Guojing said:

Salvation has always been by faith. (Hebrews 11:6)

Salvation has not always been by faith alone (James 2:24, Matthew 24:13, Revelation 14:9-12)

You understand the difference between these 2 statements?

Click to expand...

I can ask you the same thing.

As for Hebrews 11: 6: Salvation has always been by faith alone. If salvation was by faith and works, God would be a liar when He let Paul state:

Romans 5:16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. NASU

Romans 4:1 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, NASU

Paul stated that justification is a free gift. To emphasize the point that nobody does anything to earn justification God states it is a free gift. If something is free, you pay or do nothing to earn it. If it is a gift, you pay or do nothing to earn it,

As for James 2:24: If anyone accepts James' statement without investigating as to how he can seem to directly contradict Paul is not very concerned about their salvation.

First of all, James' statement in verse 19 which he seems to describe the faith of a true believer as “believing there is one God.” That is exactly what unbelieving Israel still believes. It does not describe a Christians faith. And yes the demons believe there is one God because they were in heaven with the one God and His son. They hated them both that is why they are not in heaven anymore.

How can James make the statement that seems to directly contradict Paul?

James 2:18 But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works. NASU

He is telling us that the only way we can see if anyone has faith by their works. He is saying that humans can only see faith by seeing works. But he also gives us the clue to determine what He is saying besides the verse above.

James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? 22 You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS," and he was called the friend of God. NASU

Verse 22 Abraham's work perfected his faith. It did not earn his salvation. What earned Abraham's salvation? Verse 23 His believing God. Also, in verse 23 James states Abraham's work fulfilled the statement about his believing God and righteousness was reckoned to him. What does that mean?

Romans 8:1 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. NASU

It is obvious that the law of sin and death was fulfilled in Abraham because he was in the Spirit. Did he walk in the Spirit to earn salvation? NO. He walked in the Spirit to continue to have the law of sin and death fulfilled by the Father and live physically. He did not walk in the Spirit to earn salvation.

As for Matthew 24:13 "But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved. NASU

It is obvious that Jesus is referring to the end times so I will combine Matthew above with Revelation 14: 9-12.

Revelation 12:17 So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus. NASU

Revelation 14:12 Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus. NASU

Satan is only mad at those who keep the commandments of of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus in chapter 12. Chapter 12 details natural Israel's journey during the time after Jesus died till the time of the great tribulation. Verse 17 of chapter 12 Satan left the natural Israel to chase those who held the testimony of Jesus. The commandments we are to keep are explained in the NT. They are clearly articulated in 1John.

1 John 3:21 Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God; 22 and whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do the things that are pleasing in His sight. 23 This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us. 24 The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us. NASU

John cites the commandments we are to keep above. A lot of people do not believe those are the commandments of God that we are to keep.

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. NASU

John 13:34 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." NASU

Above is the way that Jesus stated the commandments to John. Now if we persevere in keeping those 2 commandments, after we reach the point of eternal life, we will have eternal life. In the great tribulation what do we need to do beside keep those 2 commandments?

Revelation 6:17 for the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?" NASU

God answered that question in Chapter 7 of revelation.

Revelation 7:14 I said to him, "My lord, you know." And he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. NASU

Those people who have let Jesus' blood make them clean will stand. That means if we persevere in keeping His 2 commandments and let Him keep hold of us we will stand. But if we open our mouth and declare that Jesus is Lord we will do better than just stand. However, when we have done all that we can do, we need to stand and let Him do for us. That is faith.

Rising GOP leaders? Years ago those comments would have sunk their chances.
But they've seen that low information voters are motivated by the vile and vicious. They have chips on their shoulders and want to play the blame game for their failures.
This is not an indictment of all Trump voters. I realize there are intelligent Trump voters whose motives are beyond my powers of deduction.
In short, vile viciousness is a turn on for some voters.

Ellesmere said:

View attachment 371629​

BIBLE VERSES WHICH TAKEN LITERALLY SUPPORT A FLAT EARTH-CENTERED UNIVERSE

Ecclesiastes 1:5
The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises".

1 Chronicles 16:30 NIV​

Tremble before him, all the earth!
The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.

]Revelation 7:1 - "After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth,
back the four winds of the earth..."

