How would I quickly and clearly express what things I think are basic to Christian doctrine? Good question, I come back time and time again to Rich Mullins' musical version of the Apostles' Creed. He worded it just a bit differently than the original (which is about 1900 years old at this point if I've done my math correctly) so that it was more easily put to music, but has in no way changed the original meanings.
As much as I love this synopsis of the basic tenants of the faith, my favorite part is an addition of Rich's. As he was known for in life, and what is perhaps appreciated even more since his death, is his addition of a practical application and his application resonates with my soul. His refrain speaks volumes about the impact Scripture has on my daily life! He says, "I did not make it, for it is making me. It is the very truth of God and not the invention of any man." And I find that this statement is more true each day of my life, with each passage of scripture I read, study, meditate on and seek to incorporate into my life. I did not, nor could not, make Scripture, but it surely is making me into a new creature.
Scripture is alive, it breathes, and if allowed, will mold and make us like the Word Himself, the One that breathed the universe into being. We will be transformed from glory to glory and we will come to resemble the Holy One of Israel in direct proportion to the time we spend sitting and soaking in the richness that Scripture contains and letting Scripture interpret itself. This transforming power of Scripture is not something I make, or interpret - it is alive and it makes me - I must simply take it in as God's Word and trust Him to work it into my life.
So, for those of you who are not familiar with it - here at the lyrics. You can google it and hear him sing it on Utube if you like.
"I believe in God the Father Almighty Maker of Heaven and Maker of Earth
And in Jesus Christ His only begotten Son, our Lord
He was conceived by the Holy Spirit
Born of the virgin Mary
Suffered under Pontius Pilate
He was crucified and dead and buried
And I believe what I believe is what makes me what I am
I did not make it, no it is making me
It is the very truth of God and not the invention of any man
I believe that He who suffered was crucified, buried, and dead
He descended into hell and on the third day, rose again
He ascended into Heaven where He sits at God's mighty right hand
I believe that He's returning To judge the quick and the dead of the sons of men
And I believe what I believe is what makes me what I am
I did not make it, no it is making me
It is the very truth of God and not the invention of any man
I believe it, I believe it I believe it I believe it, I believe it
I believe in God the Father Almighty Maker of Heaven and Maker of Earth
And in Jesus Christ His only begotten Son, our Lord
I believe in the Holy Spirit, One Holy Church, The communion of Saints,
The forgiveness of sin
I believe in the resurrection
I believe in a life that never ends
And I believe what I believe is what makes me what I am
I did not make it, no it is making me
I did not make it, no it is making me
I said I did not make it, no it is making me
It is the very truth of God and not the invention of any man
I believe it, I believe I believe it, I believe I believe it, I believe it I believe it, I believe it I believe it, I believe it I believe it"
*Creed, by Rich Mullins and Beaker - Edward Grant, Inc., 1993 - Kid Brothers of St. Frank Publishing.
173 comments:
Wonderful post. Thanks. We watched this video on Sunday in church http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INX6hqIZVtU
It has the words of Rich Mullins from this song and Wes King's "I Believe" blended together, and it's very encouraging, I thought.
Everybody believes something. My pursuit is to know what is really believable. What is true truth? If this quest has caused some of us to land together on the Apostles' creed, our joy is shallow or void except for the extent to which it is authentic. I loathe the concept of a do-it-yourself religion, where one makes it up as they go along. God exists or he doesn't. Regarding the claim of the Bible as God's Word... it is, or it isn't. There is no room for relativism here. My love for the Apostles' Creed is not because I have chosen to adopt it. The profound conviction that it is true (despite anyone's opinions), is what makes my heart sing.
Not that opinions are entirely worthless, or that we absolutely cannot in any way, shape or form, adjust individual perceptions of reality. When I get up, I can greet the new day with a good attitude, where things turn out basically positive, or I can worry and fuss and complain until I can't even stand my own self. I can make it good or make it bad; I can interpret circumstances in a positive light or negative. But there are some other things that are absolute, and they are not open to interpretation.
So if I collaborated with Rich Mullins on that song, instead of "I believe it; I believe it." I would rather be proclaiming, "It is true; it is true."
I agree totally Craver - it does make my heart sing - and putting to music makes it all the better for me.
"I believe it" because it is True and it has transformed my life. The lovely thing about real Truth - it's not reflexive; it does not depend on anything, not my beliefs, or desires. It stands independent, by itself, as God, self-existent!
That is why I love the following line so much - "I did not make it, no it is making me. It is the very truth of God and not the invention of any man."
Yes. Amen, amen, and amen again!!!
God's word/Scripture has and is changing me, in Jesus by the Spirit. As Jesus said, "Sanctify (make holy) them by your word. Your word is truth." It's exciting, actually.
I offer you four words: Superstition; sentimentality; delusion. And the fourth: evidence.
I understand that you might feel that way, Maalie. Have you applied the same cautious skepticism to high ranking members of the scientific community, such as today's birthday boy (Darwin) and the ideas they have handed down? Fair is fair.
My religious opinions are not formed, controlled or affected by the agendas of whoever happens to hold the culture's most favorable opinion, status quo, or any constituency. In science, one may lose great personal investments, because of the opinion of others. For the true Christian though, a primary motivator is, "What is true? And What does God want me to do about this information?" I don't need to be too concerned about popular opinion, in fact, it is almost guaranteed that there will be some persecution.
True science and true religion are not really in conflict with each other. When there is an apparent disconnect, it calls for further investigation, not the immediate dismissal of either.
I remember reading Titus 3:3-8 a few years ago:
"3At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. 4But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. 8This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good. These things are excellent and profitable for everyone." (NIV)
I wrote a note next to it in my Bible showing that stressing and teaching the true gospel--sound doctrine, "trustworthy sayings," creeds, etc. are what lead someone to be zealous for good works. (Orthopraxy comes from orthodoxy, if you will.) I do believe, with you, that the more we come to have convictions about the gospel, the nature of man, our calling in life, worldview stuff--it really seeps into and permeates all we think and do. Of course, we're not wholly consistent with that, hence we still sin, and we're not necessarily consciously aware that we're doing or not doing something because of our doctrinal commitments. But I think it's so important because all these things form a background "lens" through which we view life. Like with eyeglasses we don't usually see the lens itself, but we see everything else in a different way because of it.
Maalie, have you ever read the book, "Evidence that demands a verdict"?
Halfmom, I'm afraid I have no respect for Josh McDowell, and I'm surprised that you, as a scientist, appear to do yourself. My own feelings about his book are very well reflected here .
"Belief", however passionately held, is no evidence of "truth". Other cultures around the world believe in their own superstitions just as passionately as fundamentalist Christians do theirs, and yet I expect you would despise their beliefs as delusions.
I do not really "believe" anything. What I do is to accept, for the time being, the most plausible explanations that fit the evidence available. If more evidence comes to light to modify the explanation, then I will reconsider them.
Andrew:
We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. But when the kindness and love of God our Saviour appeared, he saved us.
You seem to imply that people who by chance are born into cultures that have no access to the Christian bible will live in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another.
I'm sorry, I find this xenophobic and prejudiced view absolutely untenable.
Maalie,
Maybe you'd be open to N.T. (Tom) Wright. (N.T. Wright Page) He's a bishop in the Church of England, and his book, The Challenge of Jesus impacted me profoundly some 8 years ago. His three tomes (more to come) are The New Testament and the People of God, Jesus and the Victory of God, and The Resurrection of the Son of God.
Wright is a scholar who has participated with Jesus scholars and has worked to understand the times of Jesus and Paul.
(For you Christians who read this blog, I consider any book by him worth reading. But I don't track with him on everything. Also, I do think he's misunderstood by Christians at times. I've been accused of being a follower of Wright, which is not true. :) I won't debate anyone on him, not at this time or on this venue.)
But better yet, Maalie. Have you ever read the gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Mark would be a good place to start, more to the point. But all four supplement each other well. Then you could go to Acts, the start of the church, Romans, etc.
Ted, yes, I have considerable respect for His Grace the Bishop of Durham (Tom Wright) though as you will know his opinions are regarded as somewhat controversial within the Anglican Church. Of course, even the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Atkinson, embraces modern science and rejects the literal notion of Adam and Eve as the beginning of the species Homo sapiens, or Noah's Ark being the source of all present-day biodiversity.
I have read the authors you refer to in your last paragraph. They write some sensible things about how we should conduct our lives (as do other holy books like the Koran) but I find them rather out-dated.
We are all happy to embrace the advances in natural science when they are "useful" to us (e.g. medicine and technology); I don't understand why religious fundamentalists reject advances in other disciplines, like genetics, molecular biology, ecology and evolutionary biology.
Maalie - I quite prefer reading the words of real scientists who also are believers in Jesus Christ. I was just curious about your reading, and it appears that you've read an amazing amount more than I have!
And Maalie dear, you're quite right. I certainly embrace modern medicine. For example, though I hate an MRI with a passion, I will gladly climb into another one on Monday. I will hope that it identifies a problem that can be corrected and will trust my surgeon to do so. I love investiative science because I love to ask why and get an answer and form another hypothesis, ask another question, and so on and so on.
However, only Jesus changed my heart. Only Scripture continues to change it and make me more like Christ. Only Christ and His Holy Spirit through His Word get me through the day dealing with the pain and hardship. Only He has used the hard circumstances of life to make me better and not bitter, hard and calloused.
I will say with the Apostle Peter, that He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God (Mark 8:29)and agree with the blind man of John 9:25, "one thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I see".
Maalie, how this all got here around us I do not know and truthfully I do not care all that much. I care more to investigate what is in front of me and try to make disease better, or at least decrease the incidence. If God put things in course so they evolved, then fine; it was still God's idea and initiative. If He just spoke and it came into being, fine as well.
you must remember that I believe in a God who can transform the hearts and lives of those who belong to Him, a God who desires that all come to Him and find Him as both Savior and Lord. However He has accomplished it (scripture tells us a bit in Romans 1), He has not left some of His children out in the cold because they do not have a Bible yet. He has written His presence and His law in creation and in the hearts of men.
Amen, Susan!
I concur with my own broken life that God in Christ is making whole.
But God in Jesus and by the Spirit. And in community in Jesus, one that would see all others enter.
Tihs makes all the difference to me in the world, day after day after day.
Maalie,
Thanks. You/we would do well to read at least the first book I listed, of Bishop Wright.
This is a living dynamic in us, as real as the breath and air we breathe. And actually just as and in a sense more important that that!
There are many evangelical Christians right here in the U.S. who agree on the basic, mainstream views of science.
The contention lies between some such as Dawkins and Christians like Francis Collins- in the metaphysical aspects, the faith aspects present. For example whether there's more than one kind of knowledge: intuition, etc. Or whether one can really know that what we see in nature is all there is. Or what really was behind "the Big Bang" and the beginning of space, time and matter.
"All truth is God's truth." But the key, the one thing needed in this world for all of us, is found in Jesus. This I believe and by grace I stake my life on it.
A real dynamic in/among us who are "in Christ", I should say - for clarification.
agree WITH mainstream science (not on).
I should write comments the way I write posts, though I often make a change or two more, after it is posted. I will try to do better!
Maalie --
"You seem to imply that people who by chance are born into cultures that have no access to the Christian bible will live in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another."
Actually I believe that some degree of enmity and selfish unlove toward others is prevalent in every person EVERYWHERE, not just in countries without access to the Bible. I listen to it every night as my neighbors scream and beat the crap out of each other. My other neighbors yell at their kids and hit their dog. And of all cultures, the U.S. should be named among the most "Christianized"! (Of course, like the UK, that is quickly changing.)
