An Open Invitation

[Bronwen]

Accountable wrote: 1. It's Branham you have a problem with, not me. I merely pointed out what the man my father followed espouses.



2. I do think it's amusing that you know whether he knows his claim to be a lie or not, though.

3. I'm mildly curious now, not being catholic. How do you justify praying to statues that represent intermediaries...

4. ...when it's clearly prohibited in the Bible?1. OK. I thought that was what I said:My quarrel is only with those who attempt to slander Catholicism (or for that matter Judaism, Mormonism or any other religion) by making claims that they know are lies. 2. The very idea of Christians praying to blocks of marble is so ridiculous that only an idiot, which I assume neither you nor Branham to be, would seriously believe such a thing.

3. Both the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed affirm the Communion of Saints, which was also mentioned by a Protestant poster earlier in this thread. spot wrote: The [Christian] community consists equally of the Church Militant, still fighting the good fight, and the Church Triumphant, "our friends above who have obtained the prize", "for all the servants of our King in earth and heaven are one."I do not dispute that Catholics and those Protestants which affirm these creeds may interpret the phrase differently.

The saints are God's and Christianity's great heroes and heroines. Honoring them in works of art and asking them in prayer to intercede for us are among the most ancient traditions of the Church (tho' admittedly post-Biblical).

4. Where is that? I must have missed it. If you don't wish to invoke the saints, don't do so. But don't spout nonsense about praying to statues.

What about the claims on the Branham website that nuns are held captive in convents which stand above intricate systems of underground caverns and dungeons where the nuns are raped and tortured by priests? Did your dad believe that too?

[chonsigirl]

Bronwen wrote: 1. I don't believe so, chon, nor am I sure exactly what you mean. If you mean that I went back and edited it at some time during the discussion, I don't remember having done that, and the only reason I would ever do that would be to correct a typo. What do you think was changed? Within the first few MINUTES after posting I often go back and make minor changes and corrections.

2. That would be yourself and tel.

Why are you so hostile?
Asking questions is not hostile, Brownen-that is how we learn things.

So I pop up and ask them, all the time. I am sorry if that seems hostile to you, I usually write my questions the same way I would ask them if we were talking face to face. I will take consideration of your feelings in how you perceive my inquiries when I write them.

Thank you for your comment on the thread opener. I just noticed something was changed, I could not say specifically what. You probably made some grammatical change-it was just something I noticed, since I am a teacher and look for things like that all the time-occupational hazard.

[gmc]

posted by telepaquacky

See, gmc, if I think you don't understand parts of the Bible, it isn't because you aren't a smart fellow, or sincere, or honest or a good person- not at all. It's because I get the impression that you are trying to understand a spiritual document from a human point of view.


I come at it from a totally different perspective from you. I do not regard it as the word of god or any kind of spiritual document in the first place, but the history of an ancient tribe from their point of view and trying to understand the world around them.

Take for instance the israelites going in to the promised land-it was already occupied, basically in order to survive they were going to have to go in and kill the people, who had done them no harm and had not attacked them in any way, and steal the land-it's tribal warfare over resources pure and simple. Convincing yourself it is your god given destiny is a way of making it palatable. In the 19th century there was manifest destiny and social darwinism to serve the same purpose and make appalling actions seem justified.

The god of the old testament is harsh and capricious because that is the way the world seems to them. I don't regard the bible as a spiritual document in the first place and a human point of view is the only way I can look at it-although secretly I know I am a multi-talented mega being but people normally laugh at me when I tell them that.

posted by telepaquacky

Call me a clown for believing this stuff. First of all, you don't know just from looking at traditional Christianity what exact stuff I really believe. But you're right. I'm God's own clown! God has already dressed me up in a clown suit to keep me humble so I won't use what he reveals to me to glorify myself rather than Him.


Actually I would call you a muppet but only because I think that's funnier. Joking aside I can respect your belief even if i don't share it and to be honest i find it fascinating-at least you are prepared to talk about it without taking offence. My comments about sanctimony etc were not aimed at anyone in particular but rather a general comment about some types of religious followers.

Incidentally I find aetheism equally irrational especially those who would have it taught as an alternative faith in RE classes in schools-how can you teach about non belief? Let people make up their own minds and the more they know about other faiths the less likely they are to follow blindly persuasive bigots and the more likely they are to respect others beliefs.

posted by bronwen

8. No, I don't think that at all; on the contrary, I've enjoyed all of my exchanges with you, and I hope that they will continue on future threads.


Usually I find with religious discussion it ends up as I'm right, you're wrong and there is no point arguing about it.

posted by accountable

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronwen

My quarrel is only with those who attempt to slander Catholicism (or for that matter Judaism, Mormonism or any other religion) by making claims that they know are lies.

I take it you see that as happening here, possibly in this thread? If so, where?


Well I think the basic premise of all of them is a load of cobblers but it's only slander if the assertion is untrue.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2003/08/01/t ... view.shtml

Does god have a sense of humour? If he does it would explain a lot.

[Accountable]

gmc wrote: Incidentally I find aetheism equally irrational especially those who would have it taught as an alternative faith in RE classes in schools-how can you teach about non belief? Let people make up their own minds and the more they know about other faiths the less likely they are to follow blindly persuasive bigots and the more likely they are to respect others beliefs.


Hear! Hear!



http://www.religioustolerance.org/



I found this while trying to get some info about SDA. Since Bronwen sees my curiosity as attack, I'll see if it addresses catholic prayer as well.

[Accountable]

Bronwen wrote: 2. The very idea of Christians praying to blocks of marble is so ridiculous that only an idiot, which I assume neither you nor Branham to be, would seriously believe such a thing.

I found this, comparing theological beliefs of RCC and conservative Protestants.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_capr.htm

Statues, venerating



RCC: Frequent veneration of statues and images as symbols of Jesus, Mary and of the individual saints.

Conservative Protestants: Many consider veneration of statues as idolatry -- a violation of the "graven images" prohibition in the second of the Ten Commandments

[Ted]

According to Finkelstein and Silberman in "The Bible Unearthed" there was no such invasion in the land of Canaan. There was some immigration from other parts but for the most part it was an iternal change with those following monotheism moving to the highlands of Canaan.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[telaquapacky]

gmc wrote: Take for instance the israelites going in to the promised land-it was already occupied, basically in order to survive they were going to have to go in and kill the people, who had done them no harm and had not attacked them in any way, and steal the land-it's tribal warfare over resources pure and simple. Convincing yourself it is your god given destiny is a way of making it palatable. In the 19th century there was manifest destiny and social darwinism to serve the same purpose and make appalling actions seem justified.I wish I had a good answer for that- only that I think God put them there with the intention of having a model spiritual community in the crossroads of civilization to demonstrate to the world His way. Their own Scripture candidly reports that they failed miserably over and over, and the land was taken from them as a result- twice.

Whereas the Jews occupying Palestine after the Exodus seems appalling to you, what seems to me equally unjust is my country's blind pursuit of a lopsided "Peace Process" that is unfairly biased in favor of Israel- another example of our misguided foreign policy that bringing instability and calamity to the whole world. It is no doubt influenced by American Protestant Evangelicals who have a silly theory that there is some prophetic necessity to rebuild Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem. Talk about the tail wagging the mutt!

gmc wrote: Actually I would call you a muppet but only because I think that's funnier. :p A lucky guess! No one is that perceptive.

[spot]

telaquapacky wrote: I wish I had a good answer for that- only that I think God put them there with the intention of having a model spiritual community in the crossroads of civilization to demonstrate to the world His way. Their own Scripture candidly reports that they failed miserably over and over, and the land was taken from them as a result- twice.You know, Ted has the first half of it in that earlier post. Cultural and physical invasions come and go, the people working the land go from farmer to slave and back over the generations, but families often stay close to their roots. You might like to read http://www.standardtimes.com/daily/03-9 ... 9wn056.htm for an example.

Do people have to assume that the none of the farmers of Judah and Samaria converted during the rise of Islam? It seems quite reasonable to me that many of the muslim Palestinians displaced in the 20th century descended from the Old and New Testament inhabitants. I can't see that notion pleasing many of the current antagonists of the region.

[telaquapacky]

Bronwen wrote: tel, can you be more specific? What do you view as the differences between Catholic and Protestant (not necessarily SDA) thought on these issues?

Personally I think most of the differences lie elsewhere.The first thing I mentioned was the character of God, and before I go into differences, I first want to sincerely commend your church for what you're doing right. You have the world's largest and longest established system of Christian hospitals, orphanages, schools and charitable organizations. I think any honest Protestant should fairly admit that in many ways, Roman Catholics have been the greatest benefactors of mankind in the Christian era. For this Jesus is pleased with you, and I respect and admire it. It was Jesus who relieved suffering and helped the poor. In that way Roman Catholics around the world are doing more than Jesus did- just as He said- and at great personal sacrifice of themselves. I witnessed this myself. I was a missionary myself in Africa, and I met some Roman Catholic brothers and sisters whose faith and love in action I found both inspiring and worthy of imitation.

Before I can discuss how our points of view differ, I had to say that, not only to set a positive tone, but because it has gone unsaid by Protestants for too long, and deserves mentioning.

[Bronwen]

Accountable wrote: I found this, comparing theological beliefs of RCC and conservative Protestants. I gotta say, it's remarkably accurate. One can always quibble of course, but I see nothing on the entire page to which I would object except for the very lines you quoted. In fact, I would go so far as to recommend it to anyone unfamiliar with Catholic beliefs who would like some basic information from a neutral source. [from Acc's link:] RCC: Frequent veneration of statues and images as symbols of Jesus, Mary and of the individual saints. Conservative Protestants: Many consider veneration of statues as idolatry...Catholics adore God alone, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We venerate the saints, especially the Virgin Mary.

