The New York Times recently ran THIS STORY about B16’s meeting with President Bush.
Here’s the opening sentence:
President Bush and Pope Benedict XVI, both religious conservatives, met for the first time on Saturday in the papal palace at the Vatican, where the pontiff privately expressed his concerns to the president about “the worrying situation in Iraq,” especially the treatment of minority Christians there.
"Both religious conservatives"?
You just know that the folks at the NYT were just itching to caption the above picture (also from the story) something like "President Bush and Pope Benedict XVI, both religious conservatives, review plans for world domination."
Unfortunately they had to settle for "President Bush took a close look at his gifts, an etching and a medallion, from Pope Benedict XVI on Saturday."
(CHT to the reader who e-mailed.)
Caption should read, “Pontiff points out to Bush, the difference between Iraq and Iran on world map…Bush astonished!”
My favorite caption would be, “The Pope may not be the AntiChrist, but they are acquainted.” Then post it to a pro-Bush, anti-Catholic website somewhere. (I seriously don’t think GWB is the AC, but the only thing I like about him is his pro-life stances.)
JoAnna,
Pro-life stances? Anti-abortion pro-life yes…death penalty, unnecessary war pro-life, not even close! Bush has no consistent pro-life policy whatsoever…and I suspect our Pontiff will subtly point that out to Bush during his visit.
Peace
Oh, and JoAnna, if you are looking to point out the anti-Christ in the picture, it’s the beast in the red tie, to the woman wearing the black veil’s immediate left. He’s the real architect of evil in our country right now, as I see it.
Hey now, the real cause of our evil is satan. It just so happens that conservatives and democrats get suckered in by his temptations. Its not something unique to us, muslims, jews and members of every other religion fall prey to that architect.
Jimmy,
I think the caption should have been: “Pope Benedict xvi smiles as George Bush realizes that the new recruiting slogan for the Swiss Guard, “We are looking for a few good Rosaries” outdoes W’s “An Army of One”
Under the Mercy.
Wow, this post has really brought out the Bush-bashers.
FWIW, the dark-haired guy with the red tie standing directly behind B16 is my brother-in-law’s brother. No joke. He’s on the President’s staff.
In fact, we just visited him in Washington and he took us on a special tour of the West Wing including the Oval Office and the Roosevelt Room.
I’ve been meaning to blog about it here at JO.org for awhile, but other things have gotten in the way. I may do so yet…including our adventure in the Air and Space Museum escaping from a stalled elevator with five children, involving two ladders and a climb through an elevator shaft. Again, no joke.
Given the astonishing breadth of the cyber-world I imagine that there are such things as pro-Bush, anti-Catholic websites, but I sure have never seen one. I suppose they get dozens of hits. Every year.
Yep, and whoever we disagree with is either the AC, or just one of his evil minions. That’s it.
Isn’t the real story here is how the NYT is so clueless about religion that when it has an opportunity to describe His Holiness and the President in the same phrase, it does so as “both religious conservatives.” While certainly true in some important ways, it is a silly and insipid characterization in context. While I certainly appreciate Bush’s shortcomings, his moral compass is closer to Benedict’s than posters here realize, even if his moral thinking is less developed (and of course that would be true of every political leader in the world) and his prudential judgments differ. I have a hunch that His Holiness would not appreciate the self-righteous remarks by some of the posters on this thread.
Amen Mike.
And to the poster who said that Bush had no consistent pro-life policies… Pro-life means being against abortion. I won’t buy into it getting redefined into the ‘seamless garment’. Abortion is not an issue that Catholics can agree with and still be in union with the Church. However, one can accept the necessity for a death penalty, etc., and not be separated from the Church.
I resent the (untrue) implications of your post.
Mike,
Perhaps just as His Holiness would be unimpressed with your self-righteous comments about the “clueless” writers at the NYT.
Juli,
Having completed the RCIA last year, our RCIA chapter materials on the Catholic consistent life policy included discussions on abortion, death-penalty, euthanasia(sp), etc. I’m afraid the Church beat me to what you lament as a “seamless garment.”
Unnamed poster, in keeping with our host’s request, please assign yourself a handle when posting. Thanks.
FWIW, the dark-haired guy with the red tie standing directly behind B16 is my brother-in-law’s brother. No joke. He’s on the President’s staff.
Anybody know if SDG was really serious about this???
Dear Blank,
Abortion is always wrong, as is euthanasia, though determining the precise contours of the latter can be tricky. In contrast, the Church has always taught that the death penalty is permitted, but in recent years its teaching has developed to clarify that it is permitted only in very limited circumstances, which circumstances must be subject to prudential evaluation. If your RCIA class taught any different then it was deficient in that respect.
And observing the cluelessness of the NYT is hardly self-righteous. Indeed, that is the point of Jimmy’s thread — read the caption.
I think you are wise to be anonymous.
“the pontiff privately expressed his concerns to the president about “the worrying situation in Iraq,” especially the treatment of minority Christians there.”
So, then am I the only one that wonders how the NYT can report authoritatively on what was discussed in a private meeting? Maybe I have the wrong idea of what a “private” meeting with the pope means.