Isaiah 11:12 NIV​

..... he will assemble the people of Judah​

from the four quarters of the earth.​

Isaiah 40:22 NIV​

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Job 28:24 NIV​

for he views the the ends of the earth
and sees everything under the heavens.
***********************************************************************************

CHARGES BROUGHT BY THE CHURCH AT GALILEO'S TRIAL (1533)​

The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.

*****************************************************************************

1) Just as with EVOLUTION, a literal interpretation of the Bible in 1533 supported the proposition of the earth as flat, immovable and at the center of the solar system!

2) Any scientifically based research that challenged this concept of the universe was dismissed as ABSURD, FALSE PHILOSOPHICALLY ERRONEOUS IN FAITH and THEOLOGICALLY CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE!

3) Just as with Evolution, the concept of a heliocentric solar system in and of itself does not challenge the existence of GOD but merely forwarded alternative timelines and processes compatible with scientific research!

4) It was not until 1992, following 13 years of investigation, that Pope John Paul representing the Catholic Church, formally admitted its error concerning the prosecution and condemnation of Galileo

5) The Pope also acknowledged that Church theologians had erred when they transposed a question of scientific investigation into the realm of faith!

6) For those supporting a literal interpretation of Creation, while ignoring scientific evidence to the contrary, to be consistent they should also support the view of an immovable earth at the center of the universe - given that as with a 7 day Creation there are sufficient verses in the Bible that would support such a proposition!

Papal Condemnation (Sentence) of Galileo

Welcome to Famous Trials, the Web’s largest and most visited collection of original essays, trial transcripts and exhibits, maps, images, and other materials relating to the greatest trials in world history.public $MetaDesc =

famous-trials.com

Click to expand...

1. our maps are flat - yet no one takes that as proof that the earth has no mountains are is not round like very other object in the sky.
2. The Bible speaks of the "Sphere of the Earth".
3. The Bible says that there is a circle enscribed on our planet "at the boundary between light and dark" j-- which is the case when the plane of light from the sun intersects the sphere of the Earth. Basic geometry.
4. So then , a literal 7 day creation week for Earth and "two great lights" the Sun and moon
5. Evolutionism is belief system that does NOT start with "for in six days God created"

1 Chronicles 16:30 NIV​

Tremble before him, all the earth!
The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.

1. Answer: David said in the Psalms "I shall not be moved" even though scripture shows David moving.

]Revelation 7:1 - "After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth,
back the four winds of the earth..."

Isaiah 11:12 NIV​

..... he will assemble the people of Judah​

from the four quarters of the earth.​

Studyman said:

The Hebrew word for "LAW" is "תּוֹרָה", "towrah". This means that you just said;

"Not sure what you mean here, but animal sacrifices for sin go way back before God's Law became God's Law."

That doesn't make much sense.

Click to expand...

The Torah or Pentateuch consists of the first 5 books of the bible. It is often referred to as the Book of the Law.

Studyman said:

21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.


Nevertheless, there was No Commandment of God for man to kill animals "because of their transgressions". This command wasn't "ADDED" to God's LAWS until 430 years after Abraham, at least this is what Paul and the Holy Prophets teach.



4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying "of his gifts": and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

Yes, it wasn't an offering Commanded by God "because of their Transgressions", which is the entire premise of your reply. It was a free will offering to God out of respect and honor towards God.

Click to expand...

This assumes facts not in evidence. Where is your evidence of this? How does killing a lamb respect and honor God? Are you suggesting that God is honored by killing an innocent creature and burning its carcass on an altar? If so, do you kill and burn a lamb on an altar to honor God? Of course not. Why? Because the lamb that takes away the sins of the world has fulfilled that function. The offering was a sin offering.

Studyman said:

Prov. 3: 9 Honour the LORD with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase: 10 So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine.

Click to expand...

That is exactly what Cain was doing. He was a farmer, so he brought his first fruits. Why wasn't God pleased with that?

Studyman said:

There was no Commandment from God that they should kill goats, "because of their Transgressions". The AI teaching here doesn't mention that Cain gave a free will offering to God, same as Abel, but it wasn't the best of his increase. I think you have missed the entire point of the Scripture in your attempt to defend and justify the religious philosophy that God's entire Law wasn't "ADDED" until AFTER Transgressions.

Click to expand...

Just because those exact words are not written out, it should be obvious to you as to the function of these sacrifices. If they are as you claim, then why do you not carry out such sacrifices to honor God today?

Studyman said:

3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. 4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

Rom. 12: 1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that "ye present your bodies" a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. 2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Isn't this the real difference between Cain and Abel?