It's not so much that we are as malicious as possible. But malice, selfishness, discord, jealousy, and the like are, I believe, undoubtedly part of the fabric of human experience. Why? Honestly I believe it's because we are trying to meet unmet desires in ways and places they weren't meant to be met, that is, through knowing and experiencing the living God. We try to satisfy desires of ours through the people and things of this world--fleeting, finite things--but we are quick to come up short. But I'm getting off topic from Susan's original post, so ... I'm out.
...so back to this post on the Apostles' Creed: Most all of the apostle’s creed is true and embraced by all Christians, but what is not true, nor biblical, and what is actually a 6th century addition to the original apostles creed, is the statement that Jesus "descended into hell". That is NOT true. Jesus went to paradise at His death, not hell!! (Luke 23:43)
So even the apostle's creed has a serious error in it. Sin-laden man screws up everything he touches; that's why we have so many disagreements on the Bible. Nevertheless, God's Word remains forever true!
I'm honestly surprised how few Christian notice or comment on this glaring error in the Apostle's Creed. There is nothing biblical about that statement.
Maalie wrote: “We are all happy to embrace the advances in natural science when they are "useful" to us (e.g. medicine and technology)”
But, Maalie, this is natural science’s only usefulness: medicine and technology.
Sure, great advances have been made in these areas (transportation, electricity, radio, television, IT, medicine, x-rays, etc., etc. Natural science has certainly advanced our species medically and technologically. But what has it done for social change?
Is sexual promiscuity more or less prevalent today?? What has science done to rid the world of immorality, or divorce, or even things like poverty, terrorism, racism and death? Certainly immorality is much worse today, not better. Natural science has no answer for these ailments because mankind has a sin-problem, not a technology problem. And Jesus Christ is the only answer to our problem. Science is impotent to solve humankind's chief problem.
Lit'l Luther,
My comment was too long so I erased it.
The Apostles and Nicene Creed are important and Luther recognized that. The church as the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Timothy) did essentially take important stands on the truth, and their work continues to be important to this day- since the same heresies come up again and again. The church does make mistakes, but the true church does get the truly essentials down well enough.
As to Christ's descent into hell, I think largely based on an obscure difficult passage in 1 Peter 3:18-20, and more likely with reference to a proclamation he made after his resurrection. But certainly Christ descending into hell could be taken metaphorically or figuratively, when Christ descended in becoming human, and then descended to the depths of the death of the cross. And in that felt forsaken by God.
We shouldn't abandon the Apostles or Nicene Creed, or the Council of Chalcedon. All quite important, and this is the way God wants to guide his people- through the church. A process which involves us all together- testing all things by the word- including what the "preacher" says. But the Spirit and the Word can never be divorced from the Community of God. And this was the error of the Anabaptists early on which Luther himself did not fall into.
So I think Rich Mullins in this song did well.
... and I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins and life everlasting .....
Why didn't you finish the prayer?
"...David says concerning Him [Jesus], ...For You Will Not Leave My Soul In Hell [hades],...Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that,...He would raise up Christ to sit on his throne, he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in hell [hades], nor did His flesh see corruption. ... This Jesus God raised up, which we are all witnesses." Acts 2:25,27,30-32
The word hell here is the same word Jesus uses for the place where Lazarus and the rich man were in Luke 16:23.
We know Jesus was pure, and sinless, and so His soul was never in hell, where the sinners will go. He more likely was with Abraham.
Those are my feeble thoughts on a deep subject.
interesting, Don.
Hades is simply translated in both the TNIV and NLT as meaning the realm of the dead, or death. Here is an interesting look at it.
This might be getting more to what the writers of the creed were getting at. (For those who believe in a literal descent into hell, or really the side of torment in Hades, they interpret the 1 Peter 3 passage in that way.) About Jesus descending to hades. But unclear as to what this means, and I take it to simply mean that Jesus experienced death, and was dead. But of course, was resurrected that first "Easter" morning.
I'd like to add, too, that I don't think it was necessary for Jesus to experience hell or torment with those awaiting final judgment and condemnation. All that was necessary for our salvation was that he had to die. Jesus' death and resurrection bring salvation.
Some would disagree, probably. Thinking in becoming sin Jesus had to taste the condemnation of the damned. I do certainly believe that in Christ God took the judgment of sin on himself, taking wrath or punishment for it, in our place.
Jesus died for our sins, experiencing death, in our place. So that we don't have to experience death for our sins, but instead receive the gift of eternal life through him.
but instead CAN receive that gift through faith, of course....
I feel like an intruder, and speaking with so much certainty over difficult matters, though some things are clear enough, and the essential things are.
We can all but get lost and sidetracked on something like this.
Though it is good to look at it a bit, as it is in God's word. As Peter said, some passages are hard to understand, including the one in 1 Peter 3. As to the precise meaning that is.
I've been on this too much, so I'm out for the rest of the day now. Deb will get back from the conference later. She's having a great time at a lady's conference. I need to get ready for her return anyhow for Valentine's Day, and we have more snow, snow at last again- for me to shovel!
Ah, one more thing.
Jesus at the cross on the day he died told the repentant thief that that very day he would be with Jesus in Paradise. I believe Paradise was the side of Hades of the redeemed, those awaiting final salvation in the resurrection.
Is that a specific prayer Lorenzo? I know it as the Apostle's Creed. What's the rest of it as you know it?
I appreciate what you guys have to say on the subject. My point was simply that the statement "hell" does not even belong in the original apostles' creed. Look up the history on the creed. I'm certainly not the first to say that the "descended into hell" was a later addition that did not belong in the creed. Piper and several others say the same.
It seems a mistake to me to use that word “hell”. It gives the wrong impression: as if Jesus' death on the cross did not make full satisfaction for our sins, as if He needed to suffer for three days in hell to fully redeem us, when in fact it was finished on the cross.
To equate "Hell" and "Paradise" as the same place, seems quite odd....but perhaps that is what Peter did in Acts 2. Thanks for directing me to that text, Don.
> Is sexual promiscuity more or less prevalent today??
I really don't know the statistics for AD 008; 014; 104; 520; 1220; 1460; 1755, to name just a few years.
I suppose you do, Litl Luther?
Hi Maalie,
Point taken. No, I have no idea what the statistics for sexual promiscuity were over the centuries. But, I also wouldn't think this something that we would need to debate. Take Britain for example: Your government is reporting that about 39,000 girls under age 18 became pregnant in 2006. More than 7,000 of those girls were 15 or younger. Certainly abortions have been higher over the last few decades than anytime in history, with it becoming legal (as well as the availability of all sorts of aids to prevent pregnancy) yet unmarried "children" becoming pregnant is soaring in our time. ...Go into our US inner cities and see just how many black children are being raised without fathers, and then how many of those same children grow up to kill each other by age 18. Things are bad. I would think you would agree with me at least on this, even if you might disagree with me that the acceptance of homosexual behavior and homosexual marriage is another scourge on our modern societies that shows sexual promiscuity is much worse in our time.
And how about divorce? In the US it is reaching 60%!! Moral values are becoming irrelevant in our modern times. I'm not trying to knock science. It has so much to offer us and is making all of our lives much more comfortable. But it can do nothing to bring peace to our world or to bring peace between men and God or even to bring peace between people.
You know, ending racism and sexism did not start with great people like William Wilberforce, Martin Luther King Jr. or even with the feminist movement. It began long ago with God, teaching through Moses and later through Jesus, to love our neighbors as ourselves.
Equality is God's concept: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)
God and the Christian faith brought us equality of men and women; equality of black and white.... Sure you could give plenty of examples where Christians have failed to live up to this standard. But that does change the fact that the standard of equality of all peoples began with God. The true, serious problems facing our world cannot be solved through science. My friend, Jesus is the only Savior of our world, the only Solution.
>Your government is reporting that about 39,000 girls under age 18 became pregnant in 2006. More than 7,000 of those girls were 15 or younger
Without having precise statistics to hand, I feel quite certain that the figures would have been even higher some centuries ago, when it was quite common to start a family during teenage-hood. I believe that Juliet (in Shakespeare's eponymous play) was only 13 when she married Romeo. I am sure the average age of conception has risen over the last century. Mainly due to life-style and education opportunities.
I'm not even sure that your statistics for abortion would stand up to scrutiny. Abortions have been taking place in seedy back-street dives and work-houses for centuries, of course, causing much pain, misery and mortality. These days the information is available and the techniques more clinical and safer. I do not agree with abortion as a back-up for family planning; in fact I am in favour of women making their own choice. I hardly think this is an issue for men to debate, it is not our bodies we are making decisions about.
As for gay partnerships, I see nothing against them. One of my best friends is gay. Given the vote, I would certainly support legalised gay civil partnerships (we have them in England now). Why your objection? That puzzles me.
Halfmom, is it today that you have your scan? I wish you all the best.
Yes Maalie, today is not only the day for the scan but an NIH grant submission. I will email that to the grants administrator and then head for the scan, so I will be back to say more later. Thank you for remembering. I do pray that they will be diligent and carefully identify the problem so that it can be fixed and I can be restored to physical health and productivity.
Triston, good comment - I will be back later (Lord willing) to talk with you more about it. And just so you know, Maalie knows the pain of divorce personally; on that issue there is no need to convince him that marriage can be painfully less than it is intended to be.
Maalie, et al,
I found the book "Reason for God" by Tim Keller, a very interesting and worthwhile read. It's not meant to address scientific objections which are raised here but it does speak to cultural objections (modernism, postmodernism) related to the biblical position.
Maalie,
Admittedly, one thing you are right about is that girls married younger centuries ago. Many believe that Mary (Jesus' mom) was probably 15. But it is not immoral to marry as a young virgin female, have children and spend her life with that one husband. I've been speaking more about the lack of morals in our day. Anything goes nowadays.
As a staunch evolutionist, I would think you too would see that homosexual sex does nothing to propagate our species!! One generation of pure, homosexual license and our species would go extinct! Thus, obviously, homosexual sex is not the natural course of things.
But my reasons against it have to do with what God says on the matter....Though I don't believe it a worse sin than heterosexual fornication outside of marriage. Sex, whether with a person your own age, male with male or male with female, sex with children (pedophilia) beastality (paraphilia), etc., it is all the same sin: people giving into the lusts of their flesh.
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying consensual sex of two adults and rape of minors are equal. I'm just saying that when we give into our fleshly desires, it is the same sin of lust we are caving into whether it is with people of the same sex, opposite sex or any other example mentioned above. There is only one appropriate way in God's sight: one man with one woman in the bonds of marriage. Everything else is sexual promiscuity and immorality (the very topic of our discussion).
Andrew,
I really like that Titus passage you quoted in the last post, and really that little book. I was just listening to it this morning on The Bible Experience, which I am able to keep borrowing from our public library system. The one doing Paul's voice speaks with so much authority and does really well on that. Then you all the sudden hear a sea shore, and lo and behold, you're on Crete, and a young man, Titus is now reading. Then before it's over Paul breaks in again, as Titus fades out. Really neat.
I love that book, because it stresses living out the faith, though it certainly stresses sound doctrine as well.
Litl Luther, there are a couple of points I would like to take further with you; however I am uneasy about using the medium of Halfmom's blog so long as we don't know how she is. I'm sure we all share the hope that nothing untoward happened yesterday.
Untoward is a great word Maalie - and thanks for being concerned. I survived my 2 hours in the MRI - but it was painful at best, so I'm glad it's over. We'll see what the radiologist and surgeon say about the shoulder when they read the films about what they can do to fix the problem.
As it turns out, my grant that I thought was due today is actually due NEXT month - the grants office called AFTER I turned it in to be transmitted to our National Institute of Health. So, I guess I've at least gotten a head start on the next deadline!