The point is this. The NYT has an agenda. They want to put the two in the same category to drag down what others don’t like about them. Many don’t like Bush right now, so he drags down PB16 and PB16 has his opponents as well. The agenda of big media comes out again.
Bush has no consistent pro-life policy whatsoever…
Is that why he’s been so against abortion as well as stem cell research and why folks rabidly attack him for these pro-life stances???
The guy may have his shortcomings indeed, but kindly give him credit where credit is due.
I admire the fact that despite the heavy opposition against/criticism he takes for his pro-life stances, nevertheless, he remains adamant in his stand against abortion and embryonic stem cell research.
Lawrence,
I could be wrong, but I believe that that this disclosure came through official Bush Administration channels. Bush has been very frank in acknowledging Benedict’s discomfort with his Iraq policies. And very respectful about the disagreement.
Esau: I am really serious.
The guy behind B16 is Raul Yanes, Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary. My wife’s sister is married to Raul’s brother, so he’s my brother-in-law’s brother.
Not long ago Raul gave our whole family a special White House tour including the West Wing. We even had lunch in the West Wing mess hall, which is operated by the Navy. It was really cool.
I agree with the Pope on abortion, euthanasia, death penalty, Iraq, poverty reduction, global debt relief, middle east, environment, the UN …
I agree with George Bush on women’s ordination.
PS I am not blank.
Mike– dang, classily handled.
I seem to recall the difference for the pro-life, allow death penalty goes something like: abortion and euthanasia is murder of those who have done no wrong, for the ease/comfort/benefit of others; death penalty and self defense are the regrettable but needful killing of those who have done wrong and are likely to do so again, and cannot be stopped otherwise.
Is that phrased about right?
It’s amazing how many folks are ignorant about religion– I’ve had folks try to tell me that the Pope and various other “religious leaders” are the same. (The Pope is NOT a Catholic Jessy Jackson, Billy G. or insert-famous-person-who-is-religious.)
I agree with Esau,
Even when I disagree with Bush (e.g., capital punishment), I acknowledge that his positions seem to be genuinely based on conviction. He may be stubborn to a fault (that seems to be the current wisdom), but he values his moral compass, imperfect though it may be, and that makes him relatively admirable in political circles.
Also, I have been opposed to the death penalty for years — long before recent doctrinal developments. But people who equate (i) the annual execution of several dozen adults who have been found guilty via due process of heinous crimes for the purpose of retribution and societal protection with (ii) the annual execution of tens of thousands of innocent unborn babies for the purpose of convenience exercise mysterious moral reasoning. Both are wrong, and seriously so, but they are not the same. It takes a much more refined understanding of moral law to appreciate the wrongness of (ii) than (i). It is not an accident that intentional abortion has been considered a serious evil for centuries in contradistinction to capital punishment.
The guy behind B16 is Raul Yanes, Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary. My wife’s sister is married to Raul’s brother, so he’s my brother-in-law’s brother.
Not long ago Raul gave our whole family a special White House tour including the West Wing. We even had lunch in the West Wing mess hall, which is operated by the Navy. It was really cool.
WOW!!!!
YOU ARE SOOOOO LUCKY!!!!
I couldn’t really tell if you were setting your original post up as a joke or something or if you were actually serious, which is why I asked.
Where to begin????
Rather than ask you a whole bunch of questions about it, since you had mentioned about a future post, will you be detailing this experience anytime soon???
I’d really be interested in knowing how it was like and be elaborate as you can about the details, please!
I don’t know if you took pictures, but that would certainly be a plus!
The closest I’ve come to being in the White House is through a C-SPAN special. =^(
I agree with Esau,
Even when I disagree with Bush (e.g., capital punishment), I acknowledge that his positions seem to be genuinely based on conviction. He may be stubborn to a fault (that seems to be the current wisdom), but he values his moral compass, imperfect though it may be, and that makes him relatively admirable in political circles.
Also, I have been opposed to the death penalty for years — long before recent doctrinal developments. But people who equate (i) the annual execution of several dozen adults who have been found guilty via due process of heinous crimes for the purpose of retribution and societal protection with (ii) the annual execution of tens of thousands of innocent unborn babies for the purpose of convenience exercise mysterious moral reasoning. Both are wrong, and seriously so, but they are not the same. It takes a much more refined understanding of moral law to appreciate the wrongness of (ii) than (i). It is not an accident that intentional abortion has been considered a serious evil for centuries in contradistinction to capital punishment.
Mike Petrik:
I believe nobody could’ve said it better than you have here — regarding both the subject on Bush as well as the distinction between the Death Penalty vs. Abortion! Nicely done!
Foxfier,
Thank you, and though I am no expert your phraseology strikes me as both cogent and perfectly orthodox.
Esau, many thanks.
“Both are wrong, and seriously so,
Not so. What is wrong is you saying they are both wrong.
Have any of you read Jimmy’s posts on the legitimacy of capital punishment?
photo caption:
“Pope Benedict XVI and George W. Bush plot to take away our gay sex!”
For those who don’t know NYTSpeak: Conservative Christian is any person superstitous enough to actually believe in a trascendant God and bigoted enough to believe that gay marriage is a bad idea and heartless enough to believe that abortion on absolute demand is not a good idea. They and the rest of the MSM who hail from the ivory towers of the Central Park West, Berkeley, and Beverly Hills cannot fathom why anyone would take any faith that is other-centered seriously.
