 |
|
|
|
 Mexican Archbishop, Norberto Rivera Carrera has called on parishioners to report extortion to authorities.
December 4th, 2013
11:56 AM ET
Archbishop: Mexican cartel threatened Catholic seminaryBy Rafael Romo and Catherine E. Shoichet, CNN (CNN) - The threatening calls reportedly came one after the other to Mexico's main Catholic seminary. Callers, claiming to be from one of the country's feared drug cartels, offered an ominous warning: Pay up if you value the safety of your priests. "They called several times. They identified themselves as the Familia Michoacana, but who knows?" Cardinal Norberto Rivera, archbishop of Mexico City, revealed at a Mass this week. "I spoke with the authorities. We made the appropriate report. Because they wanted us to pay. Because if not, they would kill one of us. They wanted to extort 60,000 pesos ($4,600)." Reports of extortion have become increasingly common as drug cartels expand their reach in Mexico. But public denouncements of such attempts are rare. FULL STORY
« Previous entryPope: I was once a bar bouncer
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeedE8vH1FQ
can someone please give this band a few more chords....
A – E – D – G – C is all you need to know.
Any song with more than 4 chords is just self-indulgent. 😉
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=un4GyZZfCSI
Will the earth be destroyed? At Ecclesiastes 1:4, the Bible says that “the earth remains forever,” which to some apparently conflicts with its statement that “the elements will be destroyed by heat—with the earth.” (2 Peter 3:10, Beck) In the Bible, however, the word “earth” is used both literally, referring to our planet, and figuratively, referring to the people who live on it. (Genesis 1:1; 11:1) The destruction of the “earth” described at 2 Peter 3:10 refers, not to the burning up of our planet, but to the “destruction of the ungodly people.”—2 Peter 3:7.
OK, I'm a bit busy today, but I have screen-capped this conv. between Larry and Live. I'm sure it will provide much entertainment some night when things are slow on Comedy Central.
Isn't it AMAZING that Lawrence of Arabia, JW, Conditions, and myself can have a rational discussion from opposing sides WITHOUT the need to resort to name calling?!?! It would be nice to have similar discussions with an atheist / humanist / agnositic.
People discuss whether Batman is cooler than Superman without name calling too. Now those Trekkers, forget about it. You just can't reason with them at all.
There are a number of us non-believers who don't resort to insults (though I admit we all return them). There are plenty of poor sports on both sides of the aisle, no need to generalize that one side is bad.
Dude, I'm thoroughly enjoying this conversation! Like I told Topher one time before, I wish he'd lived nearer to North GA and we'd have to get a cheeseburger or something.
or maybe you two could go chupacabra hunting
I shot a chupacabra in my underwear once. How he got in my underwear I'll NEVER know!
A bit dishonest of you to imply that you have NEVER had a discussion with an athiest that did not involve name calling, and not addressing that plenty of Christians also resort to insults. We have had many civil discussions and I have complimented you on your debate skills before.
I do keep mental track on who does and doesn't resort to name calling, use of derogatory names/terms, and personal attacks. And there are some atheists/agnostics that don't do those things. And some believers and religious people that do.
There are some regulars that do it routinely. It says more about them then it does the person they are tying to harm.
And there are a few people that are the target of a lot of personal attacks and I never see them return hate for hate. I have a great deal of respect for them. That is not an easy thing for me to do. But I'm learning.
It takes reasonableness. Some are blind, living in darkness. One thing that wasn't touched upon is the battle we live in as a result of being preyed upon by the one who roams the earth like a lion looking for someone to devour. While God is our sovereign Lord, who has the right to rule over His creation, isn't that right being challenged? And therein lies the reason for sin, choice and free will?
Lawrence, would your god permit a rebelous spirit like Satan to bring such suffering knowing who would survive as entertainment?
things are busy, so I'm responding to multiple people here.
@Lawrence of Arabia : Dude, I'm thoroughly enjoying this conversation! Like I told Topher one time before, I wish he'd lived nearer to North GA
Ditto. However, I'm from Charlotte – only about 3-4 hours away. Maybe sometime we can touchbase?
@BRC : There are a number of us non-believers who don't resort to insults
Yes, and I enjoy them every time. However, you must admit they are the exception.
@lunchbreaker : A bit dishonest of you to imply that you have NEVER had a discussion with an athiest
I didn't say that, nor imply it. My point is that too many of the atheists DO resort to name calling. You don't post too often, but when you do, I enjoy it too.
@AE : And there are some atheists/agnostics that don't do those things. And some believers and religious people that do.
Agreed. And I tend to avoid both of them.
" I didn't say that, nor imply it. "
" It would be nice to have similar discussions with an atheist / humanist / agnositic. "
You certainly did imply it with your choice of "would".
@Live4Him,
"Isn't it AMAZING that Lawrence of Arabia, JW, Conditions, and myself can have a rational discussion from opposing sides WITHOUT the need to resort to name calling?!?! It would be nice to have similar discussions with an atheist / humanist / agnositic."
Confirmation bias again?
I don't think I have ever called you a name before, barring any unintentional typos. If I have, then I don't recall it and would appreciate a link or reference to that incident.
where did he say you were one of the guilty ones?
" It would be nice to have similar discussions with an atheist / humanist / agnositic."
You are one of the rare exceptions. Thank you for being civil.
guilty concious?
It's "conscience".
(and you even spelled "conscious" wrong!)
@ME II : I don't think I have ever called you a name before, barring any unintentional typos. If I have, then I don't recall it and would appreciate a link or reference to that incident.
I don't recall you ever calling me names either, but I think you've acted in a derogitory manner to me at times when you get frustrated. Regardless of whether you have or not, I consider you one of the few atheists on the forum that is pleasant to exchange posts with. I always enjoy a good debate, but my experience on forums is that atheists tend to have fewer facts and more emotion in their postings. And it is hard to learn when your opponent resorts to either slander or logic fallacies within a few posts. And if you're not being challenged, why bother?
Name calling? OVERLY EMOTIONAL?!?!?