A statue is a piece of stone, nothing more. That it might depict Jesus Christ or a saint is really irrelevant. Anyone claiming that Catholics venerate statues should, to have any credibility, support such a claim from a Catholic source, which, of course, they would be unable to do.

It is true that Catholics respect religious objects, which are referred to as 'sacramentals', in much the same way that Americans respect their flag. If I had, for example, a worn-out Bible, coming apart at the seams and virtually unreadable, or some over religious article no longer usable, I would not throw it in the trash. I would probably bury it or give it to a priest for disposal. That is not veneration of the object but respect for what it represents.

[Bronwen]

telaquapacky wrote: The first thing I mentioned was the character of God, and before I go into differences, I first want to sincerely commend your church for what you're doing right. You have the world's largest and longest established system of Christian hospitals, orphanages, schools and charitable organizations. I think any honest Protestant should fairly admit that in many ways, Roman Catholics have been the greatest benefactors of mankind in the Christian era. For this Jesus is pleased with you, and I respect and admire it. It was Jesus who relieved suffering and helped the poor. In that way Roman Catholics around the world are doing more than Jesus did- just as He said- and at great personal sacrifice of themselves. I witnessed this myself. I was a missionary myself in Africa, and I met some Roman Catholic brothers and sisters whose faith and love in action I found both inspiring and worthy of imitation.Let me return the good words by saying that the SDA operates excellent hospitals, and is to commended for its respect for the human body and its care. In fact my sister, a devout Catholic, had several of her children in Adventist hospitals and recommends them highly.

Here is also something of interest:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/obituari ... scientious objector won Medal of Honor

March 24, 2006

CALHOUN, Ga. -- Desmond T. Doss Sr., the only conscientious objector to receive the Medal of Honor for noncombatant achievements in World War II, died Thursday. He was 87.

His death was announced by Seventh-day Adventist Church officials in Calhoun.

On Oct. 12, 1945, Mr. Doss was invited to the White House to receive the Medal of Honor from President Harry S Truman for his bravery on May 5, 1945. As a 24-year-old medic from Lynchburg, Va., Mr. Doss stayed atop a cliff on the island of Okinawa, lowering wounded soldiers under Japanese attack.

Mr. Doss, who refused to carry a weapon during his wartime service as a medic, was the subject of a 2004 documentary, ''The Conscientious Objector,'' and a previously published book, The Unlikeliest Hero.

''I'm proud of you; you really deserve this. I consider this a greater honor than being president,'' Truman told Mr. Doss at the medal ceremony, according to the documentary.

Doss was a Seventh-day Adventist from childhood, and Ed Wright, president of the Georgia-Cumberland Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, described him as a ''real inspiration to our church and specifically several generations of young people. He was a very humble man, deeply convicted as to not bearing arms.''

[Accountable]

Bronwen wrote: I gotta say, it's remarkably accurate. One can always quibble of course, but I see nothing on the entire page to which I would object except for the very lines you quoted. In fact, I would go so far as to recommend it to anyone unfamiliar with Catholic beliefs who would like some basic information from a neutral source. Catholics adore God alone, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We venerate the saints, especially the Virgin Mary.



A statue is a piece of stone, nothing more. That it might depict Jesus Christ or a saint is really irrelevant. Anyone claiming that Catholics venerate statues should, to have any credibility, support such a claim from a Catholic source, which, of course, they would be unable to do.



It is true that Catholics respect religious objects, which are referred to as 'sacramentals', in much the same way that Americans respect their flag. If I had, for example, a worn-out Bible, coming apart at the seams and virtually unreadable, or some over religious article no longer usable, I would not throw it in the trash. I would probably bury it or give it to a priest for disposal. That is not veneration of the object but respect for what it represents.
I'm dropping this, because it is nothing more than idle (idol?) curiosity for me, and many Catholics I'm sure are insulted by my lack of reverance. And while you have erased any respect I have for you personally, I will respect other Catholics by not digging further.

[Bronwen]

Far Rider wrote: 1. However you are obviously hostile towards fundamentalists. So I chose not to partake of your threads in general from now on. I still find you to be arrogant, pushy and accusatory without facts.

2. I have many catholic friends I served with in the military, and through multiple discussions with many catholics I have never found one that believed ALL the religious intsruction from the Roman Catholic Orginization...

3. ....many in fact were hostile towards the vatican and defiant of priests.

4. You are the first Catholic I have ever met that seems to believe EVERYTHING the Catholic Church puts out. I find that amazing.

5. In my opinion church is very important as long as its a local, self governed entity, house of worship, center of hospitality, and an example of true religion which is to meet the needs as far out as they have the resources to do so. Anything larger than that is not necessary.

6. At any rate bronwen, I'm done with you.1. I would put it differently. I see nothing wrong with confronting (here or elsewhere) those fundamentalists who attack my Church because they are mistaken or misinformed about its history or its teachings and practices. I am hostile only to those who slander my Church by spreading such misinformation when they know it to be false. That, as I said previously, is false witness, a direct violation of a commandment.

2. I would be interested in knowing what they did and didn't accept and why. The Catholic Church doesn't simply make things up. Everything it teaches is rooted in Scripture and in Church history.

3. In that case they should probably find a new affiliation, but once again, it would be interesting to know why they feel that way.

4. Then you are very easily amazed, and I'm not sure you were paying very close attention, because I've already said that I am critical of many of my Church's positions on practical, social matters such as marriage, birth control, and abortion.

Looking at the bigger picture, though, it boils down to this: I attended Catholic schools for 11 years, I had four years of highschool religion: first year advanced Catechism, second year Bible history, third year Church history, fourth year Apologetics. Never in all those years was I taught anything that I later found to be unfactual. Nothing. When we studied, for example, the Reformation, we viewed it from the Catholic perspective of course, but what we learned was pretty much what is in the (secular) encyclopedia. Had I ever discovered that my Church was lying to me - about anything - I would have walked out the door and never returned.

Compare my experience with the Fundamentalist Protestant so-called 'Christian' schools, where little children are taught the most outrageous nonsense about not only the Bible and the history of the Church, but also about things scientific. That is not education, that's mind control.

Having said that, I should stress that the 'mainline' Protestant denoms also have excellent schools, the Wesleyan colleges and universities being fine examples.

Of course, we are talking here about matters of FACT. Matters of religious faith are a different thing entirely. If my Church teaches the Real Presence and other Chruches claim that the Lord's Supper is merely symbolic, that is a matter of faith upon which Christians of good will can disagree.

5. Thanks for stating your opinion, that's the purpose of these forums. Others don't see it that way.

6. Bye, FR. Have a great life!

[Bronwen]

Accountable wrote: I'm dropping this, because....Well, Acc, how about being honest for once. You're dropping it because you can't support your side.

In any case, toodle-oo.

[spot]

That just leaves... me, then.

Hang on, I've still got my Vorpal blade somewhere, let me gird myself. Do I get to behead you if I win outright, Bronwen?

("The Vorpal Blade appears in NetHack, where it has a one in twenty chance of beheading any enemy (that has a head) with each hit").

[Accountable]

Bronwen wrote: Well, Acc, how about being honest for once. You're dropping it because you can't support your side.



In any case, toodle-oo.You make a very tempting target to stalk and disrupt, but I won't in deference to Spot.

[telaquapacky]

Bronwen wrote: Here is also something of interest:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/obituari ... 24.htmlYou are the first person to tell me about Brother Doss passing! I saw him last summer at a campmeeting in Northern California. I got to shake hands with him. I knew he was getting up in years.

I have the DVD, "The Conscientious Objector," about his heroism in Okinawa. It impressed me that he would go where bullets were whizzing by his head to save others. It said he would even sneak out and give medical aid to Japanese soldiers as well.

It makes me think about faith. It seems that only if God is really real to you can you have that kind of trust in Him- the kind of trust that you place your life in His hands without reservation- knowing that God may choose to spare your life, and he may choose not to as well. I feel moved to tell you about something that happened to me 27 years ago, before I was converted, where my life was in the hands of God.

I was raised in the Baptist, and later the Presbyterian faiths. But in my teen years I backslid. By the time of my 20's I was smoking marijuana and had a few LSD trips. On one of those, I overdosed and dangerously lost my grip on reality. To make the perfect storm, I was in fact, on a hiking trip with friends to a rock formation in Malibu called Eagle Rock, with some sheer cliffs hundreds of feet high, and we were scrambling over a thin ledge to get to a cave in of those cliffs at just the hour that our LSD experience was at it's peak intensity.

Once we got inside the cave, we settled into conversation. My friends, who were atheists, started criticizing religion in general, and Christianity in specific, saying they could not understand how anyone could possibly believe in God. I started hallucinating that there was no God, but that I was dying and was on the verge of going to hell. I experienced a terror like nothing I have ever known. I had to get out of that cave.

Somehow I made it along that narrow ledge, with a 300 foot drop below, back to the top of the rock where it was a little less dangerous. But there everything went completely crazy. My friends, seeing I was becoming psychotic, surrounded me in order to protect me from falling off the side of the rock, which was less a fall than the cliff where the cave was, but still likely to kill me or leave me paralyzed. But seeing them surrounding me I was afraid they were trying to harm me, so I took a running leap into the clear to escape them. But this jump put me on a slope on the side of the rock that was far too steeply inclined to regain control or to escape. I started rolling toward a side ledge with a long, deep drop into a rocky ravine- and I was completely unable to stop myself. I had one moment of mental lucidity where I came to my senses, and resigned myself that I was going to fall, and silently hoped that whatever happened to me would be something I could endure. This was not a prayer, nor was it faith. I just knew I had blown it and was about to face the consequences. I slid over the ledge, grabbing with all my might, abrading the skin off my palms and fingertips. I saw the ledge depart away into the sky, and was knocked unconscious by the impact of rock and brush on my back.