BillyHW,
Probably not all of them, and probably not carefully. In any case, I do concede that the statement you quote was imprecise. Capital punishment is not intrinsically wrong the way abortion is. It is subject to a prudential calculus, though of course it the standards for its use are pretty tough and probably difficult to justify on modern Western societies. Nonetheless, the prudential calculus does leave room for good faith disagreement.
Thanks for clarifying.
BillyHW- That’s why I asked if the phrasing was alright– basically, I’m trying to convey that ANY killing of humans is a Bad Thing. Sometimes it *has* to happen– such as to defend the innocent– but it’s still not Good.
It strikes me that saying President George W. Bush and Pope Benedict XVI are both religious conservatives is about as relevant an observation as saying that President Hosni Mubarak and Archbishop Desmond Tutu are both Africans.
Justice is good. For He *is* Justice.
(Mercy is also good.)
Doing evil isn’t justified because it is necessary, for we may never do evil so that good may result (Romans 3:8).
In any case, I do concede that the statement you quote was imprecise.
BillyHW and Mike Petrik:
In isolation, the statement can be considered ‘imprecise’; however, given the context in which it was rendered; that is, in light of the modern world we live in today; the death penalty can actually be considered such a wrong (though, admittedly, not the ‘intrinsically evil’ kind perhaps) especially since there exists alternative methods of punishment that can ensure the safety of a society and yet provide sufficient punishment that would also serve as effective deterrants.
That was a very gratifying reaction. 🙂
Yep, we have some pictures. I’ll post one of my family in the Rose Garden… as well as one of me starting to climb a ladder out of the elevator with my 9-mo-old on my back. 🙂
I’ll try to get to that post sometime in the next week or so.
I’ll try to get to that post sometime in the next week or so.
Thanks, SDG!!!
I’m very much looking forward to it!
Although, I wished it could be sooner than that, but so long as you’re gonna do it; I guess the long wait is okay then! ;^)
Fr. Larry said,
“It strikes me that saying President George W. Bush and Pope Benedict XVI are both religious conservatives is about as relevant an observation as saying that President Hosni Mubarak and Archbishop Desmond Tutu are both Africans.”
Or that George Bush and Tiger Woods are both golfers …
Mike,
You wrote:the annual execution of tens of thousands of innocent unborn babies for the purpose of convenience
I wish it were only tens of thousands of abortions each year. Unfortunately, the number (according the the Guttemacher Institute, a research arm of Planned Parenthood), the number of abortions in the U.S.A. alone are approx. 1,100,000 each year.
So it’s not just tens of thousands, but 110 ten thousand each year.
sorry – that blank (unlike others) was me.
They especially liked it when Bush called the Pope ‘Sir’
Like it was the end of the world
Christine
The World…IMHO
I wish it were only tens of thousands of abortions each year. Unfortunately, the number (according the the Guttemacher Institute, a research arm of Planned Parenthood), the number of abortions in the U.S.A. alone are approx. 1,100,000 each year.
I wish it were only 1,100,000, but the low dose birth control pill often can act as an abortifacient resulting in a number of unkown abortions perhaps orders of magnitude higher. The 1,100,000 also doesn’t include abortions caused by I.U.D.s. And when you include numbers from the rest of the world (think China, Russia), we’re talking tens of billions and perhaps hundreds of billions of abortions in the last century.
And then some people use a blog post about a media bias story that just happened to mention both Pope Benedict and George Bush in the same sentence as an excuse to hijack the conversation to spew their hatred for a man who happens to legitimately and morally hold the traditional, infallible, irrevocable, Catholic Church teaching on capital punishment as expressed beautifully, with the Holy Spirit’s protection from error, not just in the documents of the council of Trent, but also in those of Vatican II which affirmed all the councils which came before it, in the Roman Catechism of Trent:
There are some exceptions to the extent of this prohibition to killing. The power of life and death is permitted to certain civil magistrates because theirs is the responsibility under law to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment, such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the state is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent life (The Fifth Commandment, 4).
Not to mention Sacred Scripture’s *explicit* approval of the moral legitimacy of capital punishment.
Imagine!
More here:
http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Sacred_Scripture/Sacred_Scripture_014.htm
Scientific Evidence: Capital Punishment Saves Lives
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/006439.html
If Bush were a “religious conservative,” he would have left the United Marxist, I mean United Methodist, Church a long time ago.
The Holy Spirit himself on capital punishment:
http://tinyurl.com/2npzgm
Note He uses the words “avenger” and “wrath”. But hey, He was writing in the 1st century and didn’t know anything about modern societies!
And then some people use a blog post about a media bias story that just happened to mention both Pope Benedict and George Bush in the same sentence as an excuse to hijack the conversation to spew their hatred for a man
BillyHW:
What the heck are you talking about???
Who here is actually “spewing their hatred” over Pope Benedict XVI????
Have you ever even read my posts regarding Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI, which all respectfully regard him in such positive light???
What an absurd little fantasy you’ve concocted — not to mention, how maliciously designed to manipulate the perceptual set of the audience in order to advance your distorted views in order to denigrate individuals you condescendingly looked down upon as not part of your club of “Real Catholics”.