Click to expand...

What? How does this refer to Cain bringing his first fruits to the altar.

Studyman said:

Yes, a free will offering to God for His Mercy and promises. And to Ratify a covenant God made with Noah, just as Moses in the Ex. 24 verse you referenced that I posted for our discussion and in the hope that you might answer questions asked of you, concerning the teaching you are furthering. There is no mention of a Commandment of God to kill animals, "because of his transgressions". You are making my point for me.

Click to expand...

There absolutely is. Animal sacrifice is always what pointed to Christ on the cross. John did not say, "Behold the Avocado that takes away the sins of the world." He said "Lamb."

Studyman said:

I think you should read the entire story. And yes, it wasn't about killing animals for the remission of Abraham's sin.


Yes, it was not about Abraham sacrificing Isaac "because of his transgressions". The command by God to kill animals "because of transgressions" was not "ADDED" to God's Laws, Statutes, Commandments and Judgments Abraham obeyed, until 430 years after Abraham.

Again, you are making the point Paul was making. The "LAW" that was ADDED, "Because of Transgressions", wasn't added until after the Golden Calf.

Click to expand...

This is rabbit hole theology. We are in biblical wonderland here. Jacob sacrificing Isaac tells the story of God having His own son killed for our sins. "God will provide a lamb." What do you think that means?

Studyman said:

Yes, God's Laws existed which defined sin, and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel) lived by them, and free will offerings to God were offered as expressions of Love and respect for their King. But Israel lost sight of them, and sent Moses to show them once again.

Click to expand...

This is incredibly bazaar. You are saying that in order to

Studyman said:

But the "LAW" concerning burnt offering and sacrifices "because of transgressions", (Sin) wasn't "ADDED until after Israel broke God's Covenant, and Moses went up the 2nd Time to secure another Covenant.

This is the "LAW" Paul was speaking to, that the required Jews to come to "them" for atonement, and not to Jesus. Paul is telling them that the very reason this "ADDED" Law was given, was to lead them to their True High Priest, the Lamb of God.

The deceiver would have you and I believe that "ALL" of God's Laws defining sin, righteousness, holiness, judgments etc.,, given to Moses, were not given until after Transgressions. But this deception is stupid, given that their is NO Transgression, without LAW.



Remember, we are arguing about what "LAW" was ADDED "because of Transgressions" that the Pharisees were still promoting to the Galatians.

A Law that was to Lead them to their Prophesied, True High Priest. A "Law" that wasn't "ADDED" until 430 years after Abraham.

This World's religious system, and by extension you, because you promote the same philosophy, is that this "LAW" was the entire Law of God, made known to the world through Moses, His Chosen Servant, through the Law and Prophets. And you specifically stated the LAW can not be "parsed", meaning that if I Love the Lord my God with all my heart, I must also kill a goat "because of my transgressions" or I am not obeying God. I tried to show you how the "Priesthood", unlike God's Judgments and Commandments, was temporary from it's conception. And was Prophesied to end. While God's Laws defining sin, righteousness, clean, holy and just, are eternal.

Click to expand...

Now lets get out of the rabbit hole and go over some examples.

️ Step 2: Biblical Examples Before the Mosaic Law​

1. Genesis 3:21 – The first shedding of blood​

“Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.”

Click to expand...

While not explicitly called a “sacrifice,” this verse implies that animals were slain to cover human shame. The skins would have required the death of an animal — the first recorded death after sin entered the world.
Spiritual meaning: Bloodshed provided covering (Heb. kaphar = atone). This sets the pattern that forgiveness and cleansing from sin require substitutionary death.

---

2. Genesis 4:3–5 – Cain and Abel​

“Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering.”

Click to expand...

The “firstlings” and “fat portions” indicate a blood sacrifice, unlike Cain’s produce offering.
Hebrews 11:4 interprets this scene:

“By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous.”

Click to expand...

Why was Abel’s sacrifice “more excellent”? Because it was an atoning offering — an act of faith that looked forward to the covering of sin through blood (cf. Hebrews 9:22: “without shedding of blood there is no remission”).

So while Genesis doesn’t label Abel’s act a “sin offering,” the New Testament identifies it as a righteous, faith-based, blood sacrifice — a prototype of substitutionary atonement.

---

3. Genesis 8:20–21 – Noah after the Flood​

“Noah built an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And the LORD smelled a sweet savour…”

Click to expand...

