Evangelical landslide for McCain
Barna has analyzed the vote breakdown for president and determined a whopping 88% of evangelicals voted for McCain and only 11% for Obama.
Barna determined evangelicals not by whether they said they were evangelical but by how they responded to 9 questions.
Have you ever wondered exactly what an evangelical is? Here were the criteria to qualify as an evangelical, according to Barna:
“Born again Christians” are defined as people who said they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today and who also indicated they believe that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. Respondents are not asked to describe themselves as “born again.”
“Evangelicals” meet the born again criteria (described above) plus 7 other conditions….
Those include saying their faith is very important in their life today; believing they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians; believing that Satan exists; believing that eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works; believing that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; asserting that the Bible is accurate in all that it teaches; and describing God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today. Being classified as an evangelical is not dependent upon church attendance or the denominational affiliation of the church attended. Respondents were not asked to describe themselves as “evangelical.”
I’m an evangelical, in addition believing Jesus calls us to be baptized by immersion as an act of obedience.
There was other great info in the Barna piece such as that Wiccan supporters favored Obama 64% to 35%.
[HT: Bill Berkowitz]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Based on that definition of Evangelical, I would wear their lack of support as a badge of honor.
Hal, you would wear bloody, mangled late-term aborted fetus as a badge of honor, if you could resist eating it.
Good point
Thanks THE LORD for Evangelicals! Shame on us Catholics… what was it, something like 54% of Catholics voted for Obama? My goodness, if it were not for the Evangelicals, I can’t even begin to imagine how much worse this country would be.
Seriously, who is the Catholic equivalent of a Jerry Falwell? Or a Billy Graham? Or any one of the other big Evangelical names that are hated by many because they stand up for what is moral? Shameful…
THIS IS GOOD NEWS JILL.
Perhaps we can help our Catholic bretheren to read the Bible more earnestly. The Word of God is the key.
How many Catholic voters are there anyway? What percentage would it have taken to swing this election?
It seems as though the church that is the most vocal about abortion is the Catholic Church, however, their members don’t seem to be getting the message.
Catholic clergy, are you getting the message? How about you return to preaching the full Gospel, the one out of the Scripture and not some ethereal and philosphical gospel? And, not the one that just seeks to avoid confrontation or may be percieved as offensive?
Would some of the Catholics out there comment on this.
PIP would be a typical example of a Catholic in total error on this and what would it have taken to help such a one as this to turn her heart to the living God?
Bobby – Fr. Newman, as well as JPII.
Bobby – How could I forget – Fr. Frank Pavone!
The pro-choicers evangelize for their deal. They sent a lot of their missionaries to SD and other relevant states.
Catholic Priests:
PROCLAIM THE WORD OF GOD!!!! STAND UP FOR YOUR SAVIOR!!!
HE IS WAITING FOR YOU TO EXERCISE YOUR FAITH!
IN THE NAME OF JESUS AND BY HIS BLOOD,
PUT ON THE HELMUT OF SALVATION,
PUT ON THE BREASTPLATE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS,
PUT ON THE GIRDLE OF TRUTH,
SHOD YOUR FEET WITH THE PREPARATION OF THE GOSPEL OF PEACE,
IN YOUR LEFT HAND TAKE THE SHIELD OF FAITH BY WHICH YOU MAY QUENCH ALL OF THE FIERY DARTS OF THE WICKED,
IN YOUR RIGHT HAND, TAKE THE SWORD OF THE SPIRIT, WHICH IS GOD’S WORD AND CUT YOURSLEF FREE FORM EVERYHTING THAT IS NOT OF GOD’S SPIRIT,
WASH YOUR MINDS IN THE BLOOD OF JESUS AND MARCH BEHIND THE BARRICADE OF THE CROSS OF CALVARY, LED BY HIS SPIRIT AND CLEANSED BY HIS BLOOD,
COMMIT YOUR SPIRITS, YOUR SOULS, AND YOUR BODIES INTO THE HANDS OF THE SAVIOR, IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER AND THE SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT…AMEN.
Jill,
JOIN THE FIGHT!!!
Help Stop Obama from taking the Whitehouse.
http://www.obamacrimes.com/
http://americamustknow.com/default.aspx
James, you’ve been warned, but you keep offending the terms of use at this site.
Looks like someone is headed for a banning.
Yeah, Fr. Pavone is a pretty good one, Chris. JPII wasn’t as “local” to the US, though. The thing is that, say, Falwell is a household name. I don’t think Fr. Pavone has risen to the national spotlight level that Falwell or others has.
So is there an Evangelical equivalent of denying communion that you Born Agains can do to alienate or punish the 11% that voted for Obama?
And just how is it significant that 64% of people with a favorable view of Wicca (not necessarily Wiccans, as Jill inaccurately states) voted for Obama? Sounds like another guilt by association attack a la Ayers, to me. Obama must be a witch, because some of them voted for him!
Wiccans prefer Obama? I suspect they had major problems with Gov Palin.
Some mealy mouthed whining about guilt by association? Cray ayers mumbled the same thing. He had the ignorance to complane about Obama and his association was guilt by association and
ignore the whole Obama campaign was guilt by association. They tried to paint President bushes deeds as bad and asscoiate Mccain with Bush. To apply guilt by association.
Now associating abortion with the holocaust is unfair in that it makes Hitler look worse than abortion. Abortion is deadlier and kills the innocent unborn.
No, no evangelical equivalent to denying communion.
Wicca, Wiccans, what’s the diff? Interesting factoid. What does it say about the candidate who gets low marks from evangelicals and high from Wiccans? Something.
What does it say about the candidate who gets low marks from evangelicals and high from Wiccans? Something.
Posted by: Jill Stanek at November 17, 2008 4:19 PM
Something good. Very good.
Hal,
What is more reasonable about the religion, or belief system or whatever they call it, of Wicca?
The Christian belief does take a huge leap of faith, that there is an all perfect, all knowing, God that is interested in us, but once that leap is taken, the rest of the religion for the most part follows a pretty decent train of logic, even though it doesnt have to, considering that if God is all perfect, logic is meaningless.
What about the belief is so vulgar that you would wear your “non-support” as a badge of honor either?
Is it because they actually keep their beliefs and do not waver on them? I suppose it is that in our world of moral relativism it is the fad to say that nothing is wrong or bad except people who think there are things that are wrong or bad. Whats wrong with keeping morals? Whats wrong with wanting to abstain from sexual acts until you are in a long term, stable relationship? What is wrong with “sticking it” with marriage and making your relationship work? Whats wrong with keeping a clean house, dressing well, and speaking eloquently? Whats wrong with having standards for ourselves and for others?
I recommend anyone here read Diamond Age by Neil Stephenson. It is a Science Fiction novel, and is a little vulgar at times, so I am sure it isnt up many of your alleys, but it paints a futuristic world that responds to the decaying morals of society by adopting the Victorian and conversely Confucian mores. It is an interesting read to me anyways from that point of view alone.
By the way, I wouldnt describe myself as evangelical, but according to this I do. There are a few questions that I might have responded as “Only God can know, but I currently believe this is true” however.
“What about the belief is so vulgar that you would wear your “non-support” as a badge of honor either?”
I’m not opposed to their morals, nor their urging sex be confined within marriage. (I disagree, but that’s why I don’t join the church) I don’t care about them calling wrong what they think is wrong. I don’t even care if they have some ideas that seem whacky to me. But, I would wear as a badge of honor any condemndation from anyone who believed this:
“…believing that Satan exists; believing that eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works; believing that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; asserting that the Bible is accurate in all that it teaches; and describing God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today”
He had the ignorance to complane
Posted by: xppc at November 17, 2008 4:17 PM
Love it! OMG, you guys are an endless source of humor and entertainment!!!
But, I would wear as a badge of honor any condemndation from anyone who believed this:
“…believing that Satan exists; believing that eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works; believing that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; asserting that the Bible is accurate in all that it teaches; and describing God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today”
Posted by: Hal at November 17, 2008 5:08 PM
____________________
Why then do you spend so much time on this blog?
Are you trying to save us? And if so from what?
A Holy and Loving God? Heaven? Freedom from sin?
What exactly are you trying to do Hal?
Let’s take that point by point. Please tell me what is so offensive about each of these:
1 – Believing that Satan exists.
What’s wrong with that? Jesus Christ told us that Satan exists. If you’re not a Christian, but believe in God and/or spiritual beings, what’s so hard to believe about a malevolent spirit? If you don’t believe in God or any spiritual entities, then why does the belief in Satan specifically bother you?
2 – Believing that eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works
Actually as a Catholic I agree with this. We Catholics don’t disagree with Paul; we just interpret him differently than Protestants do. We agree with him when he says, “By grace you have been saved by faith, not by works”. Of course it is only by the grace of God that anyone is ever saved. However, we Catholics believe that actions – ie, works – can help bring God’s graces upon ourselves and others. For example, the act of praying brings the grace of God upon us. It’s not the act of prayer that helps us, though, but rather the grace we receive from God through that act.
So if someone believes in God, I find it to be silly for them to think that salvation can come from anything other than the grace of God. By definition, how could salvation possibly come from anywhere else?
3 – Believing that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth
Now this one I don’t get at all. Any Christian theology that is worth anything will tell you that Jesus was sinless. But if you’re not Christian, and don’t even believe in sin, why do you care?
4 – Asserting that the Bible is accurate in all that it teaches
Now this here is the one thing I could see you being upset about, but only if you read Genesis literally as if it’s a Science textbook. I do not read it that way. But, even if I did, again, what difference does it make? As someone who believes that the Earth is billions of years old, not 6,000 years old, I can’t say I understand the ridiculous hatred directed at people who do believe it’s 6,000 years old. I would say that it’s really just a hatred of Christians and an attempt to “prove” their religion a fraud by challenging that one, marginally important aspect of it.
5 – Describing God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today
Again, this should be very basic theology for all who call themselves “Christian”. Every single Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant should understand this. So this should only be a problem for non-Christians who hate God and/or the concept of God.
HisMan, what exactly are you trying to do here? I’m trying to keep abortion legal. I’m trying to reduce the mindless bigotry towards gay couples. I’m trying to make my country better. I’m pleading for compassion, reason, and common sense.
I’m trying to open your eyes to several facts.
1. The people who disagree with you are not evil monsters.
2. People who support abortion rights understand what they are supporting
3. Not everyone regrets decisions to abort
4. Although I can respect your views on abortion, your views on other social issues are truly damaging to society and I won’t quietly let you post such things without voicing my disagreements.
Funny. The criteria used covers pretty much all Protestants, but weeds out the Catholics with the “faith alone” statement. However, there were probably quite a few Catholics, ignorant of their faith, who answered in the affirmative to all of the questions posed (all the non-trad Catholics I know would have), thus skewing the results by including them as “evangelicals.” Personally, I don’t understand why he wanted to make up a new definition unless he was wanting to paint with a wider brush.
I wonder into what camp the o’bama (pbuh) would have fallen if he had honestly answered Mr. Barna’s questions.
The o’bama (pbuh) considers himself to be, not just a Christian, but a ‘committed Christian’.
Where are the lasting fruits of his repentance that we might examine them. The most telling examination would be, not be how it sounds or looks, but how it tastes. And when we have collected the seeds and planted them, what do they reproduce?
I remember Frederick Douglas recounting the night his master got ‘saved’. He said he watched him closely from a distance, hoping to observe some evidence that would confirm the master had really experienced a change of heart. Douglas said he saw a single tear trace it’s way down the slave master cheek.
Douglas feared that the single tear did not bespeak of a changed life, but he hoped against hope, that his master had met the MASTER.
As Douglas had feared, the seed had fallen on hard ground for there was never any evidence that it had taken root and there was no good fruit to be had, only bad.
yor bro ken
Hal: “I don’t care about them calling wrong what they think is wrong.”
So again, the only people who are wrong are people who think things are wrong.
Surely you see the obvious hypocrisy in your statement right?
You think they are wrong, and not just wrong but so wrong that you are honored to run in opposition to them, BECAUSE they think things are wrong.
It’s WHAT they think is wrong that makes me sure I”m right.
Hal,
Okay….I dont think you understand. I guess I shouldnt be suprised.
You are upset that they think things are wrong. You are saying they are wrong for believing certain things are wrong. This is fine if it is just your personal belief, but you have to see that it is in no way logical. Essentially you are assuming that your premise is correct and that the Christian premise is not, because the two of them are incompatible. It could also be that yours is incorrect and that theirs is correct.
(In simpler terms for you…its subjective, you cant know you are right)
Regardless, what exactly do they believe that you find so incorrect?
Oliver, I understand a portion of my belief is subject.
To answer your question, everything I quoted I find incorrect.
This:
“believing that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; asserting that the Bible is accurate in all that it teaches; and describing God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today”
I see no evidence of any of those things.
“To say men and women should not inject their “personal morality” into policy debates is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of morality.”
The o’bama (pbuh) has spoken. As it is written, so it was, and is and is to come, now and forever more. The o’bama (pbuh) is NOT watching over his words to perform them. There is NO need to do so. his words are spirit and life and in them there is no death or darkness. Stand and see the salvation of o’bama (pbuh).
yor bro ken
The word of the o’bama (pbuh) will now be processed throught he transmogriphier so that mortal minds may at least be able to sniff the familiar but not quite identifiable aroma of their essence.
“To say liberal men and liberal women should not inject their “personal morality” into policy debates, to the exclusion of all others, is a practical absurdity; our liberal humanist philosophy is by definition right and correct because we say so and we will countenance no dissent.”
yor bro ken
Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
Surrender to the o’bama (pbuh).
[flashes of lightening, peals of thunder]
yor bro ken
Hal :”To answer your question, everything I quoted I find incorrect….I see no evidence of any of those things.”
Classic flaw Hal. The absence of evidence does not constitutes the evidence of absence.
In other words, you cannot claim that something is false because there is no evidence pointing to its truth. The only way to prove anything is to HAVE evidence.
Of course it requires a leap of faith to believe that there is an all powerful God, but it also takes a leap of faith to actively believe there is NO all powerful God. Both stances have the exact same level of evidence.
Actually, it is easily argued that by looking at the various religions in the world, there is more evidence pointing to the existance of a God than the other way around. Even if you proved that ALL religions are specifically created without God, all that would do is square the debate to 0 evidence on both sides.
So 100% of your view is subjective.
Amen John. Every good Catholic who knows their faith should have been described as “Evangelical” according to this survey.
I don’t believe you have to believe in Jesus as savior to get into heaven. I mean, if your parents, your grandparents, all of you ancestors were Muslim. What if all of your ancestors were good people who devoted their lives to helping others and trying to make the world a better place. What if you spend your life in good works and loving your neighbors, and respecting your Muslim culture and upbringing, would you go to hell?
I believe in Jesus, but I don’t believe you have to believe in Jesus to go to heaven, am I going to hell?
When I pray it’s usually to ask God to send me a sign, to show me what I can do to make the most out of this soul he has given me. Oh but God’s never replied yet : ( I mean I know we have the Bible but God knows how I feel about it.
Oliver, don’t you believe most of the world religions have it wrong? So do I, plus one more.
I have a major problem with the Buddhist religion. It’s not that I have a problem with Buddhists, I just disagree with there religion, probably more then any other religion.
Hey John:
What came first, the heart, the nervious system, the lungs, the vascular system, etc.? Evolutionists will tell you that this was “flash evolution”. I them ask them you mean creation? Were then these beings babies or full adults. If not adults how did the babies survive?
Did you know that there’s 60,000 miles of blood vessels in our bodies.
Do you know that the second law of thermodynamics makes evolution impossible.
Did you know that fossils exist in sedimentary rock that came about as a result of the massive and cataclysimic flood as described in the Bible? The layering occured as the sediments separated due to density spearation.
If we evolved from apes, where’s the in-between dudes? There are none because they never existed.
The only answer is spontaneous creation is a literal six days. There simply is no other way.
If not, then where’s the evidence.
As a believer, it is imperative that we answer the question of creation being a literal event, six days.
Here’s the point though.
Using science you need a:
1. Theory or idea.
2. Evidence.
3. Conclusions
The problem with evolution is there is absolutely no evidence none, nadda. They jump right from a thery to conclusions. This is totally bad science. So, let’s start with it being a very intelligent and logical conclusion that we can take Genesis literally. It actaully takes more faith to believe in the religion of evolution than the rock solid truth of Scripture.
Jess: “I don’t believe you have to believe in Jesus as savior to get into heaven. I mean, if your parents, your grandparents, all of you ancestors were Muslim. What if all of your ancestors were good people who devoted their lives to helping others and trying to make the world a better place.”
Who is to say what is a “good” work other than God? If there truly is an all perfect God, anything that runs contrary to God would obviously not be good.
It is easy to assume that “good” things result in salvation, because it seems reasonable, but there is nothing inherent in the “good” things that lead to salvation.
Do you hire an employee based on the good things they have done?
Do you marry the person who has done the most good things in their lives?
Do we give the most money to the person who does the most good deeds?
In other words, good deeds are an end unto themselves. Salvation may be linked to good deeds, but it is not necessarily the case. I personally believe it has nothing to do with salvation other than those who are saved should do good works as the Bible proclaims.
Hisman if you think about it evolution and creationism is sort of similar. I mean, evolution is about this tiny speck of dust that came from, well we don’t know where it came from, and spontaneously combusted into the solar system. Well the dumbed down version at least. No one can explain where God came from (besides saying he was always here) and just created the solar system.
Hisman I have a theory about the Garden of Eden. Since it was paradise that mean Adam and Eve would have never grown older, right? So maybe evolution, dinosaurs and things, happened outside of the paradise of Eden. If you think about it Eve probably wouldn’t have been tempted right away, she was in paradise it’s not like she was desperate for something fun to do. It probably would have taken years, millennia even, for her to succumb to her curiosity.
What if the person spent their whole life working with the pro-life movement Oliver? What if they had saved countless babies for the sole reason they were lust little people? However they didn’t believe that Jesus was the savior, would they go to hell?
And for that matter does it matter if you do bad things as long as you’re saved?
Jess:
Why does a holy and perfect and loving God need anything we can do?
Is he not smart enough?
Does he not have enough?
God created us out of love and a desire for fellowship with his creatures.
Love demands that it not be forced but chosen.
Jesus is God revealed. If we reject Christ, we reject God and make our choice. To live apart from God in eternity is hell. To live with God in eernity is heaven.
God wants our hearts. He’s defined the process in Jesus Christ. If we can’t find the ultimate expression of good in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, there’s simply nothing else God can do to for us. It’s that simple.
In fact, choosing Christ is choosing life and choosing life is choosing Christ.
So all I need to do is believe in Jesus?