When I regained consciousness, I was lying face up in dry brush. I saw a flat rock close by, and made an effort to spider-crawl to it, and passed out again. When I came to, a mountain rescue team was rapelling down toward me from the cliffs above. They asked me questions and assessed my condition. When they asked me where I fell from, and I told them I had fallen from Eagle Rock. They did not believe me, and asked me again. When I told them the same thing, they assumed I was delirious and didn't ask me again.

My companions had run down to the ranger station and brought back the ranger. When the ranger asked them where I had fallen from, and they told him, he did not believe them, and because he thought they were lying, for a moment, he suspected them of throwing me over another cliff some distance away.

I was air lifted by helicopter to the nearest hospital, some 20 miles away, where they found fortunately, I suffered only three broken ribs, a collapsed lung, and some deep skin abrasions.

I never used LSD again. One day, when I was completely straight and sober, I returned to Eagle Rock to look at the place where I had fallen. You couldn't even see where I had landed, from the top of Eagle Rock, because it was unsafe to get close enough to the ledge to look down over it, so I went back to the trail and backtracked to the cliff where the mountain rescue team had rappelled down to me. From that vantage point I saw the flat rock where I had crawled to and passed out, and I looked over and up to the ledge from where I had fallen. I saw to my amazement that the place where I had landed was at least forty feet away horizontally from the ledge where I had fallen from, on the other side of that deep, rocky ravine. It was obvious that gravity alone would have dictated that I would fall straight into the ravine, at least 50 feet down (what climbers call the "coffin zone"). I couldn't have fallen according to the laws of gravity, but must have somehow been "carried" down at an angle. I realized that my life had been spared by a miracle.

It was a year later that I got the impression that God was calling me to commit my life to Jesus. Through an uncanny series of events that brought together the strings of some long ago spiritual experiences, dreams and visions, and in answer to a prayer for guidance, God led me to the Seventh-day Adventist Church. (I'm not saying this as if God never leads anyone else in other ways- only this was the way God led me)

Since that happening on the rock, there have been a few other episodes where God has worked miracles to spare me (I was sure they were miracles, though not as explicit and obvious as the one at Eagle Rock).

I am constantly thankful to God for the ways in which He has delivered me. I feel very undeserving, and sometimes wonder why people who I know have as much or more faith as I have sometimes suffer great losses or even violent accidental death. Have you ever heard how in time of war, soldiers who see many of their compatriots die around them, and yet they escape unharmed, sometimes harbor feelings of guilt that they were spared? Sometimes I feel that way, as if God has been treating me with "kid gloves." I just hold on to Him and pray often that if the time comes that He in His wisdom allows me to experience a serious crisis and He does not deliver me out of it, like I have seen happen to other believers, I pray that I will be brave and faithful, trusting and loving God- even if He does not deliver me out of it. I also pray that if God ever allows me to face a threatening situation like Desmond Doss did, one that tests my courage and my convictions, that God will give me courage and bravery to glorify Him trusting no matter what.

Anyway, Bronwen, do you ever feel that way? Don't you agree that faith- that is, trust in God- is the most important criterion of our salvation? I don't know why I felt like sharing that embarassing story with you, but maybe to set the tone for a conversation with you about faith. Hebrews, chapter 11 is probably my favorite chapter in the whole Bible, because it talks deeply and profoundly about faith.

Hebrews 11:1,2

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

2 This is what the ancients were commended for.

Romans 1:17

For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."

Protestants often criticize Roman Catholics about Catholicism de-emphasizing righteousness by faith apart from works. I don't know how your church's teachings harmonize with righteousness by faith, but I do know that a fair number of Catholics really do value the concept of Righteousness by Faith. Can you share some of your thoughts on this?

[Bronwen]

Accountable wrote: You make a very tempting target to stalk and disrupt....Acc, you are correct, and that's because I'm by nature very outspoken, sometimes to the point of bluntness, as I confessed earlier.

I try, however, to make a distinction in my replies between those posters who want a serious, thoughtful discussion and those who wish only, or mainly, to 'stalk and disrupt'. I place you in the latter category with regard to the current thread, although some of your posts elsewhere seem quite intelligent and thought-provoking. I hope to see more of those in the future.

[Bronwen]

telaquapacky wrote: Bronwen, do you ever feel that...trust in God is the most important criterion of our salvation?

Hebrews, chapter 11 is probably my favorite chapter in the whole Bible, because it talks deeply and profoundly about faith.

Hebrews 11:1,2

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

2 This is what the ancients were commended for.

Romans 1:17

For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."

Protestants often criticize Roman Catholics about Catholicism de-emphasizing righteousness by faith apart from works. I don't know how your church's teachings harmonize with righteousness by faith, but I do know that a fair number of Catholics really do value the concept of Righteousness by Faith. Can you share some of your thoughts on this?tel, there is no question that faith is of enormous importance in ANY religion, not just Christianty, and the anonymous author of Hebrews states this magnificently!

With regard to the quotation from Romans, here is one instance where your KJV serves you ill, as it completely obscures Paul's intent.

What OT source is Paul citing here? As you probably already know, the reference is to Habakkuk 2:4, and I will give translations from two modern versions: The Good News Bible, subtitled 'Today's English Version', provides the following:'Those who are evil will not survive, but those who are righteous will live because they are faithful to God.' The New English Translation (NET) gives this rendition:'Look, the one whose desires are not upright will faint from exhaustion, but the one who is innocent will be preserved by his integrity.' Different words, but the same thought, and both, I think, legitimate translations from the original.

So Paul's 'faith' is not mere belief, but 'faithful[ness] to God', which is to say, moral integrity. - and how does one remain faithful to God? By one's works, of course: loving God, loving one's neighbor, helping the poor, keeping the commandments, DOING the things that God expects and requires. There is no contradiction between faith and works here!

Not to belabor a point, but here are some other citations that refute 'salvation by faith' directly - there are MANY more, but these are a few of most interesting. I've quoted only a few words of each, but I urge you to look up and read the entire passages. Of course, the words in ALL CAPS are MY emphasis:

Mt 7:21: '...only those who DO...'

Mt 19:16-17: '...Keep the commandments if you want (eternal) life...'

Lk 10:25-28: '...love God...love your neighbor...DO this and you will live...'

John 5:28-29: '...those who have DONE good will rise and live...'

Acts 10:35: 'Whoever fears God and DOES what is right is acceptable to Him.'

Acts 26:20: '...DO the things that would show they have repented...'

Rom 2:6-11 '...for God will reward everyone according to what he has DONE...'

2 Cor 5:10: 'Everyone will receive what he deserves, according to everything he has DONE...'

Eph 2:10: '...God has created us for a life of good DEEDS...'

James 2:14-26: '..FAITH without works is DEAD, being ALONE...'

Rev 22:12: '...to give to each one according to what he has DONE...'

The ones from John's gospel and Paul's letters are especially interesting, because Fundamentalists consider John's gospel the great gospel of 'salvation through faith' and Romans the great letter of 'salvation through faith', and yet here we have both John (quoting Jesus Himself) and Paul assuring us that we will all be judged by our deeds.

Now, when Paul writes in Galatians and elsewhere that all are saved by faith (i.e. faithfulness to God) and not by the Law, which law does he mean? The commandments? Certainly not. He's referring to the Jewish law, the things that Jews have to do to separate themselves from Gentiles. To Paul, this distinction had become moot because the present age was about to end and the Messianic Age begin: 'There is not much time left...for this world as it is will not last much longer' (1 Cor 7:29ff)

Nearly 2000 years later, this promise remains unfulfilled, but Christ's teachings, and the example He set for us by His own life, continue to show His followers the way to God, the 'narrow path' that leads to eternal life.

It's not a matter of 'de-emphasising' faith but of putting it in its proper perspective.

[telaquapacky]

Thank you, Bronwen, that was an excellent and well thought-out reply! If we’re comparing notes about the Protestant vs. Catholic view of righteousness by faith, there probably isn’t just one view that all Protestant churches hold. But I can talk about the Seventh-day Adventist view. Most Adventists I know hold this view I am about to relate, though few of us could adequately put it into words. I’ll try.

The Seventh-day Adventist view of righteousness by faith is similar to what you related, except that we try to reconcile four things the Bible says that seem to conflict:

1. We are judged by our words, thoughts and behavior according to the righteous Law of God

(repeat all the verses you cited)

2. If we are honest with ourselves and with God, we realize that we fail repeatedly in the areas of words, thoughts and behavior, and perfection appears unattainable. Our actions are not always righteous.

Romans 3:23

…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Romans 7:18-24

I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. 21 So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me.

Rom 7:22 For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23 but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?

3. In the final analysis, salvation is an unearned and undeserved gift from God.

Ephesians 2:8,9

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

1 Peter 3:18

For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God…

4. Yet God expects obedience.

(Again, repeat all the quotes you gave- excellent study, by the way! I think I'll copy it into the notes in my Bible. Thank you!)

The way I understand what you are saying is that “If I have faith, that is, believe in God and believe His law is rightfully binding on my life, then I will do the things He tells me to do, in other words, if my faith is genuine, that is, if I really believe, I will put my money where my mouth is and obey God’s law- and that is the way obedience comes from faith:

Romans 1:5

Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith.

(Correct me if I am wrong)

Seventh-day Adventists add a little twist to that equation. As you have said, we also believe that if you really know God personally, and come to experience His love toward you, and especially when you see how much He has done for us in His Son, Jesus, you naturally want to obey. Then His commandments seem more desirable to you, like David said in Psalm 19, “They are more precious than gold, than much pure gold; they are sweeter than honey, than honey from the comb.”

