The Mote Archive - Religion and Philosophy pt. 1

Religion and Philosophy 1

Repent, all ye who enter here.

1. bloodnfire - 9/11/1999 9:21:38 PM

WELCOME EVERYBODY!! This is the thread where we explore matters of the heart as they affect our lives. We will include a discussion of the book "Anatomy of the Spirit" by Caroline Myss, PhD. (It's available from Amazon for about $14, and you will enjoy the discussion a whole lot more if you invest in the book).
Doctor Myss "Synthesizes the ancient wisdom of three spiritual traditions --The Hindu Chakras, the Christian sacraments and the Kabbalah's Tree of Life --to demonstrate the seven stages through which everyone must pass in the search for higher consciousness and spiritual maturity.

Jump in with both feet. If you have a spiritual issue which is on your heart and feel free to share it, we will try to help.

I will post a statement of Dr.Myss' daily, progressing through the book, hoping that it prompts some response.

If you are 'lurking' in The Moat for the first time, why not register and get a password. You'll be made most welcome !!

3. wabbit - 9/11/1999 9:54:54 PM

Post #2 should be gone now, as requested, bloodnfire. Let's see...

4. Angel-Five - 9/11/1999 9:57:57 PM

The real spiritual question is, where HAS it gone?

5. bloodnfire - 9/11/1999 10:12:12 PM

Thanks so much Wabbit. NEVER MIND Angel-Five!! It's gone where ALL my horrible mistakes go, into the forgetfulness of God !! (I actually posted the same post twice, so Wabbit very kindly helped me out).

So, welcome to The Mote! Do you have any 'Spiritual Issues' you would like to share with us ?

6. God - 9/12/1999 12:22:55 AM

Where's that lady in the red dress?

7. ethiopianeunuch - 9/12/1999 12:46:22 AM

Hello Bloodnfire: I am happy to see your gracious welcome here. I think that the spirit of Margaret Hamilton may be alive and well on some of the other threads.

8. pellenilsson - 9/12/1999 3:47:06 AM

Hello EE. Nice to see you back in the fold. Please give my best regards to your father. We want to see him too.

9. bloodnfire - 9/12/1999 5:38:01 AM

Hi Ee and Pelle. Welcome. Margaret Hamilton...Hummmm....'The Wicked Witch of the North' as I recall. Perhaps the good humor of The Mote will have that evil spirit shriek...."I'm MELTING!, MELTING!" and (eventually) dissapear from sight.

ON THE OTHER HAND, vitriol and spice are two qualities which will very much enlighten the whole forum, so let's not have too much Billie Burke !! (CalGal would be so proud :-)

10. bloodnfire - 9/12/1999 5:42:41 AM

God, you know we love You (or at least some of us do). It's easy for YOU to refer to 'That woman in the red dress' and know to whom you're referring. However, since the Internet informs me that at this moment there are 2,431,366 women wearing red dresses (see www.reddressestoday.com), you MUST try and be more specific. :-)

11. bloodnfire - 9/12/1999 6:04:15 AM

Well now, let's throw into the 'mix' the first statement from Dr.Myss.
Having read the copyright disclaimer in the front of it, I trust her publishers (Crown) will be happy that we are publicizing her book, and encouraging its purchase, and not upset. I'll try and contact her and them this week and get her blessing, (which I'm actually meant to have in writing before putting any of this on the internet). Anyway, I think they'll be pleased with the publicity.

She refers to 'The Energy Field' and claims to be an 'Intuitive', someone who has acquired the skill of 'intuitive or symbolic sight'. The ability to 'interpret the language of energy'.
In her introduction (page 9) she writes of a Physician who told her..."I don't need medical intuition. I have enough of that. I want to learn about the family patterns and the deeper spiritual issues of my patients, because I know that's the information they need to heal. They need more than drugs, which only temporarily mask their symptoms." She goes on to say "The desire for a spiritual context and interpretation of life is universal. I believe that the language of energy and the practice of symbolic sight" (which she explains in fascinating detail later in the book) "can help bridge the gap between conventional medical and spiritual views of health and healing".

That's our exerpt for today Sunday September 12th. What do YOU think? (Please buy the book, or look for it in your public library).

12. KuligintheHooligan - 9/12/1999 7:22:18 AM

bloodnfire, my guess is that God is referring to Jenerator when he asks where the lady in the red dress is. Not sure you were around back then when Jen posted a pic of herself in a red dress.

I'm afraid I'm not going to be much good here if we are going to study some book I can't get! I doubt the local library here in Namibia has the book you are referring to!

But when I read "the language of energy and the practice of symbolic life," I'm not all that bothered that I can't get the book. :-)

My greetings to Angel-Five, who from other posts looks to be someone I had an occasional "run-in" with in the past! Unless you already stated clearly who you are, I won't guess now until I see that you have divulged your identity.

13. SnowOwl - 9/12/1999 7:37:11 AM

Carolyn Myss gained her PhD in Intuition and Energy Medicine from Greenwich University, Hilo, Hawaii. That's not an institution I've heard of, does anyone else have any information about the place?

14. bloodnfire - 9/12/1999 7:40:56 AM

Vic. I appreciate your input. I am 'leery' of New Age 'stuff', as I am sure are you. At the same time I ask that you be patient. There are many, like you, who will not be able to obtain the book. I will try to present topics which can be discussed with exerpts.
Dr.Myss writes in her preface (page 8 Middle) "While I had originally intended to focus this book "simply" on the human energy system" (which is her expression for 'the Soul' as I understand her), "on the philosophy and practices of energy diagnosis, and on medical intuition, I realized as I began writing that I could not accurately portray these energy concepts without this spiritual framework.
I believe we are meant to understand our body-minds as individual spiritual powers expressive of a greater Divine energy. We are meant to discover both our personal power and our shared purpose for being alive within a spiritual context".

It is in that open spirit, while (he emphasized) trusting God the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth, and to help us be 'Berean' in our receptivity) I present her ideas. I believe some of them will bless you. With some of them, we will probably disagree. Please, Please stay tuned. Bless you in Africa today and always.

15. KuligintheHooligan - 9/12/1999 7:52:10 AM

PhD in Intuition and Energy Medicine?

I'm already lost!

This one interests me:

"I believe we are meant to understand our body-minds as individual spiritual powers expressive of a greater Divine energy. We are meant to discover both our personal power and our shared purpose for being alive within a spiritual context"

Does Myss believe this "Divine energy" is personal, like a Being, or does she understand it more as some all-pervading "force" or "power," something like Mary Baker-Eddy and Christian Science? My guess is the latter.

16. KuligintheHooligan - 9/12/1999 8:00:43 AM

Angel-Five, ok, I saw elsewhere that you said you are Resonance. Greetings to you!

I'm still hopeful that you and I can have ONE discussion where we don't call each other names! :-)

17. bloodnfire - 9/12/1999 9:02:30 AM

Let's call her 'Caroline' rather than get caught up with a discussion whether or not we approve of her Doctorate. She refers to 'The Divinity', and 'energy' as the Presence of that Divinity in every human being.
You and I might take issue with whether or not He inhabits every human being, but I am HOPEFUL (sigh) that looking courteously at some of that which she has to say regarding the parallels between the Sacraments of Christianity, the 'Tree of Life' and the Hindu Chakras, might prove edifying, and NOT OFF-PUTTING to our Atheist friends, of which AngelFive, if indeed he IS Resonance, IS CHIEF!! The purpose of this thread is to examine whether or not there is a 'spirit' in men and women, how that spirit functions, and how each of us deals with the 'Spiritual Issues' of our lives.

"AND NOW" (Said with the strong Yorkshire Accent sported by Stanley Holloway when rendering his hilarious monologues, long before most of you were born)..."LET TH'BATTLE COMMENCE!!!" :-)

18. phillipdavid - 9/12/1999 12:11:51 PM

bloodnfire
re msg 11

Seems like you have equated the author's concept and use of "energy field" with the concept of spiritual energy. That resonates with my own understanding/belief.

The human body is a conductor of energy. The brain alone is composed of over ten bilion nerve cells over which travel electrical impulses at speeds up to two hundred miles an hour. But energy flows in, through, and around the body in many forms-- from measurable electrical impulses to higher forms of energy sometimes referred to as vital force, spiritual light, chi, or prana.

I don't have the book in question, but it sounds like the fundamental underlying premise is that this spiritual energy influences man, and that it is a key to understanding (and maybe manipulating?) physical as well as spiritual health.

I am reminded of studies conducted years ago at Yale and Harvard with the Kirlian camera -- photographs of the human aura. This camera photographed the forcefield which surrounds every man, woman, and child, and medical researchers at Harvard and Yale concluded that the study of the aura can be an invaluable aid in the prevention of disease before it manifests in the physical form. (And underlying this concept is the belief that the Mind or Spirit preceeds body -- like Deprak Chopra would say, the connection between mind and body is evident in that if you want to wiggle your toes, first you think about it, and then will it to happen.)

If you accept the existence of an energy field, there are many pertinent questions: Where does it originate? What effect or control does it exert on the health of an individual? Does it influence human behavior? How does it relate to our spiritual growth?

And perhaps the most pertinent question of all: Can we control or influence it?

19. RickNelson - 9/12/1999 12:45:21 PM

Equating an energy field thesis with the soul? What can be postulated wrt the premise?

Agreed that the premise would include all of the questions phillipd avid presented.

The premise is grounded in belief. This is true because the Aura which is proven to exist, is being equated to a human soul. The human soul premise is a seperate argument. Existing only because of those who have chosen to accept the belief in the existance of a human soul.

20. acefranze - 9/12/1999 4:41:47 PM

It seems we've begun with the conclusion that what is meant by "energy" or "spirit" is some kind of Cartesian "soul", some "animating substance" which resides in our bodies. Maybe "spirit' should be regarded as more ephemeral than that. Maybe it is what exists in relationships between selves, i.e. between one human and another, between a human and divineness, between a human and an animal. And all these in plurals.

21. PsychProf - 9/12/1999 4:45:24 PM

I am confused...doesn't the Catesian doctrine of Dualism postulate a separation of body and soul? Descartes must be turning over in his grave.

22. bloodnfire - 9/12/1999 4:58:45 PM

PhillipDavid. I'm actually wiggling my toes...in anticipation. I truly believe, based on the many exchanges we have had, that you will be really blessed by some of the ideas in Ms.Myss' book.
PsychProf, I welcome you to the thread, and you too Acefranze.
I believe the 'Energy' she writes of is that which we 'Thumpers' (and many Scriptures including the Judeo/Christian) call a soul. She speaks of the energy leaving at death, so my present understanding is that there is a 'separation'.
Forgive my ignorance, but why would Descartes 'turn over in his grave' PsychProf, and wouldn't 'energy' or 'the soul' have to be present in order for that to happen ? :-)

23. joezan - 9/12/1999 5:29:36 PM

Blood:

I will look for the book in my local library, and try to keep up with the discussion. It's a subject which has caught my attention lately, for 3 reasons:

1. My sister, who is Catholic, recently tried to get my wife, who's had some health problems, to see a friend of hers who is a practitioner of some sort of "energy field" healing - Raki - a Japanese practice which is linked to her Buddhist beliefs (which, apparently, she has no problem folding into her Catholicism).

2. One of my favorite Christian rock artists, Nicole Noordeman, recently released a song which has risen up the charts phenomenally. The song describes encounters with two people: a religious nut who claims to be Jesus, who preaches in one sock while drinking tequila, and with a woman who puts her faith in the healing powers of crystals and other "new age" things. I've been hearing this song on the radio for a couple of weeks now, but just a couple of days ago realized that in the song's final verse, Ms. Noordeman suggests that since people in Jesus' time also viewed him as a nut, then perhaps we should be paying more attention to these kinds of people.

3. I just returned from 3 days up in northern Michigan, for generations a bastion of Lutheranism and Calvinism. But reading a local newspaper, I was very surprised to see that there were ads on nearly every page for "Shamanic Healing", "Energy Flow Therapy", fortune tellers, etc. Just 5 years ago this same paper published a daily Bible verse on its front page, and about half the paper was devoted to religious concerns - your typical small town midwestern news.

And so I wonder...is this something which modern Christianity is ready to embrace?

24. SnowOwl - 9/12/1999 5:43:58 PM

Rick,

This is true because the Aura which is proven to exist, is being equated to a human soul.

Would you provide me with more information regarding this? My own readings suggest that the presence of an Aura has never been proven under test conditions.

25. joezan - 9/12/1999 5:50:16 PM

I thought those Kirlian camera photos - or, rather, the conclusions drawn from them, were debunked years ago. Not that the process does not, indeed, show what appears to be some sort of glow around every human. But that a similar glow has been shown to exist in several different inanimate objects.

I could be thinking of something else, but I don't think so.

