If you are one of the conservative culture warriors who is certain that America's moral fabric is unraveling, then how do you square your sense of doom with the news that the U.S. teen birth rate is at an all-time low?
Teen childbearing has been generally on a long-term decline in the United States since the late 1950s. In spite of these declines, the U.S. teen birth rate remains one of the highest among other industrialized countries. Moreover, childbearing by teenagers continues to be a matter of public concern because of the elevated health risks for teen mothers and their infants. In addition, significant public costs are associated with teen childbearing, estimated at $10.9 billion annually [Brady E. Hamilton, Ph.D., and Stephanie J. Ventura, M.A., "Birth Rates for U.S. Teenagers Reach Historic Lows for All Age and Ethnic Groups," NCHS Data Brief, April 2012].
Now I suppose you could take the Sinophobe line that every child-bearing American woman do her duty for the Party and produce little warriors... but that's just crazy, right? And no rational observer can see teenagers having babies as a positive moral or economic indicator, right?
Here in the land of oppressive anti-abortion legislation and Leslee Unruh's hyperbole, South Dakota teenagers are still producing a few more babies than the national average. South Dakota's teen birth rate is 34.9 births per 1,000 girls ages 15 to 19. The national rate was about 34 per 1,000. South Dakota ranks 22nd in the nation. Wyoming and Montana have higher teen birth rates; Nebraska, North Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota kids (teen birth rate in MN: 22.5, eighth lowest nationwide) do a better job of keeping it zipped or keeping it wrapped.
Related: The new South Dakota Youth Risk Behavior Survey for 2011 finds 47% of our teenagers reporting they've had sex. 15% say they've had sex with four or more partners. 35% say they've had sex in the last three months. 61% of those recent fornicators did so with a condom; 24% used birth control pills.
"how do you square your sense of doom with the news that the U.S. teen birth rate is at an all-time low?"
First off, you can't say it is a all time low. Stats were started a few decades ago. Second, what would the stats be if the aborted persons were counted?
"The new South Dakota Youth Risk Behavior Survey for 2011 finds 47% of our teenagers reporting they’ve had sex. 15% say they’ve had sex with four or more partners. 35% say they’ve had sex in the last three months. 61% of those recent fornicators did so with a condom; 24% used birth control pills."
And where was the survey taken? At the indoctrination centers of New Age sex worship.
"And where was the survey taken? At the indoctrination centers of New Age sex worship."
Try the link that says Youth Risk Behavior Survey for 2011. Not that you will believe it anyway, you little naysayer.
Stats were started longer ago than a few decades, as I was looking at them in the 70's from previous years.
I know all about the Youth Risk Behavior Survey. If parents knew about the loaded questions their kids were being asked in school by you New Age sex worshipping Theocrats.
Steve? Are there any statitics you believe are true, or is everyone lying? Give me stats that disprove what was said. No tinfold hat crap.
Sibby dropped off the deep end today. I think maybe we should call for the short bus.
Bill, I am sorry to hear that. It was only a matter of time. Do you suppose we pushed him over the edge? Man, it is going to be a long drop.
I would love to see reliable data on teen birth rates and adolescent sexual activity from 1776 to today. And Steve, at no point during class today did I urge anyone to worship sex... although I did have kids work in pairs on some reading and translation, and some of those pairs were boy-girl combinations. (Or perhaps you'll find more dread in the fact that some translation partners were same-sex pairs.)
One website says that the teen marriage and birth rate was pretty low in 1900, then climbed to its highest level of the century in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, and has declined ever since. Does that say anything about moral fortitude or decline, or does it simply reflect economic conditions?
probably economic conditions and war... WWII, Korea & Vietnam
"Steve, at no point during class today did I urge anyone to worship sex"
That is because you teach French, not sex education or health.
This point makes the premise that safe sex is OK as long as teenagers don't get pregant:
"A practical look into new scientific research showing how sexual activity causes the release of brain chemicals, which then result in emotional bonding and a powerful desire to repeat the activity. This book will help parents and singles understand that "safe sex" isn't safe at all; that even if they are protected against STDs and pregnancy, they are still hurting themselves and their partner."
http://www.amazon.com/Hooked-Science-Casual-Affecting-Children/dp/0802450601
"Sibby dropped off the deep end today."
Fleming lost a debate and can't stop with the personal attacks. Losing really bothers you, doesn't it Bill?
LOL. Sibby thinks he's debating. Funny.
"the dark side of teen sexual behavior..." which apparently is much darker here in God's country than in godless socialist Europe: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/americas-teen-birth-rate-is-at-a-new-low----and-still-10-times-higher-than-switzerlands/2012/04/10/gIQAbnNY8S_blog.html
Fleming argued that Ghandi was a follower of Jesus Christ, I showed that he was not, so Fleming personally attacks me and does not address the substance of the research. So what does the Bible say about Mockers?
