These links were posted in a reply on another topic by Luke6_37, but, in my opinion, deserve the creation of a separate, dedicated topic.
I would like to share that in reading the article from La Civiltà Cattolica I have had to go not only to the dictionary but beyond that to Wikipedia beginning with this:
1. relating to Manichaeism.
1. an adherent of Manichaeism.
Manichaeism (/ˌmænɪˈkiːɪzəm/; in Modern Persian آیین مانی Āyin-e Māni; Chinese: 摩尼教; pinyin: Móní Jiào) was a major religious movement that was founded by the Iranian prophet Mani (in Persian: مانی, Syriac: ܡܐܢܝ /mɑni, Latin: Manichaeus or Manes from Koine Greek: Μάνης; c. 216–276) in the Sasanian Empire.
Manichaeism taught an elaborate dualistic cosmology describing the struggle between a good, spiritual world of light, and an evil, material world of darkness. Through an ongoing process that takes place in human history, light is gradually removed from the world of matter and returned to the world of light, whence it came. Its beliefs were based on local Mesopotamian religious movements and Gnosticism.
I think it’s worth the effort.
Weren’t those the two that totally blew their analysis of Catholicism in America a year ago? Nevermind, I see it’s the exact same articles as last year.
I found those links quite inaccurate and laughable to be frank.
Which fundamentalists? Most are separatists i.e. almost like the Amish but without the physical withdrawal from wider society. They’re thinking of dominionists and reconstructionists and not all are ‘fundamentalists’. They should at the very least get the terminology right if they want to be taken seriously but I’ll overlook that because it’s not the biggest issue.
The Manhattan Declaration had some reconstructionists/dominionists signatories but not all are. The statement condemned the destruction of the family and the acceptance of abortion. It also said civil disobedience would be appropriate when the government starts to curb liberties and freedoms. If those are ‘fundamentalist’/integralist, it would be appropriate for the authors to consider if they’re any different from the same group of people they condemn. And the authors should condemn Martin Luther King Jr. if they have such a problem with justifiable civil disobedience.
And you know what? Some of the prominent signatories condemned Trump and didn’t vote for him. Some never talked about politics.
I’m still reading - so I’ll keep that in mind…
If politics is a major problem and dividing churches, the easy answer is this:
The candidates who run for office, most of them are not good, don’t fall for their promises. Don’t expect much. It’s up to you to decide who you think is best out of the list of terrible people. Don’t pester others for voting differently or demand they vote your way. Or don’t vote (I’ve done that in the near decade I’ve been eligible to vote). Put your faith in God not politicians mired in their sins and controlled by their depraved hearts. Problem solved.
Honestly, in my personal opinion, most of our elected officials around the world are going to hell including those who claim to be Bible-believing Christians based on the evidence out there. I have no confidence or faith in them and I have no reason to believe most politicians are honest people or are people of principle. I might be wrong but that’s what the evidence is showing. Ultimately God will judge for He knows infinitely more that I do. Again, that’s my opinion and full disclosure, I’m not Catholic so if anything I wrote isn’t congruent with Catholic teachings now you know why that is.
YOU think what is worth the effort? I’m reading St. Augustine Confessions where he was brought up believing Manachees and refutes what they taught as a belief system! Are you supporting such a system for Catholics?
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.