Hal: “Oliver, don’t you believe most of the world religions have it wrong? So do I, plus one more.”
Certainly, but I am not going to claim it as a FACT. Nor would I be proud to be condemned by a religion because they hold spiritual beliefs. I believe that salvation is through Yeshua (Jesus) but I dont mock other religions based on their beliefs on salvation. I would also like to believe that most if not all religions can work together with each other and atheists to explore morality, not as a function of absolutism, but as a function of our shared premises and ideas.
Of course, its also easier to say “LOOK AT THOSE DUMB HICKS. THEYRE DUMB BECAUSE I THINK SOMETHING DIFFERENT! IM SO SMART!!”
Jess:
The process God laid out for salvation was not doing good works, it was having faith and trust in Christ.
John 3:16, GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD THAT HE GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON THAT WHOSOEVER WOULD BELIEVE IN HIM WOULD NOT PERISH BUT HAVE ETERNAL LIFE”. It doesn’t say, if you do this and this and this you would be saved.
Being a pro-lifer means nothing towards one’s salvation if is is not motivated out of love for God. I’m not saying it’s bad to be pro-life, but it’s not a means of salvation.
What religion are you Hisman? Well what Christian religion are you?
Jess: “What if the person spent their whole life working with the pro-life movement Oliver? What if they had saved countless babies for the sole reason they were lust little people? However they didn’t believe that Jesus was the savior, would they go to hell?”
Jess: “And for that matter does it matter if you do bad things as long as you’re saved?”
First of all, everyone does bad things. If salvation were about doing enough good and no bad, nobody would be saved. God couldnt make salvation a function of good or bad, or else we would all be excluded. No one is good enough, or deserves salvation. Salvation is a function of what God wants.
Salvation in the Christian religion, according to the Bible, is a function of accepting God. When you accept God, you are claiming that you want to be closer to him and that want to be “saved” by spending eternity with Him. At least, this is how the Bible puts it across and this is what I believe.
HisMan, if you really believe what you wrote at 7:01 PM, then you are stunningly and, I suspect, willfully ignorant about the current science on evolution. Try using the google…you will be amazed all the evidence available right here on the internets.
“The problem with evolution is there is absolutely no evidence none, nadda.”
The problem with biblical creationism is that there is exactly the same amount of evidence for it as there is for the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any other creation myth: none, nadda.
Ray,
First of all, even if there is fantastic evidence supporting evolution, it could be the case that God created the world so that there would be evidence appearing to support the idea of evolution.
Second of all, there is no evidence, not that I have found yet anyways, supporting MACRO evolution. This always bugged me as a child, even though both my parents believe in evolution. Even as a kid I always wondered how on earth natural selection could elevate a trait from NO USE, such as the precursor mutation of the eye spot, to something useful such as the begining of an eye. I understand once a trait is established to be critical for survival, that any mutation strengthening that trait will likely lead to an improvement of said trait. However, I do not see how useless traits could be evolved, and I have yet to see the evidence.
So be careful how smugly you assert the veracity of a theory.
But do tell me about all this info “on the internets” as you so hilariously mentioned earlier. How is it that macro evolution has occurred? You seem so sure of yourself, explain it to me if you wouldnt mind. I am not sure how I fall on this issue. Oh and watch the circular reasoning….in other words dont assume what you are trying to prove.
Ray:
Give me one piece of evidence for evolution.
I’ve gotta go for awhile but I’ll read it when I get back.
Jess:
Christian, Assembly of God,
“There was other great info in the Barna piece such as that Wiccan supporters favored Obama 64% to 35%. ”
The Catholics are catching up to the Wiccans in the pro-abortion vote. Maybe in the next election we’ll be tied with them!
Posted by: Jess at November 17, 2008 6:54 PM
I agree with you completely. I’m a big believer in the whole, “It doesn’t matter what you believe in, as long as you believe in something.” I happen to be Catholic, but if my parents were a different religion, I probably would be too.
Josephine, to me this constitutes “lukewarm” faith. I used to feel the same way until I really started studying the bible and found that God calls us to Him specifically and belief in “a greater good” is not the worship that we are called to.
If we look back throughout the bible we find that any time God’s people began worshiping other gods, they were in sin and not following Him.
Now, this is an aside and not directed at you specifically, but I’ve always said that the greatest tool the devil has is humanities disbelief that he exists. Think about it, if you don’t believe in Evil, you’re much less likely to be able to identify it when it comes around.
I believe that if we profess to be Christians we should study what that entails and follow our faith with diligence.
“I happen to be Catholic, but if my parents were a different religion, I probably would be too.”
Josephine,
who is Jesus?
Watch this Oliver, it explains everything:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjCnS358OKc&eurl
Salvation in the Christian religion, according to the Bible, is a function of accepting God. When you accept God, you are claiming that you want to be closer to him and that want to be “saved” by spending eternity with Him. At least, this is how the Bible puts it across and this is what I believe.
Posted by: Oliver at November 17, 2008 7:29 PM
I am closer to God, I accept God,He is my saviour, and abortion is act that God allows me to choose.
Which is the mainline Protestant theology in a short story version.
I am closer to God, I accept God, He is my saviour, and abortion is a act God does Not allow to be chosen.
The Evangelical theology in a short story version.
You may change my short story versions if you need Oliver.
Which of the two theologies ends in being closer to God, and spending eternity with God?
Jess, our sound card is corrupted, so we can’t watch anything. Feel free to summarize.
Josephine,
who is Jesus?
Posted by: Jasper at November 17, 2008 8:15 PM
…….What are you getting at with this, Jasper?
Josephine,
It’s just a simple question, you said you are a Catholic….who is Jesus?
I dont think abortion has anything to do with God in regards to salvation. I think it has to do with how we interpret the morals that God has blessed us with. I believe firmly that if everyone truly analyzes the issue that most will find themselves honoring a set of morals that ultimately would lead to the logical conclusion of the denouncement of abortion. I believe those that hold the same morals as the morals in the Bible should logically derive that abortion is immoral. However, I still dont believe it has anything to do with salvation.
Jess,
I watched the video with no sounds…and as it turns out it seems to be that it is spoken in Japanese anyways….
Im not sure if this is supposed to be sarcastic or not….but it was a funny video. It reminded me of the “Hi-Ho” Panasonic advertisements back in the day.
The son of God. Part of the holy trinity. Savior.
I’m not sure what that has to do with ANYTHING.
Amen Josephine.
“I’m not sure what that has to do with ANYTHING.”
It has to do with EVERYTHING.
Well Oliver you’re the one who brought up plants having feelings. That little bean sure had a lot of emotion.
Hey Jasper maybe posting a picture of a huge piece of steak will get your point across. You seem to think that works with me.
Jess: “Well Oliver you’re the one who brought up plants having feelings. That little bean sure had a lot of emotion.”
Are you sure you are in college? I get it if you are 14 or 13. Maybe it actually would be more beneficial to you to actually drop out and get pregnant. Apparently college isnt doing anything for you.
I never said plants have feelings. I said plants are ALIVE. Why does their life have to be sacrificed for yours any less than an animal? I get that suffering is bad, and I dont want any animal to suffer. I also dont want any animal to be killed capriciously. However, I also dont want to kill plants capriciously either. The bottom line ends up that I need food to survive, and right now something must die for that to happen.
….Jasper, my only point was that if I grew up in a Jewish family, I’d be Jewish right now. If I grew up in a Muslim family, I’d be Muslim right now.
I don’t think people that aren’t Christians are doomed. If God is all knowing, I’m pretty sure he understands that. I mean, there are people in the world that have never been exposed to Christianity. Those people are doomed? I think the beliefs of everyone else are just as valid as the belief of Christians. I was watching the Jim Jones thing on CNN the other day and looked at my bf and asked, “What if he’s not crazy? What if he really is ‘chosen’? What if we die and THAT’S what we find out??”
I believe. I am Catholic. But there’s is so much that I know nothing about, just like everyone else.
Ray:
I’m back. I see you’ve posted no evidence for evolution yet.
HisMan, I didn’t say I necessarily believe that evolution is correct. I think it’s likely that humanity came about via evolution or a similar process, but, I don’t it’s possible to prove what happened. Ultimately, I just don’t care. I know that God created humanity. I don’t know exactly how. But it doesn’t matter.
The only thing that matters is that the Eternal Word of God was born of the Blessed Virgin Mary, lived a sinless life, and was the spotless lamb of Sacrifice who took the sins of all humanity onto his own body so that by believing in him we all might be saved.
I believe it is atrocious that so many Catholics want the Crucifixes to be removed from our churches. The Crucifix is the best way to remember God’s ultimate act of love, that he would allow himself to be humiliated, tortured, and killed for our own benefit, even for the benefit of those who murder the innocent child in the womb. When I ponder the love of God as I enter the church and see the Crucifix, I cannot help but genuflect before the Blessed Sacrament.
Meanwhile, many of my fellow Catholics don’t even bother to genuflect. Are they so blind?
“I believe it is atrocious that so many Catholics want the Crucifixes to be removed from our churches.”
John,
Are you kidding? has it got that bad…
It the last thread, here we have a brave Priest Father Newman, standing up for church teaching and he’s getting shot down…we need more Father Newmans, not less.
Well Oliver animals obviously have feelings, they feel pain, they feel fear, they feel sadness. If you don’t think so you obviously haven’;t spent any time with an animal that wasn’t cut up and cooked. Maybe that’s why I don’t believe we should abuse animals, because they feel.
And yeah I’m so very stupid for not remembering your rant word for word. I just remembered you asked a really stupid question. You should calm down, this is only the internet, it’s not reality. You’re going to give yourself a tumor at this rate.
Josephine at November 17, 2008 9:32 PM
There is a distinction between saying you believe and actually being obedient to the commands of Christ.
Jesus himself said in John 14:6 “I am the way and the truth and the life – no one comes to the Father except by me.”
God is not simple, and faith isn’t faith at all unless it’s expressed obediently – experientially. Then your faith is a witness – martyr of what you believe. It becomes real.
Josephine – dichotomous claims between various religions or belief systems cannot both be true. One must be false.
I gave you a strong verse above. Jesus said it, I didn’t . As CS Lewis put it – either He’s Lord, a liar or a lunatic.
Before you write him off as a lunatic – you need to know he fulfilled 300+ prophecies, and He shows up all over the place in the Old Testament.
The Bible is learnable – you should check out something called Bible Study Fellowship. Its a non-denominational Bible study.
What type of crucifix? I can see that happening, parents coddle their kids so much these days of course they don’t want them looking at a torture victim being executed. In our church we had red painted blood on ours, it didn’t bother me but then again I didn’t grow up in a household were life was censored.
What type of crucifix? I can see that happening, parents coddle their kids so much these days of course they don’t want them looking at a torture victim being executed. In our church we had red painted blood on ours, it didn’t bother me but then again I didn’t grow up in a household were life was censored.
I guess you don’t have a problem if people eat fetuses in China then Oliver.
Jasper, haven’t you been in any of these “newer” churches, or even old churches which have been taken over by “progressive” Catholics?
A few weeks ago I was in an old church which had been taken over by the “progressives”. There was no crucifix, or cross, for that matter. Just a big empty wall behind the altar where it no doubt used to be. If there had been any statues (almost certainly since it was an old church), they were now gone. The pews had kneelers, but of course we didn’t use them, not even during the Consecration – after all, why should you kneel before God?
I’m amazed they left the tabernacle alone! I guess nobody is “offended” by that… yet.
One of the newer churches in my area has, instead of a crucifix, an image of Jesus rising from the dead out of the tomb on the wall behind the altar. Uh… OK? Plus the tabernacle is in a separate chapel somewhere. This is another “wonderful” practice which is being seen in a lot of our newer churches. I go into the church and I don’t know if I’m supposed to genuflect, and if so, in which direction, because where is the Blessed Sacrament being hidden?
And you’re absolutely right about Fr. Newman. It’s unbelievable what’s being done to him. They’re doing more to condemn him than they did to condemn the abominable “Fr.” Pfleger!
John Lewandowski at November 17, 2008 9:53 PM
Wow – tends to bring Matthew 7:21-23 to mind.
Josephine, God promises that the end times will not come until the Gospel has been preached to all corners of the Earth. Also, He promises that those who seek Him, shall find Him. So if someone in Iran is honestly seeking God, he will find Him.
There are all sorts of missionary stories about God reveling Himself to people who knew absolutely nothing of the Gospel. One man, for example, was a Hindu who was in the upper caste of his society. He was very depressed and at the point of suicide but called out to God that He would show Himself. He was suddenly aware of Christ, and stumbled out of his room to find a missionary at the corner of his street. That man now runs one of the largest native missions in all of Asia.
Jess’ favorite comic book character has got to be Poison Ivy – the Batman villain who freaks out when someone picks a flower, but who at the same time has absolutely no regard for human life.
Posted by: Chris Arsenault at November 17, 2008 10:08 PM
I’m not sure what all of that had to do with anything I said. I mean, surely you can’t observe from an internet post whether or not I’m obedient to God.
And… well, “Josephine – dichotomous claims between various religions or belief systems cannot both be true. One must be false.”
…I don’t believe in another religion. I’m Catholic. So… that really doesn’t apply to anything I said, either..
Actually, Josephine, your enthusiastic support for the most pro-abortion member of the US Senate in history in his campaign for the presidency proves that you are not obedient to God.
As I have said before, I can almost understand a Catholic grudgingly voting for Obama, if he or she genuinely thought Obama was going to end war, or help the poor. But there can be no enthusiastic support for a man who wants to destroy 35 years worth of civil rights legislation for the unborn. Not from a Catholic.
Jess: “Well Oliver animals obviously have feelings, they feel pain, they feel fear, they feel sadness.”
Sure they react to stimulus. There is no denying that. You could even argue that a few of the more highly evolved group of animals feel things such as “fear” and “sadness,” although that would pretty much leave out anything other than a handful of mammals. Id like to read an article describing the sadness a fly feels at the emptiness of its relatively short life.
Regardless, I dont see how that makes them special.
Jess: “If you don’t think so you obviously haven’;t spent any time with an animal that wasn’t cut up and cooked.”
There is a problem with your assertion. I dont think most animals feel sadness, yet Ive had pet birds, cats, turtles, dogs, hamsters, fish, snakes, etc just in case Im forgeting some random animal I had. So something must be wrong with your “obvious” observation.
Jess: “Maybe that’s why I don’t believe we should abuse animals, because they feel.”
I never said we should abuse animals. I dont think animals should be subjected to even remotely extended or unnecessary pain. I just dont see how their ability to react to stimulus makes their life any more important than a plants life. Why is it okay to kill carrots and potatoes for your to survive Jess? Would it be alright for me to kill an animal to survive if I dont cause noticeable pain to said animal?
Jess: “And yeah I’m so very stupid for not remembering your rant word for word. I just remembered you asked a really stupid question.”
Its not that you didnt remember my “rant” word for word, its that you clearly confused a very key concept from my “rant.” I cant expect you to memorize what you have recently read with any degree of accuracy, but I can expect you to understand what the concepts were and to rememeber those for a few days or so.
By the way, that inability to remember even basic concepts, how is that going in your courses?
Jess: “You should calm down, this is only the internet, it’s not reality. You’re going to give yourself a tumor at this rate. ”
My bad. I didnt know that you were not a real person and that Im in some sort of Matrix scenario when I post on the internet. Weird. I could have SWORN that you were all real people representing real ideas!!
Or maybe its just that we arent face to face. You should tell the bill collectors on the phone to chill out, else they get tumors, since phone calls arent reality anyways.
….Oh, but a Catholic enthusiastically supporting a candidate who doesn’t care about the poor, and who wants to perpetuate an unjust war? That’s a candidate God would be proud of?
Josephine :”…who doesn’t care about the poor…”
You mean Obama who donated less than 1% of his income to charity, including his church, from 2000-2004?
Hey Oliver, I have a great idea for you- why don’t you just ignore Jess if she bothers you so damn bad instead of constantly berating her and telling her how stupid you think she is?
Josephine, Democrat Party talking points about how Republicans hate the poor and how the Iraq War is unjust are not rooted in reality.
But even if they were, most of we pro-lifers who voted McCain didn’t do so enthusiastically. We voted McCain because we had no alternative. It was either him or Obama, and Obama is completely unacceptable.
Jess:
If you’re saved why would you want to continue to do bad things?
Rae,
Because she continues to distort what so many of the posters here say, first of all.
Second of all, she responded to my comment about vegetarianism. Im responding to her.
It probably also doesnt help that she took my head off when I was legitimately trying to be helpful about her period pain.
Also, she insults other people for being unintelligent, which especially irks me because of how wildly she scraps her ideas together.
As much as I am bothered by Hal and YLT for their inconsistency and overt logical flaws, at the very least they dont openly distort what other people say. That is the worst. You have to have some level of deceny in an internet discussion to at the least review what the person said and to not put words directly in their mouths. There is too much lag time to screw around with that childish bull****.
HisMan, if you really believe what you wrote at 7:01 PM, then you are stunningly and, I suspect, willfully ignorant about the current science on evolution. Try using the google…you will be amazed all the evidence available right here on the internets.
“The problem with evolution is there is absolutely no evidence none, nadda.”
The problem with biblical creationism is that there is exactly the same amount of evidence for it as there is for the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any other creation myth: none, nadda.
Posted by: Ray at November 17, 2008 7:30 PM
_________________________
Ray:
How about if a design is evident, then there must be a designer?
Humans have 219 distinct type of cells.
1. Which cells evolved first? Which evolved last?
2. If these cells must work together in order to survive and function, did they all evolve at once?
3. These 219 developed from stem cells. How did th estem cells get the informatio to make 219 different cells?
4. Describe how one, just one of these cells evolved. Whta did they evolve from? Explain how all 219 evolved?
5. Do you honestly not see design in any of these cells?
What came first, the heart or the nervous system to control the heart or, the brain that controlled the nervious system or, the bloodstream that keeps the heart alive or the heart which keeps the body alive or, the lungs that do the oxygen exchange? Where’s the evidence of your conclusions? How is evolution then a scientifcally proven fact? It’s the biggest lie being told on the face of the planet.
Do you really believe that humans come from bacteria?
I think just about any microbiologist would tell you that bactera make bacteria and humans make humans.
And regarding your comment to me about being “ignorant”, I’m in some good company: Dr. Raymond Damadian; inventor of the MRI, Dr. Robert Cade, a leading expert in lupus, diabetes, and the inventor of Gatorade, Dr. Carl Filermans, PhD in microbiology, who helped solve the legionnaire’s disease mystery to name just a few.