And Cory, what does Fleming's personal attacks have to do with the subject of this post?
And what about the scientific based problems that result from teenagers engaged in sexual activities? There is more to the problem than STDs and pregnancy.
Fleming spelled the name Gandhi properly, and never once said that he was a Lutheran.
Sibby is arguing with himself here as usual.
Just now, he's trying to decide if he's a Lutheran or not.
And maybe which kind of jello salad he likes best: a) the lime with the pears and olives, or b) the cherry with the pineapple chunks.
BTW Cory (off topic, I know, sorry...) do you know jello is made out of cartilage?
So... do you think we should call it "beef", bro?
Okay, back on topic. Your buddy Professor Blanchard has been bemoaning this reduction in the birth rate, Cory. He claims (if I read him right) that we are killing the "goose that laid the golden egg" as far as funding entitlements is concerned. He might have a point, especially if the only folks having babies are poor people. We need to get the rich kids to have more sex, not less, so we can keep the economy going. (Or at least I think that's what he was saying.)
So here's the GOP formula. No more contraceptives, because we need more kids to pay taxes so the investor/job creators don't have to. But they have to be white anglo saxon protestants and get married first.
Right, Sibby?
"Right, Sibby?"
Why are you asking me, you don't comprehend a thing that I post.
2 Peter 3:3 knowing this first, that in the last days mockers will come, walking after their own lusts,
Jude 1:18 They said to you that "In the last time there will be mockers, walking after their own ungodly lusts."
Proverbs 3:34 Surely he mocks the mockers, but he gives grace to the humble.
Bill, I think the good professor is channeling his inner Pat Buchanan.
http://townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/2011/10/28/the_conquest_of_the_west/page/full/
So are you (and the other Lutherans) against the use of contraceptives or not, Sibby? It's a pretty easy question. Why won't you answer it?
(p.s. I do know some Lutherans who use them. Are they walking in their own lust?)
"So are you (and the other Lutherans)"
Bill, what was Martin Luther's position on antinomianism?
"I do know some Lutherans who use them."
Which proves my point that the true Church is not man-made.
Bill, would you consider Martin Luther to be a god? Do you believe the Catholic priests are substituting themselves for Jesus Christ, the forgiver of sins?
Jana, yeah, I think so to. I heard the other day that in 2011, for the first time, there were more non-white births than white ones, making whites the minority in that generation. And further, that by 2020 or so there will be more non-whites under the age of 18 than whites. This is all fine with me of course, but perhaps not so with Messers Blanchard and Buchanan, huh?
(Special bonus question for Sibby: I wonder how many of them will be Lutherans? Better get busy Sibby.)
I confess, I went to a Lutheran church...once. It reminded me of the days growing up in the Catholic church. It was even brought up in their creed:
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.
http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/Statements-of-Belief/The-Apostles-Creed.aspx
Don't plan on going back.
Bill, are you a Catholic?
Jana, I thought that would be something that those who believe in democracy would understand?
I don't know, Sibby. I heard he was always really, really constipated, and blamed it on the Devil, so probably not. If he thought he was God he would maybe have had an easier time of it? (Probably shold have stayed away fron the cheese, huh?)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3944549.stm
Yup. Catholic. You know what the word "Catholic" means, right, Sibby?
So Mr. "Catholic", is the priest substituting himself for Jesus Christ in the confessional?
So Mr. Catholic, you probably hate Protestants and don't know the three types of protestantism, their similarities and their differences. Right Bill?
And do you agree with the Pope having the King burn those at the stake for translating the Bible into English?
Well, the nuns didn't say "substitute" in catechism class, Sibby (whew, that was really a long while back) if I recall, I think they said he "is" Jesus. Not positive, I'll have to double check. Maybe Troy knows?
...something like "Through him, and with him, and in him, O God, almighty Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, forever and ever."
i.e. Everybody gets together and becomes one via the Holy Spirit. Pretty cool idea actually. Not unlike quantum mechanics and gravity.
Sibby, sometimes there are gaps in your train of thought that you can drive a truck through. This might be one of those times...but it could just be me not keeping up.
What exactly did you mean by:
"I thought that would be something that those who believe in democracy would understand?"
I'm getting perilously close to looking down a rabbit hole here...but what the heck.
Jana, those who believe in the rule by the majority would not do things to lower their population.
"Maybe Troy knows?"
Bill, just what I thought, you don't have a clue. Sad to what a fool thinking only in terms of dichotomies such as Protestant vs Catholic in regard to Christianity and Democrat vs Republican in regard to politics. Things are more complicated than that. And when you are forced to face those complexities, you fold and end up mocking those who confront you.
But the biggest problem is your Catholic upbringing causing you to think that man can become a god, like the Pope and Priests. That has lead you the the New Age Theocrat's spiritual evolution, where we all can become like god...Satan's old trick.
No, I don't hate Protestants, Sibby. But let's stick with Jana's question, okay? It's way more interesting.