There is only one problem. Even if I have faith, and love God and want to obey Him, as Paul says, there is still no good thing in me- I am born in sin, and as much as I wish to do and say and think what is righteous, I CAN’T DO IT- At least not in the power of my own good intentions and earnest effort. A lot of Christians become very discouraged when they look at the righteous demands of God’s law, and compare them to their best efforts, which clearly don’t yield anything approaching perfect obedience. This can rob a believer of their assurance of salvation. What can I do with the fact that my best efforts don’t produce perfect obedience?

Some just deny that their efforts don’t produce perfect obedience. They believe that if they have faith, the will become perfect. What really happens is they acquire a blind spot, where they actually become blind to their own failures. The failures of others become correspondingly more apparent and seem in need of their correction and reproof. This kind of Christian can be very hard to live with. This is generally called “perfectionism.”

Some solve the problem by saying that there is some compensatory offering I can give to make up for my sin- as if my sin creates a negative balance on my “salvation credit account.” In order to be saved, I need to make some kind of meritorious deposit to put that account in the black. That deposit would be in the form of some good work or good deed, like giving to the poor (actually we should be giving to the poor just as a matter of Christian lifestyle, not to compensate for our own failure in other moral areas). Or that deposit might take the form of some kind of self-abnegation, sacrifice or conscious choice to endure an otherwise avoidable suffering, as a kind of self-inflicted punishment or penalty. This is generally called “works righteousness.”

Others solve the problem by saying, “Relax. Christ’s death on the cross has paid that debt of mine.” A person who believed this way could become fairly comfortable with a life that falls quite short of God’s requirements, believing that their “faith,” that is, faith that Jesus’ sacrifice covers every failure on their part, makes them righteous in God’s eyes even though they continually sin and fall short. As a result, they live lives not observably different than those of unbelievers. They believe they are exempt from the demands of God’s law. This is generally called “Free Grace.”

But there is a fourth way to understand the difference between the ideal and the real in my Christian life. There has to be something in addition to my own wanting to change for the better, something more than me straining every nerve, gritting my teeth and forcing myself to do right. Something outside of me, something more powerful than the sin in me has to come into me from the outside, and do in me and through me the obedience that I cannot muster. That is God’s Holy Spirit:

Romans 8:8-14

Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. 9 You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. 10 But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you. 12 Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation--but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13 For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, 14 because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

We believe that the same faith that enables a leper to receiving miracle cleansing power from God, the same faith that led the people in Christ’s time to seek Him to touch and heal them, can connect us up to supernatural power to change our words, thoughts and behavior. Then, when we do obey, when we do gain victory over a sin that formerly had us in chains, we realize that it is not us who gained the victory, not us who are doing the right thing instead of the wrong thing- it is God inside us. He gets all the credit, rather than ourselves. We are still undeserving, still the recipients of a free gift, even though outwardly our lives have been changed toward obedience. I’ve heard it said that we are saved by works- only the works that God does in and through us.

John 3:21

But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.

The object of the Christian life, then, is not to “try” to live the Christian life. Instead, we focus our efforts on seeking closeness to God and depending upon Him. We don’t try to “get” more of the Holy Spirit, as if He were some source of power we could use for our own purposes. We try instead to allow the Holy Spirit “get” more of us, so He can do what He wants to in us.

This little twist produces two effects in our mentality. One is, the more obedient we become, the more humble we become. If perfectionism worked, if I could gain perfection in word, thought and deed by my own effort, I could start to think that I was quite a guy! “Look at me! I’m Good!” (and others are bad) But instead, the more God works in us, the more we see that it really is something of God, because if we start to become proud, the effect reverses itself. When we become proud, we start to fail. God will not share with us the glory or the credit for helping us overcome sin. We need to give all the glory to Him, and take no credit ourselves.

The second effect it produces is that we see the disobedient in a different light. They are not “bad people” to be condemned or looked down upon as if we were superior. They are fellow sufferers of the disease of sin just as we are. The only difference is that we found the Physician who can cure us. We reach out to them as equals, accepting them, and being patient and loving toward them instead of haughty and judgmental. We hope for some opportunity to help them see the Physician as He really is, so they'll also want to come to Him for love and healing. That's why it's so important for us to be able to communicate to others what God is really like- that He's not the cruel tyrant and killjoy that some have made Him out to be.

I have observed God administering this healing in a curious way. I always wished I could pray, “Lord take away my evil bad temper! Help me never hiss swear words under my breath when I hurt myself and no one is looking.” I always wished that that prayer would bring immediate healing, and I would be cured instantly. It never worked that way. What would happen is that I would keep on failing after the prayer- I would keep praying and failing. Eventually I would give up trying. Then I would just seek God quietly and go about my business. In a few months, something would happen that once would have caused me to blow up in anger, but I wouldn’t- I would keep my cool. Then I realized that God had healed me while I wasn’t looking. The harder I tried to overcome a problem, the worse it got. But if I left it alone and let God heal me in His way and in His time, the problem would go away. All of our sins can be viewed that way. If they don’t go away immediately, sometimes it is because we are trying too hard in our own strength, and we need to let go and let God heal us.

The difference between my desire to live a perfect life in obedience to God’s law, and my real life shortcomings, doesn’t mean I can make up for my sins some other way, as in works righteousness. It doesn’t mean that by observing the Law I can make myself behave perfectly through my own effort, as in perfectionism. It doesn’t mean I might as well go on and sin, because Jesus died for me and my sins are forgiven anyway, as in Free Grace. That I am not perfect yet only means that it is a process. God is still working on me. He doesn’t want me to think I am better than anyone else. He wants me to become weary and overwhelmed in the struggle against sin, and let go- so I may appreciate what a great miracle He is working in my life. Ultimately, God wants me to keep coming to Him for healing. He’s kind of like the chiropractor whose treatments make me only dependent on receiving more treatments. But God is not trying to cheat me or keep something good from me. He knows I am prone to live independently from Him, and this is the best way to keep me coming back to Him, depending upon Him. It’s all about keeping an ongoing and growing relationship with God.

We regard salvation as having three parts: Justification, Sanctification and Glorification. Justification is the zeroing of your sin account by the forgiveness of God. Sanctification is the transformation of your character so that sins are gradually left behind and overcome, and your behavior changes. Glorification is the last phase, when your mortal body is transformed into a eternally living body, and you are translated to heaven to be with Jesus. Here’s the point. Everyone agrees that you can’t contribute one iota to Glorification. You can’t “eat healthy” and achieve a translatable, eternally living body. You can’t flap your arms like wings and beat the air to help aid in your airlift to heaven. Glorification is God’s grace in response to our faith. It’s all God’s doing. Protestants all agree that Justification is something you can’t buy by good works to try to overbalance bad works. They agree that Justification is God’s grace in response to our faith. Like Glorification, you can’t add anything to it by your own effort. It’s all God’s doing. But what about Sanctification? Some have viewed Sanctification as a purely behavioral thing that a person can contribute to by their own effort. Some go halfway and say, “God does His part and I do my part.” But Sanctification is as much a total act of God upon us, with none of our own effort or contribution, as Justification and Glorification. The only effort we make is to draw near to God and depend upon Him. We confess to Him specific sins and ask both for forgiveness and deliverance, and in His time, He brings the victory.

The Adventist concept of righteousness by faith is nuanced and difficult to understand and communicate, but I’ve touched upon it a little here. It has a history of it's own. It has in fact been a controversy within the church since it was first presented in 1888, and has only become more fully understood, probably since 1988.

Any questions or comments?

[Bronwen]

telaquapacky wrote: Any questions or comments?Not really. That was very well stated, but rather complicated and, I think, overly analytical. telaquapacky wrote: There is only one problem. Even if I have faith, and love God and want to obey Him, as Paul says, there is still no good thing in me- I am born in sin, and as much as I wish to do and say and think what is righteous, I CAN’T DO IT- At least not in the power of my own good intentions and earnest effort. A lot of Christians become very discouraged when they look at the righteous demands of God’s law, and compare them to their best efforts, which clearly don’t yield anything approaching perfect obedience. This can rob a believer of their assurance of salvation. What can I do with the fact that my best efforts don’t produce perfect obedience?Here is where you seem to deviate the most from the Catholic position, which is shared, I believe, by the Eastern Orthodox and some Protestants, notably the Churches of the Anglican Communion, and is much more simply stated:

We are indeed born in sin, but that sin is remitted by Baptism. We then receive God's sanctifying grace, which can be lost only by serious sin, and the key word here is 'serious'. Peccadillos and human shortcomings may be displeasing to God, but do not negate nor drive out His sanctifying grace.

Nevertheless, we still have free will and are surrounded by a sinful world, and if we are foolish enough to reject God's grace by serious sin, we will be forgiven if we ask for forgiveness and make a firm resolution not to repeat the sin.

Apart from that, my differences with Adventism lie elsewhere. In my opinion as an individual (for I am obviously not an official spokesman for my Church - I only try to explain what I believe to be its position):

1. The SDA's anti-Catholicism often crosses the line between sectarian disagreement and slanderous false witness. I'll be glad to provide examples if you wish.

2. They err by basing so much of their theology on Daniel and Revelation, which they claim to be books of prophecy while both are actually books of literature.

The Jews number within the OT major prophets and minor prophets, and neither of those groups includes Daniel. Jewish scholars realized, of course, that Daniel was written long after the events 'prophesied' therein took place; in fact, if it had been written a few years later, it would have been consigned to the Apocrypha, where many modern scholars believe it belongs anyway.

Revelation was, as we discussed earlier, written as a book of encouragement for the Christians sufferring persecution by pagan Rome in John's own time. It is virtually certain that they understood his symbolism even though some of it is now obscure.

