prisonchaplain

Senior Moderator
  • Posts

    13938
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    92

Everything posted by prisonchaplain

  1. I used to teach English conversation in South Korea. One time a student suggested that I take the TOEFL--just for fun. "No Way," I said. Even if I get a perfect score, students will say, "Well, yeah...he's a native speaker." BUT, if I get anything less, they'll wonder if their teacher is truly qualified. My guess is that a real scientist would not want to debate a sci-fi writer who's lost the ability to distinguish questionable fiction with reality because: A. It would give the writer a false appearance of credibility. Note how Hoagland already uses his invite to entertain some NASA employees at the equivalent of what we call a "lunch and learn," to suggest he's a highly revered consultant. B. Hoagland is probably a good public speaker, who knows how to work a crowd. True scientists often are not proficient at translating what they do into laymen's terms, much less doing so with persuasion and humor. Bottom-line: Gr88t, quit looking to phenomena from creation to revere, and look instead to the on Creator, the one true and living God.
  2. Now let me paraphrase and read between the lines, to see if I understand Prof. Robinson and the Traveler correctly. Prof. Robinson has become good friends with evangelical scholar, Prof. Blomberg (Denver Seminary). Additionally, he has consumed enough evangelical writing, that he "knows the language." Ultimately, he's convinced--and here the Traveler concurs--that most evangelicals, because of their hunger to serve God and love people, perhaps in the life to come, will respond favorably to the offer of conversion, which will be provided as a result of a baptism for the dead done here. Have I understood correctly? I have a short comment about salvation, and this issue of "what if they did not know?" First, there is no doubt that Mormonism neatly solves this difficult question in a way no other faith does. On the other hand, evangelicalism may be more nuanced than most believe. Yes, there are some who say, no way but Jesus...if you did not know, you were not predestined or chosen. However, many others, myself included, suggest that there may be more hope than that. My personal experience came when someone close to me committed suicide. What made this especially confusing for me spiritually was that he had come to my church the week before, and had made a confession of faith...this totally out of the blue. So, was he truly saved? Did he "endure to the end?" Or, did he just go through this act to give me hope and make me feel better? I prayed about it, and after about three weeks got my answer: God is just. So...is he in heaven or not? GOD IS JUST. Is he in hell? GOD IS JUST. In other words, do I trust God? Do I trust this loved one to him? On the Day of Judgment there will be no objections. All will agree that God was just and merciful. Furthermore, Romans 1 suggests that there is a general revelation of God that all have access to. Perhaps we'll be judged by how we respond to what we know? Granted...Mormonism's answers are easier. But are they true? What I know for sure is that God is TRUE. Jesus is TRUE. For now, that's good enough for me.
  3. Hey, I wouldn't roll my eyes at science writers. L. Ron Hubbard managed to start a brand new religion (Scientology), enlist a cadre of Hollywood elites, inspire some really bad movies (what was that Battleship Earth thing with John Travolta?), and be a catalyst for some really sober, intelligent discussions about psychiatra (ref. Tom Cruise). I'd say Hoagland may have some potential--just not in actual science.
  4. I thought I understood a lot of things when I first came to this site. However, it is safer to respond to what people say, rather than what I think they believe. You have clarified yourself. Here's a thought. God can do what he needs to himself, but he has chosen to use his creation to accomplish his work amongst us. I grant you that it is possible that he would limit himself to using the LDS Church, with the faithful amongst its 12 million. However, I'd rather believe he was using the faithful amongst the roughly 2 billion souls that compromise the greater Christian community. We know that many so-called Christians are not. They name the name, but Jesus will say to them one day, "Depart from me, I never knew you." This is likely true, even in the LDS church. I'm guessing that curse will be from failure to truly embrace his love, not from failure to align with the most accurate church. I'd simply point out that Prof. Robinson (BYU) has argued that terms like apostate, abomination etc. are reserved for corrupt creeds and those who willfully elevate them above Holy Scripture. He suggests that sincere Christians themselves are simply wrong on some teachings (such as the restoration). 100-500 million Pentecostals/Charismatics who call themselves Spirit-filled, because they have received the gift of the Holy Ghost...all wrong. Yes, it's possible. I'm wondering what this means for them. Can they get into the terrestial kingdom and live forever with Jesus, even though they claim to have something from God, and they don't? The key verse Jesus spoke, in terms of authority, was in Acts 1:8. He said we would receive power (authority) when the Holy Ghost comes on us to be his witnesses. He wants us to win souls, not set up a hierarchy. He told would-be leaders to grab a towal and wash feet. He said whoever wants to be great should serve. I am part of a royal priesthood, a holy nation. I belong to a good fellowship--one in which most of the people and leaders are simply hungry to serve God, to win souls, and to love--not by might, nor by power, but by God's Spirit, as Zecharia informs us. John 14:6 says Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. I know the LDS church believes this, and that there are parallel verses in the Standard Works. And yet, the church would take on the role of gatekeeper. You want to get to the Father, go through the Son. BUT...if you want to get to the Son, you must come through us. You might help me get, but I'm not sure it HAS to be your church leading the way.