Are you making a racist/sexist comment here, or what? You do understand that women are the majority, right? And that if they stopped having children, or decided to only have more women children, they would become an even larger majority? Or are you instead arguing that America's white majority is trying to keep its numbers up so as to not get outnumbered?
Or what?
Spoken like a true Luthern, Stevie. Good job. Now, back to the topic.
"Jana, those who believe in the rule by the majority would not do things to lower their population."
Rabbit hole found.
In my best Bob Newhart-Dr. Hartley..."go with that thought Sibby."
For some reason I'm seeing visions of Howard Borden and Mr. Carlin....
Yup. Pretty similar to a SibSession alright. Good call Jana: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwYw2i2icNg
"Or what?"
I do not believe in democracy, as you do, and instead in a Constitutional Republic where minorities retain their rights. And I do not believe Martin Luther was god, so I am not a Lutheran, I am a follower of Jesus Christ.
Catholics are suppose to be against contraception, so what is your problem Bill? Have you involved into a god and are now practicing the "Bill Fleming" religion? Anyone not practing Flemingism shall be mocked into submission?
So, who elects the representatives in your Republic, Steve? And how frequently? Are we still talking about the U.S. Constitution here?
p.s. Sibby, if you're not a Lutheran, why did you refer us to a Lutheran site for proper religious instruction? Also, do you not believe in the Holy Spirit? That surprise me a little, but whatevs.
(I'm getting worried about Sibby's upcoming campaign for Senate. He seems to think he can get elected by a minority of the voters. Either that, or, if a majority does elect them, it looks like he won't feel obliged to represent them. Either way, not a good picture. Maybe his campaign manager can straighten him out on this.)
"He seems to think he can get elected by a minority of the voters."
So you admit to being a racist/sexist and a bigot. Makes sense since you think you have become a god. It also makes sense about how you falsely attack people for being who you are.
"Also, do you not believe in the Holy Spirit? That surprise me a little, but whatevs."
So is that how you think you have become a god, through the Holy Spirit?
So the truth is now out about Fleming, he is a New Age Catholic:
http://www.spiritual-wholeness.org/
For those of you are are practicing Flemingism:
The New Age movement is, then, an incredible diffuse and variegated phenomenon in Western society, rooted in both Asian religion and philosophy and Western European paganism. It also makes connections with Native American religion, tribal religions of Africa, and mystical traditions of medieval origin within the monotheistic religions of the West. These mystical traditions include the Kabbalah in Judaism, the Sufis in Islam, and certain Catholic mystics whose thought tended toward pantheism.
Those who are self-consciously part of the New Age movement probably number in the hundred of thousands, but the number of Americans whose worldview is New Age or close to New Age is likely in the tens of millions. The significance of the New Age movement is less a matter of its conscious adherents as it is the fact that the movement represents the tip of the iceberg of a megashift in Western, and especially American, society. Instead of seeing less and less of life in religious or sacred terms, the new direction is to think of all of life, and indeed all of existence, in a sacred or spiritual way. If secularization seemed to be crowding God out of the cosmos, the new sacralization represented by the New Age encourages us to equate God with the cosmos.
What the old materialistic, secular humanism and the new spiritual, religious humanism have in common is the desire to find personal fulfillment and world harmony on our own terms — with God as a source of power or wisdom, perhaps, but not as the standard of truth and values or the ruler of the world. Thus the New Age movement is part of a larger trend in Western culture seeking to find religious meaning and fulfillment apart from submission to the transcendent Creator, Judge, and Savior of biblical Christianity.
http://bible.org/seriespage/no-god-all-eastern-mysticism-and-new-age-movement
Oh, okay I get it, Sibby, you're the kind of Lutheran who doesn't believe in the Holy Spirit, right? Funny, I didn't know they had those.
"For those of you are are practicing Flemingism:..." Huh? I thought we just established that I was a Catholic. Are you going to now tell me that I'm not, Sibby? Why do you think that's up to you to decide. You should pay attention to your own thing here and make a decision about your Lutheranism. First you sez you is, then that you ain't. We're having trouble keeping up over here.
But before you do that, how about you andswe Jana's and my questions about government. Because it's starting to look like you might not even be thinking like a real American, let alone a good Lutheran. LOL.
"I thought we just established that I was a Catholic."
A New Age Catholic, who doesn't follow the church's position on contraception, abortion and other fundamental policies.
Flemingism, yes Bill you have beocome a god and have developed your own religion. I suppose your hope is to become more popular than Martin Luther. Perhpas then you can get a majority of the people to pass a law that burns at the stake anyone who is got with a Bible. No LOL.
Sibby, are you a theologian? An ordained pastor? Possibly graduate studies in theology? Or are you just a chain email reader of junk that other people say?
For the record, I grew up Lutheran, sat in the front of the church, firmly believed that green bean casserole needed more of the fried onion mixture on the top and learned to hate jello.