The phrase “sweet savour” (Heb. reyaḥ niḥoach) later appears repeatedly in Leviticus to describe sacrifices that make atonement (Lev. 1:9, 3:5, 4:31).
God’s response to Noah’s offering — “I will never again curse the ground for man’s sake” — mirrors the appeasement and reconciliation language of atonement.

Noah’s act has atoning overtones: the world had just been judged for sin, and Noah offers sacrifice representing cleansing and restored favor.

---

4. Genesis 22:13 – Abraham and Isaac​

“And Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.”

Click to expand...

The substitutionary nature is unmistakable — the ram dies “in the place of” Isaac.
That is the exact logic of a sin offering: one life given to spare another.
Later Scripture confirms the typology:

• John 1:29: “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.”
• Romans 8:32: “He did not spare His own Son.”

So while this sacrifice is called a burnt offering, its theological meaning is substitutionary atonement — precisely what a sin offering represents.

---

5. Job 1:5 and 42:8 – Job’s priestly offerings​

“Job… offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned…”
“My servant Job shall pray for you: for him will I accept… and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering.”

Click to expand...

These clearly function as sin offerings — the intent is explicitly to make intercession for sin.
Job lived in the patriarchal period before Moses, showing that substitutionary sacrifice for sin was already known.

Ed Parenteau said:

And you're saying the bible says "He came down physically". Highlight where it says "He came down physically".

Click to expand...

So when he sat down to dinner with Abraham and then had a discussion about Sodom and Gomorrah- I don’t know how much more physical it can get.

All those past examples I listed in that article of his coming imply a physical appearance. I don’t think it matters if his coming can be seen with people’s material eyes or only perceived spiritually. The Bible does not seem to make that distinction as far as ITS doctrine of the coming of the Lord. It just prophetically says he is coming, often giving dates or events that demonstrate his coming. Then, listing them historically if it was history.

Lukaris said:

I believe much of what you are saying is in line with what the Lord tells us to abide in Him especially in John 15:1-10. Probably the basic way is when we give alms & pray for ourselves and others ( Matthew 6:1-14 etc.). If a person is poor or with physical disability, then solely prayer ( I would think).


( reply to post #11, for some reason reply prompt didn’t link our posts).

Click to expand...

I'd also like to add, spreading the gospel too and guiding others to righteousness.

Hans Blaster said:

Frankly I don't remember discussing the benevolence of the US government, let alone any state government, with you in the past.

Click to expand...

Without getting into these political waters too deeply since politics isn't my specialization, I'll simply say I think the preamble of the U.S. Constitution should have read ... " .... to form a less imperfect nation .... " so as to emphasize that a lot of social and ideological improvement was, and still is, needed--- a lot more than what many of my fellow Americans over the past 250 years have though was needed.

Admittedly, however, my definition of "benevolence" will be highly tempered and contoured by Biblical Theology rather than by Enlightenment principles.

rjs330 said:

Wow, this is unbelievable. This is what happens when when one starts listening to the rhetoric of the left.

Click to expand...

I saw no mention of their political ideology in the article, how did you arrive at that conclusion?

HIM said:

There is no I in Christ.
None the less Paul said to the Church.
Acts 20:26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I [am] pure from the blood of all [men].
Acts 20:27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Acts 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Acts 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
Acts 20:31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

Click to expand...

None the less the way this Scripture is being applied here is still wrong. Taking this Scripture out of context of the rest of the New Testament and all of the Scripture I quoted previously here is an unsound hermeneutic.

While I fully believe that Paul read Ezekiel, Paul was also a murderer who persecuted the church before his conversion, and had difficulties earning the trust of people in the early church for understandable reasons. Many people in the Early Church would have had relatives killed by Paul. This is a personal farewell address that is filled with heartache over his previous actions that have hurt people. Paul is imagining the slanderers that will come along after he leaves that will come along to claim that he isn’t trustworthy. He is telling his leadership to watch out for those.

This Scripture is not some random general truth to condemn silence in the face of evil or error.

Amos 5:10-13
10 They hate the one who reproves in the gate,
and they abhor the one who speaks the truth.
11 Therefore because you trample on the poor
and take from them levies of grain,
you have built houses of hewn stone,
but you shall not live in them;
you have planted pleasant vineyards,
but you shall not drink their wine.
12 For I know how many are your transgressions
and how great are your sins—you who afflict the righteous, who take a bribe
and push aside the needy in the gate.
13 Therefore the prudent will keep silent in such a time,
for it is an evil time.