26. Angel-Five - 9/12/1999 5:56:47 PM

Kirlian photography doesn't show some kind of 'soul' aura. Don't be ridiculous. Kirlian photography measures the electrical discharge -- the electrical field -- of an object in a high voltage field Any object. If an electrical discharge is a soul, then you had better not shut your computer off, ever. You'll be killing it.

27. Angel-Five - 9/12/1999 5:57:52 PM

Kirlian photographs are more complex in living things, because living things are more complex electrochemically than other, more uniform objects.

28. bloodnfire - 9/12/1999 7:27:17 PM

Thanks JoeZan. I will welcome the sage, measured response. One of the things which appeals to me about this book, are the parallels she draws between Christianity, Judaism and the Hindu. You and I would agree that..."There is only one name under heaven given among men whereby ye must be saved", but "how" He chooses to reveal Himself to His Own in the world is His business. Anything we can do to understand our fellow men and women and ourselves better, I think can be very helpful.

29. bloodnfire - 9/12/1999 7:37:56 PM

Ms. Myss writes..."We all share a type of physical body that becomes ill or heals for the same reasons. We also share emotional and psychological crises common to the human experience. Everyone fears abandonment, loss and betrayal; anger is as toxic within a Jewish body as it is within a Christian or Hindu body; and we are all drawn to love. When it comes to the health of our spirits and our bodies, we have no differences.
Thus the mind-body focus of this book is infused with the spiritual language of symbolic sight . Symbolic sight is a way of seeing and understanding yourself, other people, and life events in terms of universal archetypal patterns. Developing symbolic sight will enhance your intuitive ability because it will teach you a healthy objectivity that brings out the symbolic meaning of events, people, and challenges, most especially perhaps the painful challenge of illness. Symbolic sight lets you see into your spirit and your limitless potential for healing and wholeness."

What do you think ?

30. acefranze - 9/12/1999 8:40:45 PM

"I am confused...doesn't the Catesian doctrine of Dualism postulate a separation of body and soul? Descartes must be turning over in his grave."

As I understand it, he posits a *distinction* of body and soul, the *separation* of these distinct "substances" ends the animation of the body. bloodnfire says this wittily when he points out Rene's difficulty turning over after his animator has gone.

But, blood, part of my point is that we have gotten stuck in cartesian dualism just as he got stuck in Platonic dualism, but that no kind of dualism really catches the biblical notion of man. The biblical notion, I suggest, is that man lives in relationship with others, and it is this living-in-relationship which is spirituality.

In fact your Ms. Myss seems to be headed in this same direction:
"We all share a type of physical body that becomes ill or heals for the same reasons. We also share emotional and psychological crises common to the human experience. Everyone fears abandonment, loss and betrayal; anger is as toxic within a Jewish body as it is within a Christian or Hindu body; and we are all drawn to love. When it comes to the health of our spirits and our bodies, we have no differences."

Isn't this rather about relationships than "spiritual substance" (my awkward term, but you know what I mean)?

31. acefranze - 9/12/1999 8:41:13 PM

32. bloodnfire - 9/12/1999 10:39:34 PM

It is Ms.Myss' study on interpersonal relationships that I find most intriguing about her book, AceFranze, (and don't let the double post bother you, we've all done it !). Stay tuned.

34. ethiopianeunuch - 9/13/1999 1:00:16 AM

God: I agree. The gospel was delivered perfectly and will never need to me modernized.

35. bloodnfire - 9/13/1999 1:06:35 AM

God, you're off topic. Watch it, or we'll have to move You. And don't be rude, it isn't like You.

36. God - 9/13/1999 1:10:58 AM

I forgive you, My Son.

37. ethiopianeunuch - 9/13/1999 1:34:20 AM

acefrance:I think that the biblical notion of spirituality that is manifested in our relationships with others is subordinate to our relationship with God. If we love Him and keep His commandments we will also treat others as we would have them treat us.

I'm not sure I want to rely on my own symbolic sight for anything.

38. bloodnfire - 9/13/1999 1:58:05 AM

We have the distinct advantage of having the Holy Spirit indwelling us EE. So any 'symbolic sight' we might develop as and if He directs, will be one more gift which will only be used to the Glory of the Lord Jesus. Try and keep an open mind. I mentioned the Bereans, whom Paul identified as being..."More noble than those in Thessalonika, in that they received the Word with openness of heart, and searched the Scriptures, whether these things were true". There will be ample opportunity to compare Ms.Myss' theories with the Word of God. Good night all.

39. ethiopianeunuch - 9/13/1999 2:06:34 AM

I promise to try and keep an open mind. I used to be so open minded that my brain would fall out. I'm now at the other end of the spectrum, but always seeking spiritual growth.

40. KuligintheHooligan - 9/13/1999 9:08:06 AM

I have a question. Is this "Spiritual Issues" thread just going to be limited to the current topic, at least for now? Or can we discuss numerous things at the "same" time?

Also, do my eyes deceive me, or did bloodnfire have the audacity to delete a post from God??!

41. bloodnfire - 9/13/1999 11:52:58 AM

I DID have the audacity to delete a post from 'God' for two reasons. I was not comfortable with the language describing the Lord Jesus, even though I appreciate that whoever (small case "w") is posting as God was joking. I want this thread to be fun, but there is an awfully fine line between fun and perceived blasphemy. I don't plan to joke with 'God' any more, and I will not delete any of his posts, if he tries to be civil. Not with me you understand? In speaking of any God.

Vic. I welcome other topics, as from time to time we consider Ms.Myss' thoughts. For example, regarding 'Spiritual Issues' can we talk about "Love". Not the 'Eros' love, physically based primarily, nor the 'Filios' love, as 'Brother for Brother'. I speak of the 'Agape' love, which (perhaps allegorically) I am told did not exist in Greek until two thousand years ago.
I haven't heard any professed Atheist address this kind of love. A love that 'just can't help it', that goes on loving in spite of pain, and rejection and abuse. A love which forgives, and, if given time, eventually changes people into the kind of people they are supposed to be. You are familiar with that kind of Love (upper case 'L') aren't you, Brother Vic ? In fact, you know Him quite well !! :-)

42. KuligintheHooligan - 9/13/1999 1:46:52 PM

Although shown that Love in great measure, bloodnfire, I rarely show it to others unfortunately!

Well, at some point I'd like to argue Christian theology with other Christians not of the theological persuasion that I am. I enjoy debates like that!

43. WinstonSmith - 9/13/1999 1:47:38 PM

I was talking to a friend the other day, who is a devout Catholic, and I mentioned that if he had been born in another family or culture that he would probably believe in a different religion. He agreed to this and said that he would likely get the same things from the other religion though. I then asked him if since the various elements of the story differ but the utility of the belief system remains the same, then what are the pertinent elements that religions or belief systems need to have in order to fulfill the spiritual/social function. He mentioned a sense of community, peace of mind, an outlet for spiritual feelings, etc. I can easily understand the need for all those things but this makes me wonder how many people feel like this. I mean, if the story and the ritual are interchangeable, and the function is what matters, then why is there so much contention over those details? It almost seems like the way people will choose a sports team and stick with it and root for it just because it’s their team and it fulfills the sports function.

44. KuligintheHooligan - 9/13/1999 1:51:31 PM

Winston, I wouldn't agree with your friend's assessment. Specifically, this part of your post:

"I mean, if the story and the ritual are interchangeable, and the function is what matters, then why is there so much contention over those details?"

I don't agree that the "story and ritual" are interchangeable. What I mean to say is, I don't believe that ALL the stories and ALL the rituals embody real, objective truth. Therefore, no matter how good they may make you feel, they are ultimately destructive.

45. WinstonSmith - 9/13/1999 1:58:42 PM

Vic,

It sounds like you are saying that some religions are true and others are not. How do you determine “real objective truth”. Can two religions that have antithetical tenets both be true?

46. WinstonSmith - 9/13/1999 2:00:46 PM

Vic,

It sounds like you are saying that some religions are true and others are not. How do you determine “real objective truth”. Can two religions that have antithetical tenets both be true?

47. WinstonSmith - 9/13/1999 2:03:08 PM

Vic,

It sounds like you are saying that some religions are true and others are not. How do you determine “real objective truth”. Can two religions that have antithetical tenets both be true?

48. WinstonSmith - 9/13/1999 2:05:46 PM

Ack, sorry about the triple-post. I hit refresh and somthing bad happened.

49. bloodnfire - 9/13/1999 2:13:51 PM

WinstonSmith. It's so good to welcome you to the Spiritual Issues thread, and thank you for your pertinent questions.

Vic, I would be very happy to discuss 'Theological' differences we might have. I have certain differences with my own denomination (The Salvation Army) depending how one defines parts of the Doctrinal Statement.

Why don't we explore that. Allow me to interject Ms.Myss' thoughts from time to time (not necessarily as they relate to our discussion) so that this does not become an 'Evangelical Christian Thread'. You will appreciate as one 'Evangelical Christian' to another, my motives are without guile. I truly seek discourse with believers of other faiths, even if that faith is Atheistic.

I also hunger for 'wholeness', and am grateful that I believe I have that enviable quality of life. I don't want to lose it.

Do you agree that the words "Arminian" and "Calvinist" are shallow and speak of 'easybelievism' or 'slaphappyagape' ? With which denomination are you associated ?

50. KuligintheHooligan - 9/13/1999 2:28:33 PM

Winston, you sure are eager today! :-)

"Can two religions that have antithetical tenets both be true?"

I am not of this belief. For example, if an atheist says God does not exist, and a theist says he does exist, they can't be both correct in my view. The same could be said concerning something like Christianity and its view of Jesus Christ and Islam, which has a different view of JC. They can't both be correct views, either Jesus is "God of very God" or he isn't.

bloodnfire, whereas I see your point, I think that "labels" like Arminian and Calvinist can be very good shorthand to cut to the point of a discussion. I would have no problem being labeled a "Calvinist," for example, if one is using the term in its proper definition.

Of course, this doesn't mean that I believe "all people who follow Calvin will be saved!" But the term 'Calvinist' is a good shorthand to describe my soteriological POV.

Tell me what doctrines of the Army you are in disagreement with, if you don't mind.

51. ChristiPeters - 9/13/1999 2:29:02 PM

OK, God, since you've been posting here, I have a question -

WHY didn't I win the lottery Saturday night??! I even bought a ticket and everything! Was the sacrifice not to your liking? Did I leave something out of the spel - er ceremony?

(feet tapping)

WELL!??

52. KurtMondaugen - 9/13/1999 2:31:56 PM

"I want this thread to be fun, but there is an awfully fine line between fun and perceived blasphemy."

Not for nothing, but there's also a line between perceived blasphemy and actual blasphemy. Carry on.

53. ChristiPeters - 9/13/1999 2:34:53 PM

um, excuse me, it seems I was interrrupting.

(teach me not to read the backthread)

so.... never mind!

54. KurtMondaugen - 9/13/1999 2:37:53 PM

Christi:

Don't worry, #52 wasn't directed towards you.

55. WinstonSmith - 9/13/1999 2:38:16 PM

OK, fair enough. Are you also saying that any religion that does not "embody real, objective truth", such as Islam or Buddhism, is destructive?

56. WinstonSmith - 9/13/1999 2:39:20 PM

Post #55 is for Vic.

57. KuligintheHooligan - 9/13/1999 2:40:00 PM

Winston, if a religion teaches something false and misleading, then yes, I'd say that that religion is "destructive."

58. WinstonSmith - 9/13/1999 2:43:03 PM

Vic,

So, your particular variety of Christianity is the only true religion and all others are destructive even if they are an integral functional part of a healthy culture.

59. KuligintheHooligan - 9/13/1999 2:45:28 PM

I would say that any religion that is a healthy, functional part of society is just that, a healthy, functional part of society, however you define that.

But if that same religion has dire eternal consequences for its adherents, then yes, I'd say its destructive.

60. KuligintheHooligan - 9/13/1999 2:48:36 PM

I just preached Sunday on a passage from Titus. There Paul says that an unbeliever is "unfit for doing anything good."

I then "asked" in my sermon, "How can this be? How can Paul possibly say this? Don't we see nonbelievers who are honest, pay their taxes, provide for their families, love their spouses and children, and so on?"

But we have to understand that Paul is speaking of *spiritual* good in the passage. Just like Jesus said, "flesh begets flesh, but spirit begets spirit," as far as the spirit is concerned, those people are "unfit for doing anything good." In other words, in the end they will be unable to commend themselves to God, because they live apart from His Son.

61. KuligintheHooligan - 9/13/1999 2:50:21 PM

So to be clearer Winston, if Mormonism teaches it adherents to pay their taxes, raise honest, loving families, and obey the law, then from a societal standpoint it is okay.