What you seem to discount is that faith of any kind is very personal and only truly formed in personal thought. Not through rote memory or forced belief.
Why is it so important for you to force your beliefs on everyone else? For that matter, why does anyone's beliefs matter to you?
Lastly, why do you think anyone should listen or believe what you want us to believe?
"Why is it so important for you to force your beliefs on everyone else?"
Is it not your purpose to have everyone pay for contraception, even thoughs that firmly belief it violates their religion? So much for separation of church and state when we have New Age Theocrats using democracy to establish their religion.
Aha! A Lutheran who admits it! Good for you, Jana. That's the way it should be. We are what we are, right? No matter what it says in Sibby's little notebooks.
So we have here the Bill Fleming who claims to be a Catholic. But he is a fake. He does not believe in the Catholic's oppostion to abortion and contraception. He even has to rely on Troy Jones to explain fundamental Catholic theology. He is a New Age Catholic, who believes in pantheistic monism...The New Age Theology for The New World Order.
"We are what we are, right? No matter what it says in Sibby’s little notebooks."
But fakey can call me a Lutheran. Wow!
You called yourself a Lutheran, Sibby. Now you're denying it? Why? Did you decide you really don't agree with that site you linked to afterall? If so, just say so. Plus, I'm confused now, are you saying you're a Catholic instead? If so, that's okay with me too. Just let us know, okay?
p.s. Sibby, just so you know, I have never used contraceptives or had an abortion. Not that it's really any of your business.
Steve may have been raised Catholic but his understanding seems to have been formed elsewhere.
The theological concept with regard to "in persona Christi" is clear and available in the Catachism and other Church documents. I am comfortable standing behind what the Church teaches.
Steves statement "priests and popes think they are gods" is ignorant and false. If this is indicative of his theological depth and understanding, I would ignore anything he says about religion.
Troy, they why do priests think thay can do what only Christ can do, forgive sins? Why do Popes and Priests believe they are above God's Word? Why do they insist on putting Mary above Jesus Christ?
"You called yourself a Lutheran, Sibby." Liar.
"I’m confused now"
Finally something I can agree with you on.
Troy, thanks. That's my understanding too, although, like I said, it's been a while since I read the Catachism.
Steve, do you believe the things written on the link you provided, or not?
And if not, why did you link us to it?
It's becoming clear that you don't much care for people telling you what you believe and what you don't.
I'm not surprised. Nobody does.
Yet that is what you constantly do to people all the time.
Are you ready to quit doing it yet?
Because I'm not going to stop doing it to you until you stop doing it to others. The golden rule, remember? The ethic of reciprocity.
It works both ways.
"The golden rule, remember? "
Do onto others what you don't want done to you? That is the Golden Rule? Yes Bill, you are confused. Your simple mind can only think in dichotomies.
"The theological concept with regard to “in persona Christi†is clear and available in the Catachism and other Church documents."
But not the Bible Troy? You just proved my point, the Church documents and its "Catachism" is above God's Word.
"why did you link us to it? "
OK Mr. simple minded New Age Catholic, I answered this before and will answer it one last time. To teach you about just how 100% wrong you are about Ghandi. But a stiff-necked person like you is not capable of learning much of anything.
sure is green in the hills.
fecund, steamy....
If I were acting like you are Sibby, I would want someone to show me how idiotic I was being, and encourage me to stop doing it
Call it "tough love" or whatever.
Just know that it's going to keep happening.
Now about your Lutheranism, you show me a site to show me something about Gandhi (note the proper spelling) that you claim is 100% Correct. It is a Lutheran site, as you know.
Therefore one would deduce that if you thought what the site was saying is correct, you must believe as the Lutherans believe.
Ergo, you are a Lutheran.
No sense trying to deny it, Sibby , you either believe what you linked to or you don't. And I personally don't care which of the two it is. You are the only one who cares about any of this.
And BTW, there's no reason to be petulant about this. It's not my fault you're acting like a childish idiot. Don't shoot the messenger here, bud.
Kurtz. If we don't get some rain pretty soon, it ain't gonna stay green for long.
Steve,
LOL. You really like being intentionally ignorant. If you would read these documents you would see the come from God's Holy Word. Bottom line what you said was false. If you repeat it you are an unrepentent liar.
Show me where in the Bible where it says this concept is false? Otherwise, you must understand the concept to claim it is false.
Question #1: do you believe in the Trinity? Can you find where it explains it in the Bible? Or are tou relying on a man-made concept?
Question #2: Did Christ form a church? Is it a building doing His work or people? And did He ordain certain people to do special work within His church.
"And I personally don’t care which of the two it is. "
That is precisely what your problem is.
Troy, not surpised you would resort to attacking the Bible. Another point proved.
LOL. Steve, I don't have a problem. You're the one with the problem, Ace.
You're projecting again.