You guys talk away - but no bloodshed please :) I'll enjoy your conversations.
Maalie, great! I'm glad you want to carry on the conversation and that Susan approves.
BLW: I probably sound like "the church lady" on Saturday Night Live with all this talk about sex. I am actually usually at the other end of the spectrum, speaking against the Christians who make all their manmade rules against smoking, drinking, dancing, against the music people listen to, etc. I'm the first to stand up for peoples' freedom to do what they want, to have fun, to enjoy life. Being a Christian does not have to be boring....But there are certain things God has spoken out against. I like to keep "His" commandments, not the rules of people.
I look forward to our dialogue.
Halfmom: Good news about the application. Always nice to know one is ahead of the game. I hope the scan will lead to a satisfactory outcome.
Litl Luther: I shall have to take one point at a time.
It is axiomatic that homosexual behaviour will not lead to procreation of the species, but then neither does any amount of other behaviour categories. You said:
>Thus, obviously, homosexual sex is not the natural course of things.
Why is that "obvious"? And what do you mean by "natural"? There are many many documented cases of homosexuality in nature. I have witnessed it myself, and you can read about some examples here (some 1500 species documented). So I do not think we can use the word "natural".
Whatever the bible may say, that book was written a couple of thousand or so years ago by men using the best knowledge and understanding available at the time. We have moved on from there, our knowledge and understanding of the world around us has changed immeasurably, and you un-invent the wheel. Moreover, attitudes have changed (thank goodness!) - at least I don't think Christians still drown witches or burn them at the stake.
If homosexual couples wish to devote their lives to each other without breaking the laws of the country, I have no objection whatsoever, natural or not.
Ooops, you can't un-invent the wheel!
Litl Luther:
>Many believe that Mary (Jesus' mom) was probably 15. But it is not immoral to marry as a young virgin female, have children and spend her life with that one husband.
I'm afraid I cannot agree with that. In this country, at least, to have sex (in or out of marriage) with a female under the legal age (I believe that is 16) would be regarded as highly immoral. There is nothing absolute about "morality". It is a human value judgement, and may vary between generations, or cultures. In England, we now do not regard it as moral to throw stones at adulteresses, or to drown witches, or to have arranged marriages.
Perceptions may differ elsewhere.
My goodness how this has developed since I made my little comment on the Creed.
The Nicene creed developed at the same time as the which books were deemed the word of God and included or excluded from the Bible, so I image the creed can be viewed in the same light as the Bible can.
How do you feel about the 'resurection of the dead' and the 'communion of saints'?
>How do you feel about the 'resurection of the dead' and the 'communion of saints'
Mythology.
"For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation [ktiðsiv] waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves,.." Romans 8:18-23
As I read thw Wikepedia about animals being homosexuals, I thought of this portion of Scripture, and it fits.
I actually love to watch the wild life programs on PBS; Lately the "PLanet Earth" series is truly breath taking.
But at the same time, I hate to see the hind part a whitetail dear in the jaws of a Komodo Dragon
And slowly die of excruciating pain. Or a bunch of Chimpanzees hearding monkeys into a snare only to rip their legs and arms out of their sockets, and then eat them.
I am glad our Lord was merciful, and purposed to not leave us this way, and I'll be glad when the New Earth is established by our Lord. And sin and evil is completely done away with.
"Resurrection of the dead and communion of saints..."
Jesus may have been hard on the Pharisees, but there was one time in history where he was on the same side as them. Jesus answered a question about marriage and life after death to a group called the Sadducees. They did not believe in the resurrection, which is why they were so sad, you see.
The communion of saints and one holy, catholic church means the same thing. There is a universal brotherhood of all those who belong to Christ. We are ultimately one church, even though there are people in different congregations, and there are houses of worship, and even some pulpits filled with imposters.
In the resurrection, there will not be an African church, and a Chinese church, and a Spanish church. There will not be a Pentecostal church, and a Baptist church, and a Presbyterian church. The head is Christ, and ALL his people (who are truly his) are the body.
Craver, I have always understood the communion of saints to be those that have died and gone before us, to pray for us left on earth.
I know the 'holy catholic church' means the church as a 'catholic' entity and not just 'Roman Catholic'.
We were taught that one day our bodies would resurect, and that was why until relatively recently Catholics were not allowed to be cremated.
Today's word: nerdity (!)
I think this is pretty good on the communion of saints.
All who are in Christ and thus members of Christ's Body, whether in heaven or on earth. And I think of the passage in Hebrews 12: 22 But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23 to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the Judge of all, to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.
Hey Maalie,
I'm not going to get it to "gay bashing" if that is what you thought I would do. I don't think any less of them then I do heterosexual sinners like myself. But I am also not going candy-coat their behavior and say it is normal or moral. God's Word is my final authority and it says that homosexual behavior is an abomination: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion." (Lev. 18:22-23)
And why do I say "it is against nature"? That is what God says about it: "...For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." (Rom. 1:26-27)
It is abominable and shameful behavior because that is what God says about it. He dictates what is right and what is wrong. …But men and women having sex outside of marriage is also shameful behavior, despite what our cultures say to the contrary because, again, God has set the standard of morality. He dictates what is proper and what is debase behavior.
Regarding your other post:
First you use thirteen-year-old Juliet to support your point, and then you use fifteen-year-old Mary to overturn mine. You are playing both sides of the pitch, buddy (no pun intended)!
PS: Maalie,
Perhaps that first text I quoted above is a good example of where the Bible cannot mean whatever you want it to. I'm referring to "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination."
Sometimes language is just so clear and so plain it can only mean one thing (as the text above illustrates). Sure, there will always be those who try and twist the Scriptures to say what they want it to, but there are many things in the Bible that can really only mean one thing because the language is that clear.
Triston
I am withdrawing from this conversation, I find that it is becoming personal and offensive.
Hey Luther, if sex outside of marriage is such a sin, how come King David is such a revered bloke?
Or perhaps you think, like Abraham, it's ok to have more than one wife?
Why is it you bang on about the 'laws' in Leviticus being cancelled because of Jesus, i.e. not mixing fibres, not eating unKosher food etc. when you state that homosexual activity is an abomination? Don't you think it is you who cherry pick the Bible. At least Maalie is consistent in his denial of everything.
Do you believe that men can and should have more than one wife? What did Jesus say on the matter, hey?
Hi Maalie,
It is just as personal for me. Believe me, there is probably nothing you have ever done or are doing right now that I am not already guilty of....and guilty even today in my struggled thought life. I am not pointing the finger at anyone without it pointing right back at myself.
Hi Lorenzo,
I think I'll wait for Susan to comment first. I wish to be sweet, gentle and kind — all the things I've never been but desire to be.
Triston
Okay, I'll have a go at that...
King David is held in high regards for many reasons. No righteous individual would count polygamy as one of those reasons. God has never given approval for or instructed His people to take more than one wife.
It is shameful that some cultures treat women as possessions. If you're rich, you may own a bunch of cars or horses, or whatever. But it is impossible to have a holy and intimate bond with many spouses.
Furthermore, when the biblical model of marriage is distorted, there is a breakdown in the analogy (and our understanding) of the church as the bride of Christ.
Susan, how 'bout a health update?
Some things like dietary law were changed by God and explained in Scripture (Acts 10 & 11). But the institution of marriage was reinforced in the New Testament and should not be tampered with.
Having said that, I will unashamedly admit that I have friends and family who are homosexual. But just because I care for and respect an individual, that does not mean that I must approve of all of their practices.
But Ted, surely God approved of Abraham and his life. He was the chosen one to found the Jewish line?
>But it is impossible to have a holy and intimate bond with many spouses.
But, Craver Vii, there are some cultures which consider that this is holy; moreover, they believe it just as passionately as you believe yours.
Lorenzo, I don't actually deny everything. I don't deny the existence of the bible; I simply consider that it was written by men (Matthew, et al.) using the best wisdom, knowledge and understanding available at the time. This included ingnorance that homosexuality is found in the natural world; belief that the sun rotates round the earth; that bats are birds; that the whole of humanity in it's diversity stemmed from just two people in the presence of a talking snake; that all biodieversity has arisen from what could be crammed into a boat that couldn't have been built before the bronze age, when a world-wide flood would have left geological evidence everywhere. Not to mention a God who regards a new-born baby as "a bundle of sin" (I quote).
Advances in knowledge and understanding of science have now relegated that all to mythology; and social attitudes have changed (thank goodness) since those archaic times.
"..and social attitudes have changed (thank goodness) since those archaic times."
I would like to hear more on that.
There seems to be plenty of greed, lying, cheating, and hatred going on.
There have been men who have helped change society, like Martin Luther King. But he was a preacher of the Bible.
I suppose this would be another long rabbit path. But then maybe not.
Do you have any quick thought where you could elaborate on your statement about socila attitudes?
> There seems to be plenty of greed, lying, cheating, and hatred going on.
That stuff gone on since time immemorial Donsands... What sort of prejudiced world are you living in?
What I see is young people engaged in voluntary work, charity work, my two sons running in the London Marathon in support of charity, and many more. I see dedication to education, advancing our knowledge in science, technology, medicine; I see an enlightened attitude towards the environment, a more responsible use of resources, and so on and so on...
I see more tolerance towards racism, sexism, sexuality...
And I see hope for the world in the election of your new President Obama.
There are so many good things going for us if you should only open your eyes to see...
I think it was Ted who was responsible for the 'bundle of sin' quote, not God.
I would like to hear more on the social attitudes too. As far as I can see there is far more morality in simple animal life than there is in the higher species, i.e. man!
I just noticed that my comment for Susan was awkwardly misplaced, and ended up in the middle of the other stuff. That's what I get for trying to do more than one thing at a time.
Maalie, you raise a very important issue. There are people who's ideologies differ, and they might be quite passionate about their own beliefs. That is when I am so glad that I am not given the responsibility of convincing anyone. My job is just to tell the story, and then I leave the results up to God. He changes mens' hearts according to His good pleasure. I hope He is pleased to pour His grace upon you. :-)
> My job is just to tell the story, and then I leave the results up to God.
Which of the many dozens (if not hundreds) of Gods that are, and have been, worshipped at various times by Mankind, are you referring to, Craver Vii?
God is God Maalie, and it doesn't matter what you call Him. He goes under many names.
(grin) Quit playing, Maalie; you already know what I mean. There is only one God, and false gods cannot change a person's will, redirect their life or save their soul. There is no reason for you to assume that I meant anything else.
Dear Lorenziebum, no recent pics or stories for your blog? :-(
I have to challenge the statement, "it doesn't matter what you call Him." The original ten commandments were not transcribed by Moses, but by the Lord Himself, and he said not to take his name in vain. He cares about His name.
The apostle Peter, one of the closest disciples of Jesus said of him, "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12) I'd say He cares a lot.
"I see more tolerance towards racism.."
I agree, and largely due to Martin Luther King, I would have to say without a doubt.
Why did King stand up for the rights of blacks, where they were treated as half human?
Because he belived men were created equal in the eyes of our Creator.
As far as Obama goes, he is a Socialist Senator for "Big" Government (the bigger the better), who is as far left and liberal as one can become. He is my president, and I honor him for that, becuase the Bible instructs me to.
But I do speak out that this man is sold out pro-infanticide. And that is quite a wicked thing indeed. To allow a baby born alive to lay in a closet and die, not to mention he is pro-partial birth abortion, which sucks the brains out of a baby's head.
I do pray for my president, and respect him otherwise.
How is Simon doing? Do you know, Maalie? He hasn't stopped in and commented for quite sometime. I hope his health is good.
Don,
President Osama is really for infanticide??? Letting a new born life purposely die???!