  5. I said he was called that Son of God, not that he used that term for himself. John 3:16: For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son...
  6. My main difficulty with the death penalty is that wealthy fair-skinned types seldom get it, while men of color but not means, disproportionately do get it. It may not be inherently wrong, but the way our states carry it out has the appearance of being out of balance. Yes, and it raises up armies for defense--armies charged with killing people. Except that there was a death penalty in the Mosaic Law, and God's people were often ordered to fight against the immoral Canaanites. So, that "no murder" command seems to be geared towards people killing out of criminality, anger, or negligence. It's cheaper to house them than to execute them. On the other hand, should we continue to keep alive individuals so dangerous, the present a threat to the correctional workers who manage them (the really bad guys)? Yes. Lifers still have prison chaplains that can point them to God.
  7. Professor Stephen E. Robinson (BYU, Ancient Scriptures) makes the following statement in the book How Wide the Divide: The LDS believe there will be millions, even billions of good souls who will come from the east and the west to sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the celestial kingdom of heaven (Mt. 8:11)--including, in my opinion, a very large percentage of Evangelicals. (bold emphasis mine) Do you agree? Comments?
  8. I've finally finished it--and it was an eye-opener. Mormons and evangelicals who want to understand the other system better, and perhaps your own as well, would do well to read this book. Its nearly 200 pages are accessible, yet dense with content. I plan to reread it with a highlighter! Perhaps most useful for us at this board, is that the Mormon and Evangelical writers here are professors and friends. Thus, they model interfaith conversation that is intelligent, uncompromising, and yet respectful, and built out of mutual friendship. For my complete review, see the following: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/083081991...glance&n=283155 By the way, if you find the review helpful, give me a vote. Also, if you find the book worthwhile, recommend it, and cast some votes at the url I gave you...increased traffic will discreetly inform site visitors that this book is generating interest.
  9. Well, Setheus did get me to looking at the possiblity that the sons of God in Genesis 6 were simply the righteous descendents of Seth. That conversation led me to study, and discover that his view is not obscure, or even specifically LDS. In fact my own, denominationally influenced study Bible makes the same argument. My mind is not yet made up, but Seth's efforts will probably lead me to change my view on this topic. I admit that demons intermingling with humans is something that it seems odd that God would allow to take place. Tao, you right that not many change--certainly not quickly. But, hey...I testify that discerning greater light is possible.
  10. "Son of God" and "Son of Man" cannot be contradictory terms, because Jesus is called both. I'll tell you what did blow my ship out of the water though. The footnote in my Full Life Study Bible (which happens to have a heavy Pentecostal and Assemblies of God flavor in its notes) contends that the sons of God are probably of the righteous line of Seth, because angels could not marry or have children. I could still be right, but Seth, knowing that you have the full weight of tongues-talking Assemblies of God academia backing your view probably resolves the issue permenantly for you Ah...theological debates make strange bedfollows
  11. Tao Saint, if it's any consolation, you're right. We're still mad because the French would back us in Iraq. As a prize for garnering at least one supporter, have some Liberty fries on me!