Well, you're all a bunch of farty faced smelly pants and that's a FACT.
"Fewer facts"? There is no evidence for creationism and a vast quantity of evidence for evolution, big bang, etc. As your creation myth has been shown to be incorrect that removes the foundation for your religion.
Some atheists get emotional but so do theists.
So really you have no evidence to support your assertions.
Why call names when you know in your hearts that your God will burn the heretics some day anyway?
@Lawrence of Arabia : Theologically speaking, though the natural man is unable to submit himself to the law of God (Romans 8:7-8) and unable to come to Christ unless the Father draws him to Him (John 6:44), the natural man still acts freely in respect to his nature.
We agree here.
@Lawrence of Arabia : [the natural man] freely and actively suppresses the truth in unrighteousness ... because his nature renders him unable to do otherwise
Again, we agree.
So, it appears that our differences are due to the issue of 'Who does God draw'. I would posit that God draws ALL men (i.e. mankind), but some stubbornly reject his calling.
Then I believe that our point of contention is over "election" and how it takes place.
I believe that we agree that there is an "election" but the determining factor is over how God chooses.
It is either:
1) Because He KNEW who would be saved
Or
2) Because He ORDAINED who would be saved
Going back to seminary again, I'm sure you'll remember discussion over Supralapsarianism vs Infralapsarianism?
I believe that this verse may help:
Romans 9:21 – Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?
@Lawrence of Arabia :Then I believe that our point of contention is over "election" and how it takes place. ... the determining factor is over how God chooses.
Agreed.
@LA: Or does not the potter have a right over the clay
This doesn't address the point of contention. We both agree that God has the authority to do as he pleases. However, we differ in the HOW. God doesn't HAVE to allows us into heaven – but he CHOSE to allow us if we accept Christ as Lord. Of those who chose to follow him, some became pastors, some teachers, some evangelists, some admins, some nursery workers, etc. Each of us are gifted differently. What did I do to get an analytical mind? Nothing at all. Why did I get it? For God's purpose.
he CHOSE to allow us if we accept Christ as Lord.
---–
Please use your analytical mind, and give us your best guess as to why God put this requirement in place(accept Christ for heaven), yet doesn't allow many of his human creations to know of the existence of the requirement? That seems to violate very basic logic.
@Madtown : why God put this requirement in place(accept Christ for heaven), yet doesn't allow many of his human creations to know of the existence of the requirement?
We ALL know that we have failures and act selfishly. We ALL know that we are unable to overcome this selfishness. We ALL comprehend that if there is a perfect God, he could not tolerate our selfishness. So, the only issue outstandings is 'Do we hear of the Savior who will rescue us from our own failures'. If we don't in this lifetime, we will hear of it once we die and can make the choice then.
yes Lie4 him...we all know Khonvoum is a perfect god who created all of this for us...isn't that special.
we will hear of it once we die and can make the choice then.
-----
Sounds like a "having your cake, and eating it too" scenario. Meanwhile, why couldn't there be another religion, one that you've never heard of, that may be the "real" religion God intended for us? It's just that you're not familiar with it. Could this be? It's what you ask of other humans.
@Lawrence of Arabia : OK, let's go back to seminary for a moment...
I went to a Baptist seminary rather than a Presbyterian seminary. 🙂
@LA: 1) Define "Sovereignty."
Absolute authority.
@LA: 2) How does Sovereignty pertain to the nature of God?
He's #1, Lord of Lord, King of Kings, etc.
@LA: 3) Can God violate His nature?
No.
Now that I've answered your questions, please answer this one: Why should a man who lacks free will be punished for a choice over that which he had no control?
You went to a Batist seminary and didn't study Edwards, Calvin, and Luther? (I said that tongue in cheek)
The Freedom of the Will – Jonathan Edwards
The Bondage of the Will – Martin Luther
The Inst.itutes of the Christian Religion – John Calvin
All three of these books go into the discussion of the will a LOT more eloquently than I ever could...
I agree with your responses of course, but #2 could use a little more elaboration. For that, I'll direct you to the Westminster Larger Catechism:
While it is true that God’s providence controls all the acts of human beings, still, that does not destroy man’s “free agency.” God does not control man’s acts by forcing them to do things against their will, but by so ordering the facts and circu.mstances of their lives, and the moral state of their hearts, that they voluntarily, of their own accord, without any constraint, always do exactly what God has foreordained that they are to do.
> Westminster Larger Catechism, God’s Providence – Question 14
If god has preordained then there is no free will.
Freewill and God’s sovereignty can exist together. You just have to deal with the consequences for living against God's will.
Having trouble posting again.
@Lawrence of Arabia : You went to a Batist seminary and didn't study Edwards, Calvin, and Luther? (I said that tongue in cheek)
😉
@LW : All three of these books go into the discussion of the will a LOT more eloquently than I ever could
One thing that I learned in seminary is that there is only ONE gold standard – the Bible. The others can help guide you, but you must always return to the source for accuracy.
@LW : I agree with your responses of course, but #2 could use a little more elaboration.
Sorry, but I prefer brevity. I could have elaborated more, but why bother? I'm pretty sure that we're on the same playing field, but with minor differences.
@LW : that does not destroy man’s “free agency.” God does not control man’s acts by forcing them to do things against their will, but by so ordering the facts and circu.mstances of their lives, and the moral state of their hearts, that they voluntarily, of their own accord, without any constraint, always do exactly what God has foreordained that they are to do.
Now, you're 'talking out of both sides of your mouth'. Either man has freedom or he doesn't (law of excluded middle). If God is controlling all aspects of the man's life that in turn forces the man's choices, then God DOES control a man's actions.