Well, perhaps Obama will let us step it up a few months or years. You know, my 9 month old baby sure cries a lot. Perhaps he’s teething, but I don’t like the noise. Maybe I should just let him die. No crime in that right? Or how about my 12 year old daughter? She has really been getting under my skin lately. Maybe we should put some rat poison in her chocolate milk after school.
....Honestly, what is the difference between killing my children or letting a new born baby die??
Thank you for this superb example, Don, on why our modern societies have gone to the crapper morally, to allow someone who is so pro-EVIL, to become our president, commander and chief.
Lorenzo the Llama,
I was not responsible for "the bundle of sin" quote. I might have seen it, but don't know its context. So I don't stand behind it.
But I do believe we are all sinners who need a Savior. Humans are wonderful, made in God's image (James), but yet sinners, breaking God's law, and broken ourselves in relationship to God and others. But so much more to say on that, including thoughts on common grace given to all.
I think the Bible speaks for itself and points to a different world and worldview all together. We baptize what is not Christian, or just take it for granted it is alright, but what God was doing in the Bible is moving humankind to a goal in the kingdom of God come in Jesus. America and nothing in this world does well in comparison. The only answer really is in Jesus and in God's kingdom brought in him. That is what I believe. Kind of related, hopefully to what's being said here.
So I say let's get back to Jesus himself, and the revelation of him, and the goal we find in him from God. I believe that is what Scripture points to, all the way through.
Ted: I do apologise. I got the wrong man! It might have been Donsands!
The quote came concerning the birth of Luther's little boy. Whoever it was said something like: "welcome to this new little bundle of sin". Of course I exploded in righteous indignation (!). How can any babies be a bundle of sin. They are totally innocent and born in purity. It's life that takes away their innocence.
And being a left-wing Socialist, of course I like Obama. It's not his views on abortion that count, it's the views of the majority of the American people. The sainted Bush didn't repeal the abortion laws, so stop slagging off Obama!
A Methodist minister once said (and I was a witness to it) "I don't know how people who say they are Christian, can vote Conservative".
Do you think that Jesus was a right wing supporter? Truly???
Donsands, I agree that Martin Luther King was a great influence, but even in my lifetime I have seen attitudes change, to racism and other social matters. That is a good thing.
Craver Vii, I was actually being serious. All of the multitudinous Gods that have been devised by man over the ages (some still extant) ALL have been worshiped just as devoutly and passionately as you worship your particular choice of God. ALL consider their God to be the one and only true God, and would be contemptible of you for wasting you time worshipping the "wrong" God.
In my eyes, all these Gods have exactly the same status - namely delusions.
I was indoctrinated as a child to worship your own particular choice God (though my Dad was a bit of a sun-worshipper). But there came a time when I was refreshed, "born again", I saw the light and the truth, namely that worship of any supernatural entity is a delusion. And once you have emerged from a delusion and seen the light, there is no going back.
If I had anyone to pray to, I would pray that byou all see the light and emerge from your delusions.
Lit Luther: Simon is fine, I think he just got fed up beating his head against a brick wall here. I have to admit I have got pretty close to myself. If I try to make a point based on evidence and my experience, I simply get a passage from the bible shouted at me.
The bible is the Word of Men, written by men for men. Nothing more, nothing less.
>It's not his views on abortion that count, it's the views of the majority of the American people.
Well said Lorenzo. Dondsands has greatly exaggerated and emotionalised the position. President Obama does not want to kill babies any more than anyone else does.
(sorry for the length of this, but really to Lorenzo)
Lorenzo,
That's quite alright. Actually my complaint about that statement is that it may be unbalanced or stated in an unbalanced way. Doesn't even the Roman Catholic church baptize infants to do away with original sin? Yes, there is innocence. There is a place in Isaiah which talks about a boy getting old enough that at a certain time he'll know well enough to reject the wrong and choose the right (Isaiah 7). And David in the great psalm of penitence (Psalm 51) describes himself as born in iniquity and sinful even then. All Christians believe in one way or another in what is called "original sin." But I don't agree with the teaching that outside of Christ, people are not in God's image. I believe it's a cracked, broken image, however, and only put together and renewed, through and in Christ.
As to politics, it's complex. I have my own political views and I hesitate to express them here. But this does seem quite civil, in the conversations going on.
I don't believe for a moment Obama is pro-abortion, and he has even stated he may be on the wrong side on this issue. He says he's all for working to reduce them and that each one is a tragedy, but he holds on, or goes along with the mistaken notion of a woman's right to choose. The problem is the fetus is not her own body. I am not happy with his policies on this issue, so far. I do have hope for the 95/10 Initiative which works on adoption, and other good ways (at least for the most part) of cutting down abortions 95% in 10 years. Sponsored by Democrats for Life.
I think other than that, on balance I find Obama better than what preceded. And I actually like him in a number of ways. He is influenced by Reinhold Niebuhr, who was a realist Protestant Christian theologian in the 20th century. He actually understands him quite well.
There's no such thing at all as "a just war" today, if you look at what "just war" as laid out by Augustine and Christians is. No civilian casualties just for a start. A disaster! I don't care what good is coming out of it, the end does not justify the means. Much more to say on this and abortion, but I've said probably too much before, so I'll cease.
But I am a European (or Canadian) at heart, as far as how a country is run in regard to health care, and in other matters. America is all about individual liberty, independence (and "the bottom line"). But as human beings we are really interdependent. And I'd rather pay more taxes and have a system by law that gives better health care access to the citizens. I'm not saying state run, but getting everything into the mix. Of course there are always problems in this world. I've seen too much in regard to inaccessible health care here even with regard to life and death, and I can't be silent on this issue.
But as I get older, I really put less stock in my opinions. I keep trying to learn, with a commitment to Jesus and Scripture, and the orthodox Christian faith (not meaning Eastern Orthodox, with all due respect to them). I know good Christians disagree on these issues. And I also know that I can be mistaken, of course.
All will be judged with reference to the kingdom of God coming in Jesus. I pray God's kingdom come, God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
My goodness, I spend a day analyzing data and another day working on "mother of the bride" things and look where you all have gone! What a shock when I logged in here.
I will be back to join the fray at some point, I promise. But really, the wedding invitations must go out tomorrow, oh whoops, it's already tomorrow, I mean today, by almost 4 hours! I think I might be too old for the "mother of the bride thing". Good thing this is the youngest!
Craver - what hear you from the expectant mother? I do hope she's well and things are going as scheduled! I am awaiting a radiologist report before I will know anything more.
>And I also know that I can be mistaken, of course
I appreciate the humility implied in that statement Ted. You could be mistaken by "backing the wrong horse" (wrong God) or wrong in believing there is a God at all.
> I am awaiting a radiologist report before I will know anything more.
We shall be hoping for a satisfactory outcome Halfmom.
And now I am off for a birdwatching walk along the coast on this lovely almost-spring morning and I shall give thanks to Mother Nature for her bounteous blessings, in true Unitarian fashion!
Maalie,
The key for me, and what I come back to again and again, is Jesus himself. Jesus as given to us in the gospels. And with a sense of realism. After all there's plenty that is unflattering about the apostles during their time with Jesus, and Jesus himself cries out on the cross over his sense of being forsaken by God.
So I have to come back to Jesus. But I find all of Scripture cohering in different ways, with different slants toward the fulfillment in Jesus, and towards the kingdom of God come in him.
So I don't sweat over the wrong god, Maalie. I believe we find the true god in Jesus.
(and by the way, I have Richard Dawkins, "the God Delusion" waiting for me at the library right now, to listen to, read by him and some lady)
"Dondsands has greatly exaggerated and emotionalised the position. President Obama does not want to kill babies any more than anyone else does." Maalie
"I don't believe for a moment Obama is pro-abortion, and he has even stated he may be on the wrong side on this issue." -Ted
Obama is the only Senator who voted against The Born Alive Act, which would keep a child who was aborted, and not killed alive.
Say it however you want, but this man is for letting a baby die. It's a fact.
Here's a link from the liberal CNN station: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPZCXcTwZPY. Check it out for yourself.
The truth hurts, but it is the truth.
I have seen Obama speak in front of Planned Parenthood, and he was emphatic about abortion being kept legal. He thinks it's Constituitional. This man is the emotional person full of error. I do become emotional as well. If you check into abortion, and see all the dead babies, the millions and millions of little hands and feet severed, and the heads crushed, and the brains sucked out, and even babies left to die in a closet, it makes me angry, and sad.
If you want I have good material, factual, and truthful on the abortion issue, you can come and see. It's deplorable.
Do I pray for Obama, and respect him as my president? Yes, I do.
Sorry for the long comment, and for the rabbit path on abortion, but I felt I needed to clearly state the truth on the matter.
Ted, I want to confirm that I have no problems with the historical existence of Jesus. Obviously all that stuff about being born in a stable "in the deep midwinter", angels and heavenly hosts and all that, has been hyped up out of all proportion (a nice fairy story for the kids I suppose). I can accept that he was a good man, led an exemplary life and was a superb role model.
He was what we might today call a "cult hero". I can even accept that he was tortured and was crucified, those things happened in those days.
But as for executing miracles, dying and coming back to life again is just mythology. It is just the sort of stuff his band of followers would claim in order to preserve his cult status after his death. One of the most clever bits of marketing technique in the whole of history, don't you think?
Donsands: I absolutely respect your stand on abortion. I think it is a dreadful process and I abhor its use as a fall-back for poor or careless contraception.
However, I do consider that there are some cases (sexual abuse, rape, for example) where I allow the decision in the hands of the woman and her medical team.
"However, I do consider that there are some cases (sexual abuse, rape, for example) where I allow the decision in the hands of the woman and her medical team."-Maalie
I can appreciate that thought.
The very few cases for rape, incest, and the mother being in danger, surely need to be handled differently, then a women who is pregnant with a girl, and she wanted a boy, so PP encourages her to abort or kill the child. Amamzing how this could even happen. It's a convient way to be selfish.
My question is this: WHat about the baby. Evene in rape, she/him is a human being. Do we just kill the baby.
How about adoption, or even carrying the baby, and giving birth, and then loving this child as your own.
There are children who have wonderful testimonies of being a child of rape.
The bottom line is this: Abortion should go back to 1973, and be illegal, and the "Big Brother" Government should lay off and let the states has rule. The laws were good laws back when abortion was not legal.
There were good considerations for the pregnant girl or woman, and for rape victims, yet there were harsher, and well deserved, judgments for money hungry doctors who don't mind killing an infant.
I pray that this nation would take up the cry of Obama himself: "There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know". Though he did not include the babies in the womb of course.
Hi Ted! Yes the Catholic church believes that baptism takes away 'original sin'. I suppose it all depends on what you believe original sin to be.
Personally I believe it is the capability of each and every one of us to murder, to push Jews into gas chambers, to cry 'Crucify' etc. etc. There can not be one of us who is not thankful that we have been put to the test, but there you go, I think we are all capable of heinous crimes against humanity, animals and the very planet we live on.
I'm pretty sure the hierarchy of the Catholic church would have something to say about what I have just written, but I've never been one to toe-the-line where doctrine is concerned.
I agree about everything that has been written about abortion. But there again, it is a personal opinion and I certainly don't ostracize those I know who have had one. It is up to the Government of each country to decide of these issues, and it is not up to the leader. In a democratic system it is done by the vote and the American people have voted to keep abortion.
Maalie, I don't think we were brainwashed when we were children. Our mother used to get furious with the priest when he criticized the Church of England and the fact she was obliged to go to confession (she was a reluctant convert to Catholicism on account of my father being Catholic and in those days is was made difficult for the non-Catholic partner) and our father used to laugh at the lot of them and take us of to Stonehenge for a bit of ritual sun worship!