  12. Peter is not referring to what the believers "have," nor to what we "have," but rather to what they and we "ARE." Just so that we are on the same page, some definitions are in order. 1. Priesthood, in Peter's context, is not an office. He's not referring to what LDS call the Aaronic or Melchizedek (sp?) orders. Rather, this is the more general idea of Christians representing Christ to a lost world. BTW Prof. Robinson (BYU) seems to agree, when he argues that true Christians not only have the experience of conversion, but also accept the obligations of Christian living (Jesus says obey my commands if you really love me, for example). Those Christians, office holders or not, who are living the Christian life, do represent the Savior to nonbelievers. How many converts to the LDS Church, for example, come because of invitations from regular members, as opposed to from referrals by missionaries? 2. When I speak of "everyone who believes in Jesus," let us assume the Mormon understanding of salvation--those believers who are "enduring to the end." In reading How Great the Divide, I've become convinced that on this issue at least, we're more in agreement than we realize. My own fellowship is predominantly Armenian in theology, so we too believe the follower of Christ, after conversion, must, well, follow Christ. 3. Differing church structures are creating a bit of confusion here, I believe. In the LDS system faithful men are ordained into the priesthood. To use evangelical terms, all faithful men are "lay ministers." In most evangelical churches, we accomplish similar results by teaching that we are all called to be witnesses of Christ, we are all called to study the Scripture, we are all called to pray, to give, to encourage one another, etc. 4. As an FYI, most evangelical ministers have had the "laying on of hands." And all Pentecostal ministers should have received the gift of the Holy Ghost. Once again, then, we should be pretty close on this...unless you consider my church apostate, and do not really believe that non-LDS can receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, or be part of Peter's royal priesthood.
  13. My political views have actually moderated with age. There's a common political proverb: If you are conservative as a young person, you have no heart. If you are liberal as an older person, you have no brain. Ironically, from my teen years through my early thirties I considered myself a conservative Moral Majority Christian Coalition Better Dead than Red type Republican (sorry to my evangelical brother at this site ). Though I am still on the right side of the aisle, my views on taxes, 'proactive wars,' etc. have become much more nuanced. Tao Saint, while I agree with your analysis as far as it goes, you might want to consider that today's conversations/debates become tomorrow's past experiences. I might not instantly convert to another party of denomination, but if I change down the road, I might trace my change back to discussions I had this week. It might be too, that some of the most 'heated' discussion would be considerably less so if we allowed for evolutionary changes in opinion, rather than looking for intelligently designed big bang conversions. B)
  14. I guess if we aren't going to talk about politics or religion, we'll have to talk about women. Me thinks the contentiousness of politics and religion will seem like the proverbial Sunday School picnic compared to starting down that dark, dangerous rode.
  15. This is real simple. If Peter was writing in general to the churches (not one, but several), and if he was writing to people he did not know (strangers, you said), and if the letter was not specifically addressed to the leaders, but was to the churches in general, then it's a pretty easy assumption that the "royal priesthood" was a term Peter applied to believers in general. He did not have a specific person, or subgroup of people in mind. Furthermore, since the audience was so general (again, to strangers), then the words do indeed apply to believers throughout the ages. The 'royal priesthood' was not a term limited to the first generation of believers. The Bible is a collection of works written to specific audiences, yes. However, if we accept that Scripture is God's word--that God intended it for his people for all generations, then of course the words apply to us--UNLESS the context is clearly not generalized. Bottom-line: When 1st Peter declares strangers in several area churches to be a royal priesthood, it's pretty clear that the term applies to all the believers in those churches, and more generally to all believers in all areas throughout the generations.
  16. Well, yes--after the fact. But, more importantly, BEFORE the fact. How many of these incidents do NOT happen, because the criminal "found God" in jail, because the addict found deliverance in a faith-based rehab, and the 'young simmering child of an immigrant' found acceptance, purpose, and love in a house of worship? If I'm not mistaken, three American planes were hijacked on 9/11, and only Todd Beamer, and perhaps a few others on one of those planes stepped in. Quite frankly, in a hostage situation, blending in, not being noticed is the generally recommended course of action. If the 20 assailants were armed, and no one else was, then this really was a hostage situation. It's fun to wax Rambo-ish about such incidents. We can perhaps be naively sincere about it. However, I would never judge someone elses actions in such a situation--at least not without knowing the details.