The calculated effect of your comments do not go unnoticed, Sir — nor its un-Christian sentiments.
Esau, I was speaking of the spewing of hatred on George Bush, not Pope Benedict. As in the first few posts by the anonymous cowards. I wasn’t addressing you at all.
Perhaps if you read more, and posted less, your reading comprehension would stand to benefit.
Esau, I think he was talking about Bush.
The 1,100,000 also doesn’t include abortions caused by I.U.D.s.
It also doesn’t include the countless spontaneous natural abortions many women have.
Speaking as someone who also completed RCIA last year, I know this:
I don’t have NEARLY the breadth of knowledge that many other posters here have when it comes to theology, and I certainly pale in comparison to our host. Therefore, I will be keeping my mouth shut when it comes to the discussion of Catholic minutia. I will sit back and observe the conversation as it develops, and if something continues to nag at me, I will seek further guidance from Catholic literature and perhaps a local priest. I sure won’t try to pass off my one year removal from RCIA as some statement of academic authority on Catholic theology. Take that statement as you will…
Additionally, it doesn’t take a master’s degree in RCIA to know that the VAST majority of writers at the NYT are, in fact, clueless. That is not name calling – they are, indeed, without a clue, and that makes them “clueless.” So many of you are so caught up in being deferential to anyone and everyone that a complete unwillingness to be deferential to SOME people has developed. Preach your opinion about the Global War on Terror all you like – good or bad. Shout from the mountain top that President Bush is some kind of evil genius. Thank God you can do that in the United States. We can disagree without one of us having our heads lopped off on Al-Jazeera. Just don’t try to shut us up when we dissent just because you don’t like our opinions.
The Holy Spirit himself on capital punishment
Yes, the wages of sin is death. But that’s not what we’re talking about when we talk about the death penalty, unless you’re up for killing every human.
It also doesn’t include the countless spontaneous natural abortions many women have.
… And it doesn’t count the SIDS babies, either; what is your point? One is a natrual death (to mean, the cause isn’t willful human action) while the other is… well, not a natural death. (As much as I enjoy joking that it’s natural to die when a foot of steel goes through you, it’s only a joke– natural vs. willful deaths are not the same.)
You just know that the folks at the NYT were just itching to caption the above picture…
I don’t know that. Whatever happened to charity?
natural vs. willful deaths are not the same
Yet “abortion” includes both.
Esau, I think he was talking about Bush.
Foxfier:
Since BillyHW was posting rather spasmodically with comments concerning Capital Punishment and, in particular, his specific comment here:
The Holy Spirit himself on capital punishment:
http://tinyurl.com/2npzgm
Note He uses the words “avenger” and “wrath”. But hey, He was writing in the 1st century and didn’t know anything about modern societies!
It seemed he was referring to what I had written earlier:
that is, in light of the modern world we live in today; the death penalty can actually be considered such a wrong (though, admittedly, not the ‘intrinsically evil’ kind perhaps) especially since there exists alternative methods of punishment that can ensure the safety of a society and yet provide sufficient punishment that would also serve as effective deterrants
However, my apologies to BillyHW if I had misread this.
Anon, you’re being willfully ignorant. When folks talk about the moral standing of abortion, they are not talking about the naturally-caused ones.
That would be like talking about the morality of an earthquake.
All abortions are willful deaths, even natural abortions. They’re God’s will.
“Are not two sparrows sold for a penny ? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father.”
All abortions are willful deaths, even natural abortions. They’re God’s will.
There’s a difference between an act of God and the act of man.
In terms of an abortion caused by man, it’s one that is an act of evil.
Mat, stop trolling.
All abortions are willful deaths, even natural abortions. They’re God’s will.
That’s like justifying MURDER — like saying all MURDERS are willful deaths, even natural murders. They’re God’s will!
I take it, if I kill you, Matthew, it would be okay then?
It’s the word and will of God.
Oh brother.
This reminds me of Mark Shea’s place.
Mat- “Even the devil can quote scripture.”
Although you did it badly…. Luke 12:6 “Are not five sparrows sold for two small coins? Yet not one of them has escaped the notice of God. Even the hairs of your head have been counted.” In context, it’s pretty clear that the statement is about God’s knowledge, not his direct cause of events.
Free will, heard of it? It’s a nice little thing.
Matt, you speak a variant of Calvinism, not orthodox Catholicism.
Free will, heard of it? It’s a nice little thing.
“My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.”
My will is His will.
Mat- “Even the devil can quote scripture.” Although you did it badly…. Luke 12:6
You didn’t even quote the same passage. I’m Matthew, not Luke.
Matt, you speak a variant of Calvinism, not orthodox Catholicism.
I quoted Scripture.
My will is His will.
If your will is indeed His will, then you would be against abortion and not for it!
If your will is indeed His will, then you would be against abortion and not for it!
I’m not advocating anyone get an abortion any more than God is advocating abortion when Jesus said, “Fear not.”
*sighs*
Matt 10:29 “Are not two sparrows sold for a small coin? Yet not one of them alls to the ground without your Father’s knowledge. Even all the hairs of your head are counted.”
Once again, it’s knowledge, not by the will of.
