CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Christianity

[NKBJ]

Truth.

Thanks for photo. That's a keeper.
I may hang it on the wall with a caption that says

BUT SOMETIMES HE JUST DOESN'T SCARE THEM ENOUGH

 

[T.Lex]

This past weekend we celebrated the Baptism of Jesus. That is such an important event, yet seems like it gets overlooked.

There are several things that stand out to me about it, including a nearly-explicit description of the Trinity, but one I've tried to hold close relates to what parents should say to their kids. Specifically, Luke 3:21-22. The heavens open up, the Holy Spirit descends, and God speaks. He says, "This is my beloved Son, and I am well-pleased."

As a parent (and a child) the communicating of those 2 ideas - I love you, and I am proud of you - are so powerful. The "I'm proud of you" runs the risk of being a participation-trophy kind of thing, but at the same time, it is important to pay attention to when kids do things right. Rewarding them for those things, being proud of them for those things, can help encourage the right kind of self-confidence and self-esteem.

God saw Jesus get baptized, and wanted to encourage that. He was proud of His Son. Granted, Jesus likely didn't have quite exactly the same self-esteem issues that kids today have, but that He was still human.

It seems to me that was pretty direct guidance to all parents on how to get a simple thing right.

 

[Benp]

This past weekend we celebrated the Baptism of Jesus. That is such an important event, yet seems like it gets overlooked.

There are several things that stand out to me about it, including a nearly-explicit description of the Trinity, but one I've tried to hold close relates to what parents should say to their kids. Specifically, Luke 3:21-22. The heavens open up, the Holy Spirit descends, and God speaks. He says, "This is my beloved Son, and I am well-pleased."

As a parent (and a child) the communicating of those 2 ideas - I love you, and I am proud of you - are so powerful. The "I'm proud of you" runs the risk of being a participation-trophy kind of thing, but at the same time, it is important to pay attention to when kids do things right. Rewarding them for those things, being proud of them for those things, can help encourage the right kind of self-confidence and self-esteem.

God saw Jesus get baptized, and wanted to encourage that. He was proud of His Son. Granted, Jesus likely didn't have quite exactly the same self-esteem issues that kids today have, but that He was still human.

It seems to me that was pretty direct guidance to all parents on how to get a simple thing right.

Encouraging is huge! It does more help someone than anything, but it also helps those who do the encouraging. Everyone benefits from it and it costs nothing.

 

[indiucky]

This is funny....I mean real funny.....



[video=youtube;s6ezEPk_tIo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6ezEPk_tIo[/video]

 

[T.Lex]

Niiiice.

 

[indiucky]

Niiiice.

"How'd Jesus get a blue check mark and verified? I mean he's only got like 12 followers...."

 

[ArcadiaGP]

 

[ArcadiaGP]

 

[indiucky]

 

[Bartman]

I've posted in this thread before about my indecision concerning which denomination I should follow/join. Despite my struggles with some of their doctrines, and the problems it would cause with my home life, I have been drawn to the Catholic church from time to time. They just have a way of...

I don't intend to start a pile-on here. That happens way too often. But over the weekend I saw a kid who took part in a pro-life rally condemned by the bishop of his own diocese for wearing a hat and smiling crookedly. When viewing a longer video that provided more context, what it looked like to this novice Christian was a kid trying his best to turn the other cheek after being insulted and provoked. The liberal media's actions don't surprise me, I expect them to be scumbags at this point. But I can't help thinking that if I was in the boy's shoes, I would feel a sense of betrayal that a representative of the church would rush to condemn me without even hearing my side of the story. The Diocese has stated that they have launched an "independent third party investigation" into the incident and that they will not comment further until it is completed. One would wish they would have waited for those results before they chose to smear one of their students in the media. So maybe the diocese and school administration are trying to avoid making the same mistake twice. Ok, sucks for the kid, but I imagine its not the first time he's learned that lesson.

But then we see in the news that yesterday, professed Roman Catholic Andrew Cuomo signed into law the so-called "Reproductive Health Act" which legally allows late-term and partial birth abortions. And then called for a celebration of it in the city. The contrast between these two incidents is striking.

Now I wouldn't presume to speak for the Almighty. And I doubt the RC church cares much for my opinion. But if Cuomo isn't excommunicated over this, then I will know unequivocally that I have no place in the Catholic church.

 

[T.Lex]

Ooof, yeah. It is tough.

On the first issue, I can feel some sympathy for the bishop. That is, the initial reporting was REALLY bad. And, the US Catholic Church has had ... issues... with appearing to be responsive to problems. The bishop's first reaction was to be seen to react. (Remember the heat the Pope got for not reacting to the newest round of priest abuse?) I totally agree that the reaction - and the need to be seen to react - wasn't right. It was an indulgence of temporal pressure.

