting the usual slow-mo images of honor, courage, and the stirring music in the background.  However I was not prepared for the most blatantly idolotrous statement I’ve ever heard in a commercial.  “In this green world there is nothing stronger than the US Army.  Because in this green world there is nothing stronger than a US soldier.’ 
Huh?  What about, umm, the grace of God?  The love of God?  The power of God?  The judgment of God?
An extraordinary claim to godhead by our military.



By John B. Chilton on August 27, 2007 at 6:47 am [comment link]
From the entry: Schools Fight for Teachers Because of High Turnover

Indeed. As with the perpetual story of the “shortage” of qualified nurses, there isn’t a shortage. Rather, there’s a shortage at the current wage. You don’t get what you don’t pay for. Schools have declared what they will pay for the number of teachers they need. The number of teachers willing to teach at that wage is less.

Bonuses simply make future staffing some future principal’s problem. Attention needs to be paid to salaries that retain valuable teachers. Unionized scale or salaries that do not reflect merit or area of expertise are a recipe for disaster.

It all goes back to are you willing to pay to get the number of teachers needed? And where do you get the funds to do it?



By RazorbackPadre on August 27, 2007 at 6:00 am [comment link]
From the entry: Nashville teacher can't pin Shakespeare down on religion

<more than 1,000 words scrutinized. “I’ve never been able to pin him down,” says Hassel,>

Sounds very Episcopalian to me.



By Robert Easter on August 27, 2007 at 3:13 am [comment link]
From the entry: Mark Shea: Patriotism As Idolatry

Interesting points all around, but remember when dealing with presidents, kings, bishops, or license bureau clerks, “..that God rules over the affairs of men, and sets over them the basest of men!”  (Dan. 4:17)

Robert



By Katherine on August 27, 2007 at 1:56 am [comment link]
From the entry: Mark Shea: Patriotism As Idolatry

Words Matter, with respect, I don’t agree.  The Roe ruling was based on tenuous grounds not found in the Constitution.  It was based primarily upon the majority of Justices thinking it was the “right policy” and then finding some way to present it as a Constitutional requirement.  You are correct that after thirty-plus years most states would not enact strict prohibition of abortion except for the life of the mother, but at least sending the issue back to the state legislatures would put the making of public policy back where it belongs.  I think, myself, that state laws would allow early abortions but not later ones except in rare cases, as in supposedly liberal Europe today.

Mark Shea’s larger point, which is that patriotism can become extreme and when it does it’s idolatry is valid.



By Ross on August 27, 2007 at 1:33 am [comment link]
From the entry: Notable and Quotable II

#14 Larry Morse says, sniffing heresy in the air:

Then you are arguing that Paul found his way to salvation through good works?

To which I say:  first of all, no, I’m not arguing that.  That Paul—that all of us—owe God a life says nothing about whether salvation will or will not result from giving our lives to God.  Even if we knew for a fact that we were to be condemned at the end of our life, the debt would still be owed and it would still be our duty to pay as much of it as we could (which is little enough.)

Secondly, if you did catch me arguing for salvation through works—and who knows, you might one of these days—it wouldn’t bother me.  I’ve never been a big follower of the Reformation “solas,” which I think miss the point.  I don’t think God is nearly as interested in what we do or what we believe, as he is in what we are becoming at any given moment—and that becoming is shaped both by our actions and our convictions.  So the answer to the question of whether salvation comes by faith or by works is “Yes.”



By Words Matter on August 27, 2007 at 1:03 am [comment link]
From the entry: Mark Shea: Patriotism As Idolatry

Odd to find myself in agreement with Bob from Boone, but there it is and there’s nothing for it.

Katherine, in fact, the Roe vs. Wade ruling does exactly what the Constitution allows: judicial review of a law measured against the highest law, the Constitution. The ruling was bad, but the process is part of our political system. Therefore, abortion-on-demand can be considered part if the political consensus that has become the consensus of our nation.  Moreover, in at least some states, even without Roe, a majority of people would certainly vote for legalized abortion, possibly up to the moment of birth. 

My duty as a Christian and a patriotic American would remain what it is now, which is to declare that abortion is the willful murder of an innocent and defenseless human being and that no civilized society would permit it. No matter how many people vote for it.



By Cousin Vinnie on August 27, 2007 at 12:32 am [comment link]
From the entry: Presbyterian Minister ruled guilty over gay weddings

Sorry, HowieG:  The Progressives never admit to striking out, they never sit down, they never shut up.  If you’re not prepared to fight them 24/7 until Jesus comes, your church is lost.



By Abu Daoud on August 27, 2007 at 12:09 am [comment link]
From the entry: Ahead of 'September Dawn,' Mormons revisit a dark period

Thank you Katherine.  The similarities are in regards to the origins of the two religions.  Another very significant difference is that Mormons call themselves Christians, which is of course not something Muslims do.



By Wilfred on August 26, 2007 at 11:44 pm [comment link]
From the entry: Mark Shea: Patriotism As Idolatry

The author is onto something here; let’s take it further:  Loyalty to The Episcopal Church USA is a form of idolatry, since by blessing ungodly actions, and promoting ungodly bishops, ECUSA has abandoned Christ.



By Words Matter on August 26, 2007 at 11:19 pm [comment link]
From the entry: Darryl E. Owens--Note to Muslims: We didn't yield free speech on 9-11

Katherine -

Perhaps it wasn’t clear that I find repugnant word games played by identity/victimization ideologues. My #1 was meant more as a rumination on how American this present business and the irony of that, given the topic.  Of course, the topic is Arab offense to perceived racial/ethnic discrimination, but Islam is the sub-text, the gas in the engine, if you will.