Oh, and that’s Jesus *choosing* to follow the Father’s will.
You mis-quoted scripture. Not the same.
And you still haven’t replied to Esau’s offer. *evil smile*
that’s Jesus *choosing* to follow the Father’s will.
“Not as I (Jesus) will, but as you (Father) will.” That’s Jesus not following his own will, but the Father’s will.
And you still haven’t replied to Esau’s offer. *evil smile*
I have. “My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.”
And you still haven’t replied to Esau’s offer. *evil smile*
I have. “My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.”
Okay, tell me when would you like to meet your maker? I shall make the necessary provisions.
Okay, tell me when would you like to meet your maker?
“The very hairs of your head are all numbered.” Ask the one who has counted them. He will tell you.
“The very hairs of your head are all numbered.” Ask the one who has counted them. He will tell you.
Kewl!
He told me this weekend.
Hope you’re ready!
Well, we got a troll. Too bad he’s not so very good at it.
Next time, brush up on scripture, and on actual theological connoations of it.
If Jesus didn’t have the choice, he wouldn’t have said anything. It would have simply happened. But he chose, and made it clear he was choosing. That’s why he’s such a great example.
As opposed to some poser on a web forum who seems to think we’re all puppets of God. (any god that would have his puppets behave as humanity does is not one that I would like to have)
If Jesus didn’t have the choice, he wouldn’t have said anything
Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.” And, “I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.”
Let’s go back to what Matthew posted originally:
All abortions are willful deaths, even natural abortions. They’re God’s will.
“Are not two sparrows sold for a penny ? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father.”
His prooftext, Matt. 10:29, apparently comes from the New King James Version or the New International Version, or some such translation which adds the word “will” to this text. In the original Greek, however, it merely says “apart from your Father” (well, the koine Greek equivalent of that, of course). It neither specifies “will” nor “knowledge.” Versions that supply one of those words are not translating the text, but are inserting a possible interpretation of it. Based on the wider context of the teaching of Scripture and the historical faith of the Church, the proper interpretation is “knowledge,” not “will.”
Therefore, Matthew’s prooftext does not support his contention that God directly wills the murder of unborn babies. Indeed, we know from Holy Scripture that “God is not willing that any should perish,” that death is an enemy to be destroyed at the Last Judgment, that “God did not create death” (as it is taught in the Book of Wisdom), that God has no pleasure in the death of him who dies, as Ezekiel wrote. Matthew presumes to know the mind of God, and yet he offers a reading of God’s mind that cannot be reconciled with the things He has Himself revealed to us.
Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.” And, “I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.”
That doesn’t prove that Jesus lacks free will. That proves that Jesus and His Father are One.
You do know, I hope, that Christians believe that Jesus has Two Natures, not one, and Two Wills, not one?
we know from Holy Scripture that “God is not willing that any should perish,”
To “perish” is not the same as being put to death in the world. “You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death. All men will hate you BECAUSE OF ME. But not a hair of your head will perish. By standing firm you will gain life.”
Christians believe that Jesus has Two Natures, not one, and Two Wills, not one?
Jesus could only exercise One will, whether you see it as however many wills. “The Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing.” His freedom (as in Jesus’s free will) is in not exercising any other will.
“Not as I (Jesus) will, but as you (Father) will.”
Matthew,
Jordan Potter gave you a chance to leave gracefully and even provided you with a good bit of information for your benefit.
However, it seems you refuse to listen to reason.
For your information, Jesus had both a DIVINE and HUMAN nature. His divine nature has an intellect and will that is divine. His human nature has an intellect and will that is human.
Therefore, Christ is unique in that He has TWO NATURES in his person, TWO INTELLECTS and TWO WILLS.
It would be good for you to first LEARN about what Jordan Potter was trying to teach you rather than to ignorantly refute his arguments with such little understanding on what he was actually saying to you.
I, myself, don’t know everything as regards Theology but I do try to make attempts at learning the basics, which is what I’d suggest for you to do — learn the BASICS.
Jesus indeed had two wills, one human and one divine. The thing is, His human will was perfectly aligned and in harmony with the will of the Father.
In this way He provides an example for us, as well as great hope that – relying on God’s grace – we may bring our will perfectly into line with His.
It would be impossible on our own, but with God all things are possible.
The whole point of Gethsemane was that the choice was real. As real as sweat and blood.
Now, how did we end up this far off topic, again?
Bush lead to the definition of prolife, which lead to the difference between killing innocents and criminals, which lead to a troll that insists that everything is OK, because it’s God’s will.
He has TWO NATURES in his person, TWO INTELLECTS and TWO WILLS… His human will was perfectly aligned and in harmony with the will of the Father.
“I and the Father are One.” Jesus’s will is the Father’s will is God’s will and never ceased to be God’s will. That’s One will, even if counting it as however many amuses you.
The whole point of Gethsemane was that the choice was real
As real as God’s choice. “Not as I (Jesus) will, but as you (Father) will.”
a troll that insists that everything is OK, because it’s God’s will.
“Rejoice always. Pray without ceasing. In all circumstances give thanks, for this is the will of God for you in Christ Jesus.”
Jesus’s will is the Father’s will is God’s will and never ceased to be God’s will. That’s One will, even if counting it as however many amuses you.