Lorenzo, I was thinking of those wretched nuns on a Saturday morning!
Actually, on a pedantic point, I said indoctrinated, not brainwashed. Indoctrinated means pushing a doctrine, which is exactly what 'religion' is, isn't it?
>surely need to be handled differently, then a women who is pregnant with a girl, and she wanted a boy
I agree with you 100% there Donsands. No dispute at all.
Interestingly, I was listening to a radio programme this morning about such matters. It will soon be possible (if indeed it is not possible already) to use in vitro fertilisation to select the sex of your child without the need for post-implant abortion if the "wrong" sex is conceived. Moreover, it will be possible to "screen" for a wide range of heredity diseases (including the propensity to some forms of cancer) and discard the cells before implantation.
It is envisaged (by the doctors that were talking) that this screening could become quite routine in the next generation. Then "normal" sex activity would would remain as a purely recreational pursuit; the business of conception would be in the hands of the in vitro technicians.
I agree with what you say as well, Don. Only I think the concern for life is from the cradle to the grave. By that standard neither Republicans or Democrats, in general are really pro-life, I think. It will be difficult for a Republican (running for President) to get my vote, but I hardly feel any better about the Democrats.
Yes, send it back to the states, but there is good reason to doubt that the number of abortions will really decrease at all if that happens in the event Roe is overturned. What is needed is a moral, spiritual revolution. The hearts of the people need changed. And this goes for caring about the poor, the uninsured, everyone, as well as the unborn. I have to say I'm angry and saddened as well over people not getting health care they need; no excuse for that at all.
So I am a bit skeptical at the sincerity of Republicans over the abortion issue. Precious little was done while they were in power. Certainly not a priority with them, in my opinion.
We must speak loud and clear against abortions, and not be silent. I so much agree on that! (and I signed the Fight FOCA petition). So "Amen!" Don, to that! Your words are spoken eloquently and well.
> What is needed is a moral, spiritual revolution. The hearts of the people need changed. And this goes for caring about the poor, the uninsured, everyone, as well as the unborn
Again, I find myself in agreement. provided that your revolution is based on sound pragmatism, not superstition or misplaced trust in the supernatural.
But I would point out that there are huge amounts of good, generous and unselfish work already going on in the world. I don't think we should overlook that.
Maalie,
The only real records we have that are really close to the time of Jesus are the gospels. And even a number of "liberal" scholars, who really don't buy the Bible as the word of God, believe Jesus likely did do miracles. Something not unknown and fairly well verifiable, at least in the records and true of others as well.
It's inadequate to say that Jesus was only human. He was certainly that, but the monotheism of Judaism was undergoing a Trinitarian change, and it actually begins in the gospels (and hinted at, at least, in the Hebrew Bible- "the Old Testament"). And is confirmed in letters written not long after Jesus' death.
There is only one best explanation for the writings and life of Paul, and of the early church (include Peter and John, as well as Jesus' brother, James). What is alleged to have happened that first day of the week, actually did happen. Jesus did rise from the dead. That and that alone is why we go on and on in this blog, and why we have faith day after day, year after year, no matter what. That is what I believe and I stake my own life on it, as well as see many others do the same.
Lorenzo,
Yes, I agree. We're capable of committing the evils and atrocities you mention. And we're all sinners, having broken God's law written in Scripture (such as the Ten Commandments, at least in our hearts) as well as on our hearts and judged by our consciences.
This is why all are in need of the grace of God, the gift offered to all in Christ. We need Christ, his death and resurrection, so that we can be given forgiveness and life, a life of God, through him. A gift we receive by faith. Which brings a new life, a new creation in Jesus.
Maalie,
I agree about good work occurring from non Christians. No doubt. But the reason and foundation for such work can be only in the hope that there's much more to life than random energy and mutations at work.
Otherwise what value is there in love? In the kind of love which willingly and even gladly lays one's life down for another?
And I believe that is not only best epitomized in Jesus and in many of his followers, but that the answer to this question of WHY is found -in Jesus.
And by the way, we don't think we're great and look down on others. We're just as dependent on God's salvation in Jesus as we were on day one. So we are looking to God through Christ every day, we who would want to be true to the name, Christian. Yet when compared with the one from whom we are named, know we fall short, and need (and want) to keep growing like the one we love.
I really see that humility quite evident on this blog. One that realizes that we have much in common, in spite of our differences.
Yes Maalie, the nuns were scarey. If it wasn't for our grandmother who gave them silly nicknames I think I would have dug my little heels in and refused to go. If our mother knew the sort of things they taught us she would have forbidden us to go there!
Your ideas on IVF are very interesting, but I suspect that if women could choose the sex of her baby there would not be that many boys born!
"..but there is good reason to doubt that the number of abortions will really decrease at all if that happens in the event Roe is overturned."
To have a law that says you can kill someone is a good law to have. No matter how old the human is.
If people kill just as many people without the a law that says it's againzt the law, then why have any laws?
Ted, the laws are set for restraint, and that's a good thing.
However, I agree, human's need Christ. Jesus Christ is the way, truth, and life.
There are some good Republicans, and there some good Democrats. There are some Democrats who are pro-life, as Congressman Heath Schuler is.
But Washington DC has become corrupted overall, and I wonder if even those who are elected to Congress, and have a pure heart to start with are not corrupted by all the corruption?
"Be not deceived: evil companionships corrupt good manners" 1 Cor. 15:33
I would imagine out of 5 hundred and some leaders in the USA, there may be a handful who have integrity and courage.
Have a splendid weekend Ted. And a blessed weekend to Susan, who is a teriffic host, and all the rest.
To have a law that says you CANNOT kill someone is a good law to have: No matter how old the human is.
If people kill just as many people without a law, that says it's againzt the law, then why have any laws?"
Sorry I messed up. This is waht I meant.
Otherwise what value is there in love? In the kind of love which willingly and even gladly lays one's life down for another?
Ted, dare I suggest that you are falling into the trap of "personal incredulity"? You seem to be saying that these things couldn't exist without a God.
The problem is, as far as I see it, a tautology; a cyclic argument. Hence: It's written in the bible so it must be true; it's true because it was written in the bible".
We can read what a man (or men) wrote down at the time. They may SAY they are writing down the word or God, but we have only their word for it. There is no way on independently verifying their assertions.
Lorenzo: my hunch is that many couples will prefer not to select the sex of their child, even if they have the opportunity to do so (at least in western cultures). How often do you hear "I don't mind if it's a boy or a girl, so long as it's healthy". Which makes me speculate that genetic screening will gain in popularity. The logical conclusion is that certain hereditable diseases will fizzle out, in a similar way that smallpox has.
Wow, just look at all these rabbit trails!
IVF as a means to help people who are having difficulty conceiving seems like an act of compassion. But as a way to control gender or other features, it gives me the creeps.
I remember silently resenting those comments when we were expecting, and someone would ask if I wanted a boy or girl. I would answer, "Yes." They chuckle and then say something like, "Well, as long as it comes out healthy."
I found that annoying, because I would love my child just as much, whether they were destined to become Olympians, astronauts, or victims of Downs Syndrome. Or even worse... plain o'l regular, ordinary people.
As it turns out, they look kind of cute, like their mother, and they have an odd sense of humor, but I don't know where that comes from.
Can Ted, Donsands and Craver let me know what Christian Americans think about the right to carry guns?
I don't know Don's position on this, but it's almost guaranteed that Ted and I will be on opposite ends of the spectrum.
According to the 2nd Amendment, it is our constitutional right. That provision is not for sport, it is for the people to defend themselves from a tyrannical government... it is arming citizens with the potential to kill people.
Once upon a time, regular citizens were expected to have a weapon, and assist the sheriff if called upon. Now, we pay LOTS of money for professional law enforcement to do it all themselves. Neither extreme is perfect; they are both far from ideal.
Personally, I will never own a gun. It has nothing to do with my rights or fear of safety. It is only because my wife is terrified of them, and wouldn't feel safe if I had firearms in the house. And she's more important to me than my right to bear arms.
>But as a way to control gender or other features, it gives me the creeps.
Just to cheer you up Craver Vii, we probably alreadt have the technology to clone humans. Insert a human blastocyst into a sheep's uterus, and there you are. Just imagine a cloned army of warriors, all perfectly genetically engineered, identical, perfectly created for their function.
Believe me, it will happen. But preferably not in our generation.
So, Halfmom has another century of comments :-)
Llama,
It is fine for law-abiding citizens to own a gun. Crooks, scoundrels, and hoods should never be given the right to own guns.
Good guys can have guns.
Bad guys can't.
Guns don't murder, people do.
I don't own a gun now. I did own a 12 gauge pump shotgun, and did a bit of Dove hunting a while back.
Craver's words are excellent about the Constitutional rights of having guns. there was a time when the government encouraged the ownership of guns.
Please don't think I'm gun-crazy or that I would be comfortable with the idea of taking another person's life. But if I had to defend my home, I think it is allowable. When translating the ten commandments, we should read, "Thou shalt not murder," it is a weak translation that says "Thou shalt not kill," because shortly afterward, God tells his people when to use capital punishment, and leads them into war.
About gun laws: Gun laws affect law abiding citizens more than criminals. (laughing) ...if the bad guys respected the law, they wouldn't be bad guys!
If a bad guy is afraid to break into somebody's home for fear of getting a butt-full of buckshot, that ain't entirely a bad thing.
Lorenzo and the rest on guns,
How about this article from John Piper?
Guns and Martyrdom
June 29, 2008 | By: John Piper
Category: Commentary
What do the supreme court ruling on guns and the martyrdom of missionaries have to do with each other?
Noël and I watched Beyond Gates of Splendor, the documentary version of End of the Spear, the story of the martyrdom of Jim Elliot, Peter Fleming, Ed McCully, Roger Youderian, and Nate Saint in Ecuador in 1956. That same day we heard that the Supreme Court decided in favor of the right of Americans to keep firearms at home for self-defense.
Here’s the connection. The missionaries had guns when they were speared to death. One of them shot the gun into the air, it appears, as he was killed, rather than shooting the natives. They had agreed to do this. The reason was simple and staggeringly Christlike:
The natives are not ready for heaven. We are.
I suspect the same could be said for almost anyone who breaks into my house. There are other reasons why I have never owned a firearm and do not have one in my house. But that reason moves me deeply. I hope you don’t use your economic stimulus check to buy a gun. Better to find some missionaries like this and support them.
Maalie,
Your point about personal incredulity can work both ways.
Yes. My statement is a faith statement. But I believe it has verification beyond just itself. Both in external, objective ways and in internal, subjective ways. I would challenge you to consider N.T. Wright's work on the resurrection of Jesus. Apart from Jesus I'd abandon the Bible. But because of Jesus the Bible comes together for me as a book that coheres and speaks a message of real, lasting hope in the kingdom of God come and the new creation in Jesus, that can make all things new. Even us old(er) ones.
I should say, that can make all things new in Jesus. And in the end through judgment and grace, will.
Don,
I am for Roe v Wade being overturned, but I am not convinced that it will do much good. Even a majority in Texas believed abortions should still be kept legal. That would be the next step, to let the states decide for themselves whether they'd keep it legal. I hope and pray for a change of heart in the new administration on that.
The only thing I see legislatively that can make a difference, really, is something like the 95/10 Initiative I've mentioned before.
....and there needs to be a change of heart, obviously, in our nation on this.
So you really feel that someone who breaks into your house is justification for killing them?
I can understand self-defence, but the odd burglar who thinks he might help himself to some food in your kitchen or some other trivial object? Just because it is your right to have a gun?
If you shoot first and ask questions afterwards you will never know what prompted the thief. Of course it is outrageous to have your flat burgled, but the death penalty?