Looking down through the thread, perhaps it’s time to renew an old question: Are “moderate” Muslims authentic representations of Islam, or is their religion simply cultural?  That is, are “moderate” Muslims rather like Christian pew potatoes, culturally involved in their religion, but not letting it get in the way of what they really want to do? Are “moderate” Muslims sort of like Christian liberals, taking the parts of the Faith they like and leaving the rest (the “cafeteria Catholic”), or simply rewriting it? Were they “moderate” Muslims dancing in the streets - and cafes - in the Middle East on 9/11?



By MargaretG on August 26, 2007 at 11:12 pm [comment link]
From the entry: Anglican Churches Down Under face Mass Auction

However, this is down under in an outspoken conservative, evangelical branch of the Anglican church.

Canberra evangelical??? Sydney is—but then its adding churches. Canberra—I don’t think so.

Perhaps the best guide is this comment in the good bishop’s profile

During the last few years Allan has been a student within the Doctor of Ministry program offered by the San Francisco theological Seminary. His concluding thesis, now ‘on hold’, is on the relationship between experience and faith in the Australian context.

Now I am sure that the San Francisco theological Seminary is evangelical. Yeah Right!



By Northern Plains Anglicans on August 26, 2007 at 10:59 pm [comment link]
From the entry: Robert Mcfarlane: A Fatwa Against Violence

It was good to read of Canon Andrew White’s positive role in this - makes it all the sadder should the Anglican Communion continue to splinter and discredit itself globally.



By Katherine on August 26, 2007 at 10:50 pm [comment link]
From the entry: Ahead of 'September Dawn,' Mormons revisit a dark period

I do think there are similarities between the Islam and the Mormon experience, although there are differences also.  Islam’s “revelation” is once and for all time, unchangeable both as to faith and, according to the conservative imams, as to civil law.  Mormonism, on the other hand, has been highly malleable.  Whenever one of the early teachings proved difficult, the President would have another revelation and the teaching changed.  This is ongoing today.

I think the Mormon willingness to confront this ugly incident with honesty is good.



By Larry Morse on August 26, 2007 at 10:49 pm [comment link]
From the entry: Mark Shea: Patriotism As Idolatry

Someone remarked that we should render unto Caesar those things which are his. Patriotism is precisely that. And the same time, patriotism and jingoism are different, even though the difference is in degree, not in kind. No country can abide by Christ’s rules and survive. That’s why Christ gave us that particular advice. At this same time, this is not advocacy for Machiavellianism - in the worst and commonest sense of the word.  LM



By Bob (aka BobbyJim) on August 26, 2007 at 10:30 pm [comment link]
From the entry: Mark Shea: Patriotism As Idolatry

I do not disagree with the basic premise of the article, but I do disagree with the direction the early commenter wishes to take re: consumerism and policy of the current administration.

A later commenter rightly points out that the marketplace of political ideas and political action can sway policy direction. In our system, when the majority does finally decide where we are to go politically, we generally (maybe grudgingly) abide by the decision. Then we try again in the next election cycle to sell our marketable ideas and agenda.

I am as skeptical about our policies as any old veteran could be. But as hard as it is for some to conceive, it is quite possible our leaders may know just a tad more about ‘hidden facts’ than the general populace knows. They may even lead us in unexpected directions. But, didn’t we elect leaders, and not poll takers?

On the other hand, some folks would be happier if ‘their political flavor’ ran the whole shebang. I hope and pray that we don’t let either ‘political flavor’ have a free reign in this country.

Bob



By dpchalk+ on August 26, 2007 at 10:23 pm [comment link]
From the entry: Ahead of 'September Dawn,' Mormons revisit a dark period

Besides “interesting,” it is also ironic in the extreme that one now-accepted cult (the mormons) are being covered by another now-accepted cult: viz the Christian Scientists.



By Katherine on August 26, 2007 at 10:06 pm [comment link]
From the entry: Mark Shea: Patriotism As Idolatry

bob #1 and Bob #4, this is precisely the point which pro-life people have been making for many years.  The difference is, as #6 points out, that the Iraq war decision was made by the properly constituted authority, with the concurrence of the Congress, I might add, while the abortion decision was improperly imposed on the nation outside the appropriate legislative process.  The active efforts to undermine or prevent the success of the war effort once it had begun are the question of the day.  As even some Democratic leaders are beginning to point out, leaving Iraq now is a different question from the one posed in 2002/2003.



By Alice Linsley on August 26, 2007 at 9:50 pm [comment link]
From the entry: Presbyterian Minister ruled guilty over gay weddings

Jane can join TEC and probably someone has already contacted her about doing so.



By Lawrence on August 26, 2007 at 9:42 pm [comment link]
From the entry: Harriet Baber: How to survive in a violent world

If I remember correctly the “ban” during prohibition on automatics and sawed off shotguns (not really a ban as one can own either with a class III license) was argued as a legitimate action because the Constitution states that weapons are for the purpose of a well regulated militia.  Since the sawed-off and automatics were, at the time, banned for use in warfare, they were not legitimate militia weapons, therefore not covered by the second amendment.

The argument applied today to ban weapons is that they ARE weapons of a militia and thus must be banned ... a total 180 degree turn from what was accepted as the meaning of the second amendment in 1933.  No, the ban in 1933 is not on your side unless you wish to argue that only those weapons banned in warfare, like certain varieties of nerve agents, or probably certain biologicals etc., cannot be freely owned by civilians.



By Wilfred on August 26, 2007 at 9:05 pm [comment link]
From the entry: Darryl E. Owens--Note to Muslims: We didn't yield free speech on 9-11

Islamic countries have no real Freedom of speech, which is why they are called the Muzzle ‘ems.


Page 3758 of 4118 pages « First  <  3756 3757 3758 3759 3760 >  Last »

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)