"that you claim is 100% Correct"
Never said that Bill, you lied again. Why don't you explain how it was 100% wrong and defend you position on Gandhi?
Fleming, you got the Golden Rule completely backwards, and I have the problem?
"that you claim is 100% Correct"
No man is 100% correct. That is the point of that passage Bill. When are you going to admit that you are not perfect and you are a sinner, in need of Jesus Christ, and then repent? Or are you still going to evolve and work your way to Heaven on your own?
Again, Steve, your language, not mine. "To teach you about just how 100% wrong you are about Ghandi." Give it up, Sibby. You're toast on this. You're whole schtick has been exposed and now you're just humiliating yourself. I've seen you do this before. It's never pretty, and you never seem to learn.
Yes, Bill to teach you about how you were 100% wrong about Gandhi. I did not say the entire web site is 100% correct. Understand the difference? I pulled "two paragraphs" that was loaded with Bible references. Now you tell me what was wrong about those "two paragraphs". Oh you can't, so you resort to the unreasonable premise that I agree 100% with the entire web site.
And how did the those two paragraphs start out? That we are sinners. That would include Marin Luther. Just because you idolize Popes, Priests, and the Virgin Mary doesn't mean it is right nor will I be forced by you to idolize Martin Luther. I am a non-denominational follower of Jesus Christ. I analyze denominations and find things I agree with, and things I disagree with. No man-made institution is 100% correct. You New Agers may think you have reached utopia, but you are deceiving yourselfs, and sadly, others.
So in essence, you're saying you just make up your own religion as you go along, then, right? ...based on what you agree with and what you don't agree with?
Again Bill, you accuse others of what you are guilty of. I am rejecting man above God. Humanism (whether is is religious or secular) does that. I am a follower of Jesus Christ. No man is above Jesus christ. It is what is called the exclusivity of Jesus Christ. Many denominations proclaim that and I agree with them on that most important point. But, I may disagree on other points.
I do not believe that any one denomination is the only true church, and pray that members from various denominations are accepted by the Lord, Catholics included. And those are what would be the true Church.
Yes, you're cherry picking all these religious ideas and deciding which ones you agree with and which ones you don't.
In this case, you agreed 100% with the Lutherans about what they think Gandhi thinks. So in that sense you're just a little bit Lutheran, only as it applies to how those particular Lutherans think Gandhi thought. Chances are, you might agree with some of the other things on that site as well, in which case you would be just a little bit more Lutheran.
This is how you roll Steve.
And yet you accuse everybody else of making up their own religion and give them a hard time about it.
That's nuts, Sibby.
Do you get it yet?
Nuts.
You should stop it.
p.s. Jesus was a man, Steve.
Steve, Steve, Steve,
I didn't attack the Bible. And I wouldn't. Get real. All I'm saying is don't assert what the Catholic Church teaches without a clue on the teaching. Just because some yahoo says something doesn't make it true.
Bottom line: These statements of yours that these are teachings of the Catholic Church are false and repeating this spreading lies:
1) "man can become a god, like the Pope and Priests"
2) "Popes and Priests believe they are above God’s Word?"
3) "(Popes and Priests) insist on putting Mary above Jesus Christ?"
With regards to your question: "Troy, they why do priests think thay can do what only Christ can do, forgive sins?"
Simply, because Christ told them to do it in His name. They are just doing what the Master asked.
While not in the Gospels, I think this is most important. God wants us to reconcile ourselves to Him.
The Ministry of Reconciliation. (2 Cor. 5: 11-21.
Therefore, since we know the fear of the Lord, we try to persuade others; but we are clearly apparent to God, and I hope we are also apparent to your consciousness. We are not commending ourselves to you again but giving you an opportunity to boast of us, so that you may have something to say to those who boast of external appearance rather than of the heart. For if we are out of our minds, it is for God; if we are rational, it is for you.
For the love of Christ impels us, once we have come to the conviction that one died for all; therefore, all have died. He indeed died for all, so that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.
Consequently, from now on we regard no one according to the flesh; even if we once knew Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him so no longer. So whoever is in Christ is a new creation: the old things have passed away; behold, new things have come. And all this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and given us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, as if God were appealing through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who did not know sin, so that we might become the righteousness of God in him.
(I wish I could bold. If I can I don't know how but I refer you to the words it is a ministry and the Apostles are ambassadors of Christ and God is "appealing through them" which is what "in persona Chisti" means. Priests/Bishops/Popes are successors to the Apostles)
And, right after the Resurrection, Christ appeared to the 12 (sans Judas Iscariott) and not the a broader group and said to these special men set apart from all others in John 20: 19-23
On the evening of that first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.†When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. Jesus] said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.†And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.â€
(here the operative words are: As the Father sent Christ, He sends them. And then He says they have the power to retain or forgive sins.)
Final comment: Christ didn't leave us a Bible. He left us a church. Mathew 16:18-19.