If there was only one will, then how come Jesus distinguished between His will and His Father’s will? As you yourself quote:
“Not as I (Jesus) will, but as you (Father) will.”
So which is it, Matthew? Do you agree with Jesus that there are two wills, or would you rather patronise your Savior and say to Him, “That’s one will, even if counting it as however many amuses you.”
a troll that insists that everything is OK
Matthew is much more troubling that just an internet troll. He’s a Monothelite.
In all circumstances give thanks, for this is the will of God for you in Christ Jesus.”
Of course, Matthew is also someone who doesn’t seem to read very well. St. Paul said it is the will of God that we give thanks in all circumstances, not that all circumstances are directly willed by God.
Monothelite
*resists a Star Trek joke*
If there was only one will, then how come Jesus distinguished between His will and His Father’s will?
If I wanted to make the point that I’m NOT seeking to exercise some alleged separate will for myself, I might say exactly what Jesus said. But to use your logic, “if Jesus and the Father are One, then how come Jesus is praying to the Father?”
Of course, Matthew is also someone who doesn’t seem to read very well. St. Paul said it is the will of God that we give thanks in all circumstances, not that all circumstances are directly willed by God.
What “seems” to you is your interpretation. I rejoice no matter. In that way, “everything is OK” with me (which is what I was posting to), regardless of any distinction you may draw as to “directly willed by God” or whatever else. Whether an abortion clinic is built or shutdown, whether someone dies by God or man or Satan or what have you, I rejoice.
Typical gnostic gobbledeygook…
Matthew is Mark is Mary… remember? How tiresome.
Hey, “Matthew”… I’m building a random gnostic phrase generator that will save you the trouble of posting. It’s going well, but occasionally some word combinations still seem to make some logical sense, so obviously there are bugs yet to be worked out. It really won’t count as truly gnostic until every phrase is completely empty of any possibility of real meaning.
To “perish” is not the same as being put to death in the world.
You’re right, it’s not the same — it’s worse. So, if God doesn’t want anyone to perish eternally, how could He want anyone to perish temporally?
“You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death. All men will hate you BECAUSE OF ME.
You seem to think this verse says Christians are hated because Jesus will directly cause men to hate them, whereas it only says Christians will be hated because they have faith in Christ. “All men will hate you FOR MY SAKE.”
Jesus could only exercise One will, whether you see it as however many wills.
You are utterly mistaken and are not reasoning correctly. When two or more wills are perfectly aligned, it doesn’t follow that doesn’t mean only one of those wills is operative.
“The Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing.”
This text isn’t referring to Jesus’ human nature and will, but to His divine nature and will. It speaks of the oneness of the Person of the Son with the Person of the Father. They both equally share the one divine will, but they do it in a way that there is no confusion of Persons: each Person of the Godhead invidually possesses the one divine will, but it does not divide the Godhead at all.
His freedom (as in Jesus’s free will) is in not exercising any other will.
No, the Christian doctrine is that His freedom is in exercising His human will and His divine will in such a way that His human will is always in agreement with His divine will.
“Not as I (Jesus) will, but as you (Father) will.”
Yes, that’s exactly what I mean: He has two wills, His human will and the divine will, which is also the Father’s will. Unless you don’t believe that Jesus is God Incarnate?
Wow two enemies side by side.
One the visible leader of the most masonically promoted country in the world, the other the visible leader of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
And She shall crush…
If I wanted to make the point that I’m NOT seeking to exercise some alleged separate will for myself, I might say exactly what Jesus said.
And if I were God Incarnate, with two natures, one divine and one human, with two wills, one divine and one human, I would say exactly what Jesus said.
But to use your logic, “if Jesus and the Father are One, then how come Jesus is praying to the Father?”
Because Jesus is True Man AND True God, and the proper attitude of man to God is prayerful obedience. If Jesus were only God but not simultaneously Man, then He would not prayer to the Father, but He is God Incarnate, so He prays — and prays perfectly, as no other human could possibly pray.
What “seems” to you is your interpretation. I rejoice no matter. In that way, “everything is OK” with me (which is what I was posting to), regardless of any distinction you may draw as to “directly willed by God” or whatever else. Whether an abortion clinic is built or shutdown, whether someone dies by God or man or Satan or what have you, I rejoice.
Hey, all I can go by is what you give me, and you’re not exactly the picture of clarity and rationality, Matthew.
Anyway, I suspect you may need to learn the difference between indifferent resignation and the Christian joy that is to be there in all circumstances. That is to say, we rejoice IN SPITE of the building of an abortion clinic and in spite of babies being murdered. But in your hyper-Calvinistic, deterministic point of view, we ought to be rejoicing BECAUSE of the building of an abortion clinic and BECAUSE babies are being murdered — since those things are God’s will, those sins must in some mysterious way bring glory to Him, so we should sing hymns of praise every time a baby is torn to pieces, right?
Enemies?
…. *cues the twilight zone music*
So, if God doesn’t want anyone to perish eternally, how could He want anyone to perish temporally?
Temporally is not eternal.
When two or more wills are perfectly aligned, it doesn’t follow that doesn’t mean only one of those wills is operative.