3. The SDA is even dishonest with its own history. I believe (and I hope you'll correct me if I'm wrong) that they continue to deny that Mrs. White was a Negress, possibly to avoid losing converts in the American South. Of course, there is nothing wrong with Mrs. White having been a Negress, but the denial is dishonest.

4. The 'explaining away' of Miller's false predictions is mere doubletalk, and also rather dishonest. Why not simply say that he was wrong just as the Catholic Church has done with regard to events in its own history?

Since you asked for comments, how about addressing those four issues?

[Bryn Mawr]

telaquapacky wrote:

There is only one problem. Even if I have faith, and love God and want to obey Him, as Paul says, there is still no good thing in me- I am born in sin, and as much as I wish to do and say and think what is righteous, I CAN’T DO IT-

Any questions or comments?


If I might ask a question? I was brought up to believe that we are born without sin. Does the Bible support this or are you quoting the straight deal?

Whichever way, there's no way I'm without sin now

[spot]

Bryn Mawr wrote: If I might ask a question? I was brought up to believe that we are born without sin. Does the Bible support this or are you quoting the straight deal?Someone paid too little attention at Sunday School, it would seem.

Lord I am vile, conceived in sin,

And born unholy and unclean,

Sprung from the man whose guilty fall

Corrupts the race and taints us all.

There were other hymns like that, of course. Methodism used to wallow gratefully in images like these:

Primeval Beauty! in thy sight The first-born, fairest sons of light See all their brightest glories fade: What then to me thine eyes could turn, In sin conceived, of woman born, A worm, a leaf, a blast, a shade?

A worm of earth, I cry; A Half-awakened child of man; An heir of endless bliss or pain; A sinner born to die!

'Tis fit we should to dust return, Since such the will of the most High; In sin conceived, to trouble born, Born only to lament and die.



but my all-time top of the charts favourite has to be this. I might even book it for my funeral.

RIGHTEOUS God! whose vengeful phials

All our fears and thoughts exceed,

Big with woes and fiery trials,

Hanging, bursting o'er our head;

While thou visitest the nations,

Thy selected people spare;

Arm our cautioned souls with patience,

Fill our humbled hearts with prayer.

2 If thy dreadful controversy

With all flesh is now begun,

In thy wrath remember mercy,

Mercy first and last be shown;

Plead thy cause with sword and fire,

Shake us till the curse remove,

Till thou com'st, the world's desire,

Conquering all with sovereign love.

3 Every fresh alarming token

More confirms the faithful word;

Nature (for its Lord hath spoken)

Must be suddenly restored:

From this national confusion,

From this ruined earth and skies,

See the times of restitution,

See the new creation rise!

4 Vanish, then, this world of shadows,

Pass the former things away:

Lord, appear! appear to glad us

With the dawn of endless day

O conclude this mortal story,

Throw this universe aside!

Come, eternal King of glory,

Now descend, and take thy bride!

[Bryn Mawr]

spot wrote: Someone paid too little attention at Sunday School, it would seem.

Lord I am vile, conceived in sin,

And born unholy and unclean,

Sprung from the man whose guilty fall

Corrupts the race and taints us all.


Always more interested in what the adults were doing in the main hall I s'pose

That and arguing with the teach

[downag]

Truly we are born in sin, which is this flesh, which will eventually sin willfully, given time. BUT, a newborn baby is sinless, has not yet commited sin.

We are born with a sin nature. Sometime as the person grows, the knowledge of right and wrong comes into play, and we chose to take the wrong path, because it is in our hearts to do so. This is why God said that he would give us a new heart, one of flesh (one with feeling) instead of stone.

d:-5

[Ted]

downag:-6

I must strongly disagree with that assumption that we are born with a sinful nature. We are born a clean slate with the ability to go either way. Some choose the easy path which is life denying and some choose the hard path which recognizes and respects the rights of others and is life affirming.

It is difficult, though, to say that someone has committed sin until one has defined "sin".

Has everyone sinned? Probably, but until we difine sin we do not know what that is or what constitutes sin.

As far as I can see there are no absolutes except for one, the Word made flesh, Jesus of Nazareth.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[downag]

Ted,

I agree that Yeshua was sinless, lest his sacrifice was in vain. All our sin was laid upon him. I believe the scripture.

That would include; "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God".

Somewhere in the OT, a prophets reports that God says he would not set the teeth of the children on edge for what there father's had done. No more visiting the iniquities of fathers upon the children, etc, etc.

In the gospel of John, it says that "Ye must be born again." In another place it states that "the natural man receives not the things of God because they are foolishness to him- because they are spiritually discerned. Furthermore, the scripture also says that we are "dead in trespasses and sins".

The picture I see from threading together the tapestry of the scriptures, etc. is that man crosses a point early in life where knowledge of "wrong and right" is apparent and the individual chooses to do wrongly. Hence the need for all mankind of a saviour.

d:-5

[spot]

downag wrote: The picture I see from threading together the tapestry of the scriptures, etc. is that man crosses a point early in life where knowledge of "wrong and right" is apparent and the individual chooses to do wrongly. Hence the need for all mankind of a saviour.Firstly, why do we baptise infants for "for the remission of sins", were it not for the state of original sin in which they are born?

Secondly, Romans 5:19 describes the initial cause of our sinful state - "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous." - men are inherently sinners by inheritance of an original state of sin.

(My apologies all, I think I intended that to Ted but quoted the wrong message before writing)

[ps. - I just reminded myself of the wording of the Book of Common Prayer's Baptismal service - it opens Dearly beloved, forasmuch as all men are conceived and born in sin: and that our Saviour Christ saith, None can enter into the kingdom of God, except he be regenerate and born anew of Water and of the Holy Ghost: I beseech you...

[Ted]

"Conceived and born in sin." is the ancient reference to the sexual act. For some reason the early church had a thing about sex that it was somehow dirty and unclean. (D. Hall) This has placed a curse on mankind ever since.

One of the saints, and I forget who, wrote about the sin of the itch of the flesh. This was a clear reference to orgasm.

As far as sin coming into the world by one man is concerned it would seem to refer to Adam and yet that story is a myth and not an historical reality.

And yet, in the Bible God saw all that He had created and behold it was very good.

We have still not responded to my question concerning what sin is. Sin in one country and culture is not sin in another. So, how do we define sin?

Concerning the question of "Atonement" D. Hall has the following to say in his book "God and Human Suffering.

"God wanted to damn everybody, but his vindictive sadism was sated by the crucifixion of his own Son, who was quite innocent, and, therefore, a particularly attractive victim. He now only damns people who don't fololow Christ or who have never heard of him." p136.

Needless to say that he and many other Christian theologians are not the least bit impressed with this approach and for what its worth neither am I.

Why is it that we want to make God into a being with a multiple personality disorder? Why do we insist on the carrot and stick theory? Does this display true justice and unconditional love?

Shalom

Ted:-6

[gmc]

posted by telepaquacky



Quote:

Originally Posted by gmc

Take for instance the israelites going in to the promised land-it was already occupied, basically in order to survive they were going to have to go in and kill the people, who had done them no harm and had not attacked them in any way, and steal the land-it's tribal warfare over resources pure and simple. Convincing yourself it is your god given destiny is a way of making it palatable. In the 19th century there was manifest destiny and social darwinism to serve the same purpose and make appalling actions seem justified.

posted by telepaquacky

I wish I had a good answer for that- only that I think God put them there with the intention of having a model spiritual community in the crossroads of civilization to demonstrate to the world His way. Their own Scripture candidly reports that they failed miserably over and over, and the land was taken from them as a result- twice.


That's where we digress. To me the bible is simply the history of an ancient tribe whose obsession with their religon held them together. Taking from another tribe is an event that happened time and time again all over the world. Civilisations wax and wane, one culture takes over another and becomes dominant.

posted by telepaquacky

Whereas the Jews occupying Palestine after the Exodus seems appalling to you, what seems to me equally unjust is my country's blind pursuit of a lopsided "Peace Process" that is unfairly biased in favor of Israel- another example of our misguided foreign policy that bringing instability and calamity to the whole world. It is no doubt influenced by American Protestant Evangelicals who have a silly theory that there is some prophetic necessity to rebuild Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem. Talk about the tail wagging the mutt!


No more appalling than any similar event. We don't have to go back very far to see it happening in the american west, the african continent, india, australia, all race and colour does is give things a nasty twist-it's harder for people to blend in when they look so different so you need the bible to justify your prejudice-after all if god made all mankind and sent his only son to pay for our sins and all men are equal you need to find some way to justify what must be a sin. Just like the jews did. Having been enslaved and about to do it to another tribe it's easier if you can convince yourself god says it's all right and will be on your side in what must have been a daunting conquest. Moral justification for what was simple survival in harsh times.

Western development of democracy owes more to the greeks and the romans ideas of government and celtic traditions of elected kings and viking althing courts than anything that came out of the bible. When they stated printing the bible in the native languages and got away from the idea that priests had the way to god and that kings ruled by divine right and people started questioning blind faith things started getting really interesting.

posted by ted

"Conceived and born in sin." is the ancient reference to the sexual act. For some reason the early church had a thing about sex that it was somehow dirty and unclean. (D. Hall) This has placed a curse on mankind ever since.


I would suggest the early formers of the church were essentially mysoginist in nature. If self confident women scare you then it's safer to view them as strange creatures that need to be kept in their place. The virgin Mary-was she a soulless vessel or a vital part of the birth of christ, after god couldn't just make JC he had to use a woman. Medeival theologians had a great time debating whether women had souls like a man or was it somehow lesser. Naturally lesser cos then you might have to treat them as equals.

You are regurgitating age old debates that led to full blooded warfare in europe, some of the bloodiest in history.

Since you all believe in essentially the same thing does it really matter if everybody else accepts your particular idea of the nature of god. As to the nature of sin, since this is by definition

1. A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.

2. Theology.

1. Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.