And this too Ray: How did the Universe originate? A belief that the universe (all matter and energy) originated from nothing violates the first law of thermosdynamics.
Do you know what the odds of a protein originating by chance are? A protein is a chain of amino acids. There are 20 different amino acids in humans. Think of a train made up of 20 different colored box cars. There are many possibliities for various sequences. The sequence of amino acids in a protein is critical for life. The average length of a protein in you is 400 amino acids. Thus, the odds of that amino acid sequence getting there by chance are 20 to the 400th power, or 10 to the 520th power. That is a 1 followed by 520 zeroes.
Now Ray: Please provde just one line of evidence for evolution. Just one. You can’t….there is none.
Rae,
who did you vote for?
Evidence for Evolution – The Icons of Evolution
The following “evidence for evolution” can be found in any biology textbook in any public school in the United States of America. Accompanying each supposed evidence for evolution is a brief explanation (ex) and the standard criticism (crit).
Evidence for Evolution – Homology:
(ex) Many animals have similar bone structures, giving the superficial appearance of relationship. (crit) Thought to have been evidence for common ancestry until significant advancements were made in biochemistry. Simply put, “Similarity does not imply a genetic relationship.” (Dr. Walt Brown, “In the Beginning,” 2001, p. 290.)
Evidence for Evolution – Embryology:
(ex) Embryos of different vertebrates look alike in their early stages, giving the superficial appearance of relationship. (crit) Embryos of different vertebrates DO NOT look alike in their early stages. “This idea was fathered by Ernest Haeckel, a German biologist who was so convinced that he had solved the riddle of life’s unfolding that he doctored and faked his drawings of embryonic stages to prove his point.” (William R. Fix, “The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution,” 1984, p. 285.) Haeckel was exposed as a fraud in 1874 by Professor Wilhelm His. Nevertheless, Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings (or similar representations) remain in high school and college biology textbooks to this day as evidence for evolution.
Evidence for Evolution – Observed Natural Selection
(Survival of the fittest): (ex) Darwin’s proposed mechanism for evolutionary change is observed in nature. (crit) Natural selection serves as a means of conservation, not one of creation. It explains survival of a species, not arrival of a species. Here’s an illustration: You work in a car factory. Your job is quality control – make sure the cars work like they are supposed to. You kick the tires and slam the doors, drive the cars around, etc. You identify and remove defects (an arbitrary selection with the same final result as natural selection). How long would it take for this selection process to turn one of those cars into an airplane naturally over time? It won’t happen. “Natural selection may have a stabilizing effect, but it does not promote speciation [the arrival of a new species]. It is not a creative force as many people have suggested.” (Daniel Brooks “A downward Slope to Greater Diversity,” Science, Vol. 217, 24 September 1982, p. 1240.)
Besides, while survival of the fittest is observed in nature, it is not absolute. We also observe survival of the weakest and survival of the luckiest. Every infant is the weakest of a species, and yet obviously, some of them survive or there would be no species at all. Similarly, when a whale swims through a school of fish swallowing 80%, the 20% that survived were not the fittest – they were the luckiest. Somehow “survival of the fittest” has become tautology. Only the fittest survive. How do we determine they were the fittest? Because they survived!
Evidence for Evolution – The Fossil Record:
(ex) Supposed “missing links” between distinct kinds of animals which can be extrapolated as transitions between kinds. For example, Archaeopteryx is thought to be a transition between reptiles and birds. (crit) There are no unambiguous transitional fossils. Archaeopteryx was thought to be a transition between reptile and bird because of its teeth and the claws on its wings. The fact is some fossil birds had teeth, and some didn’t. Some reptiles have teeth, and some don’t. Some mammals have teeth, and some don’t. As far as claws on its wings, there are birds living today that have claws on their wings. Nevertheless, they are obviously birds, and no one disputes this. Besides, superficial similarities do not imply genetic relationship. “There is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record.” – Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History and editor of a prestigious scientific journal. Patterson is a well-known expert having an intimate knowledge of the fossil record. (Reference: Colin Patterson, personal communication. Luther Sunderland, “Darwin’s Enigma,” 1988, p. 89.)
Evidence for Evolution – The Stanley Miller Experiment:
(ex) The Stanley Miller “Spark and Soup” experiment produced amino acids building blocks. Evidence for the spontaneous generation of life from inorganic matter “naturally by random chance” in the laboratory? (crit) No! There are three problems with Miller’s experiment. He started with the wrong materials, used the wrong conditions, and got the wrong results! (Mark Eastman, M.D., “Creation by Design,” 1996, pp. 15-19.) The truth is, the DNA molecule is so complex that today’s biochemists using today’s biochemical know-how (under the supposed conditions found upon the early earth) cannot so much as produce its protein building blocks. Furthermore, the genetic code inherent to the DNA molecule is a digital, error-correcting, redundant, over-lapping, information storage and retrieval system with its own inherent language convention! Information science has shown that both language conventions and such incredible digital information storage and retrieval systems can only be the product of intelligent design. (Mark Eastman, M.D., Chuck Missler, “The Creator Beyond Time and Space,” 1996, pp. 83-102.) To believe life could be the product of random chance (as supposed by Darwinian evolution) is to swim against the tide of modern empirical science.
Evidence for Evolution – The Peppered Moth Experiment:
(ex) Photographs of peppered moths naturally camouflaged while at rest upon tree trunks as evidence for natural selection. (crit) Biologists have known since the 1980’s that peppered moths don’t normally rest on tree trunks. The photographs found in the textbooks were staged using dead moths glued to tree trunks. (Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., “Second Thoughts about Peppered Moths,” 1999: http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_pepmoth.htm.)
Evidence for Evolution – Genetic Mutations:
(ex) Genetic mutations have been shown to cause variation within species. (crit) Genetic mutations result in a net loss of genetic information. There is no naturalistic source for genetic information (nor is there a naturalistic explanation for the existence of information). Genetic mutation simply causes existing genetic information to become corrupted – genetic mutations follow a downward trend. For example, it is universally agreed that wolves, coyotes, dingoes, jackals, foxes, and the hundreds of different domestic dog breeds probably all came from an original pair of “dogs”. This is “Variation within a Kind,” NOT upward evolution from simplicity into complexity as supposed by Darwin’s theory of evolution. The variations are always in a downward trend constrained by the genetic code (the dogs do not grow wings and learn to fly). No new genetic information is added, genetic information is always lost: the original pair of “dogs” had all of the potential characteristics of all their various progeny, while the descendants themselves have lost that same potential.
Evidence for Evolution – Vestigial Organs:
(ex) Body parts thought to be useless remnants of past evolutionary development. (crit) Back in 1895, Robert Wiedersheim listed 180 alleged vestigial organs. This list included: tonsils, coccyx (tail bone), thymus, little toe, male nipples, ear nodes, pineal gland, adenoids, appendix, wisdom teeth, parathyroid, ear muscles, body hair, and the nictitating membrane of the eye. Since the compilation of Wiedersheim’s list at the end of the 19th century, we have discovered important biological functions for every one of these so-called vestigial organs. Roy Hartenstein comments on the human appendix: “Long regarded as a vestigial organ with no function in the human body, the appendix is now thought to be one of the sites where immune responses are initiated.” (Grolier Encyclopedia, 1998.) Circumstances may arise at which point it would be better to risk the consequences of removing the appendix rather than risk keeping it. Nevertheless, it is not a useless vestige from our evolutionary past. Dr. Walt Brown writes concerning vestigial organs in general, “The existence of human organs whose function is unknown does not imply they are vestiges of organs inherited from our evolutionary ancestors. As medical knowledge has increased, at least some functions of all organs have been discovered.” (Walt Brown, “In the Beginning,” 2001, p. 9.)
Besides these human vestigial organs, examples of nonhuman vestigial organs given in the textbooks are very misleading. Consider the “whale pelvis” for example. Kids are not told that the whale pelvis is necessary for muscle attachments, without which the whale could not reproduce.
Evidence for Evolution – Where is it?
So where is the so-called evidence for evolution? Not in the biology textbooks used in the public schools! Aren’t there any legitimate evidences for the theory? Why do we have to imagine macro-evolution happening “long ago and far away…”? Could undirected natural processes alone assemble the intricate structures found within living cells? Can chemistry alone account for the origin of life on earth? What is the origin of the genetic information encoded in living organisms? Until evolutionists come up with real answers to these fundamental questions, Darwinian evolution should be kept in philosophy textbooks where it belongs and taken out of biology textbooks where, tragically, it has become entrenched.
Jeez, Oliver, is it necessary to be such a nasty, sarcastic person? It makes it difficult to take anything you say seriously. Very “Christian” of you.
At least you didn’t call Jess a “tool.”
If you have trouble taking what I say seriously based off a few deserved insults to someone who openly distorts and misleads with their posts, then shame on you. My “insults” pale in comparison to the distortion of meaning present in Jess’s posts. At least I give the content of everyone’s posts fair evaluation.
“deserved insults?” Real nice guy you are, Oliver.
How about taking the high road and ignoring her?
@Jasper: Stephen T. Colbert.
Why not take the high road and donate every excess dollar to charity and spend every excess hour of your day volunteering?
Id rather respond to her to hopefully get the idea across to her educated mind that she cant treat other people’s ideas so poorly, that she has to address the issues people are raising and not just blow them over and distort them.
If I deliver that lesson too harshly for your tastes, then why dont you take your own advice and ignore me?
By the way, Im not posting here to come across as a “nice guy.” Im posting here to do two things; hopefully convince some people that logic is necessary to any ethical code, unless you appeal to an all-perfect being for guidance, and to help myself to develop a better and more articulate explanation of why abortion is an immoral act. If I step on a few toes here and there, sorry but I dont really care.
“@Jasper: Stephen T. Colbert.”
no wonder this country is going down the drain.
As I have said before, I can almost understand a Catholic grudgingly voting for Obama, if he or she genuinely thought Obama was going to end war, or help the poor. But there can be no enthusiastic support for a man who wants to destroy 35 years worth of civil rights legislation for the unborn. Not from a Catholic.
Posted by: John Lewandowski at November 17, 2008 10:23 PM
Then you John, and HisMan, are ignorant of the Catholic faith; just like any “Catholics” who voted for Obama are ignorant of what a Catholic is. Faith is not be defined by the church that you choose to name/associate yourself with, faith is defined by how you live your life. And Catholics are only Catholics when they live their lives according to the Catechism. Catholics are 100% pro-life and their is no wiggle room. Scripture and the gospel of Jesus Christ are “the” soucce of life for believers and the Catholic teaching of the scriptures and their relation to social issues is “spot on”. An endless treasury of blessings and grace are there for those who are devoted to “living” the Catholic faith. And it goes without saying that studying scripture would need to be an integral part of the faith since Catholics are taught that all things need to be Christocentric.
Questions for any Evangelical who may be reading this. Was the abortion issue the number one voting issue for Evangelicals? Does anybody know if the Evangelical churches preach pro-life/anti-abortion from the pulpit? I am interested in attending an Evangelical service. Any suggestions on how I should conduct myself during services? How long os the typical Sunday service and how is the service “broken down” into parts? Thanks, truthseeker.
I dont think abortion has anything to do with God in regards to salvation. I think it has to do with how we interpret the morals that God has blessed us with. I believe firmly that if everyone truly analyzes the issue that most will find themselves honoring a set of morals that ultimately would lead to the logical conclusion of the denouncement of abortion. I believe those that hold the same morals as the morals in the Bible should logically derive that abortion is immoral. However, I still dont believe it has anything to do with salvation.
Posted by: Oliver at November 17, 2008 9:09 PM
Salvation in the Christian religion, according to the Bible, is a function of accepting God. When you accept God, you are claiming that you want to be closer to him and that want to be “saved” by spending eternity with Him. At least, this is how the Bible puts it across and this is what I believe.
Posted by: Oliver at November 17, 2008 7:29 PM
Salvation is the actions and duties assigned to,required of, or expected of a Christian accepting God?
Is that a accurate statment of Salvation defining “function” more accuratly Oliver?
Using a definition of “function” found at
Houghton Mifflin.
The actions of a Christian performing/having a abortion “has anything to do with God in reference” to Salvation”
Usage Note:
Regard is traditionally used in the singular in the phrase in regard (not in regards) to. Regarding and as regards are also standard in the sense “with reference to.” In the same sense with respect to is acceptable, but respecting is not.·Respects is sometimes considered preferable to regards in the sense of “particulars”: In some respects (not regards) the books are alike.
Is that not the basis/conclusion/biblical exegesis, of multi-millions of mainline Protestants who have concluded that abortion “has anything to do with God in reference to Salvation, or being closer to him forever(eternity)”?
It all goes back to the original theological disagreement between Catholics/Protestants, that good actions/deeds have no reference to being closer to, and spending eternity with God for ALL Protestant forms of bible exegesis.
From that “thinking about God” disagreement, which was based on a sacramental action of Christians to confess their “wrongs” to a person of the living “Christ on Earth”, or Church, flows the multi moral Protestant religions,in regards to abortion matters.
They began to absolve/ajudicate themselves by individual interpretations of God’s words, and eventually justified abortion as “having nothing to do with being closer to God for eternity”.
Would we not conclude that “moral relativism/moral equivilence began first in Protestant theology, and then flowed into the secular laws and culture of Western Civilization, ending in abortion being a action of that has nothing to do with being closer to God for Eternity?.
Which is why being pro life is actually worthless to being closer to God for Eternity amongst the more intellectually honest Protestant?
Which is why abortion will always be a secular law in Western Civilization arising from abortion having nothing to do with being closer to God for Eternity.
Good luck Oliver.
Many Catholics believe their relationship with God is personal and they can disagree with church teachings and still be Catholic. Their is ignorance due to lack of active participation in the church and lack of effort to learn the faith. For example attendance at weekly mass is less than one third of the attendance on Christmas. Another example, the Catechism teaches that abortion is NEVER o.k. But ask a Catholic and they may tell you that it is abortion is o.k or supporting pro-choice politicians is o.k.
Many Catholics are failing in their faith because the church sometimes teaches things that are outside the Catechism. For example divorce and marriage annulments are granted far too often by weaseling their way around Jesus’ teaching. When our church fails to speak the Christocentric truth it even harder for her parishoners to speak the truth to my brothers and sisters about issues like divorce or an Obama vote. Sometimes caring for others means tough love. Sometimes you could lose friendships (hopefully they return stronger) when you speak the teachings of Jesus as you see them. But speak we must, and take our strength from the gospel and the life and teachings of Jesus Christ who alone is worthy of our allegiance. These are the times when I am most grateful for my faith and for the gift of the Catechism.
Truthseeker,
It was the number one voting issue for this evangelical, her friends and family. Abortion hasn’t been mentioned in years in my church. Which will be changing if I have anything to say about it. :)
Our services are an hour. Worship music, giving, sermon, worship music. Communion once a month.
Of course any church is going to have a different feel, schedule. We have a more traditional service and a more contemporary one.
How to act? No screaming, running, talking, kicking the chair in front of you, or sleeping. That’s what I tell my kids anyway.
yllas, Oliver and I aren’t protestant, we’re ex-upc pentecostal so you can stop your blathering.
…I don’t believe in another religion. I’m Catholic. So… that really doesn’t apply to anything I said, either..
Posted by: Josephine at November 17, 2008 10:17 PM
well Chris, I think the ultimate question is that if a person doesn’t believe their religion is more valid than another, why bother to practice it? I mean there are reasons why a person legitimately chooses a religion to practice.
While I was born into the Catholic faith, I had to “choose” to remain Catholic and take on the beliefs of the church as my own – these were the guidelines I was going to follow for my life and as a path to heaven. I had a chance to experience many faiths during one summer working as a field geologist. This experience reaffirmed my Catholic faith, strangely enough!
Obviously for Catholics in North America (I can include Canada because it is the Catholic vote and the Catholic politicans who single handedly ruined Canada) they have decided for the past 50 to 60 years to go in open defiance against Church teachings. Sadly, the priests and bishops have not only remained silent but in many cases have also encouraged this behaviour. Their mixed reactions to certain social changes have resulted in great confusion for many Catholics. Certainly this has been the case with couples and contraceptives which the Catholic Church considers the use of as wrong.
My 14 year old daughter was telling me last night how they were discussing condoms in class (in a Catholic hs) and the teacher told them they shouldn’t use condoms because of the risk of STDs! When my daughter put up her hand, the teach shut down the debate. I asked my daughter what she wanted to say in class. She said, “mom, I wanted to tell her, isn’t it because it’s WRONG to use a condom.” I think, based on this daughter’s previous class comments, the teacher KNEW what was coming!
I think things may slowly be changing though. Most of the young seminarians are very very devoted to the teachings of the Church. At the same time, these young men are very humble and very aware of the difficulties facing their fellow Catholics as they try to live their lives out in a holy manner. These newer priests are more firm in their encouragement of the faithful to follow the Church teachings.
HisMan,
I don’t know why you keep saying I’m Catholic. I haven’t been for some time. If it was meant to “prove your point” you failed miserably.
everyone else, I’d advise you not to get into it about evolution. It doesn’t matter to them that there are tons of evidence out there since they need to deny it to confirm their worldview. You will just get frustrated.
Evangelicals, Catholics and other Christians are certainly entitled to their religious beliefs. I have no problem with them living their lives according to those beliefs. But I am adamantly opposed to them trying to impose their social agenda on others and America in general.
Just because THEY are opposed to abortion does not mean that they have the right to tell other women what they should do with their bodies. And I don’t want them trying to wheedle the US government into interfering with the private lives of women who are pregnant.
Likewise, if conservative Christians disapprove of homosexuality, that’s their right, even though this makes about as much sense as being opposed to left-handedness (and I’m a southpaw but not gay). But I don’t want these conservative Christians trying to take rights away from homosexuals, or wheedling the government into persecuting them.
As far as I am concerned, what consenting adults do in private is none of my business, or yours, and certainly not the government.
No gay person has ever hurt me, or tried to force me to be homosexual. The vast majority are just ordinary people who mind their own business and bother or threaten no one. Only a tiny number molest children, and many child molesters are heterosexual. Having gay people appear in school will not make any young person gay, nor will keeping them out of schools stop any student who IS gay from being that way. The notion that there is gay”recruitment, and a homosexual conspiracy against children is just plain ludcrous.
Why can’t we all just live and let live, and mind our own business ?
Robert, you’re conflating the issues.
While opposition to homosexuality is largely(though not solely) the result of religious views, opposition to abortion is the result of an affront on human dignity that just happens to find audience in a largely religious community.
We can’t ‘live and let live’ when it comes to abortion because that would mean us being complacent in the killing of another human. It would be like you telling us to ‘live and let live’ the serial killer who is murdering prostitutes. What do we care, we don’t have to murder prostitutes? And besides, they’re only prostitutes right?…Obviously not.
