The American Conservative Goes All-Out Crazy in Its Denunciation of Judge Napolitano

[Christian Liberty]

The Eastern Church condemns all theft. WRT taxation, we only accept this insofar as it serves ti glorify God-in practice, this is never (priests don't like to talk about politics in my experience, so I have to refer to Orthodox reference books on this).

I don't understand the point of making a statement like this. If you only accept taxation when it glorifies God, and taxation never glorifies God, why not simply say taxation is always wrong?

That said, I actually don't agree with this. God is glorified even by evil. Romans 9:17 and Isaiah 10:5-19 clearly spell this out. I believe this is ultimately the point of Romans 13:1-7 as well, when taken in the context of the entire New Testament, and Jesus' teachings. However, I think its undeniable that taxation is evil.

In Matthew 9, Jesus calls tax collectors sinners who need to repent, which Orthdox agree with. I consider this a condemnation of taxation as theft (and the footnotes in my bible seem to verify this), but I have to dig up some more articles/essays for you. Gtg for now, but I'll get back to this later.

My study Bible is blatantly wrong about this, IMHO (Lest I be misunderstood, I'm talking about the commentary notes, not the Bible itself). Among other things, my study Bible uses the fact that John the Baptist didn't explicitly tell the tax collectors to quit. But, first of all, John the Baptist is not an infallible source per se (I agree with your interpretation on Matthew 9), and second of all, John seems to imply that the profession isn't really morally acceptable.

Although Catholics believe in Papal Infallibility (incorrectly, IMO), I'm not sure that poor judgement by a particular pope makes or breaks the Church. It certainly doesn't invalidate the RCC as a True Faith.

"a true faith" or "The True Faith"? There's a difference. I believe my Baptist church is a true church, despite not being perfect, because it does not err on the gospel. Despite disagreeing with paedobaptism, I would also consider a Presbyterian church that practiced it to be a true church as long as the gospel they preached was the same gospel I believe. Aside from gospel issues, the fact that the Catholic church is wrong on this issue would not, in and of itself, discount it from being a true church.

However, the Roman Catholic Church claims infallibility for itself, and that it is THE True Church. That claim, I believe, can be disproven by finding ANY errors in their theology, including a refusal to condemn theft.

Of course, you could argue that the RCC is correct on this matter, and that I am wrong, but that's a separate issue entirely. And I think you agree with me on the tax=theft issue anyway. I'm not sure eduardo does.

As eduardo pointed out (I just noticed), the pope was talking about fascism, corporatism, and variants of these when he said "unfettered capitalism". He was absolutely correct, too. RP and most libertarians oppose this sort of "unfettered capitalism". Remember, laissez-faire is not libertinism

At the very least, this makes him an idiot who needs to learn what words mean (I probably wouldn't be this harsh if we were talking about some random joe on the street, but considering he claims to have some authority I think this respone is warranted.) That said, I think Napolitano read what he said, and thus I trust his interpretation. I'll have to take a first hand look.

 

[Danke]

eduardo will haz teh sad if that's true...

Then give him one of your infamous ~hugs~

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't understand the point of making a statement like this. If you only accept taxation when it glorifies God, and taxation never glorifies God, why not simply say taxation is always wrong?

Unlike Catholics, we do not use Scholastic techniques.

That said, I actually don't agree with this. God is glorified even by evil. Romans 9:17 and Isaiah 10:5-19 clearly spell this out. I believe this is ultimately the point of Romans 13:1-7 as well, when taken in the context of the entire New Testament, and Jesus' teachings. However, I think its undeniable that taxation is evil.

God is glorified in all things. This does not justify evil works.

"a true faith" or "The True Faith"? There's a difference. I believe my Baptist church is a true church, despite not being perfect, because it does not err on the gospel. Despite disagreeing with paedobaptism, I would also consider a Presbyterian church that practiced it to be a true church as long as the gospel they preached was the same gospel I believe. Aside from gospel issues, the fact that the Catholic church is wrong on this issue would not, in and of itself, discount it from being a true church.

The True Faith. Your worship community (or small-c church, if you prefer) is an offshoot of the Anabaptist movement. FYI, there were 2 types of Baptists in the beginning-the Particular Baptists (generally Calvinistic) and General Baptists (generally Arminian). There are also "Free Will" Baptists and a few others IDR.
You and I do have some common ground. All the Baptist churches have a common tradition and a common set of doctrines. This is good. However, Baptists reject a lot of important stuff like Sacremental Theology.