  17. While I understand the "righteous indignation" against these barbaric youth, and to some extent, against the men on the train who remained passive, I rather prefer the approach my church would take. 1. We've raised up a strong cadre of prison chaplains to offer hope, rehabilitation, and redemption to the criminals. 2. Besides training religious leaders, there are now a significant number of reputable, licensed, trained counseling professionals who infuse their services with faith-filled healing, for the victims. 3. We offer holiness teachings against the abuse of alcohol (that likely played a role in the activities of the abusers, and passivity of some of the passengers). Further, we have residential drug/alcohol recovery centers with success rates that are 4-6 times higher than purely medical rehabs. Vigilantism offers short-term feelings of accomplishment and machismo. However, the rather expensive, time-consuming work of healing, recovery, rehabilitation we prove more beneficial in the long run. Let is not tire of doing good...
  18. Peter's initial audience was the church of his day. It was written to followers of Christ. While certain verses are clearly directed at individuals or small groups, the bulk of Scripture--especially in the New Testament--is written generally, to Christians. I shouldn't need a verse that says, "And these things are written for everyone who reads these words." Normally, when the audience is restricted, the restriction will be specifically stated. When a letter is "open" the "to whom it may concern" need not be specifically stated.
  19. I did a quick check and the NIV, NRSV, and NAS translations all use the word NEPHILIM in Genesis 6:4. Additionally in Numbers 13:33 the word is used. So, apparently, while the Catholic church may have taught about it, there is at least some grounds in Scripture itself.
  20. Even Bob Jones University has disavowed this interpretation. The Old Testament had repeated warnings against the Jews intermarrying with the Canaanites, who might not even have been of a different race. Furthermore, the reason for the prohibition was that the Canaanites worshipped false gods and were immoral--not because of racial issues.
  21. Anti-intellectualism has been a curse in fundamental/evangelical/pentecostal/charismatic/"conservative" churches for quite some time. The problem is definitely less than it was, say a generation ago, when my own movement started a graduate school offering courses in biblical studies etc., but could not initially call it a "theological" seminary, because of the "liberal" connotations some fealt the word communicated. Today, we proclaim "knowledge on fire," yet still struggle against those fear knowledge from "secular" sources. On the other hand, if anti-intellectualism is your own complaint against Christianity, you might consider searching out the writings of some reputable scientists who are also Christians, and seeing what types of churches they go to. My undergraduate studies at a Presbyterian Church USA college had none of the undertones you found so illogical. I'm sure there's more to you Deism than this issue, but thought I'd throw out an obvious solution.
  22. I suppose I made YOUR point anyway. It was hard enough finding one that was willing to question macro evolution. I could probably dig around and find one...but it goes without saying that the vast majority...well over 99%, of scientist do not buy into a young earth creationism. My understanding is that Intelligent Design proponents have abandoned that position as well. Young Earth Creationism is clearly an effort of fundamentalists with science degrees, trying to justify their biblical interpetations. I.D. at least avoids that error. I supposed by a strict biological or historical standard you may be right. The following article provides a good introduction the the different schools of thought on the authorship of the "five books of Moses." http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tora.htm He may have been "silent" to you, but some claim to have audibly heard his voice. Ultimate, whether claimed Scriptures are the word of God or not is a matter of some evidence mixed with much faith. Even those who say they've literally heard, must exercise faith that what they heard was God and not something else. Scriptural accounts are sometimes verified through archeology and other findings, but granted, such evidence is never as conclusive as pure scientific inquiries.
  23. This is another issue that is a "divide." I do have authority to represent Jesus, according to the biblical requirements for overseers or bishops, in that I have been ordained as a minister by leaders of my church. Of course, this claim is only persuasive if you recognize my church as a true Christian church, not an apostate one. A more important reason why I and any other true believer in Jesus are qualified to represent him, is that we are all priests. All true Christians are qualified and commanded to represent him to a lost and dying world. [9] But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: [10] Which in time past [were] not a people, but [are] now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy. (1Pe 2:9-10 KJV) This is not written to a segment of the church, or just to the leaders, but to all the believers. We're all called to be priestly representatives of Jesus.
  24. Sorry...I was staying in the context of my string here. Are you asking what would be the ramifications of God having nothing to do with the sons of God coming together with the daughters of men to produce giants, nephilim, men of renown? Well...if the word of God really isn't the word of God (which is sort of what your getting at, me thinks) then I probably wouldn't be concerned with who Genesis 6 referred to.