Lorenzo,
In my case I don't think killing as you state here is justifiable. And there has been at least one study that suggests that a gun in the house is dangerous in more ways than one.
Some sort of defense, yes. Plenty of wisdom, probably even more, yes.
(If I get into all these "side" issues, like the death penalty on this blog, I'll be spending half the day here!)
"Obama is the only Senator who voted against The Born Alive Act, which would keep a child who was aborted, and not killed alive." -Don
Wow! This says a lot about Obama — none too flattering.
...I tell you though, as much as I hate abortion, it pains me to think that a woman who has suffered and been violated through rape should have to give birth to the rapist's child. It is not fair to her one bit. She's a victim, but then again, it's not fair to the child either, who is also just as much a victim. This is all the ugly affects of sin. There is no good answer; nothing pretty about it.
...Now if that same victim of rape would have the right by law to cut off the rapist's testicles and then give birth to the child, I would be all for that! I’m not kidding.
...This reminds me of the Iranian woman in the news recently who had acid poured into her eyes (by I believe her husband). Under Sharia Law the judge has let her decide the penalty to be inflicted on the man. She wants his eyes burned out with acid! ...I'm okay with that. Sounds like the exact thing he deserves.
PS: Lorenzo, I have three pistols (though they are at my dad’s house since I can’t bring any to Nepal with me). It was our fear of the mighty British Empire that made us Americans bear arms to begin with! :)
For Ted & Lorenzo,
The thief on the cross admitted that he deserved to die for his thievery. Jesus did not rebuke him for saying he deserved to die for his theft, but He welcomed him into paradise for his faith. (Luke 23:40-43) This text at least seems to elude that the crime of theft is worthy of death.
Also, in one of His parables, Jesus says "If the good man of the house had known what hour the thief would come he surely would not have allowed his house to be broken into." (Matt. 24:43; Luke 12:39)
This text seems to indicate that it is okay to do what is necessary to keep even your possessions from being stolen — not to mention to protect your family.
Jim Elliot is a hero to our faith. I love his love for the Gospel. And they went to this tribe, the tribe wasn't breaking into their homes.
If someone breaks into my home, and my wife and grandson are sleeping, and i hear someone, and find them in my home, then I will shot and ask questions later. If the person was outside my house, breaking in, then I wouldn't shot him.
It would kill anyone who tried to harm my wife and family.
If it was just me in the mission field, I would be different, I think. Hopefully like Jim Elliot.
> This text at least seems to elude
and
> This text seems to indicate
Oh yes, here we go again, seems, seems, seems, seems...
It's all a matter of personal interpretation, isn't it? The bible can mean anything you want it to!
You would think that a truly omnipotent omniscient God would choose a style that was unambiguous to all, wouldn't you?
But mostly, if he really loved everybody, you would think he would make sure that everyone had access to the bible and not allow his most of his flock to be born into cultures that never see the bible.
Every culture has their own creation mythology.
Donsands, how do you know they were about the harm your wife and children? If you shoot first you will never know.
Thank the Lord it is illegal to carry guns here. It doesn't stop criminals carry them, but there again, it is only criminals that feel a need to have them.
Maalie "I can accept that he was a good man, led an exemplary life and was a superb role model." How can you think this when he claimed he was God and the only true way to the Father? I would think that you would rather consider him to be a schizophrenic. That's the normal scientific diagnosis for someone who considers themselves to be God. I am glad that you have spring-like weather. We have snow, Craver and I do, and it may have reached Ted by now as well as he is east of us. See question/comment to Lorenzo below - but do you have bird hunters to deal with/avoid when you go birding?
Lorenzo my love "I suppose it all depends on what you believe original sin to be.
Personally I believe it is the capability of each and every one of us to murder, to push Jews into gas chambers, to cry 'Crucify' etc. etc." Truer words were never spoken. It certainly is in each of us to cry crucify - and that propensity is most certainly from being born in that fallen state we refer to as "original sin". Is it really illegal for Brits to carry guns? What do hunters do? Are there hunters? I love (or did when I was younger) to shoot for target practice but I don't think I could ever shoot at anything - maybe someone if they were trying to harm one of my children or someone elses children, but I'd have to be pretty sure it really was that. I think I'd be more likely to go into a mad rage and start hitting and kicking! That would seem to fit my personality better!
The rest of you (who seem to be being very civil to one another through various difficult topics so I'm quite impressed!!) a health update is coming shortly.
Maalie,
The difference between the Ancient Near East creation myths and the account in Genesis might be portrayed well by this analogy.
The ANE creation myths are like parents telling their young child that a stork is going to bring them a baby sister or brother.
The Genesis account is more like the parents telling their young child who wants to know where the baby is coming from, that the daddy planted a seed in the mommy and from that will come the baby (from a commenter over at "Jesus Creed"). Or I might put it, and have heard this from some place myself, From Daddy and Mommy's love for each other will come this little baby, and as a gift from God.
The Genesis account makes God separate from creation, and dignifies humanity in it. While also showing God's closeness to creation. And also our essential oneness with creation- from dust- yet being dignified as the part of creation made in God's image.
Genesis is about that, and no more, but no less- I take it. And speaks powerfully to this day. (of course other details can be gained from looking at the text, but written in terms for the people of that day, yet in terms that speak to every era)
As to the unreached, Susan has addressed that in a way that is interesting and feasible in my book. We just don't know everything.
So scientists need to be humble as well when it comes to the metaphysical. They can express their faith, but with humility I would hope. And actually I think you do. Dogma is not relegated to religion, I'm afraid.
I believe God has revealed what God has revealed, but there are hidden things no human being knows. But that's my take, Maalie. But not just mine, but a multitude who like Jim Elliot and others would by grace lay down our lives, and want to do so each and every day in following, really following Jesus.
>How can you think this when he claimed he was God and the only true way to the Father?
How do we know he claimed that? All we know is that he was reported to say that by whoever wrote that particular bit of the bible. That is exactly what you would predict to be said if his band of cult followers were determined the maintain the continuing influence of their cult hero. As I have said before, fabulous marketing!
Yes Susan, it is illegal to carry a gun in Britain unless you are a special policeman (armed service). Shotguns are allowed for hunting (birds, deer etc.) but only under police licence. All handguns are now illegal. A few years ago a mental patient entered a school in Dunblane in Scotland and let go with his gun and murdered many little children and some teachers. Since then the already quite strict laws on guns, were tightened even more. It is refreshing to walk down the street and chat to policeman and know there are no guns on them.
Only special police, as I said, are allowed to carry guns, and then only if they are actually out on a job. Even so, there have been mistaken killings, most recently a young Brazillian lad who was mistaken for a terrorist.
The police who patrol airports also carry guns, but that is because they are high risk terrorist targets.
Love Lorenzo.
"Donsands, how do you know they were about the harm your wife and children? If you shoot first you will never know."
I don't know. And if someone is going to break into my house, they aren't going to have an audience with me.
I love my wife and children too much to allow someone to intrude upon my private home and indanger them.
I live just outside Baltimore Maryland, and it is a very violent city, and suburb.
"..the homicide rate in Baltimore is nearly seven times the national rate, six times the rate of New York City, and three times the rate of Los Angeles."
So Llama, I will protect my loved ones. I don't hate anyone, and I pray for my state, Baltimore, and community. Yet if the scoundrels of my city find their way into my house, then I wouls surely shoot to kill, because I love my wife and children much more than a suspect, who likes to break inot private residences.
In England you are allowed to use "reasonable force" to deter intruders. A farmer shot an intruder and he was tried in the courts and found guilty of murder because the force he used was considered "unreasonable" against an unarmed intruder. Lorenzo is right.
What is "reasonable" is open to much argument. My 'ex' claimed that my "boyish enthusiasm" was unreasonable behaviour and successfully sued for divorce on those grounds.
I don't hate anyone, and I pray for my state, Baltimore, and community.
Donsands, Don't you think it might be worth you while to consider something a little more practical than praying? It might actually be more effective. I mean, God, in his omniscience, has already decided what is going to happen. Praying won't change anything, will it?
"the odd burglar who thinks he might help himself to some food in your kitchen or some other trivial object?"
I suppose if someone snuck into my house looking for what they could steal, they might actually change their minds and leave a donation for the needier (us). ;-)
Anyhoo, if we're talking about law, I prefer that it give the homeowner the benefit of the doubt. It is wrong to put a father in the position where he has to choose between having his daughter violated or serving jail time.
A stalker tried to break into my home twice. He was after my oldest daughter, who was 17 at the time. He never made it inside, because we put nails in the window frame, so they wouldn't slide all the way up. We were all home, and in bed both times. We called the police, and they caught him, and slapped him on the wrists, because he almost did a bad thing. I doubt he learned his lesson. What if there was a fire in our house, and our burglar-proof windows caused the loss of life in my own family?! I spoke to the police, and they said that if he got inside, I could go at him with no legal trouble. If I hit him, and he fell outside, I couldn't touch him anymore. That is all well, and good, but if the guy has a knife, should I fight fair? Please! A bullet through the bad guy's knee cap is more right than the terror my daughter would have gone through that night and for the rest of her life.
Having said that, just because I wish I had a gun, doesn't mean that it would be "the only tool in my toolbox." I still have the ability to stave off harm in many other ways. And if you knew my wife and me, you'd know that if we had a chance, we'd be more likely to try to help a drug addict or desperate burglar get his life in order, and serve him through a program like our food and clothing pantry.
> we'd be more likely to try to help a drug addict or desperate burglar get his life in order, and serve him through a program like our food and clothing pantry.
Brilliant! Much more practical than praying for them and, you know what? You don't even have to invoke the supernatural to do that!
Oh well said Maalie!
I am afraid I will never be convinced that it is right and proper to shoot people. I know I would HATE anyone coming in my house without my permission but I wouldn't dream of killing anyone.
Like Susan, if anyone threatened my children I would let fly with fists, teeth and feet, especially around the vulnerable area!
It is also illegal here to carry an 'offensive' weapon. That includes knives as well as guns, and although some people do carry knives, they are gangsters and criminals.
"Praying won't change anything, will it?"
Absolutely it does. It's a humble thing to pray, and ask the Lord to bless and undertake.
[And it goes without saying that I need to use the God given abilities I have as well. I'm not saying I pray and then sit on my hands.]
It's not so much the prayer though. It's the graciousness of the Lord, and His answering the prayer where the power happens and genuine change take place. And even greater changes at times then the eye can see.
Humans can surely endeavor to do worth wild things, and they can achieve much in this world. But what is their purpose and motive for doing what they do?
What will be the fruit of their work when they are dead and gone?
A million years from now, will it even matter what they accomplished?
Jesus says, "All that we do for Him will have eternal rewards." And so a million, and a million times million years from now, we will be blessed.
Whatever we do for the Lord is never in vain. What we do in this life without the Lord, may certainly be helpful, and may help another, but if it done for our own ego, then we have our reward.
Have a restful and joyful weekend I pray to the Lord.
> Jesus says, "All that we do for Him will have eternal rewards."
Jesus is reported, by the bible writers, to have said that. We have absolutely no idea what anybody actually said. Only what is reported.
But my point is still not answered. If an omnipotent God knows from the start of time what is going to happen, what is the point of praying? Are you expecting him to change hos mind? And if he does, he knew he was going to anyway, so there is still no point in praying!
"If an omnipotent God knows from the start of time what is going to happen, what is the point of praying?"
He is infinite in wisdom. He is eternal. Omnipotent as you say, and He is all-knowing.
This all brings me great comfort.