You have to realize that the pro-life movement does not differentiate between a preborn human or a born human. Killing of either is seen as resolutely horrid. This isn’t a religious view, though many pro-lifers are religious.
Think of it this way, does someone need to be religious to oppose murder? Obviously not. Then why would a person need to be religious to oppose abortion?
Now, as for homosexuality, it is only marginally tied to abortion by the idea of “free sex” and I don’t think the two need necessarily be discussed together. I was actually very, very disturbed that the same people both voted AGAINST homosexual marriage as voted AGAINST parental notification laws for abortion and FOR Obama. It shows that there are some people who care more about a choice that harms no one but the participant (and arguably, perhaps, larger society indirectly) over a choice that directly kills other members of our society and is destroying larger society.
I would like to tell those people to get their priorities in order.
yllas, Oliver and I aren’t protestant, we’re ex-upc pentecostal so you can stop your blathering.
Posted by: Lauren at November 18, 2008 6:47 AM
Another “personal interpreter” of the bible by Lauren, who is blathering about your personal exegesis of a book written and reformed many times, in regards to abortion huh?
Kinda proves my point about the original source of moral relativism,ethic’s of, abortion.
By what authority do you blather about theology in matters of abortion then?
I only asked questions of a person’s words(Oliver) in regards of his personal theology.
I expanded upon his words, proposing nothingmore then a history of why abortion became widely approved in Protestant forms of religion.
So, are ex UPC Pentacostal, not and were formed on a difference of some bible interpretation of the Catholic or Protestant theology, Lauren?
Catholics support abortion being legal in all cases or legal in most cases (roughly 50%) to a higher percent than Protestants in general, and to a much greater extent than evengelical Christians.
Catholics support abortion being legal in all cases or legal in most cases (roughly 50%) to a higher percent than Protestants in general, and to a much greater extent than evengelical Christians.
Yllas, we have quite a different interpretation of the Bible as we see God as One and reject the traditional Trinitarian view. We originate our views out of a Hebrew perspective and judge all of the New Testament revelations against the Torah. Basically, and this is very, very basically, we view Christ as a manifestation of God similar to when God reveled Himself as the burning bush or any other manifestation in the OT.
Most Christian denominations go the other way and start with the NT and work backwards to the OT. This is likely to start a huge debate, which is honestly not my intention, but I’m simply trying to explain to you that any preconceived notions you have about protestants do not apply to Oliver or me.
If anything pentecostalism rejects moral relatism and tries to live in direct accordance with God’s word. While we, as ex-upc, do not hold holiness standards to impact salvation, I’m sure you could find a few current UPCers who believe that if you are not living in complete holiness you are regecting Christ’s teaching. In that manner I’m sure you would agree with them based on your avoidance of any sort of “relatism”.
God does not teach us that our own lack of sin will save us. In fact he teaches the exact opposite. I think my husband explained it well when he said that our actions after being saved should be directed by the Holy Spirit, and in that way we should live renewed, but we will of course fall because none of us can ever live a flawless life on this side of heaven.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. That we must “prove” ourselves to God? That if we sin after we are saved we are no longer saved? That God predestines us to salvation or condemnation?
I really have no clue. You don’t explain your positions well, yllas, and you seem to make wild attacks rather than present any sort of logical argument.
Lauren.
Read my post to Oliver, and if you think it is blathering, so be it.
I used Oliver’s words and interpretated them into a form useful to me, in analyzing his reasoning for being pro life.
Specifically, the word, function.
Be Honest, individual exegesis of the bible, the authority of Christians in matters moral, has made the Christian God for abortion, and against abortion. That “individual interpretation” was guided by certain individual theologist, such as Calvin, Zwingli, and hundreds more individual interpretations as time pasted, until we have arrived at the Christian God being meaningless for most people today.
Abortion began as a moral debate in Churches, before it began to be argued in public places by Christians, and then brought before a secular court to be decided as the final authority for, or against, abortion.
Yllas, we have quite a different interpretation of the Bible as we see God as One and reject the traditional Trinitarian view.
Lauren post.
Why?
yllas, Oliver and I aren’t protestant, we’re ex-upc pentecostal so you can stop your blathering.
You don’t explain yourpositions well, yllas, and you seem to make wild attacks rather thanpresent any sort of logical argument.
Posted by: Lauren
*****
Lauren, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
Yllas is such a faker.
Oh goodness, yllas, you’ve just opened a can of worms. I’m going to post a good explanation of Oneness Theology written by one of the brothers in my church.
It is pretty detailed, but It explains things more clearly than I can.
Oneness Theology believes God to be the eternal, self-existing One. He revealed Himself to the Hebrew people by the Hebrew name YHWH (Exodus 6:3; 20:7). Had He revealed Himself to English speaking people, He would have said, “I AM” because this expression identifies His eternal nature – self existence. If He is eternal, He is timeless. His existence is outside the realm of time and cannot be viewed using terminology that is time-based.
Oneness Theology further asserts that this eternity-dwelling uni-personal God (YHWH) inserted Himself into mankind’s history at the incarnation and began a temporal existence as a genuine man. This is a temporal existence as opposed to eternal and not temporary is in momentary. In other words, God’s existence as a man [the Son of God] is not framed as perpetuating from the ethereal mists of eternity past. There is no “Son of God” who, at the incarnation, became a man. A “son” clearly has a beginning and so therefore cannot be viewed as an eternal being not bound by the rigors of time. This is exactly what scripture teaches.
One of the classic examples is from the often quoted prophetic decree of Psalm 2:7. This Messianic prophecy shows beyond a doubt that the Son is not an eternal being but one of a temporal nature. Due to the fact that a time-based term [“…this day have I begotten thee…”] is used in relation to the act of begetting the Son, the possibility that the Son is an eternal being is clearly eliminated.
Consider the declaration of the angel to Mary as he foretold the birth of the Messiah (Luke 1:35). And bear in mind the plenary inspiration of scripture as it relates to the “jot” and “tittle”, the plural and singular, and use of tense. The angel told Mary that she would conceive and bear a child. She responds with astonishment because she was a virgin and had never been with a man. The angel describes the sequential order of what would come to past. The Holy Spirit would come upon her, overshadow her and cause her to conceive. The clause “therefore” in this verse means that what follows is contingent upon what proceeded. You follow me? The holy “thing” to be born of her would be called the Son of God. The clause and the tense of this verse eliminate the possibility that the Son is eternal because until the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary, the Son did not exist. The existence of the Son of God came about as a result of the Spirit overshadowing Mary. Again, this is a temporal existence not temporary. The Son had a beginning. Beings that exist in eternity don’t have beginnings but the Son does.
Galatians 4:4 says as much. The Son was made of a woman (at the incarnation), made under the law (an affixed place in time). The preparation of a body, the incarnation, the anointing of the Messiah for ministry, the “giving” of God’s only begotten Son all happened in the fullness of time – not from eternity past. God performed all of this in His temporal existence as a man.
The term “father” as it relates to God has minimal use throughout Old Testament scripture. God is referred to the name “YHWH” over 6800 times and as “elohim”, a generic term for God, over 2800 times. Contrast the mere thirteen times that the term “father” is used in reference to God (Numbers 11:12; II Samuel 7:14; I Chronicles 29:10; Psalm 68:4-5; 89:24-27; 103:13; Isaiah 9:6; 63:16; 64:8; Jeremiah 3:4, 19; 31:9; Malachi 2:10). In each case the reference has to do with God being identified as the father of creation, the father a nation of people, the father of a covenant, or the father of a kingdom. The term is never used in the sense of a filial respect towards fatherhood in identifying that of a father-son relationship. And most importantly of all, the term is never once used by God to identify Himself as a proper name.
Due to the temporal existence of the Son of God, the filial term “father” as it relates to God is temporal as well – not temporary. God’s incarnation as the man Jesus of Nazareth is permanent because of the fact that it is a genuine human existence.
Having said that, there therefore shouldn’t be any confusion on anyone’s part concerning the differences between Oneness and Trinitarian theologies. The notion that we’re all actually saying the same thing but just using different terms is disingenuous. This really isn’t just a matter of semantics.
What’s at stake are fundamental concepts about the nature of God’s existence, logic and reason, the efficacy of the sacrifice of the cross and even the nature of truth – just to name a few. And all of these types of issues, as they relate to God, derive their meanings for us through the framework or the paradigm through which we view the biblical data.
It is therefore necessary that we fit together a viable construct; one that adequately complies with the explicit teachings of scripture while accounting for the implicit as well. This is “doing” theology.
A fitting example follows: While the only doctrine of God explicitly taught in scripture is that God is one, scripture clearly addresses the Father, Son and Spirit as God and further, scripture makes a clear distinction between Father, Son and Spirit. How is it that scripture explicitly teaches one God and yet seems to imply three God’s? And how do we reconcile this seeming contradiction?
The Trinitarian approach is to address the New Testament data first, recognizing the genuine distinctions found there, then turn back to the Old Testament and force that understanding unto the foundational teachings concerning God fundamental nature. This is “doing” theology backwards. This is reading later revelation into former revelation; essentially redefining the former revelation rather than allowing the later revelation to add to and complement the former.
The Oneness approach is to begin with the Old Testament’s emphasis on God’s absolute numerical oneness and view the distinction passages found in the New Testament in light of this foundation and not vice-versa. The nature of God’s progressive revelation of Himself to man requires that we understand the New Testament in light of the Old Testament. This approach allows the significance of the incarnation to speak for the introduction of Father/Son terminology, giving rise to the distinctions all the while maintaining the foundational understanding of God’s essential nature – monotheism – with integrity.
The key to reconciling the supposed contradictions mentioned above is to understand the distinctions in light of the incarnation. Here is where Trinitarianism errs. God’s incarnation, from the view of a Trinitarian model, looses its biblical significance. The incarnation becomes less of what God has done to secure our eternal salvation to more of what an “aspect” or “part” of God has done. The truth of God’s humbling to partake of the role of a servant (Philippians 2:5-11) and its ramifications for the ministry and work of Christ looses it meaning when viewed through a Trinitarian framework since it wasn’t “God” humbling Himself, just a “person” of a “God essence” doing so.
The bottom line is to understand the different starting points for the two theological systems. It is important to know the starting point for any given theological understanding because one’s starting point generally determines how all incoming biblical data is to be assessed. This understanding becomes the paradigm through which the biblical data is filtered to become a theological position.
In other words, the Trinitarian begins with diversity because she begins at the New Testament. Diversity then becomes the paradigm through which she assesses biblical monotheism. A diverse view of God, based on her paradigm, cannot be reconciled with the strict numerical oneness explicitly taught in scripture. She then must require that the term “one” no longer mean numerical oneness but rather numerical unity.
yllas, pentecostals and other Apostolic religions try specifically to *not* interpret the bible, but rather to follow the interpretation of the apostles as laid out within its pages.
Trust me, there is no moral relativism going on in my church. Abortion is preached against frequently and both my pastor and associate pastor are active in the pro-life movement.
Careful, Lauren, you might provoke about yllas meltdown, and then you’ll get stuff like
“are you having sex with your parent”
Haha, that’s ok. I have a feeling that yllas isn’t a real person (well, I mean obviously there is a person behind the name, but I don’t think that person actually believes what they have “yllas” say.)
As I said, HisMan, stunning and willful ignorance. I am obviously not going to talk you out of any of the cherished beliefs that your creationist “scientist” friends have reinforced for you with doublespeak devoid of scientific method. Why should I waste my time explaining that the debunkings to which you cling have all been debunked, and/or ignore compelling evidence?
If you are truly curious, you might start here.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
If you don’t feel like reading, then watch the associated documentary, Judgement Day – Intelligent Design on Trial. I don’t think you will like how it ends.
Lauren.
You use the bible as the source of authority for your uni-personal God, Lauren.
Who is the first person, in tracing the history of your collective/individual interpretation of the Uni God, Lauren?
And that person I’m asking about, is your present authority(preacher for Uni God) in the church you attend, and trace it back to a individual person that interpreted the bible, and found the Uni God you believe in?
What is that human’s name? A name outside of the old and new Testament bible history, Lauren?
How old is your religion Lauren? When and who was it founded on,based on that person’s individual interpretation of the Bible?
I know you trace your religion back to bible quotes of people mentioned in the Bible, but which person founded your form of uni God theology?
But, my point is wider then your personal religious conclusions Lauren. My point is the origination of the Christian God, being for abortion, and against abortion, and being based on individual exegesis of the final authority on matters of abortion.
Finally, can love actually exist in isolation, Lauren?
Again, yllas, my church strives to be Apostolic and avoid later century interpretations. Oneness theology has always been a hotly contested issue, but the United Pentecostal Church was founded after the Azula st. Revival.
Of course, you don’t care to learn about the history of my church, but rather to make the point that it has one.
Throughout all of this you have yet to actually ask a question. You keep making nonsensical statements that lack key clauses to convey your meaning.
This sentence “My point is the origination of the Christian God, being for abortion, and against abortion, and being based on individual exegesis of the final authority on matters of abortion.” does not make sense. It’s just a series of words.
What I think you are trying to get at is that our personal interpretation of the bible influence our views on abortion, which is of course true. What it doesn’t change is what is actually written in the bible. Again, my church, and I personally, try to maintain the apostolic integrity of the bible. We are not trying to twist words to fit our personal agenda.
All of that said, I still do not believe that opposition to abortion need be a solely religious opposition. I believe that people who reject religion can still maintain morality and still oppose the wanton destruction of life. Now, I do believe that morality comes from God and that even those who reject Him are living by his law weather they are aware of that fact or not. However, because the same could be said of every aspect of our humanity and moral quandaries, this does not affect the assumption that religion need not play a role in the rejection of abortion.
Ray, since you are challenging people, I challenge you to read Darwin on Trial and the later writings of Phillip E. Johnson. It deals with the tautology that often invades evolutionary thought. As critism of Darwinism is often excluded from scientific study, I think it prudent to explore the criticisms that exist before making any sort of opinion.
My view of evolution is that it has large, gaping holes that have not been filled to my satisfaction. I do not reject it outright, but I do not embrace it completely either. This is the exact opposite of “willful ignorance” but rather the result of me studying both sides of the issue and finding the supporting evidence to be lacking. I will withhold judgment until further evidence comes to light.
I’m sorry, but I don’t consider abortion to be in any way “murder”. It’s no more murder than euthanizing a terminally ill pet. Yes, abortion is not a pleasant thing to happen, and is certainly unfortunate, but it’s often the compassionate and humane thing to do.
I DO discriminate between unborn and born. These are totally different things.
A fetus in the first trimester cannot feel pain; it’s not life but potential life.
As far as I’m concerned, life begins at birth and not a second before. Obama should have said this when he talked about this question being”above his pay grade”, but being this honest would have cost him a lot a votes.
And ironically, under his administration, the abortion rate could DECREASE markedly, because the government might help the poor more, and will no longer deny help to poor countries like the Bush administration.
This sentence “My point is the origination of the Christian God, being for abortion, and against abortion, and being based on individual exegesis of the final authority on matters of abortion.” does not make sense. It’s just a series of words.
Lauren’s post.
Yep, that is a statement which is obviously above your pay grade then Lauren.
It concerns the fact that many Christian forms of worshipping their personal God, have come to being “for the choice of abortion”. Episcopalians, Presbyterians,Methodist, Lutherans, all the mainline Protestant theologies in today’s world.
They are the culture of this nation, Protestants.
Protestants in all forms, which I think you sprung from Lauren, made abortion what it is today.
Afterall, actions have no basis for being “closer to God” upon death, Right Lauren?
The above post to you concerning your “religion” has many questions awaiting a answer from you Lauren.
Seems your trying to save me Lauren. Which is more important, being a evangalist for your personal religion at this site, defending your personal interpretation of the bible, or trying to stop abortion by using your religion to stop abortion?
See, there is a direct question, Lauren.
Robert, you are making a logical flaw in your response. It matters not if you personally believe abortion to be murder, we do. So it makes little sense for you to tell us to “live and let live” knowing full well that that command forces us to “live with” what we consider to be the murder of 3600 humans a day.
Think of it this way. Say that I don’t believe that toddlers are persons. I believe that they are “pre-persons” who have the capacity to one day become persons, but at this point they’re disposable. You disagree and believe that toddlers are human persons who deserve protection. If I began killing toddlers, would you not have the right to object? Would it not be ridiculous for me to tell you to “live and let live” or to “mind your own business?”
You are not being intellectually honest with yourself if you can not see that your statement to “live and let live” is illogical in this scenario.
Your personal views do not change the reality of the situation and allow for the killing of millions. Were anyone else to hold such personal views regarding the humanity of born humans, they would rightly be denounced as murderous.
Before I move on to questioning your standards of personhood, I want to ensure that you understand that your original premise was faulty and that asking us to not care and work against the killing of preborn children would be like asking you to do the same in respect to toddlers.
Lauren.
I asked you a simple question, and have recieved a lot o interpretations of my words so far.
Q1.Is God love?
Q2. Can love actually exist in isolation?
See, I ask questions, and simple questions at that.
“no wonder this country is going down the drain.
Posted by: Jasper at November 18, 2008 12:50 AM”
@Jasper: My other option was voting for Obama out of spite. Which would you prefer? Me writing in Stephen Colbert because of my displeasure with the candidates in this election or voting for OBama as a big “F*** You” to you and the other Stanekites?
Yllas, it is not that it is “above my pay grade” it is that it is grammatically incorrect and does not convey an idea.
As to your question “Seems your trying to save me Lauren. Which is more important, being a evangalist for your personal religion at this site, defending your personal interpretation of the bible, or trying to stop abortion by using your religion to stop abortion? ”
I am explaining my religion to you because you charge that it arises from protestantism, which is untrue. I am trying to explain to you the nature of my religion because it is being miscatagorized and I think that it should be made clear.
I do not dispute that many mainstream protestant movements have allowed for abortion to come into their ranks, but I do not belong to a church that embraces these ideals.
I believe that evangelism and abortion are two separate issues. I do not believe that one can reach an atheist pro-choicer by telling them “well God says so.” I believe that we must examine humanity and morality from a secular stance and then show how morality originates from God.
The most important message I can spread is that of Christ. That said, the message of Christ may not persuade someone to abandon abortion if they reject Christ, and so I believe it important to address the abortion issue from a variety of vantage points. This is not to say that I will stop evangelizing, but rather that it is not my sole tactic for moving hearts away from abortion.
Yllas, According to 1 John 4:8:
He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love
So, yes, God is love.