Your presumption is “two or more wills” as if we’re talking about separate wills. Jesus’s will is not separate from God’s anymore than Jesus is separate from God. Jesus, even with his human nature, never ceased being God. Jesus always did God’s will. Jesus’s will is God’s will.
This text isn’t referring to Jesus’ human nature and will, but to His divine nature and will. It speaks of the oneness of the Person of the Son with the Person of the Father.
Jesus as human and Jesus as divine share the One will. Jesus was not divided against himself.
the Christian doctrine is that His freedom is in exercising His human will and His divine will in such a way that His human will is always in agreement with His divine will.
They’re not just in agreement. They are One. They are not separate. Whatever Jesus did was not by some separate will of his own. As he said, “The words that I speak to you I do not speak on my own. The Father who dwells in me is doing his works.”
If it amuses you to see Jesus’s human will as separate from God’s will, then that is your amusement.
Hey, all I can go by is what you give me, and you’re not exactly the picture of clarity and rationality, Matthew
As interpreted by you. Your interpretation is not greater than your understanding.
we rejoice IN SPITE of the building of an abortion clinic and in spite of babies being murdered.
It’s all part of God’s plan. Even evil serves good. I rejoice in that.
so we should sing hymns of praise every time a baby is torn to pieces, right?
“Rejoice always.” What part of “always” don’t you understand?
*light dawns* Ah! This guy doesn’t actually believe in three in one and one in three– he thinks it’s more like one that looks like three.
The Three who are also One is one of the famous Mysteries, aye?
Hey, Mat? You’re still not really believable.
he thinks it’s more like one that looks like three.
Is that what you think? LOL
“So, if God doesn’t want anyone to perish eternally, how could He want anyone to perish temporally?”
Temporally is not eternal.
You’re right — and you also haven’t explain how a God who has no desire that any die eternally could have a desire that any die temporally.
Your presumption is “two or more wills” as if we’re talking about separate wills. Jesus’s will is not separate from God’s anymore than Jesus is separate from God.
Depends on what you mean by “separate.” Jesus has two wills. They really are two wills, not one will that looks like two wills. Thus, in that sense, they are separate. But the two wills are hypostatically united. In that sense, they are not “separate.”
Jesus, even with his human nature, never ceased being God. Jesus always did God’s will. Jesus’s will is God’s will.
Yes, we agree on that, as far as it goes. But Jesus’ human will is not Jesus’ divine will, even though His human will is in agreement with His divine will (which is God’s will — hence “divine”).
Jesus as human and Jesus as divine share the One will. Jesus was not divided against himself.
No, He is not divided against Himself, but no, Jesus as human and Jesus as divine do not share the one will. If you believe that, then you don’t really believe in the Incarnation. Jesus does not share one will with God — He is True Man, so He has a human will, and He is True God, so He also has a divine will.
They’re not just in agreement. They are One. They are not separate. Whatever Jesus did was not by some separate will of his own.
Then Jesus was not True Man.
As he said, “The words that I speak to you I do not speak on my own. The Father who dwells in me is doing his works.”
He doesn’t speak and act on his own, but He, a man, does speak and act. Therefore He is a man in perfect agreement with and obedience to His Father.
Your interpretation is not greater than your understanding.
True, but by God’s grace, my understanding of these things is greater than your understanding of them.
“we rejoice IN SPITE of the building of an abortion clinic and in spite of babies being murdered.”
It’s all part of God’s plan. Even evil serves good. I rejoice in that.
Of course. So that means it’s okay to commit sin, right? And we shouldn’t do anything to fight evil and injustice in the world, right? Even more, let us do evil, that good may come of it, right?
so we should sing hymns of praise every time a baby is torn to pieces, right?
“Rejoice always.” What part of “always” don’t you understand?
So you are truly thankful for babies being murdered? If someone were to come into your home and murder your own children, you would thank God that your children had been murdered?
Matthew, you’re a classic example of the reason non-Catholics really shouldn’t dabble in the Church’s sacred books as if they knew what our sacred books mean.
*puts five dollars on him be a college kid who thinks he’s showing those stupid religious sheep a thing or two*
Don’t waste your breath engaging the “arguments” of a gnostic troll. He/she is probably not very convinced that anything is “true”, save for the unreflective assumption that the Church is always wrong. It’s all word games meant to distract, rather than real argument.
The thing that undoes their philosophy (if one could call it that) is that – sorry – there are no secrets in the Kingdom of God. Jesus is no mere enlightened master… He is enlightenment itself. Light from Light, True God from True God. He brought all Truth out in the fresh air and sunlight.
Of course, it may be hard for some to accept that the Secrets of the Universe have been revealed to the Simple Folk… that Jesus gave away the whole plot. What fun is it if the butcher and trash man can understand it? What are we Brights supposed to do to keep our colossal intellects occupied? How can we possibly keep the Great Unwashed out of our club if Jesus has taken the locks off the doors?
“This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.” Men loved the shadows because they had secrets to protect and that needs darkness.
God is very plain-spoken, when it comes to it. He has to be, we humans being somewhat dimwitted creatures. “Light has come into the world…” there’s no need to go looking for enlightenment here or there in some secret place. Gnostics imagine they have found the sun under a rock or in a cave, when it is blazing noon outside.
