Speakeasy forum: I could care less about Anne Rice, Lilly Burana has stated

the link when I'm perfectly rested.

http://www.salon.com/life/life_stories/index.html?story=/mwt/feature/2010/08/08/im_staying_a_christian

Rob

emulate Him, that makes sense to me. If one gives only lip-service to Christ's life and death and make no effort to act in a Christian way, I don't see how one can presume one's entry into Heaven. I don't see Heaven filled with Jim Bakkers and Oral Roberts's and Jimmy Swaggarts and frankly anyone who lives a wealthy life while some parishoners live on food stamps.

Now I grant that reason and rationality are incompatible with Faith, but the hypocrisy of so many religious persons, whether Catholic or Episcopalian predators on children or Baptist practitioners who seem more concerned with earnings and high living. I acknowledge that Oral Roberts and Jerry Falwell founded Universities, but their homes were palaces.

Rob

I don't know what Baptist church you belong too but S Baptists do believe it and so do Presbyterians

...credit for the previous generations?

Salvation - The only way to get into heaven is salvation through Jesus Christ. To achieve salvation one must confess faith in God who sent his Son Jesus to die on the cross for the sins of mankind.

No getting wet like all those early disciples and Christians, oh yes, and Jesus himself? If baptism was good enough for Jesus to fullfil righteousness, it's not good enough for.....?

...my grgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgrgr-grandaddy died on a cross beside Jesus. We aren't sure exactly which one though.

but my great grandparents are as far back as I am sure of. My kids are fifth generation.

Diana

You will notice the sentences

"It seems as though a person who believes what I believe could read the above passages from the Baptist Faith and Message and believe that Southern Baptist include predestination in their doctrine. However, I can see how a person that does not believe in predestination could read it and interpret it differently.'

Remember each church is autonomous and can accept or reject what the Convention says. The SBC is broken primarily into the fundamentalists and the moderates. Our church is moderate but most of the SBC is fundies. Some of the local SBC don't talk to us but we have a lot of employees that belong to our church.

One has a black granddaughter out-of-wedlock from his daughter. She is a doll but they didn't feel welcome in the fundie church in the area. They have been coming since she was a baby and we all adore her and her whole family.

Our church believes in inclusion. Everyone is welcome. We don't look down on anyone. Also all four of our deacons are women. Another reason the other church doesn't talk to us much.

We used to send messengers to the convention but we don't anymore. One of our members proposed apologizing for promoting slavery at the regional meeting and, then, at the annual convention meeting. It was accepted.

Remember one of the official doctrines is the priesthood of the believer. Anyone can read the Bible and interprete it as the Holy Spirit leads him or her. For instance, I believe in evolution and the pastor doesn't. We have agreed to disagree. I haven't asked if he believes that the universe was created 6000 years ago. The answer is immaterial to my care for him and his family.

Well it's late and I had to get up early so I will say "Good night".

Diana

IF God is GOD, How could he NOT know who would accept him? Where our Freewill comes in is we are free to either obey Him or disobey. None of us know we are predestined or not, only God knows that. I also believe once saved always saved.

LOL! I refused to go to church with my son when we were in Texas as that preacher thought that women should only wear dresses and stay at home with the kids!

women should only wear dresses and stay at home with the kids!

Taliban?

My father's family has been traced continuously back to 1654 as what became Presbyterians. My Mother's family has been traced back to the early 18th Century and were what were called Non-Conformists, meaning Non Church of England which umbrella term covered all non C of E Protestants. From the late 18th Century they were Methodists.

My father left the church after his father's death and the loathesome words of "comfort" conveyed by a Scottish born and educated Presbyterian minister. Never the less, he swallowed his principles in favour of giving me the experience of a religious education. I was not attracted by the rather heavy-handed prohibition laced religious instruction I received as an 8 and 9 year old. I gravitated to the Episcopalians because my scout troop met there, and because the Minister was a really nice guy, and his encouraging and up-beat sermons. By the end of High School I drifted away from religion, only to be confronted by the next best campus bookstore, the SCM Bookroom. That's the Student Christian Movement Bookroom. Naturally they had a great religious book section, but when the other stores were out of assigned texts, you could always find a copy at the SCM.

Then the anti-war movement had a substantial religious component, and a lot of organizational meetings took place there, because the non-religious meeting rooms were invaded and devastated and the files stolen by somebody. We were convinced it was the FBI, and certainly it was within their power and congruent with their actions at the time.