As to your question about love existing in isolation, I believe I already answered that question about morality being a function of God. So I’m not sure what else you mean by “in isolation”.
Lauren.
So far we agree that God is love.
Forget morality, function of God.
It is a simple question.
Can love actually exist in isolation, Lauren?
What does that question mean to you Lauren?
Take a guess.
Lauren.
Did you mean to write Azusa st. revival?
Yes, Asusa, and yes love can exist in isolation. If you mean that it can exist apart from societal interaction. I fail to see how this has any bearing on anything other than your twisted perversion to somehow make some cryptic “gotcha” point.
Azusa, sorry.
In other words, God’s existence as a man [the Son of God] is not framed as perpetuating from the ethereal mists of eternity past. There is no “Son of God” who, at the incarnation, became a man. A “son” clearly has a beginning and so therefore cannot be viewed as an eternal being not bound by the rigors of time. This is exactly what scripture teaches.
Lauren post.
Arianism, a fourth-century heresy which denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. Its author was Arius (256-336), a priest of Alexandria, who in 318 began to teach the doctrine which now bears his name. According to Arius there are not three distinct persons in God, co-eternal and equal in all things, but only one person, the Father. The Son is only a creature, made out of nothing like all other created beings. He may be called God but only by an extension of language, as the first and greatest person chosen to be divine intermediary in the creation and redemption of the world.
In the Arian system, the Logos or Word of God (the second person of the Trinity in orthodox theology) is not eternal. There was a time when he did not exist. Yet, he is before all time and ages, which began only with the creation of the world. He is not a son by nature, but merely by grace and adoption. God adopted him in prevision of his merits, since he might have sinned but did not. He was therefore sinless not by necessity of nature but simply as a matter of fact. If we call him God, it is only in the broad sense in which all the just in Scripture are said to be divine. In a word, instead of being God he is a kind of Demiurge-a lesser god like the one posited by the earlier Gnostics-who advanced in virtue and merit and thus came to be closely associated with the Father. But his nature is not of the same substance as the Father’s.
Q1. Is this your true theological source, also using the bible/theology, for your religion?
There is nothing new under the sun, Lauren.
Considered a heresy, which is defined as “a choice”, following the etymology of the word “heresy”.
See, “choice”, brings moral relativism about even the nature of God, since the 4th century.
BTW, Protestants are nothingmore then heretics also.
Moral relativism flows from religious heresy.
Then flowed into the secular world, rejecting a God that became irrelvent, by not using actions as a base for morality, just being saved was good enough.
Afterall, actions have no basis for being “closer to God” upon death, Right Lauren?
Modern day Jehovah’s Witnesses are Arians.
Yllas,
I have since the beginning suspected you of being a pro-choicer, with too much time on their hands, who is trying to undermine the pro-life movement by asserting our point of view as a lunatic. I can only suspect now that you are trying to specifically drive a wedge between Protestant and Catholic pro-lifers. You transparent attempts will not be effective unfortunately. Keep trying though! Its interesting to watch.
Robert Berger :”I DO discriminate between unborn and born. These are totally different things.
A fetus in the first trimester cannot feel pain; it’s not life but potential life.
As far as I’m concerned, life begins at birth and not a second before. ”
I totally agree with you. Abortion is a good thing because it vanquishes the undead vampire preborn in the womb. If it werent for the banishing light of day that converts the vampire fetus into a living baby right at the moment of birth. Oh wait, that makes no sense actually. Oh well!
By the way, you make a point that a human who is immune to pain is no different than a pet. What about comatose victims who cannot feel pain? Can I just walk in and pull the plug even if it is reasonable that they may recover?
Please use some reasoning before you start throwing ideas around. Keep in mind that the issue is of life and death; this is serious stuff. You obviously havent thought much about it, or conversely you do not have the ability to think about it. Either way, I dont think you should be weighing in on the position until you have actually thought some of your statements through.
Ray,
I read your website by the way. They offered no proof of macro-evolution. Just the same old speculations.
“Look at these bones….they SEEM like they are getting more and more evolved…obviously then it must be the case that they are!”
The argument for evolution is based on the notion that because animals have specialization and because some animals are similar to others, that the only explanation must be macro-evolution. It is used a disproof of “creationism” by assuming its own conclusion. We call this circular reasoning. Every aspect of evolution can be discredited except micro-evolution, with the notion that there was a supreme Creator, of some sort.
Either premise is equally valid, and there is no more proof for either one.
By the way, I love the explanation on the eye spot. The author assumes that the eye came from a very very unspecialized eye that conveyed a tiny advantage. The problem with that theory is that the mutations happen in individuals. If the eye offered a slight improvement in survivability, it is still not likely that the trait would be passed on. Even then, what a large jump in evolution to go from nothing to a helpful cell that could interpret light enough to understand where a predator is. Ridiculous.
Yes, Asusa, and yes love can exist in isolation. If you mean that it can exist apart from societal interaction. I fail to see how this has any bearing on anything other than your twisted perversion to somehow make some cryptic “gotcha” point.
Posted by: Lauren at November 18, 2008 12:57 PM
I’m talking about God Lauren.
Q1, is God love?
Q2. Can Love actually exist in isolation?
In 1905 William J. Seymour, a 34 year old son of former slaves, was a student of well-known pentecostal preacher Charles Parham and an interim pastor for a small holiness church in Houston, Texas.
Born in Muscatine, Iowa, on 4 June 1873, Parham began coordinating independent services at the age of 15, and in his early adult life had already made a name for himself. He was affiliated with the Methodist and Holiness movements. Parham disagreed with the hierarchy of the Methodist church, and later, would also alienate many of his followers by declaring their worship style invalid (based on what he felt was excess emotionalism and a lack of spiritual leadership).[5] In 1895, he broke with the mainstream Methodist denomination and established his own ministry, staying free formal structure and organization (outside the local church) for the remainder of his ministry.
Yep, your roots are Methodist. Protestant to the bone, in origination.
Oliver,
“Abortion is a good thing because it vanquishes the undead vampire preborn in the womb. If it werent for the banishing light of day that converts the vampire fetus into a living baby right at the moment of birth”
It’s interesting that you mention this. Ray Dennehy in the last chapter of his book “Anti-Abortionist at Large” discusses how the abortion movement is like a vampire or even Dracula in that we must feed off the blood of the young and weak whom we can take advantage of in order to sustain our own lives. It is even more pertinent to the whole ESCR debate. But I thought he made a lot of really great points and comparisons in that last chapter. It’s otherwise still a really great book. I think anyone on here would learn a lot from it. God love you.
I don’t like being called a Protestant.
I attend the Assmbly of God. There’s not a more on-fire church for God. There’s some wacky stuff as there is in all churches, however, my faith moves, is ever-growing, uncompromising and hungry for His Spirit.
In fact, my theology lines up more with Catholicism than it does with Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian and Lutheran theology. I would feel as comfortable worshipping with MK as with anyone. Why? Because we both understand the word. This should be a true Catholic’s goal in life, to know, love and serve God by studying and applying His Word.
My prayer is that the Catholic Church have a great awakening, a restoration, a revival of what they really believe at the core. This church can move and change things if they make a decision to do it.
I think when the focus is on God’s Word and not the teachings of men, it’s kind of difficult to not agree on the central issues like the virgin birth, the Trinity, the Supremacy of Christ, and the efficacy of the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord.
yllas, you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about. Pentecostalism is widely recognized restorationist, not protestant in nature. Under this umbrella, we specifically attempt to practice the Christianity of the Apostles. While our founders may have originated within other movements, that does not change the principle of primitivism within the pentecostal church.
Oliver at 2:18 was me, sorry.
Yllas,
I have since the beginning suspected you of being a pro-choicer, with too much time on their hands, who is trying to undermine the pro-life movement by asserting our point of view as a lunatic. I can only suspect now that you are trying to specifically drive a wedge between Protestant and Catholic pro-lifers. You transparent attempts will not be effective unfortunately. Keep trying though! Its interesting to watch.
Posted by: Oliver at November 18, 2008 1:46 PM
You are a lunatic?
So be it, you wrote it, not me.
I thought that was my job, according to such intellectual heavy weights as Heather, the mind puppet of Doug, to the ALL Truth Doug.
When I ask questions or provoke a defence of your theology, philosophy, belief in denying abortion, you resort to your ethics as being a truth defining methodology.
Personally, your ethics are more persuasive then your personal religious theology.
I didn’t start the fire Oliver, Protestants did.
Take the O man, being a Protestant, and being a great example of moral relativism, resulting from heresies(choices) that reach up to making God a complicit murderer of innocent human beings via abortion.
Convert the Protestant culture that actually runs this nation’s laws, courts, and ideas about God, Oliver.
As for Catholics being for abortion, and voting for a Protestant president named Obama, what’s new with Catholics having Protestant culture envy, Oliver?
Yllas, obviously you didn’t read my post very carefully.
Your hysterical cries of HERESY! regarding anyone outside of the Catholic church are laughable. You are obviously not a real person interested in real conversationt.
yllas, you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about. Pentecostalism is widely recognized restorationist, not protestant in nature. Under this umbrella, we specifically attempt to practice the Christianity of the Apostles. While our founders may have originated within other movements, that does not change the principle of primitivism within the pentecostal church.
Posted by: Oliver at November 18, 2008 2:18 PM
Then I suggest you run over to Wiki and argue with them concerning Asusa st. revival.
Restoring what, Oliver? Protestant interpretations of the bible, or Catholic versions of the bible?
Your roots are Protestant. Trying to restore Protestantism to its primative roots of the Protestant choices founded in the individual interpretation of God’s Word.
You are what you are, from tracing your historical roots, which surely aren’t Catholic roots, Oliver.
I’m a little confused here…why is it that some are denouncing Evangelicals for not being Catholic, when the topic at hand is that Evangelicals tended to vote more pro-life in this election than did Catholics?
Your hysterical cries of HERESY! regarding anyone outside of the Catholic church are laughable. You are obviously not a real person interested in real conversationt.
Posted by: lauren at November 18, 2008 2:28 PM
Gee Lauren, heresy means choice, that’s all.
You have made a choice(heresy), that choice is your right to interpret the bible any way you want. Right? Hey, do your thing Lauren, I simply ask questions which obviously bring the worst form of Uni God, out in you.
Which is why individual bible interpretations is the root of modern moral relativism, even back to the day of a theologian named, Arius..
Now, try this Lauren,
Get hal, doug, and the other death trolls to insult and argue amongst themselves as easily as your insulting me for asking questions concerning your religious beliefs.
Never happen, since you pro lifers are a mixed bag of theological reasoning, actually based in nothingmore then actions having no reason to get you closer to God for Eternity.
Which includes the action of abortion as having no effect on being “closer to God for Eternity”.
The comparison with the theoretical notion that some one might believe that killing toddlers is acceptble and believing in a woman’s right to choose to terminate a pregnancy is false.
A small child of two or three is a conscious, living being, and out of the womb.
This is not the same as a partially formed fetus, which cannot live on its own, has no
feeling of pain, cannopt think or reason etc.
No one has the right to kill another human being, but a woman must always have the right to terminate a pregnancy; it’s her body, and her right.
Never happen, since you pro lifers are a mixed bag of theological reasoning, actually based in nothingmore then actions having no reason to get you closer to God for Eternity.
*****************************************
“You pro lifers”???
Am I to take that to mean that yllas, you do not consider yourself to be a pro-lifer? (Or maybe I’m just out of the loop and I’m the only one who doesn’t know you’re pro-choice.)
Robert: “The comparison with the theoretical notion that some one might believe that killing toddlers is acceptble and believing in a woman’s right to choose to terminate a pregnancy is false.
A small child of two or three is a conscious, living being, and out of the womb.”
Of course, you have to remind us that a fetus is an undead creature.
Whats your definition of conscious Robert? Is it self awareness? Or just general awareness?
Do you think animals deserve personhood? They are generally aware. Do you think that a newborn or the mentally handicapped or some elderly are the equivalent of animals because they are not self aware?
Robert: “This is not the same as a partially formed fetus”
So partially formed humans arent persons? Tell that to me friend who never developed a full human hand.
Robert: “…which cannot live on its own…”
So what about people on ventilators? What about people with pacemakers? They are not humans?
Robert: “has no feeling of pain”
What about people who have CIPA? The inability to register pain? Are these people okay to kill if they annoy us?
Robert: “cannopt think or reason etc.”
So the mentally disabled who cannot reason are just animals? Is it our ability to reason that makes our lives special? Then why do we not extend the rights to almost all highly evolved animals?
Its arguable, depending on your definition of “reason” that newborns are not capable of reason.
Robert: “No one has the right to kill another human being”
What is a human being then? You told me what makes you not a human, which of course cancels out several groups of humans, but what DOES make a human a human BEING? Be careful not to include half of the animal kingdom with your definition.
Robert: “but a woman must always have the right to terminate a pregnancy; it’s her body, and her right.”
The fetus is not “her body.” Besides, that rationale doesnt work.
“Hey coppers, you cant do a cavity search on me! Its my body, my right!”
“Hey school teacher, you cant have me removed from your class because I am masturbating while watching the kids. Its my body, my right!”
“Hey, you cant prevent me from falling on you from above. Its my body, my right!”
Or how about this one.
“I dont want to feed my kids. My money, my right!”
“I dont want to house my children. My property, my right!”
Do you see how utterly vapid your argument is? Do you see how deeply flawed that statement is? Its nothing but an overused platitude.
Is anyone else concerned that Robert may have learned about the anatomy of pregnancy from Van Helsing?
The comparison with the theoretical notion that some one might believe that killing toddlers is acceptble and believing in a woman’s right to choose to terminate a pregnancy is false.
***************************************
Actually, it isn’t. Ever heard of Peter Singer?
And while we’re at it, your comparison of the killing of an unborn human being to the anesthetization of an animal is not valid.
What exactly are you picturing when you say “partially formed fetus” Robert? This? http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-12-weeks
I saw my daughter on the ultrasound screen at 12 weeks. She was kicking, opening her mouth, swallowing, rolling over, and sucking her thumb. Right there on the screen in front of me. The way you say it, you make it sound as if there are tiny blobs or pieces of tissue that magically cohese right before birth. Which obviously is not the case.
As for fetal pain, the jury’s still out on that one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_pain
The day we decide the value of human life according to the capacity to feel pain and/or “reason” in a way that can be interpreted is indeed a sad day for all of humanity, born and unborn alike. You eliminate a lot of people if those are your criteria.
I’m a little confused here…why is it that some are denouncing Evangelicals for not being Catholic, when the topic at hand is that Evangelicals tended to vote more pro-life in this election than did Catholics?
Posted by: Kel at November 18, 2008 2:44 PM
Catholics have Protestant envy, and is that a bad thing Kel?
They voted for a Protestant in envy of Protestantism. Having been known as “the religion of child molestors”, for years, they might get a break from being known only as child molester’s religion, and the “whore of Babylon”, by voting for a Protestant.
And from the discussions here, it might have worked. Now, Catholics are Protestants, and maybe they can lose that “whore image”, and gain some of that Protestant respect for abortion.
Ever hear of all those Protestant preachers having Catholic envy Kel? More like preaching like Hagee did, referring and using his bible interpretation of those Catholics as being the “whore of Babylon”. When asked to denounce such Protestant hate speech, Hisman grew into a typical pro life Protestant, silent and not going to go against such a prominent exegesic, Protestant preacher, as John Hagee is.
John Hagee did as much to get the Catholic Obama vote out as did Kimec.
Ever hear of Protestant ministers being “the religion of child molesters”, as Catholic priest have been known, Kel? Usually it’s a fundamentalist Protestant, like Clinton denying he has sex with that women. And by Protestant theology, he’s right. But, not the dispicable charge of being a child molestering priest.
Catholics voted for a Protestant, from being envious of just wanting to be in the mainline Protestant culture of the USA.
Never happen, since you pro lifers are a mixed bag of theological reasoning, actually based in nothingmore then actions having no reason to get you closer to God for Eternity.
*****************************************
“You pro lifers”???
Am I to take that to mean that yllas, you do not consider yourself to be a pro-lifer? (Or maybe I’m just out of the loop and I’m the only one who doesn’t know you’re pro-choice.)
Posted by: Kel at November 18, 2008 2:55 PM
I’m a pro lifer, amongst a mixed bag of theological reasoning, actually based in nothingmore then actions having no reason to get you closer to God for Eternity.
Yllas: “Catholics have Protestant envy, and is that a bad thing Kel?”
If they had Protestant envy, wouldnt that have voted like the Protestants?
Yllas: “Catholics have Protestant envy, and is that a bad thing Kel?”
If they had Protestant envy, wouldnt that have voted like the Protestants?
Posted by: Oliver at November 18, 2008 3:24 PM
They sure did Oliver, they voted for the Protestant named Obama.
Catholics envy Protestants. Always have, in a nation which can openly spread their bias against Catholics, here and everywhere else.
Which brings up a question Oliver.
Is giving the devil disciples what they want a wrong action?
If a man of God, names you a whore, and of Babylon no less, is it not right to be a whore, and do the work of God as a whore, via that man of God’s biblical interpretations?
See John Hagge, Oliver.
yllas, I never claimed that the pentecostals were of Catholic origin, but rather that we strive to practice an authentic faith predating both Catholicism and protestantism.
Yllas, you obviously *are* a pro-choicer who is here only to sow discontent. You are unable to make a logical argument and seem intent on bashing everyone whose beliefs differ even slightly from yours.
You are obviously a troll, and an obvious one at that. I will happily discuss my faith, but you are not interested in learning anything, but rather are here only to slander and twist to prove some inane point.
You’re not nearly as clever or smart as you think you are.
yllas, I never claimed that the pentecostals were of Catholic origin, but rather that we strive to practice an authentic faith predating both Catholicism and protestantism.
Posted by: Lauren at November 18, 2008 5:05 PM
How can you practice a Christian religion that predates Catholicism? There is none.
“Yllas, you obviously *are* a pro-choicer who is here only to sow discontent”
Oh no you don’t. We don’t want Yllas in our camp.
Janet, we model our religion after the religion of the Apostles, without the hierarchy put in place by the Catholics during later centuries.
So, while technically not predating Catholicism, we attempt to get back to the roots of Christianity in the bible.
From Wiki(and I think a good explanation)
Oneness Christians regard the historic Ecumenical Councils and creeds to be the opinions of men within an apostate falling away from the first Church. In contrast, Nicene (Catholic & Protestant) Christians (by their very definition of orthodox) regard all post-apostolic doctrinal developments as being guided by God’s will using the councils and church leadership.
Hal, lol!
Posted by: Lauren
You (Yllas) are obviously not a real person interested in real conversation.
__
Yllas is a nutbar, and you’re right.