Lets step back for just a moment. God created all things – namely matter, energy and time. Since God created time, he is outside of time. Since he is outside of time, it stands to reason that he can see EVERY action, decision, etc. that I have or will make in my life. He still has the ability to insert events into my history (i.e. example: Jesus' birth, resurrection, etc.) that may encourage me along a certain path, since he is outside of time itself. God also has the ability to explore alternatives (i.e. if this event occurs, I'll do X, but otherwise I'll do Y). So, God would know the proper stimuli to insert in my life to encourage me to accept Christ as Lord. He would also know the people who would NEVER accept Christ – regardless of the stimuli that could be inserted into their lives. Thus, he can make an informed decision (as to his elect) and know with certainty the outcome. Therefore, there is no need for God to force me (or anyone) into any action.
It still sounds like you're describing a scenario where God is merely reacting to what has happened or what will happen though. Now, by no means am I saying that I fully understand how God can be sovereign and man still be responsible for his sin. I do note that this duality is throughly explored in scripture.
There is one verse that I can pick out that tends to settle the dispute in my mind though:
Isaiah 46:9-10 – "Remember the former things long past, for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things which have not been done, saying, 'My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure..."
And just in case I try to reconcile that which the Bible never tries to reconcile...
Romans 9:14-29 – You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?
Brother, I believe that we could go back and forth all day on this – not that that's a bad thing! But I've got to get back to work. Can we at least agree that HOW God chooses to elect is far from being a soul condemning issue?
Cheers!
@Lawrence of Arabia : It still sounds like you're describing a scenario where God is merely reacting
How do you figure this given that God MUST make the first move?
@Lawrence of Arabia : Brother, I believe that we could go back and forth all day on this
Agreed.
@Lawrence of Arabia : Can we at least agree that HOW God chooses to elect is far from being a soul condemning issue?
Don't quite understand what you're saying here. For my part, I believe that God extends the invitation and man either accepts it or rejects it (thus condemning himself rather than God condemning him).
My apologies... What I meant was that there are some topics of discussion that, although interesting and proper, they are not over issues that determine whether or not a man is saved.
For instance, you and I cannot agree on the HOW of God's election, but we do agree that God elects. Even though we both have differing views of the HOW, neither one of us is lost, even though one of us may be correct, while the other is incorrect.
Now, if we were debating the divinity of Jesus for instance, and incorrect view on that would show that they were unsaved, for a proper Christology is a necessary component of salvation.
That's what I meant.
he reaches out to everyone, like a radio signal that goes around the in every direction, if u want to tune in, u will receive it
My set must be busted; all I get is static! 🙂
stop complaining then.
Who's complaining? From all I've heard it's programming that I'm not really interested in anyway.
Good point. That's y u r here. Moron.
If u crybabies don't want the message rammed down your throats, turn the dial.
truth
Right back at you, buddy! You can leave too if you don't want to hear what we atheists have to say.
typical athie. never said anything except how funny u r and how i enjoy making morons out of u, u idiot
Ken
My set must be busted; all I get is static!
truthprevails1
stop complaining then
Ken
Who's complaining? From all I've heard it's programming that I'm not really interested in anyway.
truthprevails1
Good point. That's y u r here. Moron.
If u crybabies don't want the message rammed down your throats, turn the dial.
Ken
truth
Right back at you, buddy! You can leave too if you don't want to hear what we atheists have to say.
truthumoron
typical athie. never said anything except how funny u r and how i enjoy making morons out of u, u idiot
dodo, ask price for his guidance. u r w/o a clue
some scholar. u not only lie constantly, u r dumber than a rock
no wonder u delete me all the time. big baby
So do all the other gods.
How do you know you tuned into the right one?
You evaluate the evidence – pro and con.
How does one evaluate divine, psychic messages?
There is equal evidence for all of them.
You know that. Why do you keep posting deceitful things.
"Alias
There is equal evidence for all of them.
You know that. Why do you keep posting deceitful things."
r u quite sure? let's c it
Yeah! How do you tell that the voice inside your head is from God, and the voice inside the other guy's head isn't actually from aliens?
"Pay up if you value the safety of your priests."
sounds an awful lot like "believe in my god and do what I say or you'll go to an everlasting lake of fire and torture when you die"
poetic justice.
put money in the collection plate or go to hell!!
And make sure it is a full 10%
the fella executed next to god gave him his car, life insurance death benefit, a gold watch, several CDs and a 33% cut of the royalties for the new testament.
u go 4 free
indeed, that dude, Barabbas, had millions but he bargained his way down to what is recorded. jesus was in a good mood no doubt
saggyroy
And after they burn and torture "heretics" they cry persecution when some one criticizes the church. Gotta love it.
indeed, that dude, Barabbas, had millions but he bargained his way down to what is recorded. jesus was in a good mood no doubt
"saggyroy
And after they burn and torture "heretics" they cry persecution when some one criticizes the church. Gotta love it."
who b "they" dodo? were there 500 of em?
@Lawrence of Arabia : So, we know that not all men CAN be saved, because we know that not all men ARE saved.
This is illogical. Just because some are not saved doesn't mean they did not have the opportunity to be saved.
@Lawrence of Arabia : since God is sovereign, we know that it must be in God’s plan that not all men be saved.
It was not in God's perfect plan that Adam would sin. Since God knew that Adam would rebel, God did provide an alternative plan to allow mankind an option to be saved. However, God could not force all of mankind to be saved, unless he denied us the free will to choose otherwise.
@Lawrence of Arabia : if God had ordained something to come to pass, and it didn’t, then God would not be sovereign.
You've confused an issue here. Ordaining an outcome (i.e. salvation) is not the same as ordaining a path to this salvation. Scripture is very clear that God gave man a choice to follow or to reject. It is also very clear that God elects those destined for salvation. So, how do we solve this quandary?
Lets look at this in a table form. On the top, we see God's choices: Save (Y) and Not Saved (N). On the left side, we see man's choices: Follow (Y) or Reject (N). I hope my attempt at a table will look right, but here it is.
Y N
_ +--+--+
Y | X | – |
_ +--+--+
N | – | X |
_ +--+--+
So, we can see that there are only two logical outcomes that are in agreement with scripture. The first is that God 'Saves' and Man 'Follows', while the second is that God does 'Not Save' and man chooses to 'Reject' his gift. In light of Romans 8:29, we see that predestination comes after knowledge. But what knowledge would cause God to save a person. I would posit that God knows a person's choice BEFORE that person makes that choice – because God is outside of time and therefore God can view the beginning of the person's life, any moment in the person's life and the end of the person's life simultaneously.