On the second issue, I'm not sure excommunication is the right answer. There's a middle ground - "obstinate perseverance in sin" or something like that - in which the bishop is basically saying that the person is in sin and can't partake in communion. Its kinda like being on probation while they try to get the person to see the error of their ways and return to communion with the church.

But really, how often does he go to mass? It seems to me that he probably isn't a practicing Catholic anyway.

Also, for me, his real problem is his advocacy for the abortion rights. I can understand - sorta - if he takes the position that in his role as elected governor, if the legislature passes a bill that is the will of the people, then his role is to determine whether it is a proper exercise of legislative power. (IMHO, this isn't, but that's beside the point.) He can veto it or sign it. To me, that MIGHT be considered an act that can be defended. He's in a secular position. (Again, based on what I know about the bill, I'd force the veto vote.)

But, again this is as I understand it, Cuomo advocated for this bill. He argued FOR abortion rights in a way that is contradictory to Catholic beliefs. Heck, not just Catholic, I'd even say Judeo-Christian beliefs (among others). For that, I don't think he can fairly be considered in communion with the Church.

 

[historian]

But, again this is as I understand it, Cuomo advocated for this bill. He argued FOR abortion rights in a way that is contradictory to Catholic beliefs. Heck, not just Catholic, I'd even say Judeo-Christian beliefs (among others). For that, I don't think he can fairly be considered in communion with the Church.

List of Catholics in Congress:
Kristen Gillibrand
Dick Durbin
Tim Kane
Patrick Leahy
Nancy Pelosi

I'm waiting for the excommunication letters, as I have been for years. If the RCC wants to get serious about believing its beliefs, it would be a good start.

 

[T.Lex]

List of Catholics in Congress:
Kristen Gillibrand
Dick Durbin
Tim Kane
Patrick Leahy
Nancy Pelosi

I'm waiting for the excommunication letters, as I have been for years. If the RCC wants to get serious about believing its beliefs, it would be a good start.

So, this gets into matters of conscience. I do not know to what extent those Catholic hold heretical beliefs or persist in open sinfulness.

We are all sinners.

Excommunication is a Really Big Deal. As with many Catholic rules, there's a process for it. That process is up to their bishop. And, as I said, there is at least 1 intermediate step before excommunication.

A deeper issue is that if the Church becomes "too active" (definitions of that may vary), then it becomes far more difficult for any Catholic to get elected to anything. It resurrects (pardon the pun) the trope about Catholics answering to the Pope instead of their constituents. For Catholics to be able to influence the political world, they need to be electable. If the Church controls any of them, that reduces the chance of all Catholics to be elected.

Generally, other bishops have been willing to comment on elected Catholics that do not appear to be aligned with Church teachings. For me, it is enough for the Church to point out how prominent Catholics are "doing it wrong" as a way of making examples for the rest of us how not to be.

 

[historian]

So, this gets into matters of conscience. I do not know to what extent those Catholic hold heretical beliefs or persist in open sinfulness.

We are all sinners.

Excommunication is a Really Big Deal. As with many Catholic rules, there's a process for it. That process is up to their bishop. And, as I said, there is at least 1 intermediate step before excommunication.

A deeper issue is that if the Church becomes "too active" (definitions of that may vary), then it becomes far more difficult for any Catholic to get elected to anything. It resurrects (pardon the pun) the trope about Catholics answering to the Pope instead of their constituents. For Catholics to be able to influence the political world, they need to be electable. If the Church controls any of them, that reduces the chance of all Catholics to be elected.

Generally, other bishops have been willing to comment on elected Catholics that do not appear to be aligned with Church teachings. For me, it is enough for the Church to point out how prominent Catholics are "doing it wrong" as a way of making examples for the rest of us how not to be.

See...I would find "matters of conscience" to be things like welfare and criminal justice, whereas I would believe that a Church which openly claims its members (you have to do things to remain in the RCC, and it is a strict membership) would want to make sure that it's members are espousing the Church doctrine (Pelosi: "My religion compels me—and I love it for it—to be against discrimination of any kind in our country, and I consider [the ban on gay marriage] a form of discrimination.").

It just seems off to me that the Church does not publicly separate from those members who are aaaaaayyyy out of doctrinal line and even use the church to support positions that the church itself condemns.

 

[JettaKnight]

Sure does seem like the RCC is more and more a "big tent".

I know if I did those things, my elders would demand we "a chat".

 

[T.Lex]

So, there's a bit of a problem for me, personally.

I've been in a professional role that is at odds with (modern) church teachings: defending death sentences. That is, once the inmate is sentenced to death, there are certain appeals. On behalf of the state, I did my best to make sure those death sentences remained, using every legal argument I could find. I was pretty effective, too (if I do say so myself).

About 3 times, I was "on call" for an execution in case there were any last minute filings.

There were some ... polite, but terse conversations with the defense counsel who several times were also Catholic. And intensely anti-death penalty. Worse, were the conversations with certain family members whom I love, who were disappointed in my role.