Ecclesiastes 3:7 said:

a time to tear and a time to sew;
a time to keep silent and a time to speak;

Click to expand...

If one is asserting that a passage of Scripture means something that contradicts the rest of the Bible, I think their interpretation needs to change.

It's not how much of God's Word you read that matters most, but how deeply you think about it. And of course, the more carefully you think it over the more time it takes!

The main issue here is how highly we value Scripture. If we make it a priority we will certainly find the time to think deeply about it.

There are people who read their Bibles every day, but it has very little impact on their beliefs and behaviour. They don't take it in. They don't feed on it.

We need Scripture as much as we need food (see Matthew 4:4). When we truly recognise that, we will find time.

‘You don’t have to play Jesus on TV to be Jesus to the world around you. And we can do this by making the Eucharist part of our daily life, like St. Carlo.’

Editor’s Note: Actor Jonathan Roumie took part in the Napa Institute’s Eucharistic procession through the streets of New York City on Oct. 14, 2025. Below is a transcript of the talk he gave inside St. Patrick’s Cathedral just before the Mass that preceded the procession. The transcript has been edited for clarity and brevity.



Good afternoon. Well, the story goes that St. Carlo Acutis, as a 7-year-old on his way to make his first Holy Communion a year early at a monastery in Milan, profoundly uttered on the drive up that “The Eucharist is my highway to heaven.” And shortly after experiencing daily Mass, he wanted — quote — “to always be united to Jesus. This is my life’s program” — end quote.

As a born-and-raised New Yorker, I would like to add a similar kind of sentiment: that the Eucharist is my express train to heaven. Probably the “3” train, for obvious reasons, unless it’s the weekend, in which case, due to closures, you probably have to take the “2,” or, worse yet, you got to shuttle over to Grand Central and then maybe take the “4” or the “5.” And we all know how that ends up.

Continued below.

David Lamb said:

Do you have a bible reference for the tribe of Dan having the snake as an emblem?

Click to expand...

The "snake emblem" for the Tribe of Dan originates from Jacob's blessing in Genesis 49:17, which states, "Dan shall be a serpent by the roadside, a viper along the path, that bites the horse's heels so that its rider falls backward".

DaisyDay said:

Maybe, should he be forced out of Congress

Click to expand...

Unlikely.

The president is chosen first, and the vice president is chosen from the remaining nine candidates, according to the USCCB.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) will select a new president and vice president during its Fall Plenary Assembly, which is set for Nov. 10 to Nov. 13 in Baltimore, Maryland.

In November, the three-year terms for the current president, Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio, and vice president, Archbishop William E. Lori, are set to expire. The new conference leaders, who will be chosen from a slate of 10 candidates, will also serve three-year terms.

The following slate of candidates was selected through nominations from the bishops:

Bishop Robert E. Barron, Diocese of Winona-Rochester

Archbishop Paul S. Coakley, Archdiocese of Oklahoma City

Bishop Daniel E. Flores, Diocese of Brownsville

Archbishop Richard G. Henning, Archdiocese of Boston

Bishop David J. Malloy, Diocese of Rockford

Archbishop Nelson J. Pérez, Archdiocese of Philadelphia

Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades, Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend

Archbishop Alexander K. Sample, Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon

Archbishop Charles C. Thompson, Archdiocese of Indianapolis

Archbishop Edward J. Weisenburger, Archdiocese of Detroit

Continued below.

Bradskii said:

No, it's perfectly understandable. We'll use the usual definition thanks.

Click to expand...

No we won't. We'll ignore your simplistic use of the definition. Why? Because like other choices, we each analytically "choose" how we're going to denote our words and as to how we actually think they signify certain referents. The truth of the matter is, moral relativism doesn't say much or clarify much, let alone liberate anyone from certain moral conditions that they may be culpable for.

..... And you can stop with your soft but constant insinuations that I'm somehow suffering from the Dunning-Kruger Effect in discussing this.

Thank you.

Michie said:

We’ve all heard it before from politicians and pundits on both sides of the aisle. They finally reach the end of their stump speech or broadcast, pause dramatically, and then warn you that “This is the most important election of our lifetime.”

Sure, sure. That’s what you said last time. And the time before that. But the election came and went, and the world didn’t stop spinning. The sun didn’t darken. Life went on.