Romans 8:29-30 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
Here's another attempt at the table.
. ____ Y ____ N
_ +--+--+
Y | X | – |
_ +--+--+
N | – | X |
_ +--+--+
But it would seem that your definition of "foreknowledge" doesn't align with what we gleam from Scripture.
As it pertains to salvation, foreknowledge (meaning “knowing ahead of time”) is the idea that God’s election of the redeemed is based solely on His foreknowledge of their actions, intents, and beliefs that will occur later in their life. This is wrong because it makes salvation a result of good works, and attacks the sovereignty of God because God now is the servant of man’s decisions instead of man being the servant of God.
Foreknowledge rather is meant in the sense of relationship – as when Adam “knew” his wife Eve, that speaks of an intimate relationship, God’s foreknowledge is the intimate relationship that God has with us since before the world began.
God’s election (predestination) is a specific, purposeful choice that occurs before the individual is ever born – indeed this was done in eternity past. Paul says that God’s choice was before they had done anything good or bad and was made to satisfy the purposes of His will.
“If we mean by ‘free will’ that fallen man has the ability to choose what he wants, then of course fallen man has free will. If we mean by ‘free will’ that man in his fallen state has the moral power and ability to choose righteousness, then ‘free will’ is far too grandiose a term to apply to fallen man.” – John Calvin
The term “free will” is not mentioned in Scripture anywhere because man does not have a free will, he is bound to sin, and as a servant to sin, he is controlled by its desires. (John 8:34) Man’s will is free to choose the manner of sin that best appeals to him for man’s nature is that he is in bondage to sin… We are sinful, depraved, our nature is fallen, it is dead, we are blind, we are alienated from God, we do not possess the life of God – we are dead in our trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2).
It is the grace of God alone through election that grants man repentance and faith in Christ
John 6:65 – And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”
If man does not have free will then he cannot be held accountable for his actions.
The sovereignty of God and the volition of man go hand in hand – a seeming contradiction that the Bible never attempts to reconcile, it just teaches both truths. But you must make sure that your definition of "free will" is not tainted by man's definition. Man is free to choose his sin, but he cannot choose righteousness until the Father draws him.
Observe the dichotamy in John:
John 3:27 – John answered and said, “A man can receive nothing unless it has been given him from heaven.
John 5:21 – For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes.
John 5:24 – “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
John 6:35 – Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.
John 6:37 – “All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out”
John 6:39 – This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.
John 6:40 – “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life”
John 6:44 – “No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him”
John 6:47 – “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life”
John 6:57-58 – As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”
John 6:63-64 – It is the Spirit who gives life (John 3:1-10); the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him.
John 6:65 – “No one can come to Me, unless it has been granted him from the Father”
John 8:24 – “I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I Am, you will die in your sins.”
Another example of the twin truths...
Matthew 11:27 – All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.
> You cannot know Christ unless He wills you to know Him
Matthew 11:28-29 – “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
> Here, Jesus tells us to take action – to come to Him.
> So in these two verses, 27 and 28, we see back to back the twin truths of salvation – The Sovereignty of God, and man’s responsibility
Answer the question: for someone who has heard the gospel and decided not accept the path of salvation as offered by Jesus Christ, is he/she absolved of the responsibility and will be excused of the consequences as laid out in John 3:16.
In other words, if a person chooses to deny Christ is that person excused from judgment? Remember according to you, that person had no freewill so how can you hold their decision to walk away against them?
Conditions,
No one who commits the unforgivable sin – that is, denying Christ until death – will be excused of punishment. Since the fall of man, our natures are held captive by sin, and until our natures are changed by God, we will only choose unrighteousness.
We learn in Romans 9:22-24 that God has a purpose in the reprobate – their punishment demonstrates the righteousness of God by showing that He is just in punishing sin.
Romans 9:22-24 – What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.
'No one who commits the unforgivable sin – that is, denying Christ until death – will be excused of punishment.'
According to you that person did not have freewill how can they be held accountable for the choices they make?
Conditions,
As I said below, define what you mean by "free will." And provide scripture as reference.
Free will is the freedom of choice that Adam and Eve were granted in the garden of Eden with a personal accountability for the same.
Because God is not only knowledge but also love, he gives man freedom of choice. With that freedom comes accountability.
You has a human being have stated that God does not grant human beings that free will, which is contrary to the nature of a Loving God.
Again, you did not answer the question how can a person who does not have free will be held accountable for not believing in Christ after having heard the gospel?
No one who commits the unforgivable sin – that is, denying Christ until death
-----–
This is the "unforgivable sin", as in no sin greater than this? If this is the greatest sin someone can commit, isn't it a little odd that it's only a cross-section of all God's human creation that will ever commit the sin? Seems something of this magnitude would be a warning to ALL humans, not just those God placed in a region where they have access to christianity. How can this action be an "unforgivable sin" in regard to one person, but "not a big deal at all" in the case of another person?
Madtown
Come on man, you know it's the one "unforgivable sin" because it's the greatest threat to both a Christianity without an actual God at it's head and one with an actual God at it's head. Increasing non belief means fewer members to fill the pews, and fewer members means fewer people considering God a god. If everyone stopped believing God would lose his job. He wouldn't be a god anymore, just a powerful being. That's why non belief is way worse than anything we can do to each other for both the Church and any real God. For both of them, it means having to come up with a real job!
Madtown,
"How can this action be an "unforgivable sin" in regard to one person, but "not a big deal at all" in the case of another person?"