I can assure you, I undertook the role only with prayerful discernment before and during that entire time. Also, with the recognition that I will be judged at some point for all of my actions, those included.

I bring that up as context to say that I'm very reluctant to call for excommunication of people who participate in political roles. Is it justified, for people like Cuomo? IMHO yeah. And probably others.

And while I believe there are lines that delineate parts of that spectrum of activities, I'm not sure where they are. And I don't think very many people on this earth really do, either.

 

[Bartman]

I can’t help but notice your wording on that - “reluctant to call for excommunication for those in political roles.”

Allow me a hypothetical: Let’s say there’s a member of your parish who is an outspoken pro-choice proponent. She’s all over social media, making YouTube videos, marching on campus, the whole nine yards.

Let’s further say that her priest has spoken with her on more than one occasion that her views on abortion directly contradict the views of the church. Our young firebrand refuses to back off from her position stating that a woman’s right to choose supersedes the authority of the church. What happens then? Do the priest and bishop just turn a blind eye and allow this woman to continue to receive the sacraments of the church while rejecting its teachings?

My point is, does this member of the laity receive the same wide margin that you would give to someone in a political role?

 

[T.Lex]

I can’t help but notice your wording on that - “reluctant to call for excommunication for those in political roles.”

Allow me a hypothetical: Let’s say there’s a member of your parish who is an outspoken pro-choice proponent. She’s all over social media, making YouTube videos, marching on campus, the whole nine yards.

Let’s further say that her priest has spoken with her on more than one occasion that her views on abortion directly contradict the views of the church. Our young firebrand refuses to back off from her position stating that a woman’s right to choose supersedes the authority of the church. What happens then? Do the priest and bishop just turn a blind eye and allow this woman to continue to receive the sacraments of the church while rejecting its teachings?

My point is, does this member of the laity receive the same wide margin that you would give to someone in a political role?

Fair question.... I want to think this over a bit more, but my initial reaction is that you're parsing my words too thinly. I think I would extend the same reluctance to "regular" people, not just people who work in political positions.

(As a clarification, I've never been elected to anything - I was serving in an appointed position.)

Let's also be clear that I'm absolutely not taking excommunication off the table. I can be persuaded to do all sorts of things that I'm reluctant to do. But, I just think we (as in the Catholic church) need to be exceedingly careful in when and how that is applied.

 

[JettaKnight]

So, there's a bit of a problem for me, personally.

I've been in a professional role that is at odds with (modern) church teachings: defending death sentences. That is, once the inmate is sentenced to death, there are certain appeals. On behalf of the state, I did my best to make sure those death sentences remained, using every legal argument I could find. I was pretty effective, too (if I do say so myself).

About 3 times, I was "on call" for an execution in case there were any last minute filings.

There were some ... polite, but terse conversations with the defense counsel who several times were also Catholic. And intensely anti-death penalty. Worse, were the conversations with certain family members whom I love, who were disappointed in my role.

I can assure you, I undertook the role only with prayerful discernment before and during that entire time. Also, with the recognition that I will be judged at some point for all of my actions, those included.

I bring that up as context to say that I'm very reluctant to call for excommunication of people who participate in political roles. Is it justified, for people like Cuomo? IMHO yeah. And probably others.

And while I believe there are lines that delineate parts of that spectrum of activities, I'm not sure where they are. And I don't think very many people on this earth really do, either.

I'd argue that it's your job to defend death sentences, not necessarily your own personal stance. I'd also argue that the death penalty is a pretty squishy theological playground. Even I wouldn't try and hammer in a stake there.


For the individuals listed above, it's clearly their own personal stance, and dare I say mission to push the boundaries in a direction opposite of [strike]the Church[/strike] God's direction.


Progressive Christian: "Well, my God wouldn't allow X to happen and wants me to push Y!"
Real Christian: "Of course. That's because 'your God' is a figment of your own desires and not based in reality as He has so clearly shown Himself and his desires in scripture."

 

[Ziggidy]

Fair question.... I want to think this over a bit more, but my initial reaction is that you're parsing my words too thinly. I think I would extend the same reluctance to "regular" people, not just people who work in political positions.

(As a clarification, I've never been elected to anything - I was serving in an appointed position.)

Let's also be clear that I'm absolutely not taking excommunication off the table. I can be persuaded to do all sorts of things that I'm reluctant to do. But, I just think we (as in the Catholic church) need to be exceedingly careful in when and how that is applied.

I agree that one needs to "proceed with caution" when talking about excommunicating anyone; however, a stand must be taken against anyone who violates the church - in this case we're talking Catholic church. When so called catholics (or anyone for that matter) encourages murder (abortion) or is equally vocal with other topics that go against the church, they must be dealt with. I would believe that a priest would refuse communion to someone like Cuomo who is supporting murder so openly. I am not suggesting this problem is with the catholic church only, it is very wide spread and includes a number of practices.

There are other examples, but that is what I think of.

To ignore such problems creates a multitude of other problems.