But, I am at the same time living my life out in a genuine relationship with this eternal God. He meets His creatures and enjoys to have us talk with Him. Surely he will have His way, but it's still a dialog with Jesus Christ the One who has "all authority and power in heaven and earth". Another statement of Jesus' in the Bible.
I don't know why the Sovereign Lord tells us to bring our requests before Him if he is going to perform His will anyway. It is not my job to judge Him or discern His reasons. I pray, because he asked me to. That is all the reason I need.
And invoking the Supernatural is what motivates and empowers a handfull of people at my church to pour so much effort into the food and clothing ministry. Between 45 and 70 families (not from our church) get free groceries every week. They get free clothes. Do you have any idea what a chore it is, to work with all those clothes?! They also have a health clinic where people who don't have health insurance can come and receive care by real doctors and nurses who volunteer their time and resources. The church is taking care of people who have been neglected by friends and family. All of this because of the Holy Spirit and bathed in prayer.
Llama, you never know what an unfamiliar opponent is capable of. It is not too difficult for one person to overpower another. I could hold a perpetrator in place with a loaded gun and force him to wait until the police arrives. If he has any sense, I could do it without having to fire off any shots. Could you do that with your empty fist?
It's fine that you honor the law of your land. I honor the law of mine. As long as firearms are in the hands of evildoers, they should not be banned from the hands of righteous, law-abiding citizens.
I have to agree with John Piper on handguns, myself, while respecting what all the rest of you say here.
As to God answering prayer, there is surely mystery here. But God's word in James tell us that we do not have because we do not ask God (Jas 4). That, and many other passages do seem to indicate that prayer and faith DO make a difference as to what happens, or doesn't happen. Not that our prayers are always answered in just the way we ask them to be.
I don't believe God predetermines everything. What I do or don't do does make a difference in my life and in the lives of others. Whether I pray or don't does as well, of course affecting me in my relationship with God and others, but also by faith seeing God really begin to answer. How many times has each one of us in Jesus here seen that happen? Too many times to tell, probably, because I'm all too good at forgetting all the good God does in answer to my prayers, poor as they may be (or helped along by the Spirit).
Just my thoughts here. Good conversation. Lively, but I think constructive.
>And invoking the Supernatural is what motivates and empowers a handfull of people at my church to pour so much effort into the food and clothing ministry.
Very good indeed, I admire their work. But, I say, there is no need to invoke the supernatural. It can be done without. There are millions of good people all over the world who do that sort of charitable work without delusion about some sort of notional reward in heaven!
>How many times has each one of us in Jesus here seen that happen?
Of course you have "seen" it happen! It is called a self-fulfilling prophesy! The brain remembers the things it wants to and can interpret any sort of "sign" that a prayer has been answered. Ted, you may understand more when you have read Dawkin's book that you have ordered. I beg you to read it with an open mind. Most fundamentalists I know have read it just so they can say they have read it, but they decided from the very first word that they weren't going to accept it.
>He is infinite in wisdom. He is eternal. Omnipotent as you say, and He is all-knowing.
Then he already knows what the outcome of everyone's life is going to be, whether you pray or not.
>I pray, because he asked me to. That is all the reason I need.
Of course the men who wrote the bible asked you to do that. That is exactly what you would predict they would write if they wanted to perpetrate the "Jesus cult" after his death! As Lorenzo says, it is a form of brainwashing.
Incredibly successful marketing, preying (not praying LOL!) on man's inherent superstitions!
Maalie,
I'm just now beginning to listen to Dawkins and his wife read "The God Delusion" and am actually enjoying it. They come across as evangelists, indeed the book itself does. 14 hours, and I'll keep listening.
Well done Ted! Keep going!
I look forward to discussing it with you!
Though it might have to wait a little while, I'm off to Europe for a well-earned holiday tomorrow!
Lorenzo, Ted et all,
Ted, I know you are a pacifist, but I'm wondering how far you take your pacifist beliefs. Would you kill if necessary to protect your wife, children and other innocents? Same question to Lorenzo.
I actually believe to be a pacifist is a sin in some circumstances. I agree with especially Don on this one. And it is not just people coming in your house. What if a mob of people are coming down your street to rape and kill women and children? It happens in Nepal and especially in India (it has happened in Orissa, India several times in 2008). The movie "Slumdog Millionaire" is a great look into what really happens here and in India. Mobs do come and club people in the head to death (as in the death of a mom in that movie). People actually do burn out the eyes of little children here and in India to make them more profitable as beggars (just like the little girl in that movie). It is a fact. So I ask you, how far will you let your pacifist beliefs go??
Would you do anything, and I mean anything (kill and be killed) to keep your wife, children and other innocents from being raped, forcefully enslaved into prostitution or murdered?? We have about 10,000 teenage Nepali girls forcefully trafficked from Nepal to India every year and forced into prostitution. If I could prevent that from happening to just one girl by killing those who are stealing them away, I wouldn't hesitate to do it, if that would stop it from happening. And when an angry mob running down your road, out for sex and blood, are at your doorstep or the door step of your neighbor, everything, including killing, should be done to protect the helpless.
I’m sure you’re aware of the text where Paul says, “The one who does not provide for his family is worse than an infidel.” I’m quite sure providing for one’s family means more than just putting food in their mouths and a roof over their heads. It also means protecting one’s family from harm. Therefore, at least in the situation I presented above, I believe it would be sin to remain passive and not protect the innocent. This is real life, today-stuff I’m talking about. I can’t count on both my hands how many revenge-filled angry mobs I’ve witnessed. Of course, if it is possible to retreat to protect your wife, kids and others’ children by all means do that. But often, in Orissa at least, that is not possible. So to be passive means sitting back and watching as your wife and daughter and other peoples’ daughters are raped in the open street and then butchered. That’s a time to take action, to kill, not to be passive.
"Then he already knows what the outcome of everyone's life is going to be, whether you pray or not."
If He didn't, then He wouldn't be the Creator of all the universe, and eternal, which He is.
And yet this perfect Creator, who by His breath created the trillions of galaxies, desires for us to relate to Him, to come to Him, and to make requests and supplications.
I am His child, and I know He is eternal, and knows the begining from the end, and in fact ordains the begining from the end. Nevertheless, I pray with great desire and longing in my prayers for the Lord to do things for my family, friends, community, and the world at large, knowing that He will accomplish all he purposes to. And yet the mystery is that I am part of the process. The Lord ordained my prayer, and He used my prayer, and He was pleased with my coming to Him, and intreating Him, and worshipping Him as my God, my Lord, and my Savior.
Have a safe holiday.
I don't know what I would do, or how far I would go to protect those I love. Sacrifice my life, yes; I don't think that is a question. Be willing to sacrifice someone else's life - that I do not know. I suppose it would depend on the circumstances and those I could not know until I was in them. I do not necessarily disagree with what you are saying Triston and I would be glad to have men to protect me in that fashion. I guess I am just overwhelmingly glad that God has not put me in a culture where that is the situation I have to face.
Maalie what is it you keep doing to earn those "well-earned holidays?" I'd like to find out so I can do so as well. You have way more fun than I do! I also was thinking about your cult questions. A defense team would love you on an American jury. Here one eye-witness is considered enough if he is credible. Three eye-witnesses would be overwhelming. Credibility - what did they have to gain for lying? What did they gain? They gained nothing of earthly treasure and ended up beaten, harassed, chased out and dead. That would seem to strengthen the their testimony as eye-witnesses, that we can see of no possible other gain for making up half or untruths. Personal incredulity you will say - yes, I am incredulous that you can be presented with so much evidence of someone's life and turn away.
LOL! Well if I go for a couple of weeks without a holiday, then I consider that I have earned one!
As a matter of fact, this is the busy time of year for my ornithological fieldwork (before dawn until after dusk stuff) but I know that is self-inflicted!
> I am incredulous that you can be presented with so much evidence of someone's life and turn away.
But it isn't independently verifiable evidence, in the same way that scientific evidence is. Even though a bible writer might say that so many people saw Jesus walk away from the grave, we only have one person's word for it - one testimony (the bible writer). All the others are not available for independent verification.
As to why they might write these things, well your guess is as good as mine. But Jesus was obviously a rather charismatic and influential character. After all, the promise of everlasting life in paradise would be quite a bribe, as indeed it still is to many today.
Pretty good marketing, wouldn't you agree?
>I guess I am just overwhelmingly glad that God has not put me in a culture where that is the situation I have to face.
Of course, one wonders why an almighty everlasting all-merciful heavenly father would want to throw anybody into such cultures. If you can only reach God through Jesus (as somebody above said), why on earth has God denied all these cultures the opportunity to know him? A child born into an Islam family (for example) or in the mountains of China, or the Massai tribes of Africa, or the Aboriginal nomads of Australia, are all presumably doomed to swim in the eternal lake of fire (I quote Bluecollar) because God decided in his infinite wisdom that he would deny these people the opportunity of having access to the bible.
There are over a billion people in the world attempting to exist on less than a dollar a day. Fat chance of them ever picking up a bible and learning about Jesus.
141 comments! Wow I will join the bottom of the que!
I hope you are well Suzie woozie!
Have a great week!
Love Martin
As I have said before Maalie, we are clearly told in scripture that God has revealed himself through creation and has written His law into the hearts of mankind, whether they choose to acknowledge it or not. He did not leave any without the hope of the Gospel.
I do not pretend to understand the ways of God, but I do know that He is just and righteous, merciful and gracious, all at the same time. Always there are paradoxes, life through death, loose to gain, the first will be last, wisdom given not to the bright but to the humble. This principle is seen even in His provision of His Son to make payment for our sin - His life for ours.
What God allows is His business and generally far higher than I can understand, even when He reveals a little of His overall plan to me. I question it frequently, and frequently I do not understand, but I know that He is always good and always consistent. How that functions is another apparent paradox that I do not understand, but I know that He does not function outside His character and His character is true and loving and He has already shown that He would sacrifice His only Son for our sakes. I do not need for it to be "independently verifiable evidence" as you say, for it is a matter of faith - and not of blind faith, but faith based on substance, on God's character as revealed in Scripture.
The God I know and serve says that He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should have eternal life. He also says that He will never turn away those who come.
> He also says that He will never turn away those who come.
But I will never be able to make any progress here until somebody tells me why, in his act of omnipotent creation, that God has programmed into his world the certain fact that the majority of mankind cannot come to him because he has ensured that they can never do so by being born into cultures that have no access to the literature (the bible) by which they will have the means to know him.
A genuinely almighty father would not be so cruelly discriminating.
>on God's character as revealed in Scripture.
As it is reported in the scripture by the man/men who wrote it.
"..being born into cultures that have no access to the literature (the bible) by which they will have the means to know him."
"God who made the wordl and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. ....He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the bounderies of their dwellings, SO THAT they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and have our being". Acts 17:24-27
God owes no man, woman or child salvation. He owes us all judgment. Yet He is merciful, and He shows mercy.
Why does He show mercy to rebels, who are guilty, and who need to pay for their sin? And the mercy is, as Susan has stated, "His life for ours".
Do I understand fully what the words of Paul mean, written here by Dr. Luke his companion? The book of Acts is a marvelous book BTW, written by a well educated Gentile physician. He was a "highly trained man".
As Susan also noted, there are paradoxes in the Word of God. There are mysteries, and even secret things, that we as finite creatures will struggle with, and perhaps never know this side of heaven.
There are tons of things we can know, but God is infinite, we are not. God always was, we were created. God never had a begining. We had a begining.
It's been quite good to discuss all the things we have. Once again, have a safe and restful holiday.
I concur fully with all Susan and Don say here.
Ted
And well said, Don.
As to your thought Little Luther, it's a good thought shared by many Christians.
I would do everything I could, short of killing to stop someone from harming my family. I certainly would try to put them out of commission without killing them.