------------
Because the validity of a truth is not dependant upon its availability. If you get caught plowing a field with an elephant in North Carolina (an actual law) you may get cited even though you didn't have a clue that it was a law.
the validity of a truth is not dependant upon its availability
----
Pure and utter BS. "Truth". You wouldn't even be aware of this alleged truth, if God placed you by birth in a rain forest society in South America, as an example. Besides, we're not referring to local traffic laws here, this is something that supposedly impacts us all......for ETERNITY! Not an obscure municipal regulation regarding plowing. No, if our eternal salvation is dependent upon this supposed "truth", you better believe it would need to be available to everyone. If it's not(and it IS NOT), then it's not truth.
The point is: God is not only knowledge but God is also love, because God is also love he gives man freewill.
Define what you mean by "free will."
'Define Free will'
–It is the freedom of choice that Adam and Eve were granted in the garden of Eden with a personal accountability for the same.
Because God is not only knowledge but also love, he gives man freedom of choice. With that freedom comes accountability.
OK, now define the Sovereignty of God.
The pickle that we find ourselves in is that if God is sovereign and ordains whatsoever comes to pass without leaving man accountable for his sins, then God is unjust. If man has the freedom to choose without God's intervention, then God is not sovereign.
The reconciliation is in a word: "Concurrence."
This refers to the coterminous actions of God and human beings. We are creatures with a will of our own. We make things happen. Yet the causal power that we exert is only secondary. God’s sovereign providence stands over and above our actions. He works out His will through the actions of human wills, without violating the freedom of those human wills.
Here's the Reader's Digest version:
We are free to do what we want – and without an intervention from God, all we want to do is sin. Once God intervenes, we now have a new nature that wants to please God, but we're still fallen so we still sin, but since our justification, we are now on a path of sanctification that culminates in our glorification.
Again, answer the question:
How can anyone be held accountable for their actions or choices if they had no free will to make those choices?
"How can anyone be held accountable for their actions or choices if they had no free will to make those choices?"
-----------
Their will was never violated when they sinned. When they sinned, it was because they chose to.
There are other passages of Scripture that pertain to the concept of compatibilism / concurrence, such as God hardening the hearts of individuals (e.g., Exodus 4:21; Joshua 11:20; Isaiah 63:17). While compatibilism seems bewildering to us (Job 9:10; Isaiah 55:8-11; Romans 11:33), this truth has been revealed by God Himself as the means by which His sovereign decree is reconciled with the will of man. God is sovereign over all things (Psalm 115:3, Daniel 4:35, Matthew 10:29-30), God knows all things (Job 37:16; Psalm 147:5; 1 John 3:19-20), AND man is held accountable for what he does (Genesis 18:25; Acts 17:31; Jude 1:15).
'Their will was never violated when they sinned. When they sinned, it was because they chose to. '
–So, according to you they have a will and are free to choose?!, What then is your problem with free will??
Conditions,
There is a distinction between man having a "free will" and man being a “free agent.” Man is “free” to choose that which is determined by his nature or by the laws of nature.
To illustrate, the laws of nature prohibit man from being able to fly, but this does not mean that man is not free. The agent, man, is only free to do that which his nature or the laws of nature allow him to do.
Theologically speaking, though the natural man is unable to submit himself to the law of God (Romans 8:7-8) and unable to come to Christ unless the Father draws him to Him (John 6:44), the natural man still acts freely in respect to his nature. He freely and actively suppresses the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18) because his nature renders him unable to do otherwise (Job 15:14-16; Psalm 14:1-3; 53:1-3; Jeremiah 13:23; Romans 3:10-11).
Two good examples of Jesus’ confirmation of this concept can be found in Matthew 7:16-27 and Matthew 12:34-37.
@Lawrence of Arabia : This is wrong because it makes salvation a result of good works, and attacks the sovereignty of God because God now is the servant of man’s decisions instead of man being the servant of God.
When Abraham trusted God's promise, what WORK did Abraham do? Nothing. So, Abraham's faith was not works based because, Abraham did not have the ability to produce a son on his own. But, Abraham trusted God to fulfill his promise. And his trust lead to his righteousness.
Hebrew 11:12 And so from this one man [Abraham], and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore.
Romans 4:3 What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
@Lawrence of Arabia : Foreknowledge rather is meant in the sense of relationship
This is conjecture. The term is Greek and therefore must be determined from either a Greek dictionary or the passage in which it is used. Nothing in a Greek dictionary would limit it to a relationship. Likewise, nothing in this passage limits it to a relationship. So, it is the logic fallacy of non sequitur.
@Lawrence of Arabia : God’s election (predestination) is a specific, purposeful choice that occurs before the individual is ever born
So, are you claiming that man DOESN'T have a choice?
@Lawrence of Arabia : John Calvin
Logic fallacy – Appeal to Authority.
@Lawrence of Arabia : Paul says that God’s choice was before they had done anything good or bad
But, why was that choice made? As I've pointed out previously, it is due to foreknowledge.
@Lawrence of Arabia : The term “free will” is not mentioned in Scripture anywhere because man does not have a free will, he is bound to sin
While the term is new, the concept is not. The passage below demonstrates free will in action.
Genesis 2:16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden;
@Lawrence of Arabia : It is the grace of God alone through election that grants man repentance and faith in Christ
You're adding to scripture here. None of the passages specify grace alone. Indeed, the only connection we see in scripture is through faith.
Romans 4:16 Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace ...
Romans 5:2 through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. ...
Ephesians 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God
@Lawrence of Arabia : John 6:65 ... unless it has been granted him from the Father.”
There is a difference between being PERMITTED and being FORCED, which your position implies.
Good post!
@Conditions : Good post!
Thanks! I may be slow and with limited time, but I eventually get the post in. 🙂
Live4Him,
OK, let's go back to seminary for a moment...
1) Define "Sovereignty."
2) How does Sovereignty pertain to the nature of God?
3) Can God violate His nature?
L4H: "Logic fallacy – Appeal to Authority."