But if Mormonism also teaches that one must obey the teachings of Joseph Smith even when those teachings contradict the teachings of Jesus Christ, then I'd say Mormonism is chaff and destructive.

62. WinstonSmith - 9/13/1999 2:50:25 PM

Vic,

Is the variety of christianity that you believe in the only religion does not lead to "dire eternal consequences".

63. KuligintheHooligan - 9/13/1999 2:53:23 PM

Nope

64. marjoribanks - 9/13/1999 2:57:51 PM

Why not just get it out of the way, Kuligin. Please name the religions that in your definition are not "destructive."

In particular, please, consider and qualify these from your standpoint:

Catholicism (RCC)
Serbian Orthodoxy
Islam
Hinduism
Zoroastrianism
Buddhism
Mormonism
Judaism

Thank you in advance for your honest replies.

65. KuligintheHooligan - 9/13/1999 3:00:13 PM

All those who "profess with their mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in their heart that God raised him from the dead shall be saved."

I don't care what "religion" you are or "variety of Christianity."

66. marjoribanks - 9/13/1999 3:01:34 PM

Fair enough. Thank you for your honest answer.

67. marjoribanks - 9/13/1999 3:04:26 PM

Interesting that your cite includes "profess with their mouth" though. It means nothing what you have in your heart or mind, but if you parrot a phrase fed to you you're saved. I know you're being serious, and so am I, but this kind of belief explains to me a great deal of missionary activity that I have witnessed, read about and experienced through my family history. A shallow, coercive, head-counting activity more than anything else.

68. marjoribanks - 9/13/1999 3:05:35 PM

Whoops, I take that back. Somehow I skimmed the quote. Sorry.

69. KuligintheHooligan - 9/13/1999 3:06:23 PM

Well marjoribanks, you conveniently missed "believe in your heart" in the verse I just quoted!

Which explains to me a great deal of why you have such a jaded attitude when it comes to missionaries! :-)

70. KuligintheHooligan - 9/13/1999 3:07:22 PM

x-post marjoribanks

Also, I was going to add that one would have to see what Paul means when he says "profess with your mouth." It isn't something empty and mindless, I assure you of that!

71. WinstonSmith - 9/13/1999 3:09:09 PM

Vic, you said;

"All those who "profess with their mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in their heart that God raised him from the dead shall be saved.""

Well, I think the Mormons believe this so can they go to heaven despite the destructive influence of Joseph Smith?

72. KuligintheHooligan - 9/13/1999 3:10:50 PM

No, Winston, a careful study of Mormon doctrine would prove otherwise, unfortunately.

73. WinstonSmith - 9/13/1999 3:13:12 PM

Vic,
I have friends who are Mormons and they believe that Jesus is the son of God and that he died for their sins and rose from the dead.

74. marjoribanks - 9/13/1999 3:13:50 PM

Kuligin,

There are any number of mystical sects in places like Venezuela and Brazil particularly, where adherents believe wholly what you are talking about, and profess it openly and loudly AND believe in any number of other things as well including witchcraft and ritual sacrifice. Will these people be saved?

75. KuligintheHooligan - 9/13/1999 3:18:17 PM

Winston,

That's all fine and good, but when Jesus says 'A' and Joseph Smith says A is wrong and you must believe 'B' because I say so, who is "Lord" in this scenario?

The Mormons also say they believe in the Trinity but then when you dig deeper you find out that what they mean by "Trinity" is far from what the word historically means.

Like I said, you have to DIG DEEPER. Just because your friends say such and such doesn't necessarily make it so. Have *YOU* studied Mormon theology Winston?

marjoribanks, the question of syncretism and how far it goes before it takes away from the confession of Christ as Lord is a tough one. I'd have to have more info first before rendering my opinion, but as you are well aware, just because I say they are or are not saved isn't the ultimate issue. But you are looking for my opinion on the matter, and if you have more info on it, I'll think about it and let you know.

76. WinstonSmith - 9/13/1999 3:20:39 PM

Vic, No I have read some of the literature and spoken with friends about it. Thanks, BTW, for having this dialog with me. I am trying to understand your position but it seems complicated and illogical.

77. KuligintheHooligan - 9/13/1999 3:22:51 PM

Well, if you have more questions ask away and I'll attempt to explain it more fully.

I'd also be happy to discuss Mormonism - from the Mormon texts themselves - if you so desire.

78. marjoribanks - 9/13/1999 3:26:42 PM

Kuligin,

In several sub-groups of Santeria or Orisha beliefs, there are people who profess with their mouths, and believe with their hearts, the things you cite from Paul. At the same time, they believe in witchcraft, powerful forces which sweep around the world, in the possibility of fending off evil through rites and sacrifices.

I was wondering whether these people would be saved, because I'd like to know if you can be a "saved" Christian AND something else as well. Maybe even a Buddhist and a Christian, I don't know.

79. KuligintheHooligan - 9/13/1999 3:30:52 PM

marjoribanks that is no different than, for example, the Herero here in Namibia and their holy fire. The issue is a "hot" one currently in the African Independent Church among the Herero here, the Oruuano Church.

The issue is "Jesus is Lord." Empty speaking of the words is meaningless, as you already pointed out (and by the way, my primary task as a missionary here in Namibia is to get my students to think for themselves, thank you very much!). So if a person says, "Jesus is Lord" but doesn't really believe it or evidence that by his actions, then one could properly question such a confession.

But I don't know the heart of any other person. Who knows who could be lying or faking it but God? So the decision is up to God, not me clearly.

80. KuligintheHooligan - 9/13/1999 3:33:42 PM

We have to also keep in mind that when Jesus said "believe in me" he didn't just mean some empty, mental assent, as if all I have to do is say, "I believe" and then I can go and do whatever I darn well please to do!

To "believe" means to trust and put one's faith in, fully. Jesus even talks about people that will come to him at the last day and say "Lord, Lord" and he will say, "Depart from me you evildoers. I never knew you!"

The issue isn't simply verbal assent but ACTIVE FAITH that Jesus is Lord. Is he Lord of the people you are asking about in SA? I don't know their hearts.

81. marjoribanks - 9/13/1999 3:34:09 PM

Well, thankfully he's available to us in this Forum. Speak up, holy one.

Okay Vic, I'll leave it for now. My interest in this type of thing is piqued by the increasing "Indianization" of the RCC church and rite in various parts of that country. A process the Pope isn't too happy with. He recently even banned a venerable writer for straying across the line.

82. WinstonSmith - 9/13/1999 3:37:05 PM

Vic, If you had been born into a very different religion, let's say Islam, do you think that you would have become an active member of the church? Do you think that you would believe that Christianity is destructive?

BTW, Did your parents belong to any religion? If so, if I may ask, what?

83. KuligintheHooligan - 9/13/1999 3:38:12 PM

LAST POST FROM ME TONIGHT

marjoribanks, it is like I said a very tough issue. I can sympathize with the Pope if he believes that the confession "Jesus is Lord" is becoming compromised by the events in the RCC in India. And as the head of the RCC, he has to make decisions which are meaningful given the confessions of that church.

Personally, I know Herero who believe it is okay to go to the holy fire, and those that think it is a sin and if you are a Christian you should most definitely not do it. From my POV, I lean more towards the latter and not the former, because the holy fire may potentially compromise the position of Jesus as Lord.

Good night!

84. KuligintheHooligan - 9/13/1999 3:40:00 PM

Winston, saw your post and will quickly respond.

My parents are Christians. Well, actually, my father at least seemed to be one during my childhood but has since turned from it. My mother still is.

As for being born elsewhere, I am not trying to be mean or anything, but I don't see much point in such hypotheticals, since I wasn't born elsewhere! Sorry Winston.

85. WinstonSmith - 9/13/1999 3:41:52 PM

Good night, Vic.

86. tckrulak - 9/13/1999 3:44:10 PM

Vic,

The last "Spiritual Issues" thread apparently shut down before I got a chance to see if you had replied to my post. Had you?

87. bloodnfire - 9/13/1999 7:46:58 PM

Tckrulak !! Hey Hey the Gang's all here.....Well, getting here anyway. Now where's Jen and Marsha? And Stamper?

Enjoying the exchange between Vic and Winston very much. I would like to throw into their discussion the verses which I have 'thumped' on numerous occasions. Especially when a friend like Marjoribanks is trying to understand the difference in religions.

"This is the record, God hath given to us Eternal Life, and this Life is in His Son. He (or she) that hath the Son, hath Life, and he (or she) that hath NOT the Son of God hath NOT Life" (I John 5:11 and 12).

Those who subscribe to Santoria or Orisha beliefs as mentioned by Marjoribanks above, either 'Have the Son' or they do not. My present understanding of the verses I quoted is that there are two classes of people on the planet. Those who 'have the Son', and 'those who don't'
It is also my understanding that the vast majority of those who 'have the Son' aren't aware of Him yet !!

This, of course Vic, 'flies in the face of' "Inviting Him In". I am not convinced that "Inviting Him In" is precisely what is meant by 'Receiving Him' as mentioned in John 1:12. I have made the statement before in the old 'Frayed edges' that..."I invited the Lord Jesus Christ into my heart on 2nd December, 1967. I don't think I'd have ever done so if He hadn't been there all the time !! :-)

88. joezan - 9/13/1999 7:57:36 PM

Banks:

Santeria practitioners also believe in a whole host of gods, which to me disqualifies them as Christians, since Christianity is a monotheistic religion.

89. bloodnfire - 9/13/1999 8:06:41 PM

Which brings us to "Anatomy of the Spirit". Some of the dearest, most gentle and gracious people I have ever met have been Hindu and Jewish. Some of the most ugly and offensive people I have known have called themselves 'Christian'. So we're back to "He that hath the Son hath Life", and that sometimes, often, perhaps always until He reveals Himself IN and TO a human being's heart, that same human being might "Believe" and "Confess" just about anything. I should add that among the gentle, kind and gracious people I have met have been any number of homosexual men and women.

You see, I prefer a 'revelational' type of Evangelism, than an 'invitational'. The Lord Himself said..."Seek and ye shall find".
The Apostle wrote..."Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith: prove your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is IN
you, except ye be reprobates. "Reprobates", now there's a frightening word, Vic. (Calvinist chum :-) "Lost without hope of Salvation" as I remember the Oxford Dictionary definition". NOT "Lost because He isn't there, and you'd better 'invite Him in' before you go to Hell !!

I personally feel that many denominations have made "Becoming a Christian", (Decisions for Christ, etc.) rather like 'Joining the Kiwanis'. Begging, pleading. As a member of a Denomination which sometimes proudly (yeuchhh!) claims its "Wesleyan Heritage" (a phrase which makes my stomach churn), I feel that this UNscriptural approach is the cause of much of the lethargy and malaise and lack of FIRE throughout much of the Evangelical church today, (including, I weep to say, The Salvation Army).

90. acefranze - 9/13/1999 8:07:21 PM

"I invited the Lord Jesus Christ into my heart on 2nd December, 1967. I don't think I'd have ever done so if He hadn't been there all the time !! :-)"

Isn't one implication of this statement (one which resonates with my thinking) that it is God who chooses us, so that attempting to define precisely what religious posture is "correct" is just beside the point? Jesus famously has "sheep not of this fold," why can't those other folds include Islam, LDSaints, etc.?

91. bloodnfire - 9/13/1999 8:14:08 PM

Vic, dear friend. I never argue doctrine. I don't have to be correct, although I do want rightly to divide the Word of God. I simply share my present understanding, as you have seen expressed in my website.

I also see 'two edges' of the 'Sword of Truth', as It describes Itself. I know the verses which speak of the responsibility of Man in Salvation. I also know those which speak of the Sovreignty of God in Salvation. I feel both 'edges' are essential. It's a love relationship. Both parties give all they have. He's already given all He has. He waits for me to give all I have.

I am convinced that this phrase "He (or she) that hath the Son, hath Life" exactly describes the "Energy" (and her gracious explanation) of which Ms. Myss speaks in her book. Stay tuned. I'll let all this be part of Tuesday's discussion.

Finally, before bed Vic, I can stand on all eleven of The Salvation Army's Doctrines and say "Amen". But I reserve the right to explain that which I mean by the words expressed. I'll explain more in the days ahead.

92. WinstonSmith - 9/13/1999 8:21:47 PM

Ace, Blood,

This is a very interesting discussion. Blood, if some folks "Have the Son" in their hearts and others don't, are the folks that don't have it doomed. Is this something that is there or not there from birth?

93. bloodnfire - 9/13/1999 9:29:18 PM

I don't know, Winston. That word "Reprobate" (from II Corinthians 13:5) is extremely ominous to me. I never joke about it, or use it to describe people.