2. A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience.

3. Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong.




Well it's rather a moot point is it not?

I'm a blasphemer and a heretic so am I a sinner? But is it not in itself a sin to judge others, taking upon yourself the right to judgement that only god can make so how can anyone who is a sinner judge the sinfulness of others. Such hubris always has a bad ending.

In arguing with each other about whose interpretation of the bible is right is hardly christian. At least you are not beating each other to death.

[Ted]

gmc:-6

So you say.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[downag]

Ted wrote: "Conceived and born in sin." is the ancient reference to the sexual act. For some reason the early church had a thing about sex that it was somehow dirty and unclean. (D. Hall) This has placed a curse on mankind ever since.

One of the saints, and I forget who, wrote about the sin of the itch of the flesh. This was a clear reference to orgasm.

As far as sin coming into the world by one man is concerned it would seem to refer to Adam and yet that story is a myth and not an historical reality.

And yet, in the Bible God saw all that He had created and behold it was very good.

We have still not responded to my question concerning what sin is. Sin in one country and culture is not sin in another. So, how do we define sin?

Concerning the question of "Atonement" D. Hall has the following to say in his book "God and Human Suffering.

"God wanted to damn everybody, but his vindictive sadism was sated by the crucifixion of his own Son, who was quite innocent, and, therefore, a particularly attractive victim. He now only damns people who don't fololow Christ or who have never heard of him." p136.

Needless to say that he and many other Christian theologians are not the least bit impressed with this approach and for what its worth neither am I.

Why is it that we want to make God into a being with a multiple personality disorder? Why do we insist on the carrot and stick theory? Does this display true justice and unconditional love?

Shalom

Ted:-6


Ted;

Let me clarify something.

We do not baptise babys. Some religous groups do, not all. I donm't subscribe to it myself. Baptising an infant is a worthless act. An infant has no sin to be cleansed of. It is clear as day, that whoever was converted in the scripture first "believed" and then was baptised. It takes a thinking person to repent and turn to God asking forgiveness in the name of Yeshua. An infant is incapable of this.

As for the story about Adam and Eve and sin entering the world through that one man being a myth, I cannot say and neither can you. I have heard an explanation and shown a thread that explains about "The Serpent Seed" doctrine which is quite interesting. The sin Eve then Adam did was to in some fashion have intercourse with Satan who is the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Cain is said to be the offspring of Satan. The first murderer. Many traditions have come out of the church. I am not too familiar with Eastern Right traditions as I am with the Western ones. I do not hold to much convention, as it is.

As before, much yada, yada, yada has been and will be sent forth regarding these things and only time will tell. I am sure of one thing. YHVH will have his way, ultimately.

d:-5

[Ted]

downag:-6

You are playing the word game which is not the least bit helpful in understanding the sacred scriptures.

We read in Luke 3:3 "He went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgivenss of sins."

John believed in repeated baptizing. It was a cleansing ritual bath that was to be practised often. S. Gibson, ("The Cave of John the Baptist).

Within the Anglican Communion it is believed that if a child has sin he is washed clean as per Luke. Secondly it is a sign that this child is welcomed into the family of believers, the body of Christ. It is put upon the parents, sponsors and the congregation to see that the child is brought up appropriately. If when the child is old enough to understand s/he will then make a choice of whether or not to follow through.

As far as Adam and Eve go it is my opinion supported by many others that the story is but a myth. If you choose to believe otherwise, so be it.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Ted]

spot:-6

If we are to take the Bible literally then we have to accept that God promotes and encourages war crimes. A cursory reading of Num. 31 will show that quite clearly.

Supposedly the Israelite soldiers were told to kill every man woman and child but they were allowed to keep the virgins for themselves as long as they shared some of them with the priests etc. Now, I don't for one moment believe that that particular part came from God. It certainly did not come from the God and Father of Jesus in whom we are told we see the fullness of God manifested.

That of course is another place for creative dancing. "If it was okay with God then it must be okay." God will not break his own rules or he becomes nothing more then another monster.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[spot]

Ted wrote: That of course is another place for creative dancing. "If it was okay with God then it must be okay." God will not break his own rules or he becomes nothing more then another monster.If you'd like to suggest that God is powerless and frequently misunderstood, I'd go along with that.

[Ted]

spot:-6

I can accept that God displays his weakness in His unconditional love. Love qualifies power.

That God is frequently misunderstood is an understatement. We have no language with which to describe or define God. Our languages are not even close to the task. The only way that we can discuss God is to resort to metaphor. God is greater than any language.

If as the Bible says we see the fulness of God manifested in "The Word made flesh" then we have a limited ability to see and understand God. Where did Jesus ever condone violence or suggest that it was okay to commit murder or war crimes in the name of God? It is true that we see Jesus angry when he calls the pharasees vipers and overthrows the tables in the temple. He displayed righteous anger at the domination systems of his day. He was not against the temple or the sacrifices or the priests or the scribes. We only see a Jesus who would not allow his disciples to defend him in Gesthemany.

[telaquapacky]

Bronwen, thank you for your thoughtful and challenging reply.

Bronwen wrote: We are indeed born in sin, but that sin is remitted by Baptism. We then receive God's sanctifying grace, which can be lost only by serious sin, and the key word here is 'serious'. Peccadillos and human shortcomings may be displeasing to God, but do not negate nor drive out His sanctifying grace.This is an easily understood position, and it does sound very reasonable. In fact, it’s the natural gut-reaction every Christian, including Seventh-day Adventists, even me, has toward their own sins. Though this reasoning makes sense to the natural mind, there are some hidden conflicts with the gospel revealed in the Bible.

A. Adventists don’t believe that human beings have the wisdom to discern which sins are serious and which are not. A “small” sin under certain circumstances can bring a person down as badly as a “big” one. Take pride for example. All of us suffer from this from time to time. It seems to us a small thing. But pride can cause a person to make choices that ultimately lead to their ruin. It seems churches are always eager to “administer” the graces of God, as if they had the wisdom to judge as only He can. We humans don’t use the same yardstick He does, that’s why our way of thinking is called the “carnal mind.” We are not safe to take any position other than that large or small, sin is sin.

Proverbs 16:25

There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.

Jeremiah 17:9

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

B. If after conversion, a believer’s “small sins” are left undisturbed by God’s grace, but the sins that rise above the threshold are remitted, regardless of what “remitted” means, this is contrary to the gospel description of conversion. If my small sins don’t count, and all I have to do is watch my step for the big ones, then my “conversion” is in effect merely patching up the “Old Man.” But the gospel says that the old self, whose little sins come from corrupt and deceitful desires that are natural for the carnal mind- that old guy has to go! He can’t merely be instructed and reformed. True Christian conversion as Jesus and Paul taught is death to the old self and being remade as only our Creator can, into an entirely new creature.

Ephesians 4:22-24

You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23 to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24 and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.

2 Corinthian 5:17

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!

Matthew 9:16

"No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch will pull away from the garment, making the tear worse. 17 Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved."

Romans 12:2

And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

To SDA’s the issue is whether when Jesus comes again, He will find a people who are seeking Him to give them victory over every sin. With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible. It isn’t that we’re trying to be holier than anyone, but that we worship a God who can do anything, so why limit Him?Bronwen wrote: …overly analytical…That’s our lot. We claim to be “people of the book,” that is, the Bible, yet as I mentioned in my last post, the Bible does contain paradoxes. In seeking to harmonize those paradoxes, we are not trying to “strain out a gnat.” We’re trying to understand as deeply as limited humans can with the help of the Holy Spirit, the profound depths of God’s ways.

You challenged me to answer some points of contention between Seventh-day Adventists and Roman Catholics.Bronwen wrote: 1. The SDA's anti-Catholicism often crosses the line between sectarian disagreement and slanderous false witness. I'll be glad to provide examples if you wish.What you’re saying is true. There’s no need for you to provide examples, I’m probably aware of more of them than you are. I can not deny that there have been many instances over the years when Seventh-day Adventists both officially and unofficially, have made statements about Catholics in which we have carelessly broken God’s commandment not to “bear false witness against thy neighbor.” Your opinion and mine of what fits into that category and what doesn’t, and where SDA’s have crossed over the line will probably differ. But first, I would like to sincerely apologize and repent of the unloving attitudes we Seventh-day Adventists have held towards Roman Catholics.

We Adventists have inherited most of our Protestant apologetics and eschatology from the Reformers. They all believed that the Papacy, that is, the office of the Pope, is the beast, the antichrist, the 666, mentioned in Daniel and Revelation, and the “man of lawlessness,” of 2 Thessalonians 2:4. Before I even heard of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, my own personal study of the Bible and history led me to the same conclusion about the Papacy. But to say “the papacy is the antichrist,” is not the same as saying Roman Catholics are bad people. We also teach, and have taught for over a hundred years, that the United States Government is the “false prophet,” the second of two beasts mentioned in Revelation 13, the first of which was the Papacy. At first, that came as a (small) surprise to me. I myself am an American. For me to say that the U.S. Government represents the false prophet is an altogether different thing than saying that Americans are bad people.

The question for each individual soul or citizen is the same as it has been since governments or churches were established among men. The question is whether we as individuals will act according to our conscience when ordered by someone in civil or ecclesiastical authority over us, to do something we know is wrong, or if we will merely follow orders. God does not judge us according to our nationality, or creed, or church affiliation. He judges us according to our deeds and according to His moral law. In every instance where the decrees of a government or church lead us to do harm or injustice to other people, we are as guilty as the one in power. Wherever our leaders pursue policies that cause harm or injustice to be done to other people- if we are not participating, and know nothing about it, we are innocent. But if we know and make no opposition, we are just as guilty, even if we don’t actually participate.