Posted by: Lauren
Yllas, you obviously *are* a pro-choicer who is here only to sow discontent. You are unable to make a logical argument and seem intent on bashing everyone whosebeliefs differ even slightly from yours.
You are obviously a troll, and an obvious one at that.
___
LOL. Yllas is a troll from the troller derby. If you watch, Yllas isn’t really concerned about abortion. Yllas just wants to bitch at people. Doesn’t matter which side of the argument they’re on.
Lauren,
Whether you believe the hierarchy was in place at the time of Jesus or not, the Catholic Church was certainly the first Christian Church instituted by Christ.
Yllas,
I have since the beginning suspected you of being a pro-choicer,with too much time on their hands, who is trying to undermine the pro-life movement by asserting our point of view as a lunatic. I can only suspect now that you are trying to specifically drive a wedge between Protestant and Catholic pro-lifers. You transparent attempts will not be effective unfortunately.
~~Oliver at November 18, 2008 1:46 PM
*****
Yllas is an Anti-Christian. I say that because while 1 Corinthians 16:14 instructs us, “Let all that you do be done in love,” Yllas acts from hatred.
Janet, oneness pentecostals believe that the apostolic church became corrupted as it became the Catholic Church.
Bears repeating.
Wise comments to Yllas:
“Yllas –
honest question…
when you post all of this garbage, do you think you’re being deep and profound?
I’m not trying to be mean, but if you haven’t noticed, even people who probably agree with your basic points don’t respond or discuss your posts, and many pro lifers as well as pro choicers completely ignore your posts because they’re ususually just rambling, insult riddled tangents. No one thinks you’re clever except you. It might benefit you to cool down the alliterations, stupid nicknames, and rhetoric, as well as your lovely habit of making assumptions and putting words in people’s mouths.
I’ve found the people who post here, even if I vehemently disagree with them, have at least a little something to say thats worth thinking about. You are the only exception. Again, I’m not trying to be mean…unless you enjoy not being taken seriously…in that case, by all means…”
yllas, I never claimed that the pentecostals were of Catholic origin, but rather that we strive to practice an authentic faith predating both Catholicism and protestantism.
Posted by: Lauren at November 18, 2008 5:05 PM
Lauren,
Jesus telling Peter he was the rock upon which he would build his church predates Pentecost; so how does the pentecostal faith predate catholicism?
No one thinks you’re clever except you.
Posted by: Chris at November 18, 2008 9:20 PM
Chris, you don’t speak for “everybody” so you may want to use a little humility in your words also.
Hopefully you do not consider Yllas clever, truthseeker. Yllas is a detriment to both the Pro-Life movement and to Christianity. I hope for Yllas’s sake that salvation comes not from deeds or grace, but from pity, because obviously she/he does not fit either category.
Of course, Yllas could just be a sophisticated bot that is just throwing together random sentences. Sometimes the grammar and thought flow seems to assert this…
I do not deny that I often find yllas’ post to be abrasive. But I also find yllas sophisticated at times. I enjoyed a good conversation with him/her about the Trinity the other night.
I am calling it an early night Oliver. Be kind and the peace of Jesus be with you always. And also with you yllas.
might benefit you to cool down the alliterations, stupid nicknames, and rhetoric, as well as your lovely habit of making assumptions and putting words in people’s mouths.
Posted by: Chris at November 18, 2008 9:20 PM
Are you a bot, Chris?
You’ve been playing the logic game that is as circular as the truth dude. You have done nothing to change one person to not being against abortion at this site.
Face it Chris, no one has a good argument against abortion, you just think you do.
I learned that from the truth dude,Doug. Got a problem with that statment? Take it up with the truth dude, Chris.
You assume you have a good argument, but that’s the problem with ya Chris. You assume way to much with some silly attempt to correct a person’s belief to your belief.
Besides, your attempt at trying to understand and preach as Francis Beckwith, is not really going so well Chris.
Another words Chris, quit putting Beckwith’s words in your mouth, and think for yourself Chris.
Fact is Chris, you appeal to emotion quite often. Such as pictures you post. Care to tell me that logic mistake’s name Chris?
You use sarcasm and think it’s humor, as humorist as any over the hill, hack comedian, such as appears nightly on the msn. A form of ad hominem, ad nauseum.
Hey, try and make fun of yourself Chris, not others at this site. You know, Humility Humor.
Want me to go down the list of fallacies any more Chris, such as appeal to fear?
You know, like I wrote back to Oliver.
Lunatic? So be it, you wrote it, not me.
I thought that was my job, according to such intellectual heavy weights as Heather, the mind puppet of Doug, to the ALL Truth Doug.
See the humor that appeals to humility, the humility of a lunatic? Try it Chris, and get off that high horse of assuming, your assumptions are changing one person at this site.
Now, as I wrote to Lauren, try and cause inter- abortion disagreements, and lay of me Chris.
Get a pro life, postboard groupie following, Chris, such as truth dude Doug has in Heather, and when you post, that groupie will slobber over your wisdom and wit.
But, remember Chris, actions have nothing to do with being closer to God for Eternity.
Which is why being for abortion, or not for abortion, is really unimportant to your Salvation Chris.
Your post here Chris, are worthless to your Salvation.
TS.
God is love.
Love can’t actually exist in isolation.
Lauren failed to get the profound psychological implications of love that exist alone, or in isolation. Why? Because of her uni-God exist in isolation.
In order for love to exist, you have to have someone who loves, and someone who is loved, and the love between them.
The Father is the one who loves, the Son is the one who is loved, and the Holy Spirit is the love between them. The Trinity is an eternal union of love between these three divine Persons.
And humans imitate this love when they marry as a “eternal union” on this Earth.
That the love between them, the holy spirit, might produce life is a physical manifestation of God.
Which is why the church made marriage a sacrament, or a earthly sign/remainder of the supernatural God on this Earth.
Of Course, some bible genius found the loop hole for divorce, and reduced marriage to the wishes they wanted approved from God.
Same with abortion.
Bet ya a dollar, that Lauren’s form of Christianity allows a blessing from God that disbands the trinity of love between two humans, as imitated in marriage. A divorce, which all Protestant forms of religion agree upon.
And returns them to the single state of isolation, from which they theologically, and pshychologically sprang from.
The original Christians were a insult, a lunacy that made a secular act, being married, into a sign, or imitation of what God was to them psychologically or spiritually, and imitating that eternal union on this Earth.
Which is why Protestants had to return their pagan lunatic roots, and deny marriage as having anything to do with marrige being a imitation of the Trinity on Earth.
Or, gee Lauren, do you imitate Protestants, and allow divorce in your form of worship to the uni God from the bible?
More moral relativism forth coming, based on individual Bible interpretations of course.
I hope for Yllas’s sake that salvation comes not from deeds or grace, but from pity,
Posted by the not Protestant, not Catholic, Oliver.
Well, Oliver, deeds,grace,pity, have nothing to do with me being “saved” anyway. Either does performing a abortion.
If you really think about it Oliver, I might be trying to save you from reducing salvation to the mere moral nothingness offered by you.
Ain’t it a hoot, we all end up closer to God for Eternity. And not a damn thing I did, will do, or has done functions to get me closer to God for Eternity.
Party on Oliver.
yllas: Face it Chris, no one has a good argument against abortion, you just think you do.
I learned that from the truth dude,Doug.
No you didn’t. As confused as you often are, vast numbers of people have set you straight about various things, but that’s where you once again are making stuff up.
Obviously, people on both sides of the debate think they have a good argument. Do you think I have a good argument? I’d say of course not. And vice-versa and I hope that a hateful and bitter person like you doesn’t have input into public policy.
My point is that I don’t think people on the Pro-Life side have a good enough argument that we take away the freedom that women have in the matter.
yllas: And not a damn thing I did, will do, or has done functions to get me closer to God for Eternity.
Depends on what one believes, eh?
Anyway, yllas, I was wondering. You’re going through life, and you seem quite bitter and hateful, and so the end of your life eventually comes, and you’ve had a whole slew of wacky message board posts and a bitter and hateful life. What’s the point of that?
TS.
God is love.
Love can’t actually exist in isolation.
Lauren failed to get the profound psychological implications of love that exist alone, or in isolation. Why? Because of her uni-God exist in isolation.
In order for love to exist, you have to have someone who loves, and someone who is loved, and the love between them.
The Father is the one who loves, the Son is the one who is loved, and the Holy Spirit is the love between them. The Trinity is an eternal union of love between these three divine Persons. ”
You use the term “uni-God” as some sort of derogatory term. You might want to bring that one up with God who says again and again that He is One.
You just made up your “trinity of love” statement. There is no biblical basis for this. God is one. This is stated over and over and over again. The term “trinity” is never mentioned in the bible, and in fact all early Christians understood God’s oneness because they were Jewish. It was not until the third century when the gentile influence of paganism crept into the church that the “trinity” crept in.
God’s love can most certainly exist in isolation. He has reveled his love to people who have never met a missionary and live apart from society. His love is not contingent upon our human interactions.
Truthseeker- The reason pentecostalism strives for a region that predates modern Catholicism is because we do not believe that Catholics today are practicing the religion of Peter and the rest of the apostles. We believe it has been corrupted.
Yllas, I have since the beginning suspected you of being a pro-choicer, with too much time on their hands, who is trying to undermine the pro-life movement by asserting our point of view as a lunatic.
Oliver, have to laugh – I’ve previously said that yllas is one of the best Pro-Choice arguments there is. And that I’d certainly be willing for yllas to be the primary spokesperson for the Pro-Life side.
However, you have yet another take on it… ; )
Did you write something truth dude?
What are you trying to emote from me, truth dude?
Another yawn from me? Well you got what you wanted.
Ahhh, Yawn.
And in one, two, three, Heather comes to fawn over you truth dude.
Your own personal postboard groupie.
Are you still bitter from being called out on your lying to that waitress, using a fake argument based on time, while actually using the “just another drink” argument?
That ain’t to truthful dude.
God’s love can most certainly exist in isolation
Another Lauren post.
And many people return that jester of love,that doesn’t need anybody or anything, but lives in isolation, by not believing in God. Good work Lauren.
Ever wonder how many atheist,agnostics you have created Lauren?
You need God, he doesn’t need you. He lives alone in isolation.
Keep going Lauren, you might get truth dude to agree with ya.
Look, here’s the thing I don’t want to get dragged into an argument that is going to upset alot of people. Obviously I have disagreements with the Catholic church and other churches and I do think that discussing different theologies is interesting, but I don’t want to hurt anyone.
I’ve had to state my beliefs pretty intently in defense of myself against Yllas, but that doesn’t mean I don’t respect the other Christian’s on this site and their views. I hope my disrespect of Yllas personally didn’t come across as disrespect for everyone else.
Anyways, if anyone has questions they can feel free to ask them, but otherwise I’m going to step away from this so I don’t hurt people that I care about.
Yllas, I don;t know what you’re talking about. I mean that we can love God and receive His love apart from the influence of other people. I’m not saying that love exists apart from God, but rather apart from man. Stop twisting my words.
Here’s a novel approach to salvation.
All Catholic posters at this site, should take a week or two off from posting at this site.
Leave it to those non Catholics, who have a uniGod that pre dates Catholics, and insults history by using their bible interpretations to prove their need to make Catholics into what their bible interpretes Catholics to be.
Another words, more moral relativism comes forth.
Afterall, your words here, don’t save you anyway. And saving another person has nothing to do with getting closer to God for Eternity, too
Um, no Yllas, there is no “insult to history”. The break we have with Catholics is in regards to their trinitarianim which was not a stance until Tertullian around 200 ad. and not an official stance until Nicea.
Anyways, if anyone has questions they can feel free to ask them, but otherwise I’m going to step away from this so I don’t hurt people that I care about.
Posted by: Lauren at November 19, 2008 8:22 AM
This site enjoys making Catholics the object of doubt, ridicule, and even this post is about Catholics being less for life..
I lay that fact, that Catholics voted for a pro abortion Protestant, is from Protestant envy.
Why, I even envy your uni God that makes one have no actions,deeds,pity, including abortion, that denys them being closer to God for Eternity.
Seems a lot o Catholics have adopted your version of Salvation, that abortion has no function on Salvation, and still you complain about Catholics Lauren.
When they act like your theology, you still complain that those Catholics are…….. less then you, Lauren.
Yllas, I never said that Catholics are “less than me” you just made that up to stir up trouble. My reading of the scripture is different than theirs, but that doesn’t mean that I think that I’m “better” than them or any such nonsense. I believe that understanding the Oneness of God leads to better understanding of His nature, but I don’t hate Catholics, or think I’m better than them or whatever else you’ll try to put in my mouth.
Your assertion that Catholics have “protestant envy” and thus voted for Obama doesn’t make sense in light of the fact that protestants voted for McCain.
While I agree with you that it is shameful that protestants have fallen away from God, you can’t blame them for the moral decline of Catholics. There is an overall moral decline in our country, and the Catholics are as much a part of it as anyone else.
Now as for actions not affecting your relationship with God. I never said that. I said that our actions don’t affect salvation, but they most certainly *do* affect your relationship with God. One should be continually walking with God and strengthening his relationship. If we are not going foward, we are going backward and eventually end in a backslidden, apathetic state. Thus we should continually strive for closeness with God and obedience to His word. However, our obedience alone will not save us if we do not profess a belief in Christ.
I honestly don’t know what your problem is, but you most certainly have one. Stop trying to sow discontent. Doing so is not Christian.
Um, no Yllas, there is no “insult to history”. The break we have with Catholics is in regards to their trinitarianim which was not a stance until Tertullian around 200 ad. and not an official stance until Nicea.
Posted by: Lauren at November 19, 2008 8:41 AM
Of Course Lauren. It’s the beginning of moral relativism in Christian theology. And if what you write is is true Lauren, your following a man named Tertullian.
Not the bible. Your truth is no nomore true then a Nicean truth in thinking about God.
Hey, nice going Lauren, More moral relativism, which defines your need to be nothing more then a early heresy of Christians from the 2nd century.
And you began by denying Wiki which traces your Asusa st revival to its Methodist roots.
Now your back to the 2nd century in your heresy.
God exist alone. He needs no one since God is alone first and always alone. Who needs that God?
God created lonliness first. And then got bored with being alone evidently. Then he created humans that he reallly doesn’t need, since he can live alone, anyway.
What love.
Hey Bobby,
In the immortal words of Joe Montagna, Thank you Sir, May I have another? Banning that is?
I can’t stand the truth dude who comes back like a dog to its own vomit.
Or, maybe its my vomit he likes to come back to?
May I have another Bobby?
Lauren, unlike any of the other cathiolics who complain about the catholic bashing, I am secure enough in my faith where I as just actually looking for anopen dialogue. Thanks for your response. Certainly Catholics people, just like others of all faiths, fail in our attempt to live according to God’s plan for us. The reason I don’t split from the faith is because their teaching of the truth, I believe, is the closest to the way God would have us live. Sure, the church, being people, has strayed from living the truth, but the truth remains constant. What is it about the Catholic Trinitarian belief that Pentacostals found so wrong that they split from the church?
yllas,
It is true that a Christian who lives the faith gets closer and closer to living the way God would have them live. Kind of like the Wedding Feast at Cana. When the master of the feast tasted the wine that Jesus had had made he said to the bridegrom, ‘you have saved the best for last and that is not like anyone else’ Perhaps you should try using less sarcasm to get your points across….. like less of saying to look to Doug for the Doug etc… it only takes away from the validity of your post.
And correct me if I am wring but I understood your comparison of mariage and the Trinity as an “analogy” to the Trinity and thought it was a valid analogy. But of course thge Trinity is itself is much greater than then the sacrament of marriage and needs no such validation.
Lastly, it is obvious that God’s love can exist outside of man because God has existed for all time and God is love.
“Hey Bobby,
In the immortal words of Joe Montagna, Thank you Sir, May I have another? Banning that is?
I can’t stand the truth dude who comes back like a dog to its own vomit.
Or, maybe its my vomit he likes to come back to?
May I have another Bobby? ”
Huh??
Oliver,your comparisons with a baby sitter arguing for the right to masturbate in front of children etc with abortion are with all due respect, preposterous. Being pro-choice has nothing to do with these ludicrous comparisons.
The illegality of abortion never stops it; it never has and never will. To say that if abortion is legal that it’s as bad as allowing any kind of murder, bad behavior or mayhem, and comparable to this, and that the legality of abortions undermines general morality is absolutely false.
Anti- choicers simply have totally unrealistic goals and expectations when it comes to abortion, family planning, contraception, and sexuality.
And if we do not do more to help the poor and disadvantaged, the abortion rate will never go down, let alone disappear.
Yes, not all women who have abortions are poor, but a large number are.
The private sector simply cannot provide enough on its own to alleviate poverty, see to it that poor children get decent nutrition, and get a good education.
I’m no socialist, Marxist or communist,
but I realize that the government has to to do SOMETHING for the poor and those not originally poor but down on their luck. Just protesting abortion won’t stop it. We need to prevent more unwanted pregnancies, provide for poor, unwanted children, improve the quality of education in America, and provide a safety net for the unfortunate. But the conservative republican social and economic agenda would destroy this. No wonder McCain lost.
Truthseeker- The reason pentecostalism strives for a region that predates modern Catholicism is because we do not believe that Catholics today are practicing the religion of Peter and the rest of the apostles. We believe it has been corrupted.
Posted by: Lauren at November 19, 2008 7:59 AM
And you version of Christianity is not corrupted huh, Lauren?
You do know that such thoughts about Catholics was the basis of Protestantism Lauren.
Another prove your a Protestant Lauren, using the same lines that the Know Nothings Protestants used on Catholics as they burned down convents.
Keep going Lauren. Is the Catholic Church the whore of Babylon in Revelations Lauren?
No, Yllas, Turtullian was the founding father if you will of Trinitarianism.
You are vastly misunderstanding me, and I am positive it is because you are making a concerted effort to do so.
Obviously the modern pentecostal church had founders who arose out of other movements. But, hold on to your hat, they reviewed the bible and found their own theology to be backed on extra biblical origins. So they rejected those extra-biblical teachings to return to apostolic Christianity.
It was not a 2nd century heretic who defines our thought, but rather the example of the early Christians in the Bible. We believe that in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, the apostolic church began to be infused with extra-biblical teaching from a variety of sources, and that those messages somewhat corrupted the pure apostolic church.
I don’t know why you are being so contrary to the Oneness of God. It’s not like I’m making this up. Allow me to refer to God on this one.
Malachi 2:10
Have we not all ONE father? hath not ONE God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?
Deut 6:4
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD
Gal. 3:20
Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
John 20:28 (in regards to Jesus)
And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.