One of the most wonderful and liberating things that have happened in my life, is that the Lord has impressed upon my heart that I cannot judge who "has the son" and who does not. It ties in with that lovely verse from John 10, (#16), where Jesus Himself said..."And other sheep I have, which are not (yet) of this fold: them also I MUST bring, and they SHALL hear My voice".
Incidently, Pelle, if you're 'lurking', that's one of the many promises of God which makes me 'Suffocatingly Tolerant' (See how I remember ? :-). I just can't tell by looking who are among those 'other sheep', and who are not. Oh! perhaps I can surmise those who are , "by their fruit"; I just dare not presume to judge those who are not . For all I know (and devoutly hope), every single person drawn to this thread (are you listening AngelFive ? :-) are among those "Other Sheep" who belong to Christ, and don't know it yet. (Shout HALLELUJAH !! :-)

94. bloodnfire - 9/13/1999 9:31:56 PM

Pardon me, I got swept away by the thought ! :-)

95. Angel-Five - 9/13/1999 9:41:23 PM

Christianity isn't really a true monotheistic religion, though, what with the three aspects, the Virgin, the various Saints which are prayed to for intercession, the angels which are named... and, of course, there's Lucifer...

It's reasonable to group it with monotheism, but it isn't pure monotheism, in the opinion of this atheist mystic

96. bloodnfire - 9/13/1999 10:12:34 PM

I agree with you, AngelFive, depending on one's understanding of 'The Trinity'.

How's that for a surprise ?

On the other hand (he said, vacillating) those who envision the Trinity as three 'manifestations' of the 'One True God' would differ.

97. bloodnfire - 9/13/1999 10:20:19 PM

Regarding "Spiritual Issues" AngelFive, what experience have you had (if any) with the 'Agape' kind of love to which I refer in my #41 ? Do you see that kind of tenacious, doggedly determined kind of devotion as merely some sort of neurosis, or does it demonstrate 'spiritual maturity' in your opinion ? Or perhaps neither ?

As an atheist, what do you think of self-sacrificial love ?

98. bloodnfire - 9/13/1999 10:30:41 PM

99. bloodnfire - 9/13/1999 10:32:11 PM

I have no idea how the double post happened! Please don't feel you have to answer the question twice :-)

100. ethiopianeunuch - 9/14/1999 1:44:27 AM

Vines expository dictionary defines reprobte as "not standing the test,rejected". I think the test of weather someone is reprobate comes in what he does in the body. How does one live his life? God gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth should not perish. God is no respector of persons.

101. ethiopianeunuch - 9/14/1999 2:59:02 AM

Blood: I hope the hurricane is not looking to affect you!

102. bloodnfire - 9/14/1999 4:15:00 AM

Thanks, EE. Looks like a monster, doesn't it? We're in the Panhandle, up between Tallahassee and Pensacola. Whether it ends up in the Gulf of Mexico or not remains to be seen. It certainly looks as though Florida is in for a very rough few days, however.
It's a wonderful thing to know the Lord, isn't it ? To be confident that, indeed, "All things work together for good to those who love Him, who are the called, according to His purpose" (Romans 8:28).

Your dictionary's definition of 'Reprobate' is no more comforting than that other I quoted yesterday, as far as I'm concerned. 'Rejected' is 'Rejected'. It reminds me of the four most horrifying words in all Scripture to me..."Depart from me... I never knew you " (Matthew 7:23)

103. bloodnfire - 9/14/1999 4:52:26 AM

104. bloodnfire - 9/14/1999 4:59:00 AM

AceFranze. Your #90. I hope my subsequent posts affirm your point ?
He said..."You did not choose me, I chose you". I don't know of any theological premise that more quickly 'riles' some believers than 'The Sovreignty of God in Salvation'.
Naturally, to 'the mind which has not been subdued by grace' (Pink) it immediately prompts the response..."What sort of Justice is that?"
"How can God...?" Etc., as though we have so much higher a standard of righteousness and justice than He.
I truly do not want this thread to be devoted to Evangelical Christian topics. However, when discussing 'Spiritual Issues', they cannot be ignored, either.

105. bloodnfire - 9/14/1999 5:22:37 AM

Let's start looking at the 'heart' of Anatomy of the Spirit. The parallels which Ms.Myss draws between the 'Symbolic Power' of the Seven Chakras of the Hindu, the Seven Sacraments of the Christian Church, and the Seven 'branches' of The Tree of Life, The Hebrew Kaballah comprising the Ten Sefirot. We'll look first at the Sacraments, and see if we agree with her definitions.

She writes (Page 70) "These seven sacraments were, and still are, sacred ceremonies that imprint the individual with -- to use Christian language--specific qualities of 'Grace, or Divine Energy':.
(I accept that, 'Divine Energy' as a pretty good definition of one aspect of Grace. Do you ?). "Symbolically, each sacrament also represents a stage of empowerment that invites the Divine directly into a person's spirit. The term sacrament itself means a ritual invoking the power of the sacred into the soul of the individual. They symbolic significance of the sacraments transcends their religious significance, and my references to them should not be misconstrued to suggest that people need literally to receive the sacraments from a Christian institution." Continuing....

106. bloodnfire - 9/14/1999 5:34:41 AM

She goes on to define the seven sacraments as follows...
Baptism : to receive or bestow an expression of grace representing gratitude for one's life in the physical world.
Communion : to receive or bestow an expression of grace - in the form of a 'Host' - that represents holy union with God and with people in one's life
Confirmation : to receive or bestow an expression of grace that enhances one's individuality and self-esteem
Marriage : to receive or bestow a blessing making sacred a union with oneself, symbolic of recognizing and honoring the essential need to love and care for oneself in order that one can fully love another
Confession : to receive or bestow the grace to cleanse one's spirit of negative acts of will
Ordination : to receive or bestow the grace to make sacred one's path of service, and
Extreme Unction : to receive or bestow the grace to finish one's unfinished business not just before death, but as a daily part of one's life, thus allowing a person to love in 'present time'.

These seven stages of personal initiation represent inherent powers that we are meant to actualize, powers that we need consciously to utilize and employ through meeting the challenges that life presents."

Tomorrow, the Lord willing, we'll compare the seven branches of 'The Ten Sefirot', the 'Tree of Life'. Then, on Thursday, we'll add the third group, the seven Chakras of the Hindu. Any comments ?

107. SnowOwl - 9/14/1999 5:54:07 AM

Supposing God does exist, and supposing he did indeed behave in the way you describe, Bloodnfire, that is, choosing some and not others to receive the Son and thus everlasting life, in my view it is perfectly legitimate to ask the questions you deride in #104. We would, quite rightly, think very poorly of a parent who chose only some of of his children to be the recipients of love while punishing the others for things over which they had no control. Yet we are expected to adore and worship a God who denies the chance of salvation to some of those human beings he had a hand in creating.

I suspect I may not be understanding you properly, so I'd be pleased if you would explain to me how you can reconcile the concept of free will with your idea that those whom God has chosen must eventually be drawn into the fold, so to speak.

108. KuligintheHooligan - 9/14/1999 9:08:46 AM

tckrulak, I don't know what post you are talking about in the old Spiritual Issues thread, so if you asked me something there, ask it again.

Actually, the one post I did see from you to me was something about you being in my old stomping grounds. Is that what you were referring to? I told you to e-mail me at

V_Kuligin@yahoo.com

bloodnfire, I'm not sure why you said the "flies in the face of inviting him in" line to me, since I don't recall saying anything about "inviting him in." Did I miss something, or were you just "using" me as a foil for an aside?

Angel-5, surely you don't mean to imply that a belief in angels and demons (Lucifer included) negates one as being a monotheist? And don't forget, we Protestants don't pray to the saints or the Blessed Virgin anyway, but even for the Catholics that do, it strikes me as odd that you'd attempt to use that as "proof" that they aren't true monotheists. Please explain, as the last time I checked, the Blessed Virgin and the Apostles/saints were CREATED by the one true God in the first place, according to RCC theology.

109. KuligintheHooligan - 9/14/1999 9:13:14 AM

bloodnfire, also, I fail to see how one cut hold any respect for a definition of the Christian sacraments of baptism and communion without ANY reference to Jesus Christ, like Ms. Myss does in her book.

And what "qualifies" her to give us a scholarly, doctrinally solid definition of those Christian sacraments in the first place?

In short, I'm a bit wary of a person that "conveniently" leaves out Jesus Christ when speaking of things Christian!

110. KuligintheHooligan - 9/14/1999 9:18:41 AM

Just so I didn't misread anything, here's your comments A-5:

95. Angel-Five - 9/14/99 1:41:23 AM
Christianity isn't really a true monotheistic religion, though, what with the three aspects, the Virgin, the various Saints which are prayed to for intercession, the angels which are named... and, of course, there's Lucifer...

The reasons you give for Christianity not being, in your estimation, "pure monotheism," are:

"the three aspects" (which I assume you mean the Trinity, but if so, your choice of "aspects" is sloppy theologically)
the Virgin
praying to the saints
angels "which are named" (why do you add that phrase BTW?)
Lucifer

Could you please explain how each of these five reasons detracts from your understanding of "pure monotheism?"

111. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 10:25:13 AM

Not being Christian (Jewish agnostic fits far better), I have always been puzzled by how Christians can claim to be monotheistic and still pray for saints to provide the sort of assistance that divine beings can (healing, miracles, etc.). Indeed, the Catholic church seems to require this as a condition for sainthood. Are the saints supposed to be able to do this themselves and if so, does it mean that they are divine? If they merely act as intermediaries with God, does this mean that people do not have a personal relationship with God?

112. pellenilsson - 9/14/1999 10:32:22 AM

blood

Has the Myss book drawn any 'official' reaction from the Church (yes, I know 'the Church' has many parts, but still).

113. JonesAtLaw - 9/14/1999 10:34:11 AM

WRT to RCC and saints- The communion of saints is the connection of all believers in prayer to the one, true and only God. Prayer to ask mother Thereasa (not a saint), or the Mother of God to pray for you is seen as similar to asking your living mother to pray for you. Saints are seen as being possessed of special graces and these graces can be bestowed on those who ask for them. Just as you might rather ask your saintly mother to pray for you when you are in trouble, rather than some blackguard, we pray for intercession by the saints.

114. KuligintheHooligan - 9/14/1999 10:35:09 AM

Dantheman,

As I understand it (not being Catholic) praying to the saints for intercession is much like asking someone here on earth, "Please pray for me, because ..."

The main gripe Protestants have with such a thing is NOT because it somehow takes away from monotheism or the view that God is God alone, but that it detracts from the position of Jesus as the SOLE Mediator between God and man.

Recall, Mary and the saints are creatures, created by God to serve Him. They are NOT "gods" or some such thing in the RCC.

115. JonesAtLaw - 9/14/1999 10:45:39 AM

From the RCC cathechism:
957. "COMMUNION with the SAINTS. 'It is not merely by the title OF example that we cherish the memory OF those in heaven; we seek, rather, that by this devotion to the exercise OF fraternal charity the union OF the whole Church in the Spirit may be strengthened. Exactly as Christian COMMUNION among our fellow pilgrims brings us closer to Christ, so our COMMUNION with the SAINTS joins us to Christ, from whom as from its fountain and head issues all grace, and the life OF the People OF God itself'[LG 50; cf. Eph 4:1-6 .]:
We worship Christ as God's Son; we love the martyrs as the Lord's disciples and imitators, and rightly so because OF their matchless devotion towards their king and master. May we also be their companions and fellow disciples![Martyrium Polycarpi, 17: Apostolic Fathers II/3, 396.]"

961. "The term 'COMMUNION OF SAINTS' refers also to the COMMUNION OF 'holy persons' (sancti) in Christ who 'died for all,' so that what each one does or suffers in and for Christ bears fruit for all."

962. "'We believe in the COMMUNION OF all the faithful OF Christ, those who are pilgrims on earth, the dead who are being purified, and the blessed in heaven, all together forming one Church; and we believe that in this COMMUNION, the merciful love OF God and his SAINTS is always (attentive) to our prayers' (Paul VI, CPG # 30)."

116. JonesAtLaw - 9/14/1999 10:46:07 AM

Catechism continued:
972. "After speaking OF the Church, her origin, mission, and destiny, we can find no better way to conclude than by looking to Mary. In her we contemplate what the Church already is in her mystery on her own 'pilgrimage OF faith,' and what she will be in the homeland at the end OF her journey. There, 'in the glory OF the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity,' 'in the COMMUNION OF all the SAINTS,'[LG 69.] the Church is awaited by the one she venerates as Mother OF her Lord and as her own mother.
In the meantime the Mother OF Jesus, in the glory which she possesses in body and soul in heaven, is the image and beginning OF the Church as it is to be perfected in the world to come. Likewise she shines forth on earth until the day OF the Lord shall come, a sign OF certain hope and comfort to the pilgrim People OF God.[LG 68; Cf. 2 Pet 3 10 .]"

117. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 10:47:15 AM

Jonesatlaw/KuligantheHooligan--
If you say so. The impression this non-Christian gets is that saints are able to perform the miracles themselves and not through God. For example, why are prayers said not to the saint to intercede with God, but rather for the act itself to be done? It sounds as if the saint is capable of performing the act to me.

118. JonesAtLaw - 9/14/1999 10:53:34 AM

Forgive the odd capitals, they're part of the search results. The Offical Catechism is online and has a search engine: Official Catechism of the Catholic Church

119. pellenilsson - 9/14/1999 10:54:23 AM

If you want to continue to upset bloodnfire by disgressions you should really go for the Maria cult rather than the rather harmless saints.

120. pellenilsson - 9/14/1999 10:55:05 AM

.. digressions... I'm hopeless today.

121. JonesAtLaw - 9/14/1999 10:57:18 AM

Dantheman- The prayers that most Catholics memorize include phrases asking for prayer or intercession, formal prayers always include this, except when addressed to one of the persons of the trinity. The only exceptions I can think of are some children's prayers and one to St. Micheal the Archangel.

122. JonesAtLaw - 9/14/1999 10:59:18 AM

Pellenilson- good point- this discursion has been brought to you by the Roman Catholic Church, we now return you to your regular programming, spiritual issues.

123. theDiva - 9/14/1999 11:01:35 AM

Jonesie

Don't forget the spontaneous intercessory prayers to the patron saints.....St. Christopher for safe trips, St. Jude for hopeless causes, St. Anthony for lost articles. BTW, the latter always comes through for me.

124. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 11:06:22 AM

Jonesatlaw--
You could be right. Even so, it seems strange why this is desirable or necessary as a theological construct. If God is sufficiently omniscient and omnipotent to be worthy of our worship, why does He need intermediaries? Moreover, it leads to a sense that one does not "matter" to God on an individiual basis, which does not seem to fit with many other pronouncements.

125. theDiva - 9/14/1999 11:20:32 AM

Hi Dan, welcome.

Let me have a stab at explaining this. Warning: I'm not a theologian, merely a cradle Catholic sharing belief.

God doesn't need the intermediaries....we do. And we don't need them because he doesn't care about us...he loves us with a love that we can't begin to comprehend. And, if the time is right, he will give us what we pray for without intercession from anyone, living or dead.

The NT teaches that 'where two or three are gathered in my name, there I shall be.' To me, this supports the notion of intercessory prayer. When we unite our prayers in worship, or at any other time, it's pleasing to God. It's kind of like when you're a kid and you do something nice to please your parents just because you love them.

Asking your friends and family to pray for you is a fairly understandable and acceptable notion, generally. Now, I believe that humans have both physical and spiritual presence - when someone dies, their body is gone but their spirit (soul) still exists. If you accept this, then asking the saints to pray for you is the same as asking your family and friends to pray for you.

I hope this makes sense.

126. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 11:29:56 AM

Diva,
Not really satisfying, but that may reflect my Reform Jewish background. If God created us, then why would he create us in a way that we need intermediaries? Why would we be encouraged to pray individually if it is ineffective? More germane to my concerns, asking saints to pray for you is very different than asking friends to pray for you. Saints appear to be "official intermediaries" who do not individually know you (and can't be expected to unless they are divine) and yet they are being asked to act and pray for you. this does not make any sense to me.

127. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/14/1999 11:39:42 AM

How dare we forget Saint Dymphna the patron saint of nervous breakdowns?

128. theDiva - 9/14/1999 11:42:40 AM

Dan

Hmmmmm.....you raise interesting questions. Your point about my previous post being unsatisfying is well taken. Sometimes certain belief systems, I think, are best understood with living them. My husband, reared Southern Baptist, converted to Catholicism about 7 years ago, and though he has accepted his new faith, his questions genuinely reflect his upbringing.

Let me answer, now, what I can, and think about/research the others. This is good for me, btw....forces me to think about what I believe. Thanks for being nice about it - things can sometimes get a little, er, testy on these issues.

I'm not so sure I can answer your first question. In fact, I know I can't. And your third question, concerning whether a saint knows the one requesting intercession, is a good one. I'll have to look into those....I'd like to know as well.

Now to your second question: I don't believe it's ineffective to pray individually, quite the contrary. We're taught and encouraged to pray with utter faith and conviction, and that such prayer is quite powerful....God answers every prayer. Now, we* may not like the answer, and we may not appreciate the fact that God takes his time answering, but we have to accept that he does answer us.

*(we meaning the body of believers)

129. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 11:54:47 AM

Diva,
Your posts in 128 regarding my second question are precisely why I said that it does not fit with other pronouncements. If 2 or more are required before it is "pleasing to God" to use your words in 125, they why are we encouraged to pray individually? Or is being pleasing to God different than being heard by God?
P.S. I am rarely testy on any issue, and see no reason why anyone should be testy if someone is in good faith trying to respond to their concerns.

130. theDiva - 9/14/1999 12:00:55 PM

Dan

I don't think I expressed myself well...it's not that 2 or 3 are required before it's pleasing. And it's not any more or less pleasing to God than solitary prayer. I suppose you could consider it another form of worship....and maybe God is pleased by the sight partially because worshipping with your fellow believers strengthens and enables you to live your faith.

To me, that's the main point....living your faith. I can sing my lungs out at Mass, but if I cuss out someone in the parking lot and cut them off, what's the point?

131. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 12:08:32 PM

Diva,
Interesting, although it brings to mind a discussion I recently had about my synagogue seeming to gradually increase the amount of Hebrew in the service. If most of the congregation does not really understand the meaning of the Hebrew words and are just mouthing them, then would such a service really be pleasing to God? The same question could be asked of Catholic services when they were primarily in Latin. What does that say about organized services in general as opposed to prayers from the heart?

Your last sentence reminds me of a line a college buddy of mine used, "Growing up as a middle class suburban Catholic meant sowing your wild oats on Saturday night and on Sunday morning praying for crop failure."

132. theDiva - 9/14/1999 12:21:27 PM

hahaha! Cute, I have to remember that one.

WRT Latin mass (and talk about opening a can of worms) - I believe that Vatican II did away with mass in Latin in order to make the prayers more accessible and understandable to the congregation. I'd love to, just once, attend a Latin (language) mass. And it's funny - when I was a kid the parts of the mass were just so many words to me. (Catholic masses, in case you've not been to one, feature a great deal of call-and-response, kneeling, standing, sitting...) Over the past few years I have really come to appreciate the depth and meaning of the prayers, particularly when I consider that the substance of the mass and the prayers haven't changed since the Church was born.

Oh, and I went looking for an explanantion of prayer to the saints....this ought to explain itt for you better than I have. link

133. KuligintheHooligan - 9/14/1999 12:45:36 PM

Dantheman asks some good questions, some of which hit upon why I don't agree with the RCC notion of praying to Mary and/or the saints. For starters, I don't think it can be supported by the NT.

But putting that aside, I'm bewildered at Dantheman's bewilderment concerning God wanting or needing or using intermediaries. Dan, you say you are sort of "Jewish," well, you don't have to look far at all to see the Old Testament Jehovah using intermediaries galore!

One reason off the top of my head for using an intermediary in the OT was because the people couldn't bear to approach God directly. They were scared to death to do so! Enter Moses, etc. The entire priestly/sacrificial system was an intermediary system. So I am somewhat confused why you think a Christian notion of intermediaries is so "strange."

And I don't know if I already did this, Diva, but greetings to you. Nice to see you posting here!

134. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 12:46:46 PM

Diva,
I had trouble linking, so I pulled it up myself. It doesn't really say much more to me than you did, and doesn't satisfy me as to why we would need any such intermediaries. Moreover, some of the saints lead very poor lives as individuals (the most famous that I can recall nasty things about being St. George) or did very little in their lives on earth (I am thinking specifically about the saints who were children found dead and the local authorities blamed Jews, who allegedly killed them to make matzo). Why should they have any position as intermediaries unless you accept that praying to them leads to miracles (i.e., it works, so it must be true)?

As to the Latin mass, you seem to be making the same point that I did, that prayers in another language (whether Hebrew or Latin) are less meaningful. One can at least argue that any prayer with words repeated by rote will be the same, even if the people praying understand the words. Doesn't this imply that organized prayer is less, not more, effective?

P.S. Jewish services also involve most of the same elements (no kneeling, though). They also add chanting, where prayers are "sung" by the cantor a capella in Hebrew, almost always to the same rhythm. More traditional Jewish services also have what strikes me as a very annoying part of the service, the Amidah, where everyone is praying using the same Hebrew words out loud, but each at their own pace, sounding like a mish-mash.

135. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 12:51:14 PM

Kuligan,
True, but at least the biblical intermediaries were living, breathing people who can have some comprehension of your problem. Praying to a person who has been dead for 15 centuries to be healed of a disease that he never heard of in his life strikes me as being very different.

Moreover, the biblical intermediaries were for God to pass his words to the people, not for the people to pray to God. I can accept your suggestion that people cannot handle contact from God, but why can't God handle contact from people?

136. theDiva - 9/14/1999 1:04:33 PM

Hi, Vic, thanks!

Dan, yes, I did mean to make the same point. In my experience, though, the organized prayers have become increasingly powerful and meaningful to me as my faith has deepened and matured. I suppose you get out of of the Mass what you put into it, as I so frequently tell my daughter.

137. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 1:17:08 PM

Diva,
Probably all true, but not much guidance to a person who leans towards agnosticism. It provides little reason for a person who does not have much faith to practice a religion whose rituals require faith to appreciate. Moreover, I suspect that even a religious person suffers from what economists call declining marginal returns to scale (i.e., that the increase in what you get out of it lessens with each additional time the same prayer is said).

138. theDiva - 9/14/1999 1:38:28 PM

Dan

Well, now you've hit my weak point....I'm not, in all honesty, very good at convincing agnostics (and Protestants, for that matter, as Vic may tell you!) as to the logic and soundness of Catholic beliefs and practices. Sometimes I know the reasons and can articulate them....other times I know the reasons on a level that goes beyond words.

As to your last point...I don't know that economic rules would apply to something so subjective. My personal experience refutes it, for one thing, though I may be atypical as I was away from the Church for so many years.

139. WinstonSmith - 9/14/1999 1:49:48 PM

Yesterday I asked Vic to consider whether he would have become an active member of the church if he had been raised a Moslem and whether he thought he would have, in that circumstance, considered Christianity to be destructive. Vic declined to speculate on this matter but I think it is an important consideration. A person tends to stick with the religion they were born into and if there is only one-way to heaven then a lot of folks are going to be left out in the cold. Does anyone else care to speculate what it would be like if they had been raised with a different religious tradition? Could the other religion fulfill the same role in your life? Could you go to heaven? Would you then consider your current religion false?

140. KuligintheHooligan - 9/14/1999 1:52:36 PM

Dantheman, well, if you are asking me to defend the Catholic notion of praying to saints, you've come to the wrong place, since I don't agree with the doctrine! I was merely pointing out that God has frequently worked through intermediaries.

And I don't think the problem is that God CANNOT "handle contact" with humans directly, but I think it goes back to the issue of sin and the Fall of mankind. At one point God DID deal directly with humanity, but then mankind fell and I believe intermediaries serve one purpose of pointing out to *us* that we are no longer allowed to deal with God directly.

Thus enter Jesus Christ, the ONE Mediator between God and man.

141. KuligintheHooligan - 9/14/1999 1:55:22 PM

Winston, just keep in mind that many, many people convert to religions other than the ones they were raised with.

Given your hypothetical, who knows, I could have been born a Muslim but still converted to Christianity at some point! That's why I think the hypothetical is ultimately pointless (albeit I suppose it IS fun to speculate at times!

142. WinstonSmith - 9/14/1999 2:03:16 PM

Vic,

I don't think it's pointless, it’s part of how we are able to understand and relate to other human beings. Put yourself in the shoes of another and imagine how you would feel, how you would act? Some people convert but most don’t. I can understand why you don’t want to picture yourself as a passionate adherent of a religion you consider false but it could have happened.

143. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 2:07:11 PM

Kuligan,
Please don't shout. I was responding to your comment in the spirit I thought it was intended and I would appreciate if you did as well.
Moreover, there are several thousand years between the expulsion from Eden and Jesus's appearance. As you pointed out, there are numerous persons chosen by God in the interim.to receive his commands and thereby act as mediator. This goes against your suggestion that Jesus is the one true mediator between man and God.

Winston,
It is questions like yours that led to me being agnostic. I would have trouble accepting any religion that would condemn a person for being born into the "wrong" religion and not leaving it, especially (as some Christian ones do) for not having accepted a savior who did not appear on earth as yet.