But life is changing fast in these not-so-United States. In the last few years, we’ve witnessed a surge in deadly acts of politically motivated violence — almost all of them perpetrated by leftists of one rotten flavor or another (pro-LGBT, Antifa, anti-ICE, pro-abortion, pro-Hamas, you name it), and almost all of them targeting conservatives, Christians, or Republicans.

Most notably, of course, was the public assassination of conservative Christian hero, husband, father, and now martyr Charlie Kirk, just four short weeks ago.

If you, as a normal patriotic American citizen, had hoped that the left would “tone things down” after Charlie was shot through the neck — and explicitly for his Christian and conservative beliefs and speech — you would be wrong.

Instead, the Left is doubling down on its violent rhetoric. After all, if the only “good fascist” is a “dead fascist” (and these days anyone to the right of Bill Clinton is a fascist), why would they stop? Why indeed when you understand that not only is the left not ashamed of using speech and slogans that incite physical and even deadly force against their opponents but that they feel completely morally justified in doing so. They think we are Nazis. That you are a Nazi. And what do you with Nazis? Well, you know.

Continued below.

Doubling Down on Death: The Left Stands by Jay Jones After Violent Texts Go Public

Jay Jones’ leaked texts threatening to put “two bullets to the head” of a political rival and fantasizing about dying children sound like something written in a serial killer's manifesto — not by a candidate running for the top law enforcement job in Virginia. We’ve all heard it before from...

www.standingforfreedom.com

Click to expand...

I'm glad my dad isn't dealing with the news; he was a peacekeeper in Germany after WW2.

The former auditor general says his 2017 ouster was unjust and part of a wider effort to block financial reform inside the Vatican.

Libero Milone, the Vatican’s ex-auditor general, doesn’t give up easily. Having had his lawsuit against the Vatican for unlawful dismissal rejected in 2024, fined 113,000 euros in trial costs, and his appeal rejected in July, he has now taken his case to the Court of Cassation, the supreme court of Vatican City State.

He has also written to Pope Leo XIV requesting a private audience, not only to explain his case but also to warn him of the reality of the Vatican’s financial situation which, he firmly believes, continues to be dire despite what the Vatican tries to convey.

Continued below.

coral bells

I agree with Dr. Wallace that elections often involve ethical questions that are implemented into public policy, and that it is appropriate for priests and pastors to offer guidance in ethical questions. Some of these questions come up periodically in the lectionary, in fact -- our relationship with the poor, and the sick, and the stranger, for a few examples.

I disagree, however, when he takes the further step of wanting pastors to endorse particular candidates.

Pastors should help their people discern candidates who uphold biblical truth, not shrink back out of fear of “dividing the congregation.”

Click to expand...

Helping a godly candidate get on the ballot is not “political.”

Click to expand...

In American culture, and American law, there's a difference between saying from the pulpit "It's important to take care of the poor" versus "Vote for Senator Smith". Most of the time, I'd prefer to draw the line in between those two things.

I can imagine exceptions. I've encountered a few situations in states I've lived in where the state passed a law or policy that was destructive to people, and our bishops spoke out against it. (Right now, for example, there's a town in my state that wants to use eminent domain to seize the property of an active Episcopal church and close it, and our bishop voiced opposition to the seizure strongly and immediately.)

But mostly, I'd prefer for priests and pastors to teach about Christian ethical principles, and perhaps about how we think ethically when creating public policy, maybe even endorsing some particular policies, and then stop short of endorsing party X or candidate Y. Very few parties or candidates are wholly angels or devils, after all; most parties and candidates are a complicated mix, and people of good faith can weigh the relevant ethical values in different but reasonable ways.

Yum

onion rings?

Michigan pastor and his father go to emergency requests for sacraments in a pickup truck.

A few years after Father Joe Krupp’s mother died in 2015, the priest got an idea: Why not have Dad move in?

The four-bedroom rectory at Church of the Holy Family in Grand Blanc, Michigan, built in the early 1960s, a time of plentiful vocations, is too big for the two priests who use it now. A first-floor room was available, so Gordon Krupp, a retired pipefitter who is now 89, wouldn’t have to use the stairs.

Gordon, who raised his family in Montrose, about 25 miles northwest of Grand Blanc, left his house for the rectory.

The very day Gordon moved in, around 2019, a middle-of-the-night urgent call for sacraments came in. Father Joe got up to respond to it.

Continued below.

Robert Redford