We as Adventists have taken up where the reformers left off in studying the Bible prophecies regarding the antichrist. In our opinion, the Papal inquisition and Papal political dominance of the nations of Europe in the Middle Ages matches prophetic descriptions of the antichrist, beast and 666 in too many specifics to be merely a coincidence. These are points where our prophetic view puts us on the line. If we are right, good for us, and for God’s cause. If we are wrong, we are committing the basest and most condemnable evil against God’s cause. Even if we are right, if we present it in an unloving and unChristlike way, we are just as contrary to the will of God as if we were wrong. Being a voice in the wilderness is a big responsibility, and it’s not easy, but we do the best we can as God helps us. That’s all any reformers have ever done.

Roman Catholics have also made some big assumptions and bear an equal burden of responsibility. The assumption that Christ gave specifically to Peter the keys to His kingdom, with the universal authority to govern as if in the place of God Himself on earth, and furthermore that Peter passed this on to the papacy is also a major assumption that if true brings glory, and if false, shame. History reveals that the Papacy has taken some extreme actions based on that premise which have hurt a lot of people. Pope John Paul II apologized for those extremes, but his failure to renounce the Papist claim of supremacy and apostolic authority upon which those actions were based, fails to alleviate any concern about how the Papacy will use it’s self-perceived power and prerogatives in the future.

Based on our understanding of prophecy we expect that in the last days there will be a National Sunday Law. We have expected for over a hundred years, civil legislation that would penalize us for keeping the Biblical Seventh day of the week holy as God commanded in the fourth commandment. If you will recall, in his encyclical entitled, “Dies Domini,” Pope John II called for all Catholics to ask their governments to enact laws that “protect the sanctity of Sunday.” How does civil law work? When they pass a speed limit law in my state, and if I go over it and am pulled over by an officer, will he say, “Oh please, Mr. Telaquapacky! Please don’t drive so fast! It’s not nice!”? No. He’s going to slap a fine on me. If I am going too far above the limit, I can be thrown in jail. That’s how civil law works. John Paul II in effect asks for laws that will impose civil penalties on me for obeying God’s Ten Commandment Law, because he perceives himself to have the authority to overrule it. He would rather I obey him than God- and he would punish me for obeying God. What will the cardinal say to God when God asks him in the judgment why he sought to punish God’s people for keeping God’s law? That will be interesting. Bronwen wrote: 2. They err by basing so much of their theology on Daniel and Revelation, which they claim to be books of prophecy while both are actually books of literature.We try to base our theology on the entire Bible. We are a prophetic movement, and so we respect what the prophetic books have to say. In the case of Revelation, I would let the text speak for itself:

Revelation 22:18, 19

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

As literature is concerned, I just learned recently- and were you aware, that the Greek used in Revelation is terrible? John’s grammar was really bad! There on Patmos, he had no one to help him as he did when he wrote the other books. So if it’s merely literature, it’s not very good literature. The best way John could encourage the Christians of his day was to show them how their time in history fit into the overall scheme of things leading up to the consummation of all things at the second coming of Jesus. Were it not a prophetic book, it would be cold comfort.

And is Daniel prophecy? Bible prophecy most often consists of predictions of things that will happen in the future, told in symbols or metaphors. The full meaning of prophecy is not often understood until the prophecy is fulfilled. Daniel, especially chapters 11 and 12 consist almost exclusively of predictions of things that will happen in the future, told in symbols and metaphors. At the end, the angel who revealed those things to Daniel told him what he wrote will not be fully understood until it is fulfilled at the time of the end. It’s hard to imagine how the book of Daniel presents itself as anything other than a prophetic book.

Daniel 12:1

"At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people--everyone whose name is found written in the book--will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever. 4 But you, Daniel, close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge."

Daniel 12:9

He replied, "Go your way, Daniel, because the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end.

A book whose words were to be sealed up until a distant future time cannot be said to be primarily literature of contemporary significance, but primarily prophecy.Bronwen wrote: 3. The SDA is even dishonest with its own history. I believe (and I hope you'll correct me if I'm wrong) that they continue to deny that Mrs. White was a Negress, possibly to avoid losing converts in the American South. Of course, there is nothing wrong with Mrs. White having been a Negress, but the denial is dishonest.It has been suggested that because of her appearance in photographs, that Ellen White was black. Her appearance, with a receeding nasal arch, and a somewhat flat and broad nose was the result of a childhood injury. A schoolmate threw a rock at her that broke her nose, damaged her sinuses, and created misery for the rest of her life. The African American brethren are more apt to suggest that Sister White was black, and no one I know objects to that. Still, some things EG White wrote would seem to give evidence to the contrary- for example, she counseled against mixed race marriages, not because there was anything morally wrong with the practice, but because of the social pressures the couple and their children would face in her day. She married a white man. This is something Adventists sometimes wonder about in a trivial sort of way, but there isn’t enough evidence one way or the other.

You have to remember that we are a controversial denomination, and there are folks out there who attack SDA’s and Ellen White every way they can, and the story you related might be just another one that someone concocted to embarrass us. I’ve also heard them accuse her of being a white racist. You get immune to these things after awhile.Bronwen wrote: 4. The 'explaining away' of Miller's false predictions is mere doubletalk, and also rather dishonest. Why not simply say that he was wrong just as the Catholic Church has done with regard to events in its own history?Here’s where SDA’s and Roman Catholics have something in common. Daniel 8:14 is as important to us as Matthew 16:18,19 is to you.

We do say Miller was wrong about the event, but we believe he got the date right. There is a time prophecy in Daniel 9 that predicts the exact year of the first advent of Christ. It predicted that the Messiah would come in A.D. 27- the same year that Luke 3:1 says Jesus was baptized and began His public ministry. It also predicts the year of His crucifixion. It was the second part of a two-part message the angel Gabriel gave to Daniel. The first part gives the final end of the same time prophecy, saying at the end of 2,300 “days” the temple would be reconsecrated, or cleansed, as in the Jewish ceremonial Day of Atonement. If we apply the same interpretive formula to Daniel 8:14 as Daniel 9:24, it predicts that the temple would be reconsecrated in 1844. There are other parts of Daniel that independently corroborate the time, though not the exact year.

There were probably about a dozen Bible teachers around the world in the 1830's and 1840’s, who read Daniel 8:14, did the math and recognized that the time prophecy of that verse concluded in 1844. At the conclusion of the 2300 days (1844), so said the angel Gabriel to the prophet Daniel, "the sanctuary will be reconsecrated (or cleansed)." These dozen or so men in different places around the world, independently came to the same conclusion- that the reconsecration or cleansing of the sanctuary was "prophetic-speak" for the second coming of Jesus. They thought the world was the temple and that it would receive a cleansing by fire at the second coming of Jesus, as described in 2 Peter 3. So they started teaching that Jesus' second coming would occur in 1844. This ushered in a period called the “Great Second Advent Awakening.” The most influential (and in the end, the most popularly ridiculed) of them all was a retired American Baptist minister named William Miller. In the late 1830's, Miller started holding tent meetings all over New England, presenting a prophecy seminar including a detailed explanation of the time prophecies in Daniel that led him to conclude that Jesus was going to return in 1844. (Miller at first thought 1843, but had miscalculated because he forgot that there is no “zero year” and you can’t algebraically add a number of years to a B.C. year and arrive at the appropriate A.D. year- you’ll be one year short) Miller gained quite a following from people in mainline Protestant churches- they were called Millerites. The leaders of those churches rejected, ridiculed and later disfellowshipped Millerites from their churches. Through more study of the Jewish ceremonial feast days- especially the Day of Atonement, which is in focus in Daniel 8:14, the Millerites narrowed down the date they expected Jesus to come to October 22, 1844- the date when Yom Kippur was to fall.

The Millerites were so strongly convinced that Jesus would come that they did stupid things like giving away prized posessions, and farmers leaving their crops in the field. The story about some of them going onto a mountain wearing white "ascension robes" is probably urban folklore, but it hints at how ridiculed the Millerites were by other Christians. When Jesus did not come, for them it was a sorrow worse than a death in the family. We call it "The Great Disappointment." Many renounced their former faith that Jesus would ever come again at all. Some stubbornly went on setting date after date for Jesus coming, that never materialized. But a core group of Millerites, convinced that they had the date right, but the event wrong, spent long nights together in fasting and prayer and Bible study, trying to find out where they went wrong. One day a small group of these Millerites were walking from one of their all-night sessions. As they passed through a cornfield, one of them, a farmer named Hiram Edson was given a vision of Jesus in the Holy of Holies as the High Priest on the Day of Atonement, in the sanctuary in heaven, referred to in the book of Hebrews. It occurred to Mr. Edson that the mistake they had made was thinking that the "sanctuary" referred to in Daniel 8:14 was the earth. As a result of his vision, Hiram Edson suggested that the reconsecration of the sanctuary was the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary. This particular group of former Millerites, scattered around the northeastern U.S. in small companies, began to prayerfully study the sanctuary and it’s services, and concluded that Hiram Edson was right. Even more, if he was right, their studies gave evidence that the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary was the beginning of the last phase of God’s pre-advent judgment of all men who ever lived on planet Earth. They called it an “investigative judgment” of all who were living, in preparation for the dividing of sheep and goats at the second coming of Christ.