Thanks for the kind words, Ted. After I posted my comments I was afraid they might have seemed an attack on you. That wasn't my intent brother. I believe there is freedom for both of our positions on this issue from Scripture. I am actually quite happy with your comment; you seem like an "aggressive pacifist" to me, in doing what you would to protect your family. Wonderful!
My comments and convictions are based mainly on the myriad of injustices and flatout evil I have had the misfortune of witnessing here in Nepal as well as in India and in Pakistan, too. I've seen little children that were purposely caught on fire, but not to kill them; to make them horrifying looking so they could make money begging. I’ve seen a child whose nose was literally burned off from fire and his face did not look human. I’ve seen children whose limbs were purposely tied in awkward positions from birth to cripple them (again to make them more pitiful & profitable beggars). I've heard countless firsthand tales of abduction and rape. I can't stomach anymore of it to be honest. It is hard to keep back the tears right now as I write this. I am so sick of the atrocities I've had the misfortune of seeing. I can't get some of these childrens' faces out of my mind. I can't get the thousands of Nepalese girls out of my mind. Do you know there are close to 200,000 Nepalese girls in Indian brothels right now? Nothing is being done about it by either governement. Slick Indians have gone into so many remote Nepalese villages and tricked parents (who barely have enough money to feed their kids) telling them that they have a good job for their daughters and here's an advanced payment. And then those innocent girls end up being raped 20 times a day for change—for the cost of a cheese burger. Then a few years later they are tossed away like trash and new victims take their place. Nepalese girls are picked because 1. They're easier prey and 2. Their skin is whiter (more attractive to the Indians). There are more than a billion people in India. You can’t imagine the endless line of evil men going to these brothels. I am so sickened by it all. I can't bear anymore of the injustices. If it were up to me I would call a whole bunch of fire down from Heaven on them! But thankfully for them (and for me!) God is infinitely more merciful than me.
...But if I sound like I’m too ready to kill, it is because I have seen too many crimes\ victims where the perpetrators would be better off dead, and the world would be a better place without them.
Donsands, instead of answering my question, you just throw the bible at me and hide behind words like "mystery".
The bible was written by men for men using the best knowledge and understanding available at the time. As you have indicated yourself ("Jesus didn't mean 'this', he meant 'that'...")it can mean anything you want it to, it is sufficiently vague, inaccurate, ambiguous and "mysterious"!
Well, I call it delusion. There is no way out from the fact that God does not love ALL mankind if he, deliberately and sovereignly, designed a world in which he prescribed that a majority of mankind were to be born into cultures that would never see a bible and will thereby never come to know Jesus.
Anyway, thanks for your good wishes, I reciprocate to you all, I'm off to catch a plane!
Triston,
I took no line or thought at all from you to be offensive at all.
It's a hard question and the whole matter of what a follower of Christ should do, how they should live, is difficult for me in regard to this.
Yes, enlist and go to a war, where you might end up killing another who is either not a Christian, or a fellow sister or brother in Jesus. In light of what we read in the new covenant (New Testament) is that really following Christ? Yet I'm part of a church in which most would say it can be. And I respect that.
But what you describe is horrific. Sorry to hear of it! Completely sad and devastating. A tragedy. What can break the cycle of violence really, except for the love of God demonstrated in Christ? Love is what is needed, forgiveness, some sort of reconciliation. And with that there needs to be some sort of restorative justice in the system, not just retributive justice, all too characteristic of the justice we have in the States.
We're quite shielded. And there's no doubt that God uses states, governments, and even calls them to account for their actions, even saying that they bear not the sword in vain.
So maybe the best answer would not say that a Christian can't serve in such a "state" capacity. But that what should characterize our lives is returning good for evil, living at peace-in so far as that is possible- with everyone.
I'm not around any here I'm aware of (hardly any except maybe two ladies at work) who hold to a pacifist stance. So it is harder to keep. The passages in Revelation of God's judgment on evil are needed, contrary to how some Mennonites approach them (evidently, from what I've read). And none must forget just how horrible war is. It should, if fought at all, be a last resort, really last.
Just some of my small thoughts on it.
Let me add to that, that Professor Byard Bennett, a brother at our church told me that by the Christian just war criteria, no war could be fought today. And I believe it. It's impossible to have a war today without putting civilians in harm's way.
A thought for you Christians that condone killing. Try remembering what Jesus said about 'an eye for an eye'. Can you see him killing? He allowed his own death rather than strike a blow.
And it is not 'thou shalt not murder'. It is 'thou shalt not kill'.
Here's an interesting post in considering what Paul would/should have done as a Roman citizen in regard to war.
Lorenzo,
That has to mean murder, as killing was not prohibited in Old Testament times, at least. Though the goal of the kingdom of God as declared in the old testament prophets is shalom, a time when all nations and peoples will turn their weapons of war into instruments for agriculture, and humankind will not learn war anymore.
Ted, the Law says 'thou shalt not kill'.
I've been accused of cherry picking which bits I believe etc. but on this one, the Law is quite clear. Do not kill.
Even Anabaptists, Lorenzo, make the distinction here, which I noted. All Christian pacifists do. This is not a disputed point among them.
Otherwise God's Law given to Israel would plainly contradict itself, since God mandates captital punishment for certain offenses of the old covenant people, in that theocracy (hurried here)
...and God commanded Israel to exterminate the Canaanites, as this was God's judgment, their iniquity being full (their sins had reached their "full measure"). (in Joshua)
Like it or not, understand that or not (I just accept it, whether I understand it, or not), that's the way it is.
"exterminate" is probably not the best choice of words, but you get the point.
On one level I do understand it. When you look at the record, God bore patiently over generations before mandating this judgment.
Cannanites sacrificed many infants in the fire to gods, and lived in ways that were hardened and steeped in sin, in turning away from the light of the Creator.
And God knew Israel needed to keep themselves separate as a people. This I take as a formative stage in God bringing them along as his special servant, and kingdom of priests and holy nation, meant to be the light to the world in pointing others to God and God's blessing of salvation, promised to their forefather Abraham - that in him and in his seed, all nations of the earth would be blessed. That seed ultimately being Christ.
...of course we all are accoutable to God for our sins.
Judgment is not popular in our culture, but in other places where the wicked run rampant, there needs to be a day of accountability.
Judgment and grace are both important in God's work in the world.
Just kind of explaining more here, before I have to get back to work.
"Donsands, instead of answering my question, you just throw the bible at me and hide behind words like "mystery"."
No, I'm not hiding. And I'm surely not throwing the Bible at you. I am however going to the Bible for help.
God is eternal, and He is infinite in His wisdom. And He is a loving God.
He also is a just God, and He will punish all sinners justly.
Does God love the sinners He is going to judge, and throw into hell?
Yes, and no.
He loves them in the sense that they are created in his image, and yet they are at the same time children of wrath, as we all are (Ephesians 2).
Mankind is guilty. We are all children of God's wrath, and He could actually judge us all, and throw us all into hell, and we would deserve it.
But God has mercy. And God does love sinners.
Thanks for letting me discuss these deep, deep things with you Maalie.
Lorenzo,
In order to really begin to understand God's love for us all in Christ, we have to begin to understand God's holiness. At the heart of the cross of Jesus is both: God's holiness that must punish sin, and God's love which provides salvation in Jesus from our sins. And into a right relationship with God and others.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, according to Scripture.
All Christianity holds to this. And remember, as James tells us, mercy triumphs over judgment. But read James. The call there is in no unmistakeable terms: that we must repent, etc. He was a pastor and he didn't give the people an easy, empty way out. But only God's way in Jesus.
(Did I lose you in all this, Lorenzo?)
I realize there was a good deal of smiting going on in the Old Testament, as well as eating kosher food, not mixing fibres etc. But, how many times have you said that 'everything changed with Jesus'?
Do you really think Jesus approved of the smiting, the killing, the stoning? Didn't he not condemn the woman caught in the act of adultery?
No one can justify killing, and the Bible is quite clear on it.
I'll answer better, I hope, when I have more time. Sorry, Lorenzo.
Lorenzo,
I had a big, long answer, and hoped it was pretty good. But not great for conversation, so I'll try to keep it short.
Yes and no, as to whether Christ approved of all the killing that occurred in the Old Testament.
Yes, everything changed when Jesus came. He fulfilled it all, so that there was no need for any of it, anymore. He took the condemnation on himself which we all richly deserve. So that we can find forgiveness and new life in him, by faith.
Part of why Jesus laid down his life was to end the strife between humans toward each other, through the peace with God which Jesus in his Person and work brings. And that is to begin in this life.
Lorenzo, you can't just base your conviction on your understanding of the English word "kill". Have you looked at the actual Hebrew word God used? Just curious.
ratsach (raw-tsakh'); a primitive root; properly, to dash in pieces, i.e. kill (a human being), especially to murder.
It is a word that is especially about murder....I, however, appreciate your thoughts on Jesus. He taught that "love" is the fulfillment of the Law. If we would all keep the greatest commandments, there would never be need to kill people. But the fact is people do not keep the greatest commandments of loving God and loving neighbor. Thus, sometimes in order to love our neighbor (the victim) it may become necessary to use the most extreme measures to protect that person from the evildoer.
Lorenzo,
Do you see what I'm telling you in my last comment?
Yes Ted, and I'm trying to digest it.
Luther: Of all the cheeky monkeys, you take the biscuit!!!!!
How many times has poor Maalie struggled with you all about ancient Aramaic words that get lost in translation, etc. etc. and there you are, pontificating about the word 'kill'. What happened to God's word and the Bible where you believe everything that is put down, including inter-continental swimming kangaroos and Maalie's famous bats?!
The trouble with fundamentalaists, and by that I include fundamental religious and fundamental athiests like Maalie, is that both sides are convinced that black is black, white is white and there are no greys.
This is how wars begin. Each side believe they are totally justified in causing mayhem, death and torture to innocent and guilty alike.
The States, with Britain colluding, is guilty of torture just as much as the more 'primitive' countries. The States, with Britain colluding, is guilty of war crimes by supplying Israel with the weapons they use, just as the countries who supply the Palestinians are also guilty of war crimes.
In this area there is no grey area. Killing is wrong.
Cheeky monkey? Thanks Lorenzo, I think.
I'm with you. I'm also against much (perhaps even most) of what the US does abroad militarily. I wish we would stop trying to police the world and stop starting\fighting in so many wars.
Hi Lorenzo,
Don't you believe there are blacks and whites, and on the other hands, grays? I do, and I think everyone here does as well.
There are some things we are uncertain about. And at times we don't know what to do. I believe God has given us the Bible in such a way that it's more than an answer Book. Yes, it has answers to life's deepest questions, I believe, like "Why am I here? Why are we here?" "What is life all about?"
But I believe the Bible is also given to help us see how God worked in people's lives, and how God wants to work in our own lives. And in that there is usually plenty of not knowing, and not knowing what to do but learning to trust God. You see that over and over again in Scripture.
So I think there are "blacks and whites" like in what is true and is not true, what is right or wrong. And I think, while there are things we can know, there are also plenty of things we don't know, nor necessarily ever will, at least not in this life (God never really answers Job's questions, yet gives Job a new understanding and appreciation of who God is, and who Job is.)
You're right Ted. It's one of the reasons it doesn't bother me that we can't "prove" everything about God or creation "scientifically" - where then would be the faith?
"The righteous shall live by faith."
In my experience, the people who are most horrified about animals being killed, pleading for human rights and for "toleration", are the same people who, quite contrarily, are for a woman's right to choose to murder her unborn baby. But this does not appear to be so in the case of Lorenzo.
Why thank you kind Luther!
Of course women have rights, but so does a baby.
Post a Comment