Not to burst your bubble or anything (because I am sincerely enjoying this thread), but Appeal to Authority is actually a legitimate form of inductive logic. The fallicious form is sometimes called Inappropriate Appeal to Authority, which occurs when:
1. An authority is held to be absolutely (necessarily) correct or infallible, which we know is not the case for humans, or
2. An authority is cited on matters outside his/her field of expertise, eg. the Pope on who's going to win the Superbowl, or
3. The cited figure is not in fact a legitimate expert.
So, for future reference, if you think someone has committed an inappropriate appeal to authority you might want to give a brief explanation of why it's inappropriate.
I'm having trouble posting my response, so I've breaking into pieces.
@Lawrence of Arabia : This is wrong because it makes salvation a result of good works, and attacks the sovereignty of God because God now is the servant of man’s decisions instead of man being the servant of God.
When Abraham trusted God's promise, what WORK did Abraham do? Nothing. So, Abraham's faith was not works based because, Abraham did not have the ability to produce a son on his own. But, Abraham trusted God to fulfill his promise. And his trust lead to his righteousness.
Hebrew 11:12 And so from this one man [Abraham], and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore.
Romans 4:3 What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
Never mind this post. the last one went through.
I know a lot of people don't like the idea of predestination because it sounds too much like Calvin, but it was also the teaching of Paul, and Jesus...
Then why bother to even try being a good Christian? Predestination is like everyone being handed a lotto ticket at birth, but you'll never know whether you're one of the "lucky" winners until you die. Everything in-between is utterly meaningless.
Ken,
You've got to avoid the traps of fatalism. That's not what election is. Think of it rather as adoption. A couple who wish to adopt an infant child may look at dozens of children, but choose only one of them – their decision isn't made on any qualities that the child has, because all that an infant can do is eat and produce the consequences of eating... They choose that child because they choose to love them. Nothing more, nothing less. So it is with our election to salvation. Our response to that is a reciprocated love – we love, because we were first loved.
Lawrence of Arabia
Yet, parents often adopt two babies at one, or fill their homes with adoptive children, as many as they can support and love equally. Choosing to love one child also means choosing not to love another and, if I were looking at this as a believer I'd have to wonder why a God who certainly has enough love to go around simply didn't adopt everyone?
Oops, should read "two babies at once".
"If I were looking at this as a believer I'd have to wonder why a God who certainly has enough love to go around simply didn't adopt everyone?"
-------------–
I completely understand this, and I've often wonderd at this myself. The best answer that I can give you may sound cruel, but it's the only answer I've got.
First, God didn't have to save anyone. Just like the couple who adopts, they do so of their own accord, no one made them adpot a child (or children). But because God chose to save some, He is shown to be merciful. And although there are plenty more that could be saved (or adopted) nothing is forcing Him to save any more than He chooses to. To those whom God chooses not to save, they are left in the state of sinfulness that they were born into. In other words, they are the ones who will demonstrate God's justice against sin. And of course this is where the analogy breaks down, because no one could claim that the adoptive parents were cruel because they didn't adopt EVERYONE. No, they would be called wonderful because they adopted even one.
We are all sinners – we have all violated our consciences, and we have all offended the righteousness of God, and deserve justice. But God has chosen some to be merciful to, because He chose to love them. To those, He paid their fine that they could not afford, and to rest, He will remain just in their punishment.
Think of it rather as adoption
-----
Comparing the actions of God, with the known actions of humans is also a trap. If God arbitrarily makes choices on who is "saved", instead of treating all equally, then this God is not worthy of worship.
"...may sound cruel..."
MAY sound cruel ? Understatement of the century.
" And of course this is where the analogy breaks down,..."
The analogy broke down at the beginning because it was never a valid analogy. Adoptive parents did not create all the babies available for adoption. According to your own theology, God DID create all of the souls available to be saved.
Lawrence
The only answer that you're willing to entertain, you mean? There are other answers, but those would ruin the system.
Sure, nothing is forcing him to save more people, or anyone, but nothing is forcing Superman to save more people, or even anyone either. How many people would still consider Superman a "hero" if he allowed people to die that he could have easily saved? Can you imagine him saying to Lois "No, I just didn't feel like saving that one"?
Adoptive parents of great means, say, choose to adopt only one of a pair of twins. Do you think that some people would not judge them for that? Aren't we all like brothers and sisters in this worldview of yours? Shouldn't it hurt you, presumably as someone who thinks of themselves as one of God's adopted children, that not everyone you love was chosen by him? Any way you cut it, your God could save everyone, but chooses not to and there is no way that you cannot judge this particular being harshly for doing this.
As for the elect still being as sinful as everyone else, isn't that just an indication that there is no evidence to suggest that any of your system is actually in place? All you've got is a particular theology that seeks to make sense out of the problem of evil, but what if it actually doesn't?
"Shouldn't it hurt you, presumably as someone who thinks of themselves as one of God's adopted children, that not everyone you love was chosen by him?"
--------
It most certainly does. As a matter of fact, my wife is currently on the road to attend the funeral of her Aunt who was a staunch atheist in the sense that she was angry at and hated God... This is the email that I sent to my wife this morning:
I know it hurts, but when we all get to heaven, our sense of justice is going to be so sanctified, that we will look upon the punishment of those whom we loved here on earth who were unbelievers as being a righteous act. Here on earth, if we had a loved one who was a murderer, we wouldn’t object to their incarceration, nor, if the state deemed it necessary, the death penalty, because we recognize that for certain horrible acts, there are consequences. A rejection of God is no different, other than it is the ultimate unrighteous act. And justice for them is not something that would come as a surprise to them. It was a choice that they made, being fully aware of the consequences. It is sad, but it is also just. The only other alternative would be to fill heaven with people who didn’t want to be there."
for certain horrible acts, there are consequences. A rejection of God is no different, other than it is the ultimate unrighteous act
-----–
Twisted. Non-belief is on par with murder? Besides, what if someone accepts God, but just happens to follow different religious rituals than you do, because they live in a different culture than you? Don't make the mistake of thinking that your definition of God is the correct one, there are others. "God" in not synonymous with the christian God. Someone can believe in God, yet not have any knowledge of christianity. They are not wrong.