"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.â€
A few hundred years after Christ left (3rd or 4th Century), the Church said we need to get some order. People are reading and following things not of Christ. So, they asked all the Bishops of the world to bring what they think are Scripture to a Council so they could compile an authoritative Scripture for Christians.
The first thing they did was go to the Jews and get the Canon from the time of Christ. Ironically, the books Luther threw out were books taken out by the Jews of the Jewish Canon 100 years after Christ because they were to "Christological" or pointed too much to Christ.
The second thing they did was throw out everything that wasn't read at Mass. Even if it was good reading and sound devotionally, if it wasn't read at Mass, it was thrown out.
The third thing (which took 25 years or so) they did was reconcile the differences in texts read around the world (none of the originals still existed). In most cases, they took the "versions" most broadly read. In some cases, they only accepted what was read in the large Dioceses (Rome, Antioch, etc.). But in some cases (ala the end of Mark) where the longer version was added in the 6th or 7th Century because they deemed it inspired even though the texts were found later.
My point is: Like it or not, God is the author of Scripture but He used the Catholic Church as editor. So, quit with the lie we subvert or minimize the Bible.
P.S. Just to be clear: The "first thing" is in reference to how we got the Old Testament. The "second thing" and "third thing" is in reference to how we got the New Testament.
To be clear, it's not nuts to form one's own personal theological understanding in one's mind. It is nuts to berate others for doing the same thing you give yourself permission to do. "Nuts" as in "Narcissistic and Grandiose Personality Disorder."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001930/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiosity
Troy, thanks for you explanation. I will print it out and use it in my research. As Bill pointed out, the Reformation sided with Freemason as a common emeny against the Vatican. That I view as a huge mistake. Today I am as muched concern about the destruction that the Catholic vs Protestant feud is causing as I am weith teh Republican vs Democrat feud. Perhaps both are a distraction.
With that said, I came away with huge concern after my godmother's wake regarding the rosary. The Queen of Heaven was a red flag.
Troy, Jesus did quote the Old Testament and so did other in the New Testament. I am currently studying church history and how the Bible was put together.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computus#History
The Queen of Heaven is a title given to honor her for her special role in salvation history, specifically bringing Christ into the world, being the first Christian, raising Him, and being with Him at hte foot of the Cross (After Peter (and Jesus of course), she is mentioned more than anyone else in the New Testament).
She is the Queen Mother (like the mother of Queen Elizabeth) as mother to the King of Heaven but since Christ doesn't have a spouse . . . the mother is queen. I think it is Rev. 12 which talks about her (Rev was written by John who cared for Mary the rest of her life).
Yes, Christ did quote the OT but we don't have a record of all that he quoted. So, we just took the Canon at his time as Scripture. Side bar: The Church accepted those OT books that were considered Scripture by the Essenes (of which Christ was a member) and not that of the Pharisees/Saducees and one other Jewish sect. As I think about it, that might have been the Christological part of why the Jews removed the books they did in the 1st century. They were Essenic (which is by definition Christological in my mind). I am a bit fuzzy here.
Fuzzy? How can anyone tell, given where this thread has gone?
Is this a good explanation of "in persona Christi" Troy?
Looks right to me, but I defer to you as the Catholic scholar here, Sibby's protestations notwithstanding.
http://www.cfpeople.org/SeminarianWritings/Sem033.html
"And yet you accuse everybody else of making up their own religion and give them a hard time about it.
That’s nuts, Sibby."
Bill, you need to explain how you can call yourself a Catholic and violate the church's position on contraception and abortion.
No I don't, Steve.
"No I don’t, Steve."
Troy, is Fleming being straight?
"Scripture by the Essenes"
That is new stuff for me, thanks Troy I need to resarch that point. My read of the scriptures would put Jesus in opposition to the Pope and other institutional leaders of various so-called Christian denomonations.
There are 1.19 billion Catholics in the world, many tens (perhaps hundreds) of millions of whom differ with the Church's official position on those two issues. That doesn't mean those people aren't Catholic as far as I'm concerned.
Besides, I haven't ever "violated the Church's position" as you put it. I've never had an abortion, nor has anyone carrying any child of mine, and I've never used any form of contraceptive. Ever.
And that, Sibby is far, far more than I "need" to explain to you or to anyone else.
You, on the other hand, need to learn to mind your own business.
"That doesn’t mean those people aren’t Catholic as far as I’m concerned."
So for an entire day you insisted that because I agree with two paragraphs from a Lutheran web site that I agree with 100% of Lutheran theology, but you are still 100% Catholic even though you disagree with 2 major positions of the Catholic church.
Anybody else have a problem with Fleming's logic?
Wait, I think I see the top of the rabbit hole.
So where were we when we started this thread?
Oh yeah, it was about teen pregnancy and it's decline in the last year.
The Bush administration devoted $1.5 billion taxpayer dollars for faith based abstinence education (and yes, the Unruh's got more than their fair share of these tax payer dollars.)