The idea of an “investigative judgment” is a big sticking point for most Christians. In fact, there are several instances throughout the history of God’s dealings with man in which He checks out the situation on earth in advance of a major judgment act. There are other evidences in Daniel that the cleansing of the sanctuary and the pre-advent judgment are the same event. In addition, Christ’s ministry can be observed to be a prophetic recapitulation of the Jewish Ceremonial days. There is a whole lot more to this than I have time to relate or you have time to read. There are too many parallels, matching metaphors and corroborations in Scripture for it to be someone’s crackpot scheme. No human being has that creative an imagination. I recommend a book by Ellen White entitled, “The Great Controversy.” Anyone can read it on the internet by accessing the website of the EG White Estate. This site enables text searching of the publications of Ellen White. Check it out! We got nuttin’ to hide.

http://egwdatabase.whiteestate.org/nxt/ ... id=default

The Seventh-day Adventist view of 1844 is that, according to Daniel 8:14, the sanctuary in heaven (not on earth) was cleansed. Christ’s ministry as our High Priest in the holy place in the sanctuary in heaven ended, and the antitypical Day of Atonement began, in which Jesus entered the most holy place in a final phase of the plan of salvation. When Jesus comes again, at that time all the cases of all living on earth will have had to be decided in advance. In all other ages it was, first you die and then the judgment. But if you live to see Jesus come again, your judgment must be completed while you’re still alive- otherwise where’s the justice of some being translated and raised to meet Jesus in the air, while others are slain by the brightness of Christ’s coming? This judgment must be based on a thorough review of all the evidence (what we call the investigative judgment), and a test of loyalty which all humans will face in the form of the mark of the beast. The full understanding of this was in place more than a hundred years ago, and has been unfolding consistently in world events since then. I don’t think that the early Adventists who came to rethink 1844 as the cleansing of the sanctuary rather than the second coming did this in a dishonest way, or as a cover up. Those people who expected Jesus, and were disappointed- had reached the point where every earthly thing was of no value to them in comparison to the expectation of seeing Jesus. Only in that state of mind could they receive the fullest inspiration from God, and only with conscientious Bible study and fervent prayer.

About Miller’s being mistaken, I don’t think it’s unusual that a servant of God would not fully understand the significance of their mission from the beginning, or that God would lead them through an experience that could be confusing, painful and embarrassing for them. Think about one of the greatest prophetic miracle signs ever given- the birth of Jesus. Certainly Mary and Joseph were embarrassed and misunderstood, when they stood on their wedding day, with Mary showing and obviously with child. Certainly no believer would suggest that the idea that Jesus was the virgin-born Messiah was an alabi or a cover-up concocted to save His family from embarrassment, or that Mary made up the story of her encounter with Gabriel. But this was a miracle for which there was no proof- only the testimonies of a few people who had received information in vision or were told by angels. This is why I say that the sanctuary understanding of 1844 was not a cover-up but rather a welcome revelation that rescued a group of hurt, confused and embarrassed people, and filled them with a holy purpose. Look at Revelation 10:10 through 11:1:

10 I took the little scroll from the angel's hand and ate it. It tasted as sweet as honey in my mouth, but when I had eaten it, my stomach turned sour.

11 Then I was told, "You must prophesy again about many peoples, nations, languages and kings."

11:1 I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told, "Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, and count the worshipers there.

Miller had prophesied about many peoples, nations languages and tongues. He had given the people a message- that Jesus was coming again in the fall of 1844- that tasted sweeter in their mouths than all earthly things. But when it didn’t come out as they expected, it was sour- a bitter experience. Then the angel said, “You must prophesy again…” The first thing they did was measure the temple in heaven- a symbol of studying the sanctuary. We think this prophecy is about us, as much as your community believes Matthew 16:18,19 is about your leader.

[telaquapacky]

Bryn Mawr wrote: If I might ask a question? I was brought up to believe that we are born without sin. Does the Bible support this or are you quoting the straight deal?

Whichever way, there's no way I'm without sin nowMan was created in the image of God

Genesis 1:26

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

But Adam and Eve lost that innocent state when they disobeyed God in the garden. Here's the super-condensed version:

Romans 5:12

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

There is a difference between inheriting sin from Adam and the sins I myself commit. The sin nature I inherited from Adam is the "root." The sins I commit are the "fruit."

[gmc]

Ted wrote: gmc:-6

So you say.

Shalom

Ted:-6


so I say what?

If all you study is religious writings you end up with a very twisted view of the world. Ignoring historical fact because it doesn't fit in with what you want to believe doesn't alter it

I don't mind what people believe but one of the dangerous things about religious believers is that they have the absurd idea that their particular set of beliefs are somehow truths that cannot be disputed, most especially by anyone that does not share them. It's a kind of collective insanity that they all share be they christian fundamentalists or islamic ones or even the nuttier corners of the catholic church-the one true church as they would have it. You get the same phenomenon with political believers as well-I have the way all else is rubbish.

If only they would keep to themselves and not drag everybody else in to their strange world. It is alarming to see the rise of religious fundamentalism throughout the world and fanatics gather their support for warfare on the rest of undeserving humanity whatever the economic and political realities that may be driving it religon gives it a particularly nasty twist. If you kill another or simply despise them because your religious beliefs tell you that you should then you are insane and as such it's a pity so many join in their insanity. Personally I can't think of a cure.

If JC says love all mankind and forgive their tresspasses why do you all ignore his teachings and worry about obscure interpretations of the old testament? If JC's message was simple perhaps it is the very simplicity that confuses religious people as opposed to those that just do what he said and not worry about the detail.

Out of curiosity I looked up shalom in the dictionary

sha·lom Audio pronunciation of "shalom" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (shä-lm, sh-)

interj.

Used as a traditional Jewish greeting or farewell.


There you are you see. If they don't know whether they are coming or going no wonder their book is so confusing.

[Bronwen]

telaquapacky wrote: Bronwen, thank you for your thoughtful and challenging reply.Tel, thank you for your equally interesting and forthright follow-up. Because this discussion was wandered so far from the subject of the thread, I'm going to begin a new thread, which I will title "Adventism and Catholicism". We can continue the exchange there, and of course, other posters are welcome too.

[Ted]

gmc:-6

If you had a clue as to what you were talking about it would help. You neither describe my beliefs or the beliefs of many theologians today. As for all the rest; As you say.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Ted]

FarRider:-6

Your postion is quite clear.

There are, however, many Christians who are in complete disagreement with you.

My quote clearly showed that John's baptism was a "baptism of repentence". Perhaps you are picking and choosing?

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Amie]

SnoozeControl wrote: Are you interested in hearing from FG members that don't have any religious affiliation because they think organized religion is unnatural and mercenary?

Just asking in general, of course.


I'd like to join that crew.

[downag]

All you great folks;:-6

truly, some folks ideas about Baptism for an infant is greatly wishful. I just had a small confrontation with a highly revered Presbyterian minister over infant baptism. He retorted to me that "the You don't understand grace!"

I derive from that statement, that Presbyterians believe they are "interceding" to God on behalf of the infant, and that by sprinkling the baby with water and pronouncing the words 'in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" they have availed the grace of God on behalf of the child and the chiuld who inevitably will someday sin is now under the protection of God's grace and will eventually (something)!?

A couple months ago I witnessed a Presbyterian minister ask a question of the congregation, "Who here is a saint?" Not one hand in my field of view came up (except mine). This sent red flags up in my mind. How can that be? I saw it as an indicaqtion, first, that these folks have no assurance of salvation. Why? Their teachers aren't teaching them! And they aren't reading the word on their own.

This was one of the first and formost things I wanted to settle when I first came to believe. What else does it mean to have "peace that passes all understanding" than to be sure of your position with God regarding eternity?

Certainly, it depends on how one interprets what a "saint" is as to how one would respond to that question. Some think that means perfection. Others (more rightly IMHO) know that simply means that when they die, they will go to be with God, as all redeemed are saints.

Dedication events are nice and are for the parents' benefit. It is part of the social interaction of certain denominations.

Farrider said;

"If babies were born sinless, then they would be born in the original state of a glorified body, unseperated from god, and not under a physical death sentence..."

I have to disagree. What you say there is an oxymoronic, sorry. Born implies FLESH which is not a glorified body. You can't put the two together in one thought.

Sin on the other hand, will come when the child matures and choses to go the wrong way- naturally. Much talk is made about "the natural man" in the scripture.

I dislike disagreeing with you too. We are so close on so many points.

John the Baptist did indeed baptise "unto repentence". He was the herald of the Messiah who would make and show the way to reconciliation with the Father.

To other statements made in this thread which I have not addressed as yet;

-Someone made mention of a weakness God has. How on earth can you suggest God has any weakness whatsoever? By what measure do you imagine you can gauge anything related to God and his power or character? OH LITTLE HUMAN?!

One scripture comes to mind, which I like to say, I have made my own.

"I have been jealous for the Lord God of Hosts."

d:-5

[spot]

Far Rider wrote: Ok, Johns baptisms was out of obedience to christ. He was to show whats to come, making the "way of the Lord".. he was simply showing christ death burial and resurrection to others, he was teaching what was to come in christ... it was an object lesson.

Also these were baptisms prior to Christ sacrifice, that has bearing, prior to the resurrrection there was no repentance for a permanent state, only the blood of animals under the law at that time temporarily.That leaves me rather puzzled, Far. John preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Were sins not remitted for the repentant that he baptised? What does remitted mean if there's no element of divine forgiveness involved?

[Ted]

downag:-6

First of all if anyone thinks they have all the ansewers, to religious questions, they are living in a delusion.

Perhaps the Presbyterian Minister was right?

Re "saint" Not at all. They realize that they are imperfect and would not dare to refer to themselves as saints.

That baptism is a dedication is strictly your opinion with a complete lack of understanding. Nor is there any apparent attempt to understand. What a shame.

Farrider is entitled to his opinion.

Re God's power and weakness: You clearly do not understand nor have you made any effort too do so. That too is a shame.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Ted]

FarRider:-6

Re baptism: So you say. Not all Christians would agree with you.

Perhaps you could list some of the scholars you mention.

Re your comments on an "object lesson". Not all Christians agree with you on that one. Obviously you have made no effort to understand. That too is a shame.

Shalom

Ted:-6