Lawrence of Arabia
How do you know that this atheist Aunt isn't one of God's chosen? People have free will to reject God, right? If you're saying that God, using his omniscience, only chooses the people who won't reject him then your adoptive parent analogy fails at the beginning where you said that all babies are the same.
Lawrence of Arabia,
There is every bit as much evidence (i.e., zero) that Auntie has gone to the Big Rock Candy Mountain and that she is having a wonderful time.
p.s. Your ancient Middle Eastern Israelite book is not evidence of anything supernatural, other than old fantasies and superst.itions. Nobody knows what, if anything, goes on after death.
LofA,
What a horrid thing to say to your wife about her Aunt! Even if you have to be a Believer, at least you could have said something like, "we don't know "God's" plans for certain, or the final outcomes", because, in fact, you don't KNOW.
We can tell a lot about a person by how he says his god behaves, out of myriad possibilities. You? Uh, well your words speak hideousness.
it makes me frightened for the human race that adults actually discuss this fairy tale foolishness seriously. I can understand kids believing in Santa and the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny and God and Jesus, but when we grow up we can distinguish fact from fantasy. Grow up you religious folk. Free your infantile slave minds and join the real world. It really is a very cool place.
I challenge you to explain to me how the mind of Jonathan Edwards was infantile and a slave.
He bought whole heartedly in the god hypothesis, and did not consider the infinite number of other possibilities....unless you meant the contemporary song writer.
Not so much any more, but 20 years ago when The Next Generation and DS9 were both on at the same time, you'd hear arguments just as heated at ComicCon over topics like "which captain handled Q better."
Personally I think that the Borg presented a much greater challenge. At least Q could be reasoned with. I mean, come on!
Reasoned with as much as any god-like being can be, I suppose. The real question is whether the Borg could win against the Dominion? It would be kinda hard to assimilate a shape-shifter, right?
Ken,
OK, I'm reminded of a friend's T-shirt:
"Come over to the Dork side. We have Pi."
The Borg attempted to assimilate a Founder in the DS9 novel "Lesser Evil" but failed miserably when the shape shifter crushed all the nano-probes by altering its shape.
There is some debate as to the canonicity of the novels in the Trekverse, however.
Doc
You read Trek novels? And here I thought you were an intelligent man! 🙂
@Ken
Everyone needs some brain candy now and then. 😉
I've got the X-Men/TNG crossover novel on my bedside table right now.
Doc Vestibule
Sadly, I've read that. Wolverine in the Holodeck with Worf running one of his battle simulations. Classic. They even had Storm notice how much Picard resembled Xavier, and I think this was way before the first X-Men movie. I don't actually remember the plot, or anything, only that it was awesome!
.... still think sucking my girlfriend's dick is an easier way to heaven, seriously.
Spiritual revival, like John Wesley's, that saved England, is only hope for America. Craving to love and be loved is only satisfied thru the one who left us here. Return at last, Jesus!
The only hope for America and the world is Gods kingdom. The one Jesus taught to pray for in Matt 6:9,10. " May your kingdom come and do your will on earth.."
Yes, come Lord Jesus and rule over this land as our King! End the democracy and freedom that is ruining America!
Seriously?
Ben- Gods kingdom will bring many things earthly governments can't do.
Like what is mentioned on Rev 21:4:"And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”
Do you like to like in a world full of conflicts, violent, ruined by pollution, greed, inmoral... Seriously ?
JW
You are still passing the judgment that America's sovereign freedom needs to end.
Also, would you be as willing to end your freedom if it were some powerful alien race who came instead to conquer us and impose these same conditions? Let's say they do exactly what Jesus will supposedly do: impose rule, and get rid of any and all who resist. Would you still prefer that to the America we have today?
America has freedom, but problems still affect the US... Violence , diseases, natural disasters, we all get ill, old and die... But what about freedom all over the world? What about people that die of hunger, poverty, religious extremism, violence, natural disasters?...
Gods kingdom will abolish such things, and will eliminate every element that disrupts world peace...
Either people want it or not, Gods Kingdom will take over, Jesus with his angels will judge accordingly, and finally bring the peace and security that all of us yearn!
JW
Enki isn't going to do any of that.
JW
You still haven't answered my question, what if it wasn't your God imposing paradise upon us at the cost of our freedom, but some alien race? Would you still be just as happy being "saved" by them rather than your God?
Ben- the bible states that God created only the angels and people and animals on earth... But I know that satan can transform himself in order to mislead people to think things.
God is the Almighty, nothing can stop him, not even Satan! But the bible states that when Jesus comes to do judgment on earth, all peoples will know where is that judgment coming from, Gods name has to be sanctified, vindicated... So all peoples will have to know who is the true God.
JW,
The Bible is nothing vis-a-vis the existence of supernatural beings nor of alleged supernatural events of the past, present nor future.
You can refer to it and quote it backwards, forwards and uʍop ǝpısdn all day long. It is not evidence of anything other than ancient Hebrew fantasies and superst.itions.
Eze 38:23:"And I will certainly magnify myself and sanctify myself and make myself known before the eyes of many nations; and they will have to know that I am Jehovah.’"
JW,
Eze 38:23:"And I will certainly magnify myself and sanctify myself and make myself known before the eyes of many nations; and they will have to know that I am Jehovah.’"
-or-
"’.havoheJ ma I taht wonk ot evah lliw yeht dna ;snoitan ynam fo seye eht erofeb nwonk flesym ekam dna flesym yfitcnas dna flesym yfingam ylniatrec lliw I dnA":32:83 ezE
-or-
"’˙ɥɐʌoɥǝظ ɯɐ ı ʇɐɥʇ ʍouʞ oʇ ǝʌɐɥ ןןıʍ ʎǝɥʇ puɐ ؛suoıʇɐu ʎuɐɯ ɟo sǝʎǝ ǝɥʇ ǝɹoɟǝq uʍouʞ ɟןǝsʎɯ ǝʞɐɯ puɐ ɟןǝsʎɯ ʎɟıʇɔuɐs puɐ ɟןǝsʎɯ ʎɟıubɐɯ ʎןuıɐʇɹǝɔ ןןıʍ ı puɐ":32:83 ǝzǝ
Still nothing.