That program was an expensive failure.
Obama implemented a far more centrist approach that looked at a range of options that were based on proven evidence of working at a cost to taxpayers of $110 million.
The Obama program worked at a fraction of a cost.
One was based on faith and the other on science.
It's between Bill, his Priest and God. He certainly does not have to discuss such matters here if he doesn't want to.
Regarding the description you provided, it gives a good big picture of the special graces that come with ordination and becoming linked to the priesthood.
Troy, the Queen of Heaven has this problem:
The Queen of Heaven is just one of many gods the Israelites worshipped in their apostasy from the true God. "Do you not see what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? The children gather wood, the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven; and they pour out drink offerings to other gods, that they may provoke Me to anger. Do they provoke Me to anger?" says the LORD. "Do they not provoke themselves, to the shame of their own faces?""(Jeremiah 7:17-19). The reason for God's anger is clear. Israel had knowledge of the one true and living God, yet they willfully replaced the real thing with cheap imitations of their own imaginations.
http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVanswers/2004/2004-09-21.htm
You agree with a lot more than two paragraphs, Sibby.
C'mon you're a Lutheran, just admit it.
What's wrong with being a Lutheran anyway?
They're nice people.
(...are you getting tired of being told what religion you are yet, Sibby? Does it bother you when somebody does that to you? If so, why? That's what you do to people all the time.)
Good eye, Jana: universal health care means fewer white people.
"It’s between Bill, his Priest and God. He certainly does not have to discuss such matters here if he doesn’t want to."
This is a thread on contraception that Fleming chose to particiapte. Your cop out isn't working with me.
"Does it bother you when somebody does that to you?"
No because I consider the source. The guy who is 100% opposite the Golden Rule.
Jana, yes, like evolution, sex is biology, not religion.
"It’s between Bill, his Priest and God."
Troy, this is giving my point on Priests being above Scripture more validity.
I will happily discuss contraception and abortion in the context of politics and law. Just not in the context of religion. The two are completely separate.
It's one thing for for a person or an institution to express a religious belief, and quite another to presume to impose that belief on others by force of law... especially those who don't share the same religious belief.
It's the equivalent of violating the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment.
"It’s the equivalent of violating the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment."
So sex education does not belong in school.
Is the Madville Times part of the government?
Steve,
For the life of me, tell me how Bill not wanting to discuss private matters on this blog places anything above Scripture.
By the way, although I am free to disclose my confessions, I won't. Bill, and you, are free to hold private whatever you choose.
steve: ur a dork.
rephrase: yer words are dorkish.
Oh my God. Steve did you really compare Mary, the Mother of God to a false goddess. As it says in Luke "all will call me blessed."
Love Christ, follow His commands, and love who He loves. It is pretty simple. If Christ slapped people who tick him off, this comparison would have gotten you slapped. How would you like it if I compared your mother to a thieving adulteress who claimed to be a goddess?
By the way, Jesus is King of Heaven. He will not be restricted from making His mom Queen of Heaven because someone else claimed the title. I really can't believe you assert since the position is occupied, Jesus can't do it.
Tweet! Unnecessary spamming! Multiple links to same book for sale. Five yard penalty, comments deleted, fourth down.
mary=earth
male=capitalism
∴ jesus=conflict
Oh-oh. If Sibby hasn't heard of the Essenes, he's in for a rude awakening. His whole semi-Lutheran, anti-communist, pro-marriage, capitalist politics thing is about to fly right out the window. I'm just sayin'.
Cory, Troy is probably expressing "fuzziness" about whether Jesus was an Essene or not.
Interesting to me that Troy assumes that he was.
I would have guessed the same thing, but it's really not possible to know for sure. There is certainly a marked cultural similarity.
One interesting thing about the Essenes, relative to Sibby's usual diatribe, is how closely the Essene culture resembles what Steve likes to deride as "New Agey" whatever. I imagine he will be quite surprised to learn this actually.
Relative to this thread, sex for the Essenes was pretty much frowned upon, mainly because women were not to be trusted. In that regard, we've come a long way, baby. But not far enough, I'm thinking.