Even the Catholic Church is not immune to this. Earlier this year, I went to Rome on my honeymoon. In the Vatican Museum, near the entrance to the Sistine Chapel, there was a painting (I think by Raphael) of a counsel deciding a religious dispute in Heaven. The saints all had halos, while the Old Testament figures did not. If the Old Testament figures are sufficiently wise/faithful/etc. to have anything to contribute to this discussion, how can they not be in Heaven?

144. marjoribanks - 9/14/1999 2:07:39 PM

Kuligin takes too much pleasure in apologetics, and thinking within a "closed" system, to have ever remained anything other than a fundamentalist Christian or a fundamentalist Muslim. I don't mean it as an insult. He could never be a Hindu, or a Jew, or a Buddhist for example there's too much nebulousness in those religions for him.

Just my opinion.

145. KuligintheHooligan - 9/14/1999 2:08:05 PM

The point is, Winston, that it didn't.

I think it would be interesting to see what others say, "If only I was born ..." but because it didn't happen, all conjecture is simply that, conjecture.

"I can understand why you don’t want to picture yourself as a passionate adherent of a religion you consider false but it could have happened."

Well, it didn't. So I can "picture" myself all I like as an adherent of the New Age Movement if I want to, but what's the point really?

What religion are you Winston, and why don't you tell us what you think about the hypothetical. Tell me your current religion and I'll pick a hypothetical for you to comment on. How's that?

146. KuligintheHooligan - 9/14/1999 2:10:06 PM

Dantheman

"Please don't shout. I was responding to your comment in the spirit I thought it was intended and I would appreciate if you did as well."

I wasn't shouting, just having fun with the new fonts and such. Try not to be so over-sensitive, though.

marjoribanks, you are probably correct. I can't stand all that namby-pamby stuff.

147. WinstonSmith - 9/14/1999 2:15:19 PM

Vic,

I was raised in the Baptist church and became an agnostic when I was 11. The questions I am asking you are the ones I agonized over.

So, what would you like me to imagine?

148. theDiva - 9/14/1999 2:15:22 PM

Dan

Minor point - and you may ignore this if you were being tongue-in-cheek - generally the Church doesn't formulate doctrine based on paintings by Renaissance masters (g). Seriously, though, I don't think there's any question in any Catholic's mind that the OT patriarchs are in heaven. Of course they are.

(and congratulations on your marriage.)

149. KuligintheHooligan - 9/14/1999 2:20:17 PM

Dantheman

"Moreover, there are several thousand years between the expulsion from Eden and Jesus's appearance. As you pointed out, there are numerous persons chosen by God in the interim.to receive his commands and thereby act as mediator. This goes against your suggestion that Jesus is the one true mediator between man and God."

I forgot to comment on this part. No, it doesn't go against the notion of JC as the one true mediator. As you may or may not know, in the NT we are taught that the things in the OT were 'shadows and forms' pointing to what would be the substance to come, namely, the Mesiah. JC is now the ONLY Mediator between God and man, per the NT. Nothing contradictory there.

Winston, let me know what Baptist denom if you don't mind. Then I'll come up with something.

150. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 2:20:56 PM

Marjoribanks,
I think Kuligan could also be a fundementalist Jew, as well. He might not fit in with joyous types, like Lubuvitchers, but he seems to fit in well with the ones (like many in Israel) who want to impose a dull certainty of spiritual decisions made centuries ago for the lively and individual quest for answers. Hopefully he is less dangerous than some of them are, who throw dung and other, more harmful objects at people whose idea of worship does not match with theirs.

151. KuligintheHooligan - 9/14/1999 2:21:17 PM

I would agree with Diva about the OT patriarchs.

152. theDiva - 9/14/1999 2:22:02 PM

Winston

You raise interesting questions. Here's my contribution:

I often have wondered what it would be like to practice Judaism or Islam. I have dear friends of both faiths, and I find their beliefs to be fascinating. Moreover, our (small 'o') core beliefs tend to be similar....loving our brothers, being kind to one another, taking care of those who cannot take care of themselves, respect for each other's beliefs and practices.

As the belief that 'one must follow my religion in order to get to heaven' is alien to me, I doubt that I would feel that way were I to convert.

153. theDiva - 9/14/1999 2:22:34 PM

Praise Jesus! Vic and I agree on something! (g)

154. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 2:24:45 PM

Diva,
My point was at least somewhat tongue-in-cheek, although there are Christian sects who do not believe Old Testament figures are in Heaven, because they did not accept Jesus. Also, what about the common persons in Old Testament times? If they lived good lives, would they be in Heaven, in spite of no showing of God's favor?

155. KuligintheHooligan - 9/14/1999 2:26:10 PM

Winston, OK, I gave in and began to think about the hypothetical! :)

Actually, even given my REAL upbringing (and that's not shouting Dantheman, just using the fonts for emphasis!), I am considerably different theologically than from my upbringing, albeit I am still a Chistian. So even there we would have to recognize changes even though we may have been raised a certain way.

156. KuligintheHooligan - 9/14/1999 2:27:12 PM

"My point was at least somewhat tongue-in-cheek, although there are Christian sects who do not believe Old Testament figures are in Heaven, because they did not accept Jesus."

Please name some of these sects if you don't mind Dantheman.

157. theDiva - 9/14/1999 2:28:15 PM

Dan

Certainly any of those to whom the 10 commandments were revealed, and who followed the commandments. This is indeed where the Church departs from the Protestant denominations. Let me see whether I can locate the exact teaching on this topic. Back in a flash.

158. KuligintheHooligan - 9/14/1999 2:29:42 PM

Dantheman, perhaps you ought to ask bloodnfire about his "dull certainty," since both of us find nothing dull about having our sins forgiven in the atoning work of Jesus Christ, and the FREEDOM & JOY we have experienced as a result!

Nope, nothing dull about that, unless you don't have "ears to hear" that is.

159. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 2:31:46 PM

My understanding is that Jehovah's Witnesses believe that. Possibly Seventh Day Adventists, as well.

160. marjoribanks - 9/14/1999 2:32:17 PM

Dan,

I don't think so. There is fundamental and continued questioning even in the most orthodox Hasidic traditions. Continued, tortured (and very reasonable if you ask me) assessments and reassessments, comparisons of one scholar to another, and even some mysticism. Kuligin (and again I don't mean it as an insult) would not be able to question and requestion things or even really leave matters open. According to him (according to me) he's pretty much figured it out, now it's dissemination and defense on the agenda. Very much like a fundamentalist Shi-ite, actually.

Also, I've been to that part of Jerusalem (can't remember the name right now) and was shouted at for wearing a short-sleeved shirt an for looking somewhat Arabic. Ironically, later in E. Jerusalem, two Arab shopkeepers wouldn't attend to me for looking somewhat Jewish. It was all rather interesting.

161. marjoribanks - 9/14/1999 2:34:18 PM

Vic, the fonts are highly distracting and make you look juvenile no matter what is the content of your posts. Use color and emphasis if you have to but for God's sake please keep the type the same size.

Actually, I don't know if God cares, he's in the PlayPen right now, but do it for everyone else's sake then)

162. KuligintheHooligan - 9/14/1999 2:36:47 PM

Again, marjoribanks, you are correct. I have "stumbled" upon the truth found in Jesus Christ, and at that point, there isn't any need for me to "keep on seeking."

Diva, you and I probably agree on a lot more than you think (and I KNOW that scares you!) :-)

Dantheman, no to the Seventh-Day Adventists, but as for the JWs, they *do* believe that the Patriarchs CAN be saved (in the 1000-year reign of Jesus they must still prove faithful), but I doubt very much that they actually believe any of the OT patriarchs will fall away during that time. I am quite familiar with the JWs too BTW.

Winston, I'll have to take up the hypothetical later unfortunately. Other matters await!

163. God - 9/14/1999 2:38:21 PM

Hey everybody! They just invented fire, come see!

164. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 2:38:30 PM

Marjoribanks,
While hasidic groups allow the rabbis to argue minutiae, they don't want the congregant to do so. Moreover, some the Jewish groups reach silly (i.e., the state of Israel can't really exist, since the Messiah has not come, so they can't use Israeli money) or dangerous (we need to restore the Temple, by removing the current occupant of the Temple Mount, i.e. The Dome of The Rock) conclusions, which they expect their followers to live with.
I'm sorry you had problems is Mea Shaarim (?). When we were there, they also said nasty things to my mom for wearing a shoulder length blouse.

165. KuligintheHooligan - 9/14/1999 2:38:54 PM

marjoribanks

"Kuligin (and again I don't mean it as an insult) would not be able to question and requestion things or even really leave matters open."

Actually, you have no idea how much questioning and requestioning I have done in the past. But once you come upon the Truth, there is no further need to seek it!

As for my fun with the new fonts

YOU CAN BITE ME!!!

Lighten up, man!

166. WinstonSmith - 9/14/1999 2:39:19 PM

Vic,

I believe it was called Conservative Baptist.

Diva,

I might have remained a religious person longer if the one I was raised in had beliefs more like yours

167. KuligintheHooligan - 9/14/1999 2:43:35 PM

Winston, I'm very familiar with them.

OK, try this one on for size. This may not be the greatest choice, but say you were born in Germany around the time of Martin Luther. Your family is Catholic Germans, but Luther has just begun his "reformation."

Now I am gone for the evening. See you tomorrow. I look forward to your answer Winston.

And for you marjori and Dantheman

GOOD NIGHT!!!

168. marjoribanks - 9/14/1999 2:49:18 PM

Dan,

I know. And Vic is the direct fundamentalist Christian version of a rabbi.

I've spent some time with the Lubavichers here in New York, and even have a dollar bill from the now-departed theorized-Moshiach Rabbi Menachem Schneerson. Many Hasidim have odd beliefs, no doubt, but there is a basic theoretical difference - in the very final analysis there is no dogma only interpretation. This is a redeeming feature of Judaism in my opinion, even among the wackos.

169. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 2:49:35 PM

Kuligan,
What if you were born shortly after that, and under the treaty that ended the Thirty Years War, you were forced to follow the religion of your local noble? What if you were born if France shortly after, after the Catholics massacred the Protestants on St. Bartholomew's Day? Would you still be willing to consider changing your religion, even under threats of death? Would you think that a religion that kills people for minor religious differences (as has been done by both our religions since their earliest days) is worthy of your faith?

170. theDiva - 9/14/1999 3:06:00 PM

Dan

Well, I've looked until I am just about bug-eyed, and I can't find the exact passage I'm looking for. It's in the CCC, somewhere. I'll look more later when my eyes have rested. I hesitate to paraphrase for fear of mis-stating the teaching.

Vic

Naaaaahhhhh......similar beliefs, different methods to our madness (g)

Winston

Thanks. You're welcome to come to mass with me if ever you're in the DC area. Our gospel choir is quite lively - I promise you won't be disappointed.

171. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 3:12:04 PM

Marjoribanks,
I don't quite agree with you that Judaism is that much better, not when fanatically religious Jews physically attack Reform and Conservative ones for daring to pray with men and women together. I also believe that Kuligan could be a fanatical member of any religion. He is a fanatical Christian because it reached him, but the same force could be present (and is with many others) with any religion that did.

172. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 3:15:26 PM

Diva,
Don't blind yourself. I'll trust you on that difference.

173. theDiva - 9/14/1999 3:16:28 PM

Dan

Thank you. At the moment I think I've even forgotten what my original point was, anyway.

174. WinstonSmith - 9/14/1999 3:22:39 PM

Vic,

I would like to think that I would have appreciated the tolerance of Luther but I might have stuck with the family religion if I was struggling to make a living and keep out of trouble. It’s certain that I would not have had any of the books that I read as a child so it is less likely that I would have been an agnostic.

175. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 3:29:15 PM

Diva,
I think you were responding to a somewhat humorous comment of mine regarding the Old Testament figures in a painting in the Vatican. Just out of curiousity, why is it only the Ten Commandments that the Church cares about for people who lived before Jesus? While I am not expecting that they would expect those people to follow all 613 religious rules that the Hasidim claim, surely there are others of some importance to them in order to be worthy of Heaven.

176. theDiva - 9/14/1999 3:33:38 PM

Well, I'm glad one of us can remember that far back. My mind is going, I'm working and posting and talking to visitors to my office.....uuuhhhhhh.....

In answer to your question - the teaching goes something like this. Jesus came to abolish the old law. That doesn't mean that there was anything wrong or incorrect in the law; just that the reasons for those laws no longer applied. There's a passage in one of the Gospels that talks about this, and I'm reasonably sure I can find it without going blind.

177. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 3:37:07 PM

Diva,
Actually, I believe this is Paul's teaching, not from any of the Gospels. My understanding is that the Apostles were practicing Jews and that until Paul Christians followed Jewish law (and only accepted converts who were already Jewish).

178. theDiva - 9/14/1999 3:39:08 PM

Jesus himself says it at some point, I think in connection with the Pharisees...lemme check, though.