I wrestle with religion. I am deeply moved and believe in the Gospels and the Acts, but the Pauline sections of the Bible seem to me to be not very Christian, more concerned with striking out against every other group he could reach. Now the Council of Nicea standardized the Bible, but there are parts of the Apocrypha which seem more in line with the Gospels. Now given the date of the Council, they were trying to make decisions 3 centuries after the fact. And don't think that wasn't a political struggle. It has been quite thoroughly documented, and each of the subsequent Synods dealt with the acceptance or more commonly the rejection of other Christian concepts which won't make any sense even if I name them here, because nobody but religious scholars care about this stuff. Who here has heard of the Pelasgian Heresy, or Monophysitism or the couple of dozen other variants in the early church.

The second last schism in the church was the separation of the Church of Rome from the rest of Orthodoxy, and all because some individual missionary in Spain decided to stick a couple of extra words into the Nicene Creed to make the natives understand what he was talking about. Now normally that would be Heresy and stamped out, but the concept migrated to Rome and became the Roman Catholic (catholic meaning "liberally interpreted" or "broadly defined") belief system. When they attempted to A. assert the primacy of Rome instead of its equality with the other centres of Orthodox Scholarship, and B. to assert that their modified Creed was actually the true creed and everybody else was wrong. Not surprisingly the 5 or so other centres of scholarship (Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria etc) didn't take happily to being told that they were less than Rome in authority, and were wrong on a matter which had been written quite literally in stone since 325 CE or AD if you prefer (I actually do, because that was how I was brought up).

What all of this highlights is that the decision making process was effectively a political one. Rome made a play for power, and was rebuffed, but because of all the affiliated churches they had established, they could continue on as their own power base.

The rest of Orthodoxy continued in a consultative scholarly way, but everybody knows that the clash of beliefs can involve some pretty intense infighting and politicking.

I think I'll try my acquaintance at Notre Dame University again, to see if she can offer me some texts on Pauline versus Christ's Christianity.

Rob

on whether or not the authority of the Pauline Epistles were at all controversial. I am not aware of such a debate. My understanding is that the Pauline Epistles were accepted by the church long before Nicea. Nicea simply confirmed what the church already believed as the content of the canon of scripture. For example, I can point to Saint Augustine who is quoted as saying;

(Paul's) authority in preaching the Gospel must be considered equal to that of the other apostles. For he was called to be an apostle not from men nor by any man, but through God the Father and his Son. Jesus Christ.

Augustine, of course, was simply reflecting the judgment of the disciples in Jerusalem who accepted Paul's claim to apostolic authority. Apostolic authority meant that Paul had received his understanding of Christ's teaching from the Lord Jesus himself. Paul asserted this himself in Galatians where he said;

Gal 1:1-2 Paul, an apostle (not sent from men nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead), 2 and all the brethren who are with me, NASU

That means that Paul's writing are included in what Peter described in 2 Peter;

2 Peter 1:20-21 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. NASU

That means there is no conflict between what Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John say and what Paul says. There is no difference in the message. They all speak the words of Christ as they are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Don't forget that you do not, and cannot, read the words of Christ. What you are reading is what Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote. They are reporting what they, or others, remember that he said. While there are several reasons why we believe their accounts are accurate, one of the big reasons was that Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would guide them in writing the truth. Peter and the early church affirmed that this promise was also given to Paul. There is no conflict between what Paul wrote, and what Jesus said.

Consider homosexuality for example. Paul essentially stated the prevailing Jewish opinion about homosexuality, and Jesus did not see a need to change that understanding. Further, Jesus said that marriage was ordained by God during creation;

Matt 19:4-7 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5 and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? 6 "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." NASU

OK, so Jesus defined marriage as a commitment between a man and a woman. Any sex outside of this boundary is either fornication or adultery. Both of these were condemned by Jesus as in, for example;

Matt 15:16-20 Jesus said, "Are you still lacking in understanding also? 17 "Do you not understand that everything that goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and is eliminated? 18 "But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. 19 "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. 20 "These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man." NASU

So, the teaching of Jesus is perfectly consistent with what Paul said in Romans.

Further, the judgment of the church does not hang on one Council. The church has had many opportunities to reconsider this judgment. The reformers, for example, traced their spiritual descent from Augustine. They did not automatically accept succeeding church councils. They emphatically endorsed and supported the authority of the Pauline epistles as the word of God. If you believe that the Eastern Orthodox church rejected Paul, please post the evidence for this. I am totally unaware of this. None of this was the result of "infighting and politicking".

When you make a Jesus who is what you admire, there is no problem at all in liking the guy. He may not bear any resemblance to the person described in the Bible, but he will warm your heart and will judge only with your approval.

Jeremiah, John the Baptist, Jesus. All were predestined to their ministry.

They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. 9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son. 10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; 11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) 12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. 14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?