Here's a pretty good overview:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05546a.htm
Excerpt:
"The Essenes have received attention during the last three centuries out of all proportion to their numbers, their influence upon contemporary life, or their importance as factors in religious development. This sprang from two causes, one external and the other internal. The latter was the curious mixture of Jewish and foreign elements in their tenets and customs. This peculiarity aroused the curiosity and exercised the ingenuity of the learned to account for the combination. That the Essenes were really Jews, though speaking very likely Greek (Jews by race, says Josephus), is admitted. Their belief in one God, reverence for one God, strict observance of the Sabbath, fanatic adherence to circumcision (Hippolytus), etc., all show this; while their attitude toward the sun, election of priests, mode of life, likened to the Pythagorean by Josephus himself, etc., seemed to show outside influence. The source of this influence, like everything Essenic, begets controversy, but so far no one has succeeded in determining it satisfactorily. Buddhism, Parseeism, Pythagoreanism (old, new, and Orphic) Hellenism, etc., have all had their claims put forth as one of the parents of this hybrid sect. Suffice it to say that Persian-Babylonian influence through the Captivity, and Hellenism filtering in through Alexandria and the use of the Greek tongue can amply account for foreign elements. The contention that their elements, if divested of their Greek appearance, could be proved top have their roots in Biblical ground is not lightly to be set aside. The external cause of attention was the bias of English deists and Continental Rationalists who strove to metamorphize the Essenes into predecessors from whom gradually and quite naturally Christians developed; and Freemasons pretended to find in Essenism pure Christianity."
Another excellent Essene link:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/portrait/essenes.html
Comprehensive and objective.
Speaking Essenes: Dr. Bronner.
Cool Larry. Just remember to inhale deeply when you take a shower. LOL.
p.s. I was thinking maybe Sibby might want to join the Hutterites.
Whadya think?
Bill, it is good but I would not call it comprehensive. Would you find a description of the Amish complete if it only talked about how the lived (no modern convenience) without why.
The Essenes were what I call pursuit of Holiness believers. They saw the world hopelessly depraved so theyjust withdrew so they could live as holy as possible. Their onlyhope was the Messiah. Only the Messiah would make the world better. And, they were patient. They didn't know if He was coming tomorrow or in a thousand years.
The oath/discipline mentioned was as much about full disclosure than anything. They weren't looking for new members nor were they looking to exclude.
Earlier, you said something about them being Greek. This isn't accurate. They were Jews but as they were outside institutional Judaism, they were the dispersed. There is a theory that the places the Apostles went first were to places where there were Essenes (ala Greece).
I once heard the best reason to drive the speed limit is not because it is the best speed to enjoy the journey to your destination. I think this the approach of the Essenes.
That Zechariah, Elizabeth, and John the Baptist are Essenes is not disputed (lived in the hill country). It is thought many (at least those that witnessed the Transfiguration) of the Apostles were also Essenes but lived "in the world" (similar to the distinction between the Mennonites and Hutterites). The admonition to Martha is Essenic as they were most anxious for the Messiah and He was there.
I think Judas was put in charge of the purse because as a non-Essenes he had experience with business. And Jesus knew he would betray Him because he has a distorted view of what the Messiah was to be. His torment and suicide was because he came to understand what the Messiah really was to be.
Finally the Essenes would be pretty convicting of both liberal concepts of redistribution as well as capitalism. Neither side can claim to be Essenic. Thir pursuit of Holiness would find the discussion worldly.
Oops. "is because it is the best speed to enjoy the journey and not because it is the law"
All good points, Troy. The Greek reference was from the Catholic encyclopedia link, but it's also clearly the language they used to write when they wrote, so their "Greekness" is culturally indesputable, wouldn you say? It is my impression that in those days Greek was the language of true literature even among the Romans. And the translation into Latin was to allow for more inclusiveness, but not really regarded as intellectually sufficient. (Hence "vulgate" as in "vulgar" as in "common" [not "nasty"].)
Anyway, I don't disagree with anything you stated, but I was wondering whether our not you think St. Paul was an Essene.
(i.e. they spoke Aramaic, but wrote formally in Greek. JC didn't write anything, but what he said was most likely Aramaic, or perhaps latin, don't you think. Who knows?)
p.s. Troy, kyrie eleison, brother.
Bill,
Yes, may the Lord have mercy on all of us.
Paul was a Pharisee. My bet is Mathew, Judas Iscariott, James the Less & Thomas were not Essenes (their life and attitude was different) and suspect Peter, Andrew, James the Greater & John were Essenes, especially Peter and Andrew as Andrew was first a follower of John the Baptist who clearly was Essene. The rest not enough is known to even hazard a guess but there is a school of thought they might have been Saducees (middle of the road between the ascetic Essene and worldly Pharisees).
By the way, the greatest insight into the Essenes came from the Dead Sea Scrolls which I think were written mostly in Aramic (native vernacular), some Greek (some members must have been educated as you said), and Hebrew (some I think were like Simeon & Anna who participated in Temple life regularly).
Sidebar: There are many Lutheran theologians who think if Luther had known of the Dead Sea Scrolls he wouldn't have excluded the books he did as they are among what was found.
Indeed. The discussion of the Logos seems particularly Greek to me. Pythagorean actually. I'm guessing the understanding for many came mathematically as opposed to linguistically. It certainly is the clearest way to describe infinite unity amid seemingly infinite diversity. But you have to see the math/geometry solution to comprend it. And in those days that math was one of the most closely guarded secrets ever. These days, of course, it's pretty much common knowledge, but you still have to "get the math" to get it.