179. theDiva - 9/14/1999 3:58:16 PM

That's what I get for relying on my memory. Ignore this part of my #176 "Jesus came to abolish the old law". How embarrassing. St. Matthew knows better than I do. Here when he refers to Law, he means the commandments. The Pharisees are a separate issue.

Mt 5:17-18
"Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete them. In truth I tell you, till heaven and earth disappear, not one dot, not one little stroke, is to disappear from the Law until all its purpose is achieved."

Jesus criticized the Pharisees for their adherence to the laws (small 'l') while ignoring the spirit of the Law. There are illustrations of this all through the Gospels.

Riv, are you here? Can you think of any?

180. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 4:07:21 PM

Diva,
This brings up an interesting point. The 613 laws the Hasidim claim to follow (I use that phrase because I have no desire to count them -- not because I am disparaging their degree of faithfulness in following them) derive generally from Leviticus. Why should they not be binding under your quote? Is there a distinction between the Ten Commandments and the remainder of the laws of the Old Testament? If so, on what basis?

181. theDiva - 9/14/1999 4:20:53 PM

Dan

You are probably the most challenging conversation I've had on line in a long time, and I'm thoroughly enjoying this. But I must tell you that now we're waaaaaay out of my depth here. I wish I could answer your questions fully and with the detail they deserve.

182. Rivendell - 9/14/1999 4:21:49 PM

Diva,

I can't think of any other illustrations of your point in the NT and don't have a bible at my immediate disposal.

Dan,

I'm not aware that the RCC makes any distinctions between the Ten Commandments and the rest of the laws of the OT insofar as it applies to people who lived before Jesus' time on earth. My understanding is that the RCC urges members of the church living in the present to follow the Ten Commandments and I am not aware of any other OT laws which carry the same weight.

183. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 4:47:11 PM

Rivendell,
I was not aware of any, either. That was just the impression Diva's post 179 left, by saying the Law meant the Ten Commandments, but the laws observed by the Pharisees was different.

184. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 4:47:51 PM

Diva,
Thanks for the compliment. I enjoyed this chat, too.

185. Rivendell - 9/14/1999 4:58:48 PM

Dan,

One distinction, that was emphasized oh so many years ago in parochial school, is that the Ten Commandments are supposed to have come directly from God. Whereas all the other laws are human written(divine inspiration notwithstanding). Therefore, Jesus was saying that the (L)aw would come to completion through him.

186. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 5:06:07 PM

Rivendell,
Interesting, as I believe Jewish tradition is the opposite (i.e., that God himself wrote the five Books of Moses). This was even an issue in the recent (1999) reformulation of the Reform Judaism spiritual guidelines. I will try to find a link.

187. Rivendell - 9/14/1999 5:09:35 PM

Dan,

That is interesting. I'm quite certain the RCC considers all the books of the bible to be human written via divine inspiration and guideance.

188. ElliottRW - 9/14/1999 5:15:51 PM

Religious Questions
Up for Grabs

Is God necessary...
...for there to be an objective moral code?
...for eternal life to be possible?
...for the world to exist?

189. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 5:17:01 PM

Rivendell,
The link is link. (Hopefully, this works, as it is my first try at linking). Under the description of Torah, it describes it as being the result of revelation. I remember from hebrew school the story of how if God dictated the entire Torah to Moses, how did it include the account of Moses's death at the end of Deuteronomy. The answer given was that God dictated the description of Moses's death to him, and then Moses left the camp and died.

190. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 5:21:34 PM

It worked!!

Elliott,
My answers are:
1)definitely not -- see no shortage of non-religiously based philosophers, starting with Kant.
2)possibly, although the Buddhists think otherwise. Something beyond this world is necessary if there is life after death in this world.
3)probably not -- I accept the scientific theories, without denying that it is possible that it was God who caused the Big Bang.

191. Rivendell - 9/14/1999 5:31:08 PM

Dan,

The link worked fine. And thank you for it.

Catholic teaching is that the bible (and in our case, particularly, the Gospels) are the word of God, but that the word had to be written down down by humans. So we are not all that far apart.

In Catholic versions of the Bible I have read, in the introductions to various books, scholarly speculation concerning the actual authors. So I feel fairly safe in saying we don't take too hard a stand on who wrote what if the book is not already attributed to a particular author. The emphasis is rather on how we can use the divine inspiration to determine how we should live, assuming we want to live lives pleasing to God.

That is, I think, the point Diva was trying to make.

192. ElliottRW - 9/14/1999 5:36:46 PM

DanTheMan--

We are in agreement. Dang.

193. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 5:42:12 PM

Rivendell,
I don't think we're far apart, either, although the Jewish belief in divine authorship asserts itself in some strange ways, including that one cannot touch an actual Torah with one's skin. To read from it, you need to use handles, pointers, etc. You also cannot let it touch the ground.

As to Diva's point, hopefully she can clarify it. I continue to read it as I posted in 183, that Jesus only required adherence to the Law (meaning the Ten Commandments) and not the laws (the remainder of the 613 laws the Hasidim count).

194. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 5:43:59 PM

Elliott,
You're disappointed that we agree? While they can lead to interesting discussions, I should think that most agnostics should agree on these.

195. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 5:44:26 PM

I have to leave soon. See you all tomorrow.

196. WinstonSmith - 9/14/1999 5:46:12 PM

ElliottRW,Dan

Yea, I agree with those answers too. Anyone else have other answers?

197. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 5:48:09 PM

WinstonSmith,
I'm sure our resident evangelist (Kuligan-the-well-named-Hooligan) does.

198. WinstonSmith - 9/14/1999 5:53:00 PM

Dan,

I suspect that Vic would say that God was necessary for all three.

199. Rivendell - 9/14/1999 5:55:51 PM

Dan,

I'm leaving too and so will check tomorrow for any response. I would say that Jesus wasn't referring solely to the Ten Commandments. Rather he was making the point that we should not get too hung up on how any law is written. He was saying that the letter of the law was not as important as seeking the intent. And that he was on earth to lead us to an understanding of the intent. That's my understanding of the quote, "I have come not to abolish [the Law or the Prophets] but to complete them."

I wasn't fully aware of guidelines for how the Torah should be handled. Yes, they do sound severe, but there is also a comforting bit of respect in them.

200. KuligintheHooligan - 9/14/1999 6:02:28 PM

No, Jesus followed the ENTIRE law, not just the 10 commandments, so I understand it.

And when he says he came to fulfill the Law, he meant the whole shebang.

dantheman, do you have a personal gripe with me? If you ask for a certain level of courtesy from me, I expect you to do the same too. If you want to take petty little jabs, that's fine, just don't whine when I use "BOLD FONTS" for fun and you complain that I am "shouting" at you!

201. marshame - 9/14/1999 6:02:33 PM

Dan

I am still trying to visualize "a shoulder length blouse."

202. KuligintheHooligan - 9/14/1999 6:03:15 PM

marshame, can it truly be you??!!

203. marshame - 9/14/1999 6:03:50 PM

Also... exactly where is it 10:02 pm? Not in my part of the world!

204. marshame - 9/14/1999 6:05:22 PM

It is, indeed, I. And contrary to popular speculation, I am not God, although at times I have been greeted with a response of "Oh, God!"

205. KuligintheHooligan - 9/14/1999 6:08:22 PM

marshame, given what God has said recently, I doubt anybody thinks you are God anymore!

I trust you are well.

206. SnowOwl - 9/14/1999 6:08:59 PM

marshame, The Mote's default time is GMT. You can change the time to show your local time under the Personal Preference link.

207. vonKreedon - 9/14/1999 6:09:55 PM

Marsha - Hi there good to see you. I also was struck by the description and not at all surprised at the reaction the blouse elicited.

208. SnowOwl - 9/14/1999 6:11:07 PM

Sorry, that should be Member Profile. One day I'll learn to look first and type next.

209. marshame - 9/14/1999 6:11:15 PM

Thank you Snowowl. Who would ever pick General Motors Time as the default, anyway? How econocentric.

210. marshame - 9/14/1999 6:13:14 PM

Hi Von K!

Sorry for my nonsequitorious entree into this thread, but it seemed to be breaking up, anyway.

211. ElliottRW - 9/14/1999 6:15:06 PM

Dan,

Oh, I do believe in God. I frequently communicate with God, and find his unwillingness to "come out" quite irritating. That said, I have little patience for those who use weak arguments to try to "prove" the existence of God. Especially when they're also asking for money.

212. bloodnfire - 9/14/1999 6:38:02 PM

SnowOwl. Your #107. You write "I suspect I may not be understanding you properly, so I'd be pleased if you would explain to me how you can reconcile the concept of free will with your idea that those whom God has chosen must eventually be drawn into the fold, so to speak."
Firstly, I do not mean to 'deride' Snow owl. I must say I smile at anyone who dares to judge God with regard to justice and mercy. I submit that our standards are way below His, and He loves in a far more pure and perfect way than we do. Secondly, it's not MY idea. I quote two verses, which certainly speak very clearly to me, and to you also, apparently.
As for 'Free Will', I hear that phrase bandied around a lot. I also hear the phrase "Free Moral Agency" used in the same context. The Scriptures, however, indicate to me that far from being 'Free', mankind is born with a sin-sick disposition. Other Christians might disagree with this.
If indeed we are 'free', what did Jesus mean when He said..."If you continue in My Word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free".
(John 8:31 & 32). Perhaps you can explain to me the difference.
However, if you cannot, please don't tell me that you think He's a stinky, rotten old god, who should be ashamed of Himself. That may be your opinion, but the day He persuades you that He truly did love you enough to die in your place, your estimation of His justice and mercy will change.

213. bloodnfire - 9/14/1999 6:43:01 PM

Hi Dantheman. Welcome to The Mote, and to the 'Spiritual Issues' thread.

Pelle, digression doesn't upset me. Providing we're still addressing 'Spiritual Issues' and getting a wonderful mix of all faiths (and lack of any faith) I'm happy. There isn't a 'Mary' thread, but she represents a very real spiritual issue to our Catholic Friends (and to our Evangelical friends as well, for different reasons), and there's no problem with discussing her on the thread that I can see.

214. marshame - 9/14/1999 7:02:36 PM

Hi blood'n!

Thanks to your encouragement, here I am!

Re God's chosing us: we never know the moment our eyes will be opened and our ears will hear. If you ask a person who became a believer as an adult (i.e. not a "cradle" Christian, as someone called it) I think you will almost always hear that they had previously rejected God, or been disinterested, thought it foolishness, had contempt for those whom they considered religious, etc. etc. And then, one day... without warning, words heard many times before suddenly are filled with meaning, and a mind closed to understanding suddenly is opened.

I agree with you that revelation might have the edge over evangelism. However, we cannot ignore the fact that Jesus said "Go and tell" and that "faith comes from hearing."

215. bloodnfire - 9/14/1999 7:06:29 PM

Marjoribanks. Your #144. Whether our friend Vic could ever 'be a Hebrew' or a 'Hindu' will very quickly become apparent if we all 'stay tuned'. I posted the seven (predominantly) Catholic sacraments earlier today. Tomorrow (if you're all very good :-) I'll list the seven groups of the 'Ten Sefirot', the 'Tree of Life' of the Hebrew Kabbalah, which Ms.Myss suggests parallel the sacraments. Finally, on Thursday I'll list the seven Chakras of the Hindu, which also speak to these seven 'areas of power' in the human life.

216. bloodnfire - 9/14/1999 7:08:04 PM

Dan, I don't think Vic meant to shout. He was playing with 'toys' which are designed to help us enliven and emphasize certain words. Vic is unfailingly polite.

217. bloodnfire - 9/14/1999 7:10:32 PM

And IMMEDIATELY I keep scrolling on down, and find my brother Hooligan inviting you or someone to 'bite' him!! Well, Kuligan is always, unfailingly polite. The Hooligan occasionally forgets himself :-)

218. bloodnfire - 9/14/1999 7:21:33 PM

Dan, for what it's worth, I don't recall any of your posts with which I have disagreed as I read them this evening. You are gracious and even handed. You may have missed my post early in this thread, or even a week or so ago, before we 'went public' in which I stated, with all honestly, that some of the dearest, kindest and most 'godly people I have ever met just happened to be Muslim, Hebrew, Buddhist, Catholic. It really isn't what we 'say' we believe. It's whether we demonstrate the 'Spirit of Divinity' in our lives. Even if we dont it doesn't mean that we never will.
I've met any number of Jews and Catholics who in my humble opinion demonstrated by their lives the 'fruit' of the Spirit of God. (He it was Who said that was how we could tell who belonged to Him, sometimes). I've also met a number of people who 'called' themselves 'Christian', who were ugly and meaner than junkyard dogs.
Same thing with Jews and Catholics. There are those who are 'just looking' or could care less. Godliness, as I understand things, is a gift from God Himself. You are truly most welcome on this thread.