JW
You still haven't answered my question, have you? Would you be a happy little zoo animal if aliens came and ended all our suffering just like Jesus supposedly will?
JW
The Norse writings detail how the world will end at Ragnarök. It's in an ancient book so it's just got to be true, right?
As much as atheism, illicit sale of narcotics is now and will completely destroy america.
Please, tell me how I can "destroy" America with my atheism.
Go ahead. Give it your best shot. If u can't think of anything, read your posts, samdodo
I asked how, not for permission. How can we atheists ruin the world?
Name theif troll strikes again
The only reason not to invade mexico is greed of u.s. government representatives making billions on drug trade.
When the RCC was ruling there would be human BBQ every other day...Was that something God told then to do??
Hold on a minute! You're seriously asking whether God, the guy who supposedly sends countless people to burn in Hell simply for not believing in him, wouldn't make that order?
agreed. so. i am seriously suggesting don't jump off that cliff and blame horus for gravity, u lying idiot
dodo
I'm an atheist; why would I blame any god for gravity?
no its just because longpig is delicious
What to do about Mexico?
– Suspend NAFTA until they clean up their drug problem?
– Annex it making it the 51st state and sending in the FBI and special forces to clean up the drug mess?
– Annexing would also solve a major immigration issue?
Other ideas?
Do you really think the USA is in a position to complain about drugs in other countries?
Or do you mean the chaos that arises when the governmnet can't control its people?
Time for american military might to take over Mexican regional government and knock out cartels. Take 72 hours. Return gov to people
I'm betting they will never find a balanced perspective on religions. Their emphasis on all things negative proves desperation. Their lies and exaggerations prove fraud.
When you have most of the religious only ever talking about the good side of religion, where do you think the balancing voice will come from?
y lie?
Who's lying? There are PLENTY of serious problems to religion just the way it is, so why would anyone need to invent more?
go find a verifiable scholar, dodo. u r not very brite
Lisa
"When you have most of the religious only ever talking about the good side of religion, where do you think the balancing voice will come from?"
so i says u r a liar.
dodo's comeback is classic dodo,
"Lisa
Who's lying? There are PLENTY of serious problems to religion just the way it is, so why would anyone need to invent more?"
say nite nite gracie
If you think this is a hoax, then it is a hoax that has been around for a long, long time.
Extreme Oath of the Jesuits – YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3puXfaE-vc
6 Mar 2011 ... 2:37:14. Watch Later "The Queen of Heaven" *FULL PRESENTATION* by Jonathan Kleck and Clay Eudaly BE4THEFIRE.COMby
It's a fake.
Do you think that with all the research, books and articles written since the early 1800’s on the oath of the Jesuit Priests that it is a “fake”?
[Note: The following books on (or particularly relevant to) the Jesuits are held by the EIPS Library:
Anon.: The Female Jesuit. London, 1851
Anon.: The Mystery of Jesuitism. London, 1658
Anon.: The Secret Instructions of the Jesuits. London, 1824
Anon.: The Secret Instructions of the Jesuits. London, 1824
Barrett, E.B.: The Jesuit Enigma. London, 1929
Barthel, M: The Jesuits. New York, 1984
Bert, M.P.: Gury's Doctrines of the Jesuits. London, 1947
Blakeney, R.P.: Alphonsus Liguori. London, 1852
Brodrick, J., S.J.: The Origin of the Jesuits. New York, 1960
Bungener, L.L.F.: The Jesuits in France or The Priest and the Huguenot. London, 1859
Coape, H.C.: In a Jesuit Net. London, no date
Dalton, E.: The Jesuits. London, 1843
De Courson, R.: Concerning Jesuits. London, 1902
Gallahue, J.: The Jesuit. New York, 1973
Goodier, A.: The Jesuits. London, 1929
Griesinger, T.: History of the Jesuits. London, 1903
Groves, H.C.: The Doctrines and Practices of the Jesuits. London, 1889
Hanna, S.: Jesuitism: or Catholic Action. Belfast, 1938
Hastings, M.: Jesuit Child. Newton Abbot, 1972
Hillerbrand, H.: The Reformation. A Narrative History related by Contemporary Observers and Participants. Ann Arbor, 1989
Lathbury, T.: The State of Popery and Jesuitism in England. London, 1838
Lehmann, L.H.: The Secret of Catholic Power. New York, no date
Liguori, A.M.: The Council of Trent. Dublin, 1846
MacPherson, H.: The Jesuits in History. London, 1914
Martin, M.: The Jesuits. New York, 1987
Nicolini, G.B.: History of the Jesuits. London, 1854
Paisley, I.R.K.: The Jesuits. Belfast, no date
Paris, E.: The Secret History of the Jesuits. London, 1975
Ridley, F.A.: The Jesuits: A Study in Counter-Revolution. London, 1938
Roberts, Archbishop, S.J.: Black Popes. London, 1954
Robertson, A.: The Roman Catholic Church in Italy. London, 1903
Seebohm, F.: The Epoch of the Protestant Reformation. London, 1877
Seymour, M.H.: Mornings among the Jesuits at Rome. London, 1850
Steinmetz, A.: History of the Jesuits. London, 1848 (3 Vols.)
Walsh, W.: The Jesuits in Great Britain. New York, 1903
Wild, J.: Canada and the Jesuits. Toronto, 1889
Wylie, J.A.: Jesuitism: Its Rise, Progress and Insidious Workings. London, no date
Ybarra, T.R. (translator): The Kaiser's Memoirs, by Wilhelm II. New York, 1922]
Christians Today
http://www.christianstoday.org/
http://www.christianstoday.org/
So the Catholic Church, who tells people to pay up or they will be eternally harmed, doesn't like it when people tell them to pay up or they will be harmed,
And after they burn and torture "heretics" they cry persecution when some one criticizes the church. Gotta love it.