However, the Roman Catholic Church claims infallibility for itself, and that it is THE True Church. That claim, I believe, can be disproven by finding ANY errors in their theology, including a refusal to condemn theft.

Of course, you could argue that the RCC is correct on this matter, and that I am wrong, but that's a separate issue entirely. And I think you agree with me on the tax=theft issue anyway. I'm not sure eduardo does.

I don't consider the RCC The True Church. It errs in development of doctrine, relationship of faith and reason, and its understanding of spirituality. It goes beyond beyond being rational into demanding conformity to human reason. In contrast, the OC uses reason as a tool, not the criterion of Truth. (Scholasticism is wrong-headed...but I'm sure eduardo will disagree )

At the very least, this makes him an idiot who needs to learn what words mean (I probably wouldn't be this harsh if we were talking about some random joe on the street, but considering he claims to have some authority I think this respone is warranted.) That said, I think Napolitano read what he said, and thus I trust his interpretation. I'll have to take a first hand look.

Yep. The pope needs to adjust his language to something the non-Roman world can understand clearly. His Scholastic approach tends to muddle meanings because it is so idiomatic.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Then give him one of your infamous ~hugs~

Will do. And my ~hugs~ are famous, not infamous.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Hi, HB. How's it going?

Unlike Catholics, we do not use Scholastic techniques.

Can you explain what you mean here?

God is glorified in all things. This does not justify evil works.

I agree, of course.

The True Faith. Your worship community (or small-c church, if you prefer) is an offshoot of the Anabaptist movement. FYI, there were 2 types of Baptists in the beginning-the Particular Baptists (generally Calvinistic) and General Baptists (generally Arminian). There are also "Free Will" Baptists and a few others IDR.

Yeah, there are different types. My particular church is a conservative baptist church, but I wouldn't really describe myself as "conservative baptist" so much as a Christian who happens to attend a conservative baptist church, and believes in credobaptism.

My church is split between Calvinists and non-Calvinists. My pastor/dad is certainly a five pointer. I don't necessarily care for the term "Calvinist", but I accept all five points as well.

You and I do have some common ground. All the Baptist churches have a common tradition and a common set of doctrines. This is good. However, Baptists reject a lot of important stuff like Sacremental Theology.

I also reject it. I don't believe in sacraments, at least not as the RCC and EO churches define them.

I don't consider the RCC The True Church. It errs in development of doctrine, relationship of faith and reason, and its understanding of spirituality. It goes beyond beyond being rational into demanding conformity to human reason. In contrast, the OC uses reason as a tool, not the criterion of Truth. (Scholasticism is wrong-headed...but I'm sure eduardo will disagree )

Not sure what you mean here. The truth can't contradict itself, so it has to be logical. It might not actually seem reasonable to us, however.

As an example, for the rich man to be commanded to sell everything he had and give it to the poor was not illogical, but it didn't seem reasonable to him, because of his worship of his money. For a man to die rather than deny Christ isn't "reasonable" to the world, but there's nothing illogical about it.

On the other hand, the truth can't contradict itself. God can't make a square circle, for example.

Yep. The pope needs to adjust his language to something the non-Roman world can understand clearly. His Scholastic approach tends to muddle meanings because it is so idiomatic.

[/QUOTE]

I seriously doubt the Pope actually likes free market capitalism or opposes all theft (taxation) on principle. To be fair, most Christians don't either, but most Christians don't claim to be infallible authorities, or the leader of the "One True Church." I expect more out of Pope Francis (And am disappointed) than I would from a random pastor, such as my dad as one example.

 

[Brett85]

They have a large number of liberals who post in their comment section. I wouldn't let the comments get to you too much if you can help it.

It seems like they have a large number of liberal editorialists as well.

 

[eduardo89]

As eduardo pointed out (I just noticed), the pope was talking about fascism, corporatism, and variants of these when he said "unfettered capitalism". He was absolutely correct, too. RP and most libertarians oppose this sort of "unfettered capitalism". Remember, laissez-faire is not libertinism.

Then he should have said fascism or corporatism or even crony capitalism rather than "unfettered capitalism," because they are not the same thing.

He never used the phrase 'unfettered capitalism.' In fact, in in the entire Apostolic Exhortation the word capitalism is not used a single time.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Can you explain what you mean here?

Scholasticism is complicated, and deliberately so. It's difficult to explain it briefly. Basically, they try to systematize every little detail possible. Augustine, for example, created an extremely complicated doctrine of Grace. More here- http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13548a.htm

I also reject it. I don't believe in sacraments, at least not as the RCC and EO churches define them.