Col. 2:9 (also regarding Jesus)
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily
There are about a million scriptures that I can post, but these sum things up pretty well. Of course my personal favorite ‘oneness’ scripture is:
Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Robert, it’s an analogy. Examine the point trying to be made, not the likelihood of the action occuring.
As for your stance that making abortion illegal will not make it go away. You’re right. Making anything illegal does not completely end the act. People still steal and murder and rape and do any number of terrible, illegal things. The difference is that society condemns those things and the victims are brought justice. Making abortion legal increased its incidence 30 fold. Making it illegal will decrease incidence, even if it will not make it completely disappear.
Should we innact no laws because they criminals will continue to commit crimes? No.
Now as far as the private sector goes, CPC’s provide real services to women. They offer help obtaining insurance, clothing, houseing, baby gear, or anything else the woman might need. We could vastly expand the crisis pregnancy center network should abortion be banned. There are places for women to go to continue their pregnancy, but many women are scared off by Planned Parenthood scare tactics that put more money in PP’s pockets.
You have bought into the lie that republican’s “just don’t care” this couldn’t be further from the truth. Republicans are, on average, far more generous with our donations than our liberal counterparts. We just don’t think that government is the best way to help people. It isn’t that we don’t care, but rather that we see government as ineffective. The economy downfall was not the fault of the republicans, but Obama’s clever marketing campaign convinced the American people that it was. Look at Barney Frank, Community Reinvestment Act, Obama’s own lawsuit for “mortgage discrimination, McCain’s call for regulation, and Freddie and Frannie. I think you’ll be suprised.
Lastly, it is obvious that God’s love can exist outside of man because God has existed for all time and God is love.
Posted by: truthseeker at November 19, 2008 9:18 AM
God needs no man to be love. God needs no creation too.
Great TS. God exist in Isolation.
Using a analogy of a human father and son.
Here is what you said.
I the Father needs not a son, since I exist in isolated love. I have no need for love of another, such as you son, and their is no need of a spirit of love between us.
God is love because of the Trinity. It takes more then one to have love exist actually, TS.
Or, God is the first narcisssist, needing only himself to love himself.
His love returns to himself as all narcissitic love does.
Yllas, stop putting words in my mouth.
Truthseeker! I’m so glad to see a sane person!
Followers of Oneness Pentecostalism ascribe various things to trinitarians.
The mildest is that they fail to completely grasp the power of the crucificition under the trinitarian belief system. Basically that if it was simply a “person” of the Godhead crucified, it is not as powerful as if the One God in human form was crucified.
I know that seems a bit like semantics, but I know viewing things from a oneness persepective helped me to understand Calvary better as well as the amazing power of the Holy Spirit.
I tend to fall in this category.
Then there are people who believe that trinitarians are literally worshiping 3 Gods and thus NOT worshiping the One True God. Though I do sometimes encounter this worldview, I don’t think it is the one held by most trinitarians. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think the idea of 3 seperate, individual Gods is one that most trinitarians ascribe to.
The latter understanding of trinitarianism is the one that causes huge disagreements, and misunderstandings. This is a huge issue within the pentecostal church, especially between the Assemblies of God church and the United Pentecostal Church. The oneness followers can’t convince the Trinitarians that they aren’t heretics, and the Trinitarians can’t convince the Oneness folks that they aren’t polytheists.
Ultimately, I follow Oneness doctrine because it allows me to best understand God’s nature and the nature of salvation.
Yllas, Truthseeker is Catholic I believe, and has defended you. Why are you insulting him?
Lauren.
Summing it up.
God exist in isolated love.
God needs no one and nothing to be love.
God needs not me, and from that flows my salvation knowing that God needs not me.
Let me explain to you Lauren what that means to human beings in this life.
It is a parable of human birth on this planet.
Your creator(mother and father), didn’t need you to exist. Their love existed before you. Whether they wanted your life, is like your God, it needs not another to exist.
Reduce that to one person, and you have a parable of what abortion is.
A return to being a love existing alone.
A rejection of the human Trinity, begins with God existing in isolation needing no one and nothing to be love.
God is a narcissist, needing nothing but his love that returns to itself. Which is exactly what abortion is based on.
Wow.Congratulations, Yllas you’ve left me speechless due to your logistical pitfalls and insanity.
Hey Lauren.
Starting with Oliver’s statment; I dont think abortion has anything to do with God in regards to salvation
I still dont believe it has anything to do with salvation.
Posted by: Oliver at November 17, 2008 9:09 PM
Then abortion is actually having no effect on the Salvation of a person that has a abortion.
Some are saved, some are not. Having a abortion has no function in regards to Salvation.
What are you doing here Lauren?
Surely it is not from your religion, that actually ends with abortion having no effect on one’s Salvation.
Robert: “Oliver,your comparisons with a baby sitter arguing for the right to masturbate in front of children etc with abortion are with all due respect, preposterous. ”
Exactly. That is why the statement “my body my right” is also preposterous. It would allow for this belief, as the sex offender could argue “My body, my right!”
Robert: “Being pro-choice has nothing to do with these ludicrous comparisons.”
I take it youve never taken a philosophy or logic course….
I am making the analogy to show you what the basic ethical premise underlying the statement “My Body, My Right” would endorse. It endorses any action as long as the person committing that action makes an appeal to their body as justification. A guy who wanted to masturbate in public would only need to say “Look dude..its MY body, its none of your business what I do!”
The problem with that ethical premise, and the reason it is as completely ignorant as it is, is that it assumes that someones right to body trumps all rights at all times. Unfortunately for you, this is not the case. Think about cavity searches for a more realistic example. Or blood tests for a DUI. In either case you are not permitted to evoke your right to bodily autonomy at the expense of the safety of others. Too bad! My body my right!!? Guess not.
Robert: “The illegality of abortion never stops it; it never has and never will.”
Stealing is illegal, doesnt stop it.
Murder is illegal, doesnt stop it.
Drug abuse is illegal, doesnt stop it.
Jay walking is illegal, doesnt stop it.
Speeding is illegal, doesnt stop it.
Do I need to go on? I guess I could just say “WHO CARES!” in response to that point.
Robert: “To say that if abortion is legal that it’s as bad as allowing any kind of murder, bad behavior or mayhem, and comparable to this, and that the legality of abortions undermines general morality is absolutely false.”
Nice conclusion, but where is the premise? I can do that trick too.
Robert Berger obviously owes me 10,000 dollars! No need for explanation…see you later!!
You cant just claim something to be the case without any sort of reasoning.
Robert: “Anti- choicers….”
Please.
Robert: “….simply have totally unrealistic goals and expectations when it comes to abortion, family planning, contraception, and sexuality.
And if we do not do more to help the poor and disadvantaged, the abortion rate will never go down, let alone disappear.”
I agree, the same is true about drug abuse, murder and theft. It doesnt mean we make those things legal in the mean time though does it?
Robert: “Yes, not all women who have abortions are poor, but a large number are.
The private sector simply cannot provide enough on its own to alleviate poverty, see to it that poor children get decent nutrition, and get a good education.”
You are right as well. We have too many people who donate less than 1% of their income to charity such as Obama.
Robert: “I’m no socialist, Marxist or communist,
but I realize that the government has to to do SOMETHING for the poor and those not originally poor but down on their luck.”
They do currently. But you know what? Ive seen a lot of the poor who are down on their luck. Ive been one of them. When I worked the various manual labor jobs that I had, I saw so many people who were too lazy to hold their job down. Ive watched hundreds of poor people quit because they dont want to work hard for their money. I wonder how much the Government helps when it gives handouts.
What need to be done is that the Government needs to stop giving the money away. They need to employ the unemployed with some sort of job. If the US Government is going to pay them, they need to work for it. I wonder how many people who come off of welware as soon as they had to do terrible jobs to earn their money.
Robert: “Just protesting abortion won’t stop it. We need to prevent more unwanted pregnancies, provide for poor, unwanted children, improve the quality of education in America, and provide a safety net for the unfortunate. But the conservative republican social and economic agenda would destroy this. No wonder McCain lost.”
Tell me Robert, how does sending 1000 dollars to Americans who do not pay income taxes at the expense of those who do, and at the expense of those who invest and employ, help anyone? The only way to provide for the unfortunate is to create and environment where Americans can employ themselves. We need growth. This is what the Conservative “social and economic” agenda is all about. The Liberal agenda is simply to buy votes from ignorant selfish people.
Do you know a good part of why the auto industry is failing? Thats right. Unions. Their employees average between 40 and 70 dollars an hour because of the Union. This is what needs to be stopped. I couldnt fire an employee who did not come to work because of the Union. I couldnt ask my employees to work harder or faster because of the Union. This is the problem in America. We support laziness and unproductivity. How does this help Americans?
If the private sector and charities and conservative donations do so much good, why are there still abortions, and why is there so much poverty,unemployment, and crime?
Let’s face it; the private sector can only do so much. The government has to do SOMETHING to help the poor, and those who are out of work and can’t find jobs.
School vouchers will never work.
There is simply no substitute for building more new, state of the art schools, renovating old ones and improving the general quality of education.
Conservatives like you have bought into the false notion that if we just keep reducing taxes, give more tax breaks to the wealthy, and eliminate welfare etc, even if this is catastrophic to the poor, everything will be hunky dory.
When the government helps the poor, it isn’t socialism; it’s good government.
I’m no socialist, Marxist or communist.
I just realize that the republican social and economic policies stink to high heaven. George W Bush is not a bad man, just a terrible president with appallingly poor judgement. I don’t know if what Obama and his incoming administration propose to do will work, but it couldn’t possibly be worse than what Bush has done to this country.
Look at the prosperous countries in Scandinavia and elsewhere in Europe; yes, taxes are sky high, but people don’t have to worry about getting by if they loose jobs or losing their homes, or whether they will be able to retire without being plunged into poverty.
No, these countries are hardly paradise; they have serious problems of their own.
But in many ways, people are much more secure and well off than many in the US.
We could learn something from these countries. And they have the world’s LOEST abortion rates.
Those are also socialist countries. I thought you werent a socialist?
Id rather work for my pay and position in life. I have seen the idea of “fairness” based on the Socialist idea through Unions. I was a member of a Union and then I was a member of the managment that the Union sought to impede. Everyone got the same raise REGARDLESS of work performance. That meant that my best employee got a raise equal to my worst employee. Do you know what the effect was on most of my good employees? Thats right. They stopped working hard once they realized they were not rewarded for their hard work. I dont want that attitude of complacency in my country. If you do, good for you, move to Sweden. This is not what America is about.
Is it really worth it to you to have the Government provide everything for you, even your beer, at the expense of financial freedom? Do you really want 60% of your money taken to “help” you make decisions on how to spend that money? I would much rather lose “security” in my life and gain the opportunity of social mobility. I know that if I kick my ass, I will make more money and have more to spend on my family. If I dont…well then I wont have very much. That is what makes America the country that it is. I can end up the richest man in the world if I use my talent and my hard work. Im sick of your mentality in our country, please leave for one of your hallowed European countries. Personally, I am going to work my ass off right here.
Do you even know what it is like to work physically for your livelihood? Do you even know what it is like to live below the poverty line?
I do. And I know what it takes to break free. It doesnt take government handouts. I know, because Ive had that too. They are not only demoralizing, but they are demotivating.
yllas: Another yawn from me?
:: snicker ::
Your own words put the lie to that, you who gets all worried over “propagandists” for women’s rights. ; )
Do you know a good part of why the auto industry is failing? Thats right. Unions. Their employees average between 40 and 70 dollars an hour because of the Union. This is what needs to be stopped. I couldnt fire an employee who did not come to work because of the Union. I couldnt ask my employees to work harder or faster because of the Union. This is the problem in America. We support laziness and unproductivity. How does this help Americans?
Oliver, well said.
The autoworkers’ union has long been one of the very strongest, and yes – American manufacturers simply cannot compete with the $75 average in wages and benefits they pay. The makers, and now, increasingly the workers, have priced themselves out of work.
May I have another? Banning that is?
Well golly gee whiz, poor yllas – after taking things out of context, trying to put words in people’s mouths, making vast illogical leaps, etc., and putting a good deal of effort into all those – poor, poor yllas is close to loosing control again?
Lord have mercy, is there no justice, eh?
Hang on, let’s get Jess in here, after all – she has seniority for this, right? ; )
…..
And in one, two, three, Heather comes to fawn over you truth dude.
I believe Heather witnessed at least one of your meltdowns, including the one with Jess where the real “yllas” was on display. I think she has some valid points about you.
yllas: Are you still bitter from being called out on your lying to that waitress, using a fake argument based on time, while actually using the “just another drink” argument?
Well, there was no lie and no calling out, and no fake argument, but I do think she was out of line, yes. There is a quid pro quo….
It’s funny, yllas, after your performance on this thread, one might be tempted to write you off, as most people on this board have done, but in an odd way it’s comforting to see your posts, perhaps because if nothing else they have a certain consistency to them. But not only that….
I guess you’re lovable in your own way. And in your discussion with Lauren, I’m not sure if you’re despairing over how some people see God or perhaps over the nature of God “himself” (if you will) as you see “him”. And maybe it’s a subconscious thing, but there is something real coming from you there, one way or another.
Anyway, keep on keepin’ on….
Jill Stanek said:
“I’m an evangelical, in addition believing Jesus calls us to be baptized by immersion as an act of obedience.”
So, Jill Stanek, you are telling us that you believe a person has to be water baptized by being dunked under water in some sort of church baptismal ceremony in order to be saved?
You are just another confused generic Christian Jill! The Apostle Paul made it clear that for the present church, that is the Body of Christ (and not Israel), there is no water baptism necessary in any way!
1 Corinthians 1:14-17
I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. 16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.
Water baptism is not a part of Paul’s gospel and neither is any other work. Paul is very explicit about this concerning the message Christ gave him to preach.
As if one lunatic in Yllas wasn’t enough for this thread, now we have Zeke.
Catholics support abortion being legal in all cases or legal in most cases (roughly 50%) to a higher percent than Protestants in general, and to a much greater extent than evengelical Christians.
Posted by: Josh at November 18, 2008 9:38 AM
Your statement is patently false Josh. It might be correct though if you had said that “people who identify themselves as Catholics support abortion”
Zeke, From Acts-
“Acts 2:38
“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
A plain reading of this passage accentuates two key elements.
1.
Repentance and baptism are conjoined by the conjunction and.
2.
Repentance and baptism are for the purpose of forgiveness of sins.
Lauren said: Basically that if it was simply a “person” of the Godhead crucified, it is not as powerful as if the One God in human form was crucified.
I understand what you are trying to say about the power in looking at the sacrifice made for us when Jesus was crucified, but personally I find nothing lacking or watered down about Jesus the “Son of God” dying on the cross because Jesus the Son of God was in “complete” union with God the Father and in fact was himself true God. Jesus was God, Son of God, Word of God made flesh, and the one path to the Father. I think it better to find Oneness through the mystery of the Trinity as taught by Jesus Christ and don’t be afraid that accepting these inspirational teachings as put forth by our Saviour are going to somehow water down the all-powerful sacrifice of Calvary. I incorporate the characteristics of the individual Jesus Christ in order to find my way to God the Father. I recognize and meditate upon the mystery of Jesus who spoke of himself as a distinct person who came down from heaven to do the will of God the Father and remained obedient to his will even unto the sacrifice at Calvary as Jesus the Son of God dying for our sins. But it was Jesus himself who drew those Trinitarian distinctions so I do not see any benefit in looking to find God threw anything other that the lens of Jesus Christ as given to us through his scriptural life and teachings. The Trinity recognizes Jesus the Son of God as the “One true God in human form. The Trinity as makes clear the path to understanding God as given to us by Jesus Christ himself.
yllas: Are you still bitter from being called out on your lying to that waitress, using a fake argument based on time, while actually using the “just another drink” argument?
Well, there was no lie and no calling out, and no fake argument, but I do think she was out of line, yes. There is a quid pro quo….
Another truth dude reply
Just can’t admit you lied to a person, which keeps your truth rating at 100%.
Yawn.
I guess you’re lovable in your own way. And in your discussion with Lauren, I’m not sure if you’re despairing over how some people see God or perhaps over the nature of God “himself” (if you will) as you see “him”. And maybe it’s a subconscious thing, but there is something real coming from you there, one way or another.
Anyway, keep on keepin’ on….
posted by the truth dude.
Love exist in isolation for you truth dude.
Actually truth dude, I thought you had some intellectual honesty within you, and when you wrote that no one has a good argument, they just think they do, you became a closed minded commoner.
As for that despair.
You will spend your whole life seducing your despair, truth dude.
Your assertion that Catholics have “protestant envy” and thus voted for Obama doesn’t make sense in light of the fact that protestants voted for McCain.
While I agree with you that it is shameful that protestants have fallen away from God, you can’t blame them for the moral decline of Catholics. There is an overall moral decline in our country, and the Catholics are as much a part of it as anyone else.
Lauren post.
Gee Lauren, after being a object of hate by Protestants since the founding of this Protestant nation, you really have no idea of the history of Catholics in this Protestant nation.
Fact is Lauren, you were taught no history of Catholicism in the Protestant religion. What history of Catholics you were taught, was a justification of why your not a Catholic.
Same goes for that public education you got based on Protestant history of Catholics in the USA.
There is none. What little history taught, is taught from the Protestant pov. Kinda like “black history” was being written for centuries by those WASP. Reclaiming who and what happen to them, black Americans, comes from black historians finding the real facts, or history of their past in the USA.
Catholics have Protestant envy. The history of Catholics, written by Protestants, ends in a Catholic wanting to be like the dominant culture they are born in. Protestant. Abortion? Me too.
At best you might know that the KKK included Catholics and Jews amongst their targets, who were, and are subverting their Protestant nation, founded on Protestant morality. Which is founded on the moral relativism of a individual’s interpretation of the Truth, the Bible.
Why were, and are Catholics a target of Protestant culture, which includes their religion condoning the hate of Catholics, Lauren?
Come on Lauren, how do you train a dog,a person, to obey? You beat um, or reward um, Lauren.
Catholics get rewarded by voting for a Protestant named Obama. Like Kimec, got a job at a university, and knew what he needed to do, to keep that government job, he soo envied to keep.
And of course, be just like all those other Protestant professors he has to work with daily.
It’s envy.
Truthseeker-
The difference is that Oneness believers view God from the OT forward, incorporating Christ into God’s Oneness, while trinitarians work from the NT backwards placing God’s oneness in terms of a trinity.