Come outside, guys. You’re looking awfully pale and thin. You could use some Sun.
But, back on topic…
The Times probably wanted to caption the photo “Pope rewards minion Bush for punishing gays and restricting abortion rights”.
Or –
“Pope Benedict XVI and President Bush – both white men – discuss their plan for a worldwide theocracy”.
There seems to be a bit of a mudslining fight in respect to Our Lord’s person:
1 person (2nd Person of the Holy Trinity)
2 natures (His created human and uncreated Divine)
2 wills (His created human and His uncreated Divine, yet perfectly united and the the same, while being two separate.)
I thought that the so called Vatican’s 10 Commandments about driving were morally right BUT funny AND the drivers of Catholic countries definetely violate the “commandments” about gestures, wild driving, swearing etc.
Have you ever driven in Rome?
or Mexico City?
Cultural issues? at least kind of funny or ironic.
The driving in Protestant/Scandanavian/Anglo-Germanic countries and areas in the US are less wild in driving. More orderly.
the drivers of Catholic countries
“Catholic” countries????
No such thing!
Most countries are “Protestant”!
The driving in Protestant/Scandanavian/Anglo-Germanic countries and areas in the US are less wild in driving. More orderly.
Really? Why is it that most of the young street racers are Protestant then???
Response to 4:59:49 anon:
You’re wrong!
Most countries are Buddhist!
Because they are young and foolish.
The point is how can any idiot make such a claim as the following:
The driving in Protestant/Scandanavian/Anglo-Germanic countries and areas in the US are less wild in driving. More orderly.
without any valid research and statistics (especially given the fact that “Catholic” countries do not exist. Wasn’t the last “Catholic” country Spain? And it ceased being a “Catholic” country a LONG, LONG time ago!)???
That’s the same kind of illogical, not to mention, bigotted rubbish that claims that the intelligence measured in white-dominated areas is higher than in black-dominated areas, without any actual consideration or extensive research at all but just to make such a bold-faced, prejudicial statement in order to attribute some air of superiority to white folk and accentuate the inferiority of blacks!
Absurd!
Anon,
I think you are over-reacting. One does not have to rely on a four year study paid by a federal grant to observe that driving habits differ somewhat by nation. And my own experience somewhat corroborates Franks. Now perhaps our experiences were aberrant, but even if so that would not make us bigots, or even the statements bigoted.
And your attempt at distinguishing between a Catholic state and a nation populated predominately by Catholics is irrelevant.
Finally, I don’t think Frank can fairly be read as asserting that bad driving habits bear a causal relationship with Catholicism, he just found the presumably accidental association amusing.
Your harsh name-calling was completely uncalled for. You owe Frank an apology.
Mr. Petrik:
What is inductively inferred from his statement:
The driving in Protestant/Scandanavian/Anglo-Germanic countries and areas in the US are less wild in driving. More orderly.
For one, isn’t he, here, asserting that there is actually a causal relationship between Protestantism and the ‘less wild’ and ‘orderly’ driving?
I did observe while overseas that driving habits differ wildly among cultures. From what I could tell from my brief time in the Middle East, traffic lights are considered to be only for suckers.
“For one, isn’t he, here, asserting that there is actually a causal relationship between Protestantism and the ‘less wild’ and ‘orderly’ driving?”
Not at all. He is making an observation that he finds amusing, nothing more. I think you are taking unfair inferential liberties.
And let me further clarify….
At one time all of Europe was Catholic. If history had not intervened my hunch is that today’s driving habits would still be similarly disparate, and that Frank agrees with that. Driving habits are part of and related to culture, whereas the Great Schism and the Reformation, etc. were completely independent historical incidents, causing, possibly, an accidental relationship between religion (meaning Catholic versus Protestant) and driving. Frank found this to be amusing, that’s all.
Driving habits are part of and related to culture, whereas the Great Schism and the Reformation, etc. were completely independent historical incidents, causing, possibly, an accidental relationship between religion (meaning Catholic versus Protestant) and driving.
Mr. Petrik:
If that were the case, then why the ‘Protestant’ distinction?
The driving in Protestant/Scandanavian/Anglo-Germanic countries and areas in the US are less wild in driving. More orderly.
Also, the only way to make such a claim (among the many other considerations): (1) there actually exists ‘Protestant’ countries out there (2) one has experienced driving in a representative sample of both Protestant and Non-Protestant countries
Dago,
Honestly, I wonder if you are being deliberately obtuse.
The fact that the nations mentioned are not religious states is irrelevant to his point, which turns on their traditional predominate religiousity.
And he brought up the Catholic/Protestant distinction because the “Commandments” were issued by the Catholic Pontiff, and the countries Catholics disproportionately live in (i.e., “Catholic ccountries”) are notable for their comparatively poor drivers. Accordingly, he found it mildly “funny or ironic” that the Holy See saw fit to address the problem, Honestly, I don’t see a trace of bigotry or idiocy in his post. It did appear to be non-germane, however.
While not advisable, posting a non-germane comment is not a mortal sin and is hardly limited to idiots.
Good gracious, these comments go all over the place!
Caption contest:
MUSLIMS OUTRAGED
– again
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6763119.stm