You can reject it if you want, but you lose one of the defining parts of Christian life.

Not sure what you mean here. The truth can't contradict itself, so it has to be logical. It might not actually seem reasonable to us, however.

As an example, for the rich man to be commanded to sell everything he had and give it to the poor was not illogical, but it didn't seem reasonable to him, because of his worship of his money. For a man to die rather than deny Christ isn't "reasonable" to the world, but there's nothing illogical about it.

On the other hand, the truth can't contradict itself. God can't make a square circle, for example.

The laws of reason (especially formal logic) are man-made and abstract-and do not necessarily describe reality. Something can be "logical" and false or "illogical" and true. Although it is illogical technically, the 3 persons/aspects of the Trinity are equally God. This has confounded logicians for centuries.

I seriously doubt the Pope actually likes free market capitalism or opposes all theft (taxation) on principle. To be fair, most Christians don't either, but most Christians don't claim to be infallible authorities, or the leader of the "One True Church." I expect more out of Pope Francis (And am disappointed) than I would from a random pastor, such as my dad as one example.

I too am disappoint. A number of Catholic scholars like Dr Woods have written detailed defenses of laissez-faire from the Catholic perspective. Someone should have the Pope call Tom.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Scholasticism is complicated, and deliberately so. It's difficult to explain it briefly. Basically, they try to systematize every little detail possible. Augustine, for example, created an extremely complicated doctrine of Grace. More here- http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13548a.htm

I'll look at it, but even without looking at it, man will never, in all eternity, have a complete understanding of the gospel. However, it only takes a sentence or two to convey the general message. John 3:16 pretty much does it by itself, minus the omission (Which, of course, appears in plenty of other Biblical passages) of WHY we needed God's only begotten Son.

All men have sinned, and deserve punishment, so Christ came to die on the cross and suffered in the place of any who would put their faith and trust in him alone, rather than anything within themselves, for their salvation.

I'm sure you could get it even simpler than that and still convey the message, but that in and of itself isn't complex.

You can reject it if you want, but you lose one of the defining parts of Christian life.

Any BIBLICAL evidence?

The laws of reason (especially formal logic) are man-made and abstract-and do not necessarily describe reality. Something can be "logical" and false or "illogical" and true. Although it is illogical technically, the 3 persons/aspects of the Trinity are equally God. This has confounded logicians for centuries.

I don't think the Trinity is illogical. I don't see it as illogical anymore than the yolk, white, and shell of an egg are all completely egg, and make up only one egg, and yet are distinct. Mind you, that's a simple analogy. My finite mind cannot possibly grasp the complexity of the Trinity. But I think my simple analogy shows that it is NOT illogical to have three things that are completely X and yet make up only one X. So, I fail to see how the Trinity is truly "illogical."

I believe God is logical as well. His logic is higher than our logic, but he's not illogical.

I too am disappoint. A number of Catholic scholars like Dr Woods have written detailed defenses of laissez-faire from the Catholic perspective. Someone should have the Pope call Tom.

To be clear, I wasn't implying that all Catholics are socialists. I admire Tom Woods and Judge Napolitano, though obviously I don't theologically agree with them. But I feel like the Pope's statements here alone, even on this trivial subject, prevent the Catholic Church from being the "One True Church" for the reasons I've already explained.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Any BIBLICAL evidence?

The most obvious, the sacrement of baptism: John 3:5-8
Eucharist: Mark 14:22-25, Matthew 26:26-29, Luke 22:13-20
I can do this for all the sacrements, but I don't have time. Google it.

I don't think the Trinity is illogical. I don't see it as illogical anymore than the yolk, white, and shell of an egg are all completely egg, and make up only one egg, and yet are distinct. Mind you, that's a simple analogy. My finite mind cannot possibly grasp the complexity of the Trinity. But I think my simple analogy shows that it is NOT illogical to have three things that are completely X and yet make up only one X. So, I fail to see how the Trinity is truly "illogical."

It's logical to you and I, but to the various peoples the apostles preached to, it wasn't. It still isn't to atheists and certain heretical sects.

I believe God is logical as well. His logic is higher than our logic, but he's not illogical.

Correct.

 

[DamianTV]

Article here.

MSM demonizes anyone who expresses an opinion that, if agreed with, poses a threat to the Status Quo.

 

[cajuncocoa]

eduardo will haz teh sad if that's true...

it's not.

 

[dannno]

Fruitcake is nom nom )

This is supposedly the best fruitcake recipe ever:

http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alton-brown/free-range-fruitcake-recipe/index.html