I view both the OT and the new NT God’s with Oneness also. Oneness is a good thing. But I use the life and teachings of Jesus Christ to be my guide to interpretation of the God period, NT or OT. My revelation of God is completely through a Christocentric lens. Jesus is the revelstion of the OT Word made flesh.
Thank you for sharing your views. I will meditate on this but I have got to run now. ts
Truthseeker-
The difference is that Oneness believers view God from the OT forward, incorporating Christ into God’s Oneness, while trinitarians work from the NT backwards placing God’s oneness in terms of a trinity.
TS, sorry for the double post, my browser did strange things while I was gone.
lauren,
Your view that those who recognize the Trinity are backwards in their view of God is illogical and while I am not inclined to discuss the point for the next 4000 posts, I would suggest you reconsider your way of thinking. One thing that Protestants forget is that the earliest evangelization by the apostles and disciples was conveyed and passed through oral tradition and as time passed they realized that the Truths must be written or lost through the passage of time. This would explain quite logically why the Trinitarian truth might not have been written until 200 AD and other doctrinal matters later. It’s like writing history… unless you are writing a diary, you look back and write a summation of past events, ideas, etc… One doesn’t assume its invalidity because of that. For starters, check “Trinity” on Wiki, and you will see as many valid Bible verses for trinitarian thinking as against.
Janet, while there are verses that show different aspects of God, there is never specific reference to God being a “trinity”. Also, the theory of unwritten history doesn’t confirm what we know about early Christians, and especially what was said about them by the “father of triniatrianism, Tertullian.”
He said “The simple, indeed (I will not call them unwise or unlearned), who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the very ground that their very Rule of Faith withdraws them from the world’s plurality of gods to the one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own economy. The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity, they assume to be a division of the Unity”
This shows that apostolic believers did not follow a trinitarian belief system, but rather found the idea antithetical to the idea of the oneness of God.
Any familiar relationship is mentioned in order to
We recognize Christ as a manifestation of God in the same way that the burning bush was a manifestation of God. We see Christ as both 100% God and 100% man.
Here’s a good (albeit long) explanation of the father/son.spirit labels used throughout the bible.
“In the recent past, a question was posed to me concerning the conversation Jesus had with the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4:1-26). The question was couched so as to suggest that Jesus instructs us to worship God as “Spirit” and as “Father.” This awkward inference clumsily theorizes that Jesus is identifying two distinct God “persons” and charging us to worship them both equally in spirit and truth. The underlying bias with which the questioner used to interpret the passage exposed a tendency to make further inferences upon Jesus’ usage of the term “Father” so as to identify a scriptural proof for a Trinitarian view. My response was an attempt to reveal the inherent bias of the questioner and elucidate a contextual perspective of the use of father/son terminology.
—————————
Of course this is not what Jesus has said. Jesus has simply stated in verse 23 to worship the Father in spirit and truth. He then says in verse 24 that God is a Spirit and repeats the phrase “worship him in spirit and in truth.” If anything, Jesus has merely identified the Father as being the one true God who is worthy to be worshiped in spirit and in truth and further that the Father’s essential nature is that of a spirit and true worship of Him is to be of a spiritual nature as opposed to liturgic ritual. That is the context of verses twenty-three & twenty-four.
Additionally, the questioner wanted to know, “What does Jesus’ usage of the term ‘Father’ here mean?”
The context of this passage has Jesus not only correcting the Samaritan woman’s conceptual aberrations of who she understands she is to be worshiping; the misguided assumption on the part of the Samaritans that they might worship a God of mercy yet without revelation; that the act of worship in and of itself is pointless without a revelation of who one is to worship but also that a time was soon approaching in which worship would no longer be associated with a place but with a person.
Jesus’ declaration to her that “salvation is of the Jews” (verse 22) means that the revelatory object of Jewish worship was accurate and that anything apart from this revelation was inadequate. The object of Jewish worship was not a Triune God. Let me repeat that…the object of Jewish worship was not a Triune God. In fact, the very notion of plurality within the fundamental nature of God’s existence would have been antithetical to that revelation (Deuteronomy 6:4).
Understand here that the Samaritan woman was the first to mention “father” – she did so on two occasions. The question asked was – what was the meaning of Jesus’ usage of the term father in this setting. The first, immediate meaning – in context – of Jesus’ usage of the term is as a means of directly contrasting her usages of the term.
The original instance of the woman’s use of the term father was in defiance to Jesus’ claim to be capable of providing “living water” (verse 12). Her natural inclination was to understand that He meant He was capable of providing a secondary source of water and it be “running” or “spring water” as opposed to still or cistern. Obviously Jesus’ reference to living water was in a spiritual sense. Incredulously, she asks if He is able to provide a greater gift, and therefore be greater, than the illustrious patriarch Jacob – Jacob with sons and cattle and wealth. In asking this question, she initiates a polemical tactic of contrasting. She also, and perhaps more importantly, with the use of the term father claims lineage to the house of Jacob and therefore prerogative to the Promise.
The second instance of her usage of the term father was in verse 20. Upon learning of Jesus’ prophetic abilities (verse 19), she immediately took the opportunity to ask of this apparent prophet of God concerning the great dispute between Jews and Samaritans: who’s right? Was Jewish worship sanctioned or were the Samaritans right? Samaritan worship on mount Gerizim was specifically based upon the fallacious claims of Manasseh’s spurious priesthood (Josephus, “Antiquities.” book 11. chap. 7, para. 2). The Jews, however, worshiped at Mt. Moriah where YHWH had commanded them (Deuteronomy 12:5-11; 2 Chronicles 3:1-2).
Since she was the first to invoke “father” as she juxtaposed Jesus with Jacob and she was the first to begin using the method of contrasting, Jesus merely responded to her defiance of Him and presumption to lay claim to a promise which ultimately referred strictly to Him (Galatians 3:16) using the same terminology and method of contrasting. He did so by pointing her to the “Father” who is worthy of worship (both in truthfulness and accuracy through revelation and in spirit after the very nature of the object of worship), instead of earthly “fathers” (Jacob to whom she had erroneously laid claim of lineage and her “fathers” who erroneously worshipped on Gerizim) and by contrasting her emphasis upon a place of worship rather than a person.
Another interesting point made here is that the “LORD” (YHWH) directly commanded worship of Him by the Jews at Mt. Moriah. In this setting, Jesus specifically makes clear that the “LORD” was the “Father” (verse 21).
The question was then expanded to include, “What did the Apostles understand Jesus’ usage of the term ‘Father’ to mean?”
At the onset, it is incongruous to take the liberty that a systematic theology may afford an interpreter to read New Testament designations for God back into the Old Testament as though God has always been referred to and portrayed as an eternal Father in the sense that there therefore needs be an eternal Son.
The appellation “Father” as found within the Old Testament scriptural record doesn’t precipitate eternality. Until something was created (angels, the heavens, the earth, the nation of Israel), there was no fatherhood. Until a covenantal relationship existed between YHWH and Abraham for instance or between YHWH and His people, there was no fatherhood. Until vassal kingdoms (e.g. the Judaic Kingdoms) were established, there was no fatherhood. It is in this sense that the Old Testament applies the term “father” to God. And most importantly, YHWH never once identifies Himself as “father” in that Father is to be used as His proper name.
That being said, the New Testament record clearly introduces and applies a dimension of “fatherhood” to God not previously found in the Old Testament record. When the unmitigated deity – YHWH – overshadowed and caused a virgin to conceive a son, He became a Father in the sense of progeny. But He also began to exist apart from and in addition to His unmitigated existence as exclusive deity within the incarnation as “Son.” The distinction, therefore, between Father and Son is extensional between YHWH’s existence as transcendent deity and the same YHWH’s existence as limited humanity. The limited human existence is clearly required on the basis of soteriological consequences.
Jesus spoke of the Father after the common manner that any monotheist would have been familiar (i.e. “Father” in the Old Testament sense of the word – not the New) using phrases like, “your Father”, “thy Father”, “our Father”, “your heavenly Father”, “your Father which is in heaven”, “our Father which in heaven”, “my Father which is in heaven”, etc. The disciples and those He spoke to understood that He, being a monotheistic Jew, would make such references to God as being a father after the very manner that the scripture expressed.
It should be noted that one cannot divorce from their understanding of the use of the term father, the accordant understanding of the use of the term son. In other words, if we understand the manner in which the term “father” is used in the limited references within the Old Testament, we should also, thereby, understand how the term “son” is used as well. As mentioned previously, the Old Testament speaks of YHWH as being a father in the sense of creation. He created the heavens and the earth and all that is contained in them; including us as human beings made specifically in His likeness. All humanity falls into the category of “sons of God” in the sense that we are the creation of God. He is our “heavenly Father” because we are His creation. When Jesus spoke of the Father and even made reference to Himself as “Son of God”, most would not have immediately perceived a reference to anything more than this simple explanation (reference the Jews with whom Jesus spoke in John 8:41).
The more discerning observers of Jesus’ claims would have been alert to listen for Messianic references. As it was commonly understood that the Messiah would be the inheritor of the Davidic throne, the astute listener would have readily identified allusions to, claims of, and titles for this future ruler. One such title was “son of God” (II Samuel 7:12-16); and when spoken, these listeners would hear “son of God” and think “king of Judah.” The New Testament biblical record demonstrates a predilection towards understanding a reference by Jesus of sonship and fatherhood as meaning a Messianic claim to the Davidic throne – witnessed by Jesus’ own circle of disciples vying for positions of honor in what they presumed would be a soon coming earthly reign.
Clearly, though, Jesus’ use of and reference to the term “father” had a significantly deeper meaning; one that, if not revealed or explained in toto, would escape the discrimination of the casual observer. Obviously, those who were aware of Jesus’ miraculous birth had intimate knowledge of and insight into His use of the terms “father” and “son.” Mary, for one, who had been instructed by the angel Gabriel that the, “…holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35) would immediately recognize the significance of said terms when spoken by the Lord.
As an aside, take note of the use of tense in the above passage. If one purports to believe in the plenary inspiration of scripture, which asserts that all scripture is God-breathed and therefore profitable – even to the degree of tense, then the use of tense here must invoke a significant awareness to the believer. As noted previously, the term “Father” as it relates to progeny is incarnational in its focus. This passage correlates to that notion in that it relates the conception as the moment when the phrase “Son of God” took on a filial disposition (cf. Galatians 4:4). The Son had His beginnings of a woman at a specific point in time – not from the ethereal mists of eternity past.
As evidenced by Jesus’ confounding the Pharisees (Matthew 22:41-46), the deeper meaning of His usage of the terms father and son went beyond the conceptual boundaries of the Old Testament revelation to include what Paul later characterized as “the mystery of Godliness” (I Timothy 3:16).
Paul, having the benefit of a broader hermeneutical horizon, spoke of an intendancy of Grace given him which included a revelation into the mystery of Christ (Ephesians 3:2-5). This hermeneutical horizon included not only the entire Hebrew canon but the knowledge that Jesus was in fact the promised Messiah. Additionally, Paul’s horizon included a degree of spiritual insight brought about through the fullness of the Holy Spirit along with the portion of the New Testament already written during his lifetime.
Understanding the nature of progressive revelation, which asserts that God has progressively disclosed His will and purpose over time, allows for the significance of the incarnation to speak for the introduction of this broader meaning to father/son terminology.
Here’s a good resource to understand Oneness thought:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pentecostal/one-Top.htm
yllas: Are you still bitter from being called out on your lying to that waitress, using a fake argument based on time, while actually using the “just another drink” argument?
“Well, there was no lie and no calling out, and no fake argument, but I do think she was out of line, yes. There is a quid pro quo….”
Just can’t admit you lied to a person, which keeps your truth rating at 100%.
Heh – we should have a poll or maybe “ratings” where each post could be graded for truthfullness – in the opinion of the readers. Some sites have similar stuff.
I remember telling the story, but there were no lies involved, not on the barmaid’s part and not on our part. What do you think the lie was?
Love exist in isolation for you truth dude.
yllas, interesing question. I think it can, i.e. one could love a mental construct – one without actual physical existence, where the person is isolated, in reality – just as some people say they love God.
I did not say that everything in Scandinavian countries is wonderful and that people have no problems. I am NOT a socialist, let alone a Marxist or communist. I just believe that the government helping people in need is not socialism but good government. The Scandinavian countries are not totalitarian dictatorships. They are very prosperous countries and yet no one is oppressed as in the former Soviet Union.
If the private sector could help people in need, greatly decrease poverty, make vast improvements in the quality of education in this country, help college college students with tuition etc, I would be all for it. But that hasn’t happened, nor is it likely to.
Lauren,
Wow, you lost me from the beginning. I’m sorry, but I’m not a Biblical scholar and this conversation is way over my head. I’m sure mk or HisMan could converse at your level. Thank you for your comments.
Janet, I’m not either. Lol, I have to pull from people way smarter than me to get into the in-depth stuff. :)
Bobby da Berger: I did not say that everything in Scandinavian countries is wonderful and that people have no problems.
Robert, point taken but IMO Sweden has some hellacious blondes, nevertheless.
Doug: “I remember telling the story, but there were no lies involved, not on the barmaid’s part and not on our part. What do you think the lie was?”
Anyway, yllas, I know you hardly ever quote people you’re “replying” to, but here’s the original deal:
Doug, How many pro-life businesses do you boycott?
Janet – have to laugh…. zero, a big, fat, ever-lovin’ zero. With honey and chicken on top. If I found out a place was pro-life, I don’t think it’d make much difference to me. It’s not like I check into it.
The only place I can recall boycotting for a while was “Longhorn Steakhouse” as opposed to Outback, Texas Roadhouse, etc.
My co-worker and I were in one, Portage, Indiana, literally 30 feet from our motel, and we got in there late, having worked a long day, about an hour before they quit serving food.
We tied into some drinks, planning to order food 15 minutes before the cut-off. We got to within 5 minutes of that time, and the bartender told us she was going to have to cut us off.
:: picture two dumbfounded guys at this point ::
We said we were going to order one more drink, then order food, that we were staying right next door, no driving involved, etc. We’d been nothing but polite and quiet, hadn’t made a lick of trouble.
She said sorry but we’d had so many drinks in “X” amount of time….. We asked to see the manager and he agreed with her.
I argued (big surprise there) that it wasn’t like we had no tolerance for alcohol or that we weighed 90 lbs., etc. That we were just going to get one drink, put in the food order, eat it when it came out, and leave for the motel next door. He heard us but didn’t change his mind.
Shaking our heads, we paid our bill thus far to the penny and out we went. Down the street to a “Quaker Steak and Lube” where we had a few more drinks and got some food. The Longhorn bartender came in, having missed out on a $30 tip, probably, though we did eventually buy her a drink there.
Posted by: Doug at September 29, 2008 2:12 PM
Lauren,
We agree that God is the author of life. As a sidebar response to your comment about the burning bush also note that the burning bush was never called the source of life.
In Scripture Jesus tells us:
“For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him (on) the last day.” Jn 6:40
“It is the spirit that gives life” Jn 6:63a
So there you have the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit all being described as the source of life. I would lovingly caution that you tread carefully if you consider any of the three as being anything less than the “one true God”. They are all the God of the OT and God does not change. Three in one and each is all. That is the mystery the Holy Trinity.
I think you’re misunderstanding me, TS.
The burning bush WAS God. God choose to be seen in this form. Just as he appeared as the pillar of smoke or any other manifestation.
It is not that we believe Christ to be somehow less than, but rather that we believe Christ to be the human manifestation of YHWH. I used the burning bush to explain to you that God reveled Himself in many ways throughout the OT, but we do not say that those manifestations are part of some larger “Godhead”. We understand that they were manifestations of One God. Similarly, Christ is a manifestaition of the same One God.
ok, I have quite few questions then Lauren.
I understand that God is present and manifest in all kinds of things (burning bush included), but are you saying that you think of Jesus or The Holy Spirit as being no more than the presence of God or the manifestation of God, and not the actually God himself? Do you consider God maifest as the Father of Jesus as being the one true God? Is God the Father as manifest through Jesus Christ the same one true or just a manifestation of the God of the OT?
“Doug, How many pro-life businesses do you boycott?”
Janet – have to laugh…. zero, a big, fat, ever-lovin’ zero. With honey and chicken on top. If I found out a place was pro-life, I don’t think it’d make much difference to me. It’s not like I check into it
Hey! Are you sure that my question? I don’t recall asking that. It came up on a thread a few months ago……..
Doug, OH, duh, on my part! I didn’t realize you were quoting something to yllas from September!
No problem, Janet, and it’s probably going to die out anyway, since now yllas is faced with the fact that she was wrong, yet again….
“ok, I have quite few questions then Lauren.
I understand that God is present and manifest in all kinds of things (burning bush included), but are you saying that you think of Jesus or The Holy Spirit as being no more than the presence of God or the manifestation of God, and not the actually God himself? Do you consider God maifest as the Father of Jesus as being the one true God? Is God the Father as manifest through Jesus Christ the same one true or just a manifestation of the God of the OT?”
I think you might be looking at it backwards. It’s not that “only” see Christ/ The Holy Ghost as a manifestation, and thus not fully God, but rather that we see them as 100% God in the form that he choose to show us.
God’s manifestation of Christ was important because He came down and lived and died as 100% man while still being 100% God.
Belief in Oneness doesn’t lessen the power of Christ, but rather equates Him as the One God of Israel.
Lauren,
I agree that Christ is 100% God in the form God chose to show Himself to us. The Catholic Catechism states that the distinctiveness between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit lies only in their relationship to one another. You describe Jesus as 100% but distinct in relationship to God because Jesus is a manifestation of God as man. How is that any different?
You can’t seriously think the Catholic church worships “gods”? The first line of the Creed of the Catholic church. We believe in One God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth. One true God has always been and still is a central part of Catholic teaching.
“Where’s the beef?”
Truthseeker, I’ll try to explain the Trinitarian relationship the way it was always presented to me. This is slightly humerous, but I don’t mean it to be offensive, just honestly how it was always presented. (I grew up methodist)
Basically you’ve got God sitting on the throne complete with big white beard and golden crown and all that jazz. Then they’re Jesus sitting beside Him. Then there’s the Holy Ghost floating around somewhere in the background. They’re all “God” but seperate, and unique.
The Oneness theology is that God does not have a physical body apart from when He came as Christ. So there are not “three as one” but rather, simply one.
I think that most genuine theology understands the oneness of God, but sometimes followers of trinitarianism get muddled. To me it is simpler to explain God’s essence in terms of oneness than through the trinity.
Hi lauren,
If you are ever interested, here is the Catholic teaching on the Trinity
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm
One interesting part:
233 Christians are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: not in their names,55 for there is only one God, the almighty Father, his only Son and the Holy Spirit: the Most Holy Trinity.