You too ElliottRW. I rather hope you're the same Elliott we knew and loved back in the old 'Frayed Edges' ? :-)

219. bloodnfire - 9/14/1999 7:34:10 PM

Rivendell. Welcome! Good to have you with us.

Marshame my Darling !! Thank you for joining in. Hope your excellent comments fall on open ears. Encourage Jen to try us before she leaves.

Diva the Divine. I have loved your posts on Catholicism this evening. Before I joined the Salvation Army, and after I became a Christian in 1967, though nominally a Protestant, I sang for 18 months in Holy Family Catholic church in Glendale, California. Every Saturday evening, following the Rosary, I would sing any sacred songs I liked, and then from 5:30 to 6:30 I would lead the music in the Mass.
I loved it, and I loved the people and the Priests. The first Easter, after I had been there for about six months, a young Irish priest came up into the Choir Loft, where I would position myself, and said..."Monseignor would like you to come down and receive Holy Communion". (I was flabbergasted. It is contrary to Catholic practice to extend Communion to 'Separated Believers' the gracious description they give to non-Catholics). "Are you sure the Pope won't mind, Father" I said, smiling. "We think the Holy Spirit suggested it, so you'd better get down there" he replied, smiling back. They really blessed me. You do too. :-)

220. bloodnfire - 9/14/1999 7:54:22 PM

Marshame, I agree with you that Evangelism is a 'partner' with revelation. Two edges of the sword again. What a wonderful thing the 'Anointing' of the Holy Spirit is. And what intriguing verses there are that speak to this issue. I am reminded of that verse in Acts in which the writer tells of..."A certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul" (Acts 16:14).
I can imagine SnowOwl might ask why God doesn't "open everyone's heart"? We'll ask Him when we see Him. :-)

I humbly consider that 'Anatomy of the Spirit' has a certain anointing. I'll be most interested to hear Vic's reaction and PhillipDavids, and yours 'down the road', after we have had an opportunity to consider her thoughts and implications.

221. bloodnfire - 9/14/1999 10:37:14 PM

Okay, picking up on "Anatomy of the Spirit" for Wednesday 9/15, we'll now lay beside the seven sacraments of Christianity, the seven groups of 'The Ten Sefirot: The Tree of Life' of the Kabbalah.

Shekhinah The energy of the mystical community of Israel-- Symbolic of the mystical community of humanity.
Yesod The energy of the procreative force of God.
Hod & Nezah The energy of the majesty of God, and the energy
of the endurance of God.
Tif'eret The energy of compassion, harmony, and beauty.
Gevurah & Hesed The energy of the power of judgement and the
energy of the love and mercy of God.
Binah & HokhmahThe energy of the Divine mother, symbolic of
understanding and the intelligence of God, and the
energy of wisdom and the contact point between the
Divine mind and human thought, and finally
Keter The energy of the Divine that flows into physical
manifestation.

Comparing this with the Sacaraments, one can see a certain parallel between them. Tomorrow (Thursday) we'll present the symbolic power of the seven Chakras of the Hindu. Any comments RustlerPike ? Are you lurking ? I hope.....

222. bloodnfire - 9/14/1999 11:05:47 PM

223. ethiopianeunuch - 9/15/1999 12:58:36 AM

Blood: it might be helpfull for people to have a link to mssg.106 where you listed the 7 sacraments.

224. ethiopianeunuch - 9/15/1999 1:32:04 AM

This is what I think the Bible says to define the 7 sacraments listed in 106

Baptism: The way in which we enter the body of Christ 1Cor.12:13,Gal3:27

Communion: The Lords supper. What we are instructed to do on the first day of the week in remembrance of Him. Matt.26:26,1Cor 11:24

Confirmation ?

Marriage: a Holy union between a man and a woman, what Christ is to the church Genesis 2:24, Eph.6 Rev.19

Confession: Something we need to do to be saved Rom10:11, and to help keep ourselfs on the right path,1John1:9, James 5:16

Ordination ?

Extreme unction ?

225. ethiopianeunuch - 9/15/1999 2:03:30 AM

I understand that the trust behind this book is not biblical but when you start taking things as important as Confession,Baptism,Communion and Marriage and redefining them into something else I have a hard time disscussing them. I suppose my mind is not open enough.

Blood: No need to repeat 38,103 to me again I heard you the first time:-)

226. bloodnfire - 9/15/1999 5:35:33 AM

EE, just don't give up on this particular subject Okay? I agree with your definitions, and am trying to understand hers. I am also trusting the Holy Spirit not to allow us to get seduced by error. He is the Spirit of Truth, after all.
I am hoping that today we might have a Jewish friend, perhaps Dantheman, or someone who is knowledgeable enough in Hebrew to comment on her definition of the 'Tree of Life'. The 'Ten Sefirot'.
I have not read all of her book yet, and I am interested to learn how the issue of SIN
is addressed, if at all.

Those who were challenging you and Vic and I think Winston and other Christians on Monday with the phrase..."So you are saying that your religion is the only true one, and how do you know?" or words to that effect, have not considered the issue of SIN.

I want to present that word to this thread today. I submit that all other religions but Christianity regard it as something with which the individual has to deal. To "WORK" to appease God and "ATTAIN" righteousness. Christianity teaches that no man can do that. That the "Wages of Sin is Death", 'separation from God'. That God 'So loved us all, that He came to die in our place'. (I John 3:16, the epistle, you notice).

227. bloodnfire - 9/15/1999 5:44:33 AM

So that's the issue for today, friends, or at least one of them. What do you think of Sin ? I don't highlight the word to make it pretty. It isn't pretty. 'If sin wasn't such a pleasure it wouldn't be such a problem'. The Jewish Scriptures taught us God's attitude toward sin. That 'Without the shedding of blood there is NO remission" (Hebrews 9:22). It took God Himself to become, in a very real sense, His Own sacrificial Lamb. I realize that premise engenders scorn and derision in the mind, not 'subdued by Grace'. I submit that the Gospel story is so incredibly...what...Outrageous? Exquisite? Charming? and 'Disassociated' from any participation by lost mankind, other than their 'trusting' Him, that it argues in the likelihood of its being true. All other religions preach "DO! DO! DO!". The Gospel of Jesus Christ proclaims "DONE! DONE! DONE!"...

I feel another "HALLELUJAH" coming on !! :-)

228. Angel-Five - 9/15/1999 5:50:49 AM

I knew you'd crack under the strain of not preaching your one religion. Look at you. Pfft. Like an egg.

229. pellenilsson - 9/15/1999 5:54:46 AM

bloodnfire

Early on in the beta phase there was a long and partly heated debate about whether we should have thread hosts or not. Finally a consensus worked out. Among other things we agreed that although a host's personality and likes and dislikes would inevitably play a role in the way he or she moderates the thread, h/se should not use it to push a personal agenda.

This is called "Spiritual Issues" and its object now is to discuss a specific book. Yet it repeatedly lapses into the Religious, or more specifically the Christian thread. I know that we are an unruly lot but your are not, in my opinion doing enough about it. On the contrary, you are contributing to it. When snowowl brings up the teodicé problem you do not politely tell her that it is off topic. You feel obliged to quote chapter and verse from the Bible at her.

I don't want to go back to find other quotes or examples but in my opinion you are pushing your own agenda here. And I am not blaming you because I know about the importance of religion in your life.

But in my humble opinion you should either put a temporary restraint on your desire to proselytise or resign as host.

230. bloodnfire - 9/15/1999 9:01:27 AM

I'd be willing to resign as host if there is someone else who would be willing to do it Pelle. I only 'push my own religion' as you put it in response to the questions or comments of other like minded individuals.
I am doing my best to bring the writings of an individual into the mix who covers a wide 'gamut', involving not only Christian dogma, but Hebrew and Hindu.
I would ask you, in that regard, have you purchased the book? Are you in a position to help me in this endeavor ? It is not easy to exerpt parts of a book in a way that can honor the intent of the author and at the same time communicate the gist of the books premises. You have not yet responded to any of the exerpts I have posted, as far as I can remember, so you don't help very much.
Additionally, I was not present at any conference when it was decided when the 'Rules of Hosting' were established.
I am seeking to be impartial and gracious, and to interest you as much as any others who might be like minded as you or me.
I actually welcome your criticism, and will pretend, at least for the next few days, that I am also agnostic. I HONESTLY will try to put myself in your position, and not moderate or respond in an evidently biased or persuaded way. Fair enough ?
If I find it impossible, then I will resign unless jjbeiner and CalGal say that they disagree with you and ask me to continue. Okay ?

231. Dantheman - 9/15/1999 9:02:06 AM

Good morning all!

Kuligan, I do have a gripe with you, but you seem to have insulted me early on without being aware of it, when you called me a "sort of Jew" (see post 133). Your use of large type and capital letters is the sort of conduct considered to be shouting (and therefore rude) in other communities I have been in, and I thought was also applicable here.

As to Kabbalah, my knowledge is distinctly limited. What little I have seen of it strikes me as little more than imaginative mysticism, which is of little use to an agnostic.

Bloodnfire, as to the concept of sin, I am intentionally (and provocatively) throwing out for discussion an old stereotype of Christians as being less concerned with dealing with the consequences of their sins, for they can be washed away by subsequently accepting Jesus as their savior without taking any actions to amke amends. Jewish tradition (especially with Yom Kippur -- the Day of Atonement (for sins) upon us) is that a sin is not truly absolved until you have made your peace about it both with God and the person harmed thereby.

232. bloodnfire - 9/15/1999 9:02:57 AM

Forget the insults, Res. How about responding to the issues of 'The Anatomy of the Spirit' ?

233. Dantheman - 9/15/1999 9:03:02 AM

correction amke = make

234. ElliottRW - 9/15/1999 9:23:41 AM

bloodnfire,

While occasional use of visual effects to emphasize a key word or phrase can be good, prolonged use of large fonts, italics, bold, color, etc. is ineffectual. Worse, it tends to turn people off and undermine credibility.

Re: Sin

From one perspective, sins are simply a category of mistake. To the extent that we can remedy our mistakes, we are obliged to do so. Evasion of such responsibility is, in itself, a mistake.

However, when mistakes are (truly) impossible to remedy, the Christian doctrine of forgiveness has immense value. It prevents debilitating chronic remorse, and it makes it more likely that a true believer will be able to acknowledge the mistake in the first place.

Do some (nominal) Christians use this doctrine as a "crutch", as a way of evading (temporal) responsibility for real sins? Surely. But in doing so they reveal either a central misunderstanding of the purpose of forgiveness, or some more serious self-delusion.

235. Dantheman - 9/15/1999 9:39:00 AM

Elliott,
Well said.

Bloodnfire, please note that Hebrews is a book of the New Testament, and not a Jewish Scripture.

Query to Bloodnfire: If Christian teaching is that all of our sins (past, present and future) have already been absolved by Jesus, what is the incentive to avoid sinning, as the person who sins will not need to pay any price for it? If your answer is that faith in Jesus is a necessary element to absolution of sins, then how is that a higher price for a person who has sinned to pay than a person who has never sinned or one who has sinned less greatly?

236. bloodnfire - 9/15/1999 11:00:12 AM

Thank you, Elliot and Dantheman for at least (and at last) addressing one of the Spiritual Issues we are seeking to discuss here.
You are correct, Dan in that Hebrews is indeed a New Testament scripture, but it was written to the jews by a jew. A Christian jew to be sure, but for all that a 'Hebrew of the Hebrews'. There are other scriptures in the Old Testament which speak to subject of sin but I am posting this at my office, and rather than to misquote, I will wait until I am home to post a couple. You understand that for a few days I am trying to adopt a 'Pelleresonant' mindset, (which I am finding less than exhilarating) however, I do happen to have an extensive Christian library at home. :-)

Elliot, I agree with most of that which you say. A 'category of mistake' doesn't quite fit for me...... however. As far as your excellent question Dan regarding 'blanket forgiveness', and restraint from the committing of new sins, as a Pelleresonant I of course can only guess what a Christian would say. I believe they would say that the scriptures which state that someone who has been forgiven and returns to the same sin for which they have been forgiven are very much like a dog 'returning to its vomit'. (A very apt simile, I assume, if one is a true Christian). There is another which says that any one in whom Christ has revealed Himself who deliberately returns to that from which they have been delivered, and for which they have been forgiven...."Crucifies the Lord Jesus to themselves 'AFRESH' (the only time, in all of the K.J.V. of the Bible that word is used). Being Pelleminded, I'm not sure what that means. To a true Christian, who is in Love with the Lord Jesus (while I cannot imagine such a feeling), it must sound absolutely horrible. I guess it depends on how much one really loves Him. (As I'm told He Himself said in the