prisonchaplain
-
Posts
13955 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
92
Posts posted by prisonchaplain
-
-
I disagree completely. Someone who posts a cartoon on the internet or prints it in a paper is nothing like an evil extremist who burns buildings and who murders or incites to murder.
Perhaps not. However, as Christians, are we trying to rally our own sense of righteousness vs. the infidels, or would we hope to win a few of them over to our side? If the latter, than those cartoons probably won't be too helpful.
Likewise, as Americans, do we want to stoke our own sense of patriotism and nationalism, or do we want to win the minds of Muslim moderates who just might prefer some form of democracy to radical Islamofacist theocracy? If the latter, once again, the cartoons won't prove effective.
-
What I do have an opinion on is the behavior of the Muslims that we see in the news surrounding this issue and other's like it. Whether they are rank and file Muslims or extremists and fundamentalists I can't say. But, of them, they aren't seeking God, they are reactionary evil-doers looking for excuses to murder and incite to murder.
We might vehemently disagree with what some actions of some Muslims. However, a people that pray for 15-20 minutes on five different occasions a day, a people who dry-fast 10-16 hours a day for a whole month each year, a people who are passionately enraged when that which is holy to them is mocked, are a people hungry for God. Can we not see this hunger, even as we condemn actions?
I have seen all the cartoons. Big deal. What is really outrageous is that these evil-doers would go out and burn and murder and incite to murder because they think that someone has suggested that they are violent. Geeze - obviously they are violent. Why be offended at the truth?
I'll not for a moment defend the response. However, I've got to respect the passion they feel towards their faith. So-called artist urinate or defecate on our holy symbols and we mumble some nonsense about, "Oh well...I guess that's artistic expression." Do you not feel rage when you see snippets from the God Makers?
Besides that - they are hypocrites. There are cartoons all the time in the Arab press about other religions. It is common for State-run newspapers to show prominent Jewish figures eating babies. I value a free press more than I value not offending the sensbilities of evil-doers.
Again, without justifying their responses, it's one thing to publish vile political cartoons, it's quite another to knowingly publish cartoons that are deemed blasphemous is, as one columnist put it, "to intentionally poke the eyes of a specific religious group."
Objectively, there is incredible hypocrisy and evil in what some of these Muslim rioters have said and done. However, my argument is that Christians ought to tap into the religious hunger that underlies all that, and see if some souls might be won in the midst of this mess.
-
The violent response to political cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammed in unfavorable caricatures has surpised, amused, and yet enraged Westerners. We are quite used to ridiculing our political leaders, and venerable institutions--including churches. Just recently the University of Kansas went to court to defend student freedom of expression. The issue, a permanent display of student statuary, that include a Catholic cardinal shaped like a male private part. We all recall government sponsored art shows that included the likes of crucifixes set in urine, or in dung. When people of faith protested, we were belittled as know-nothings, thin-skinned, too be ignored, if not further mocked.
Note the double-standard. Now its Muslims who are offended. Well, we would not want to intentionally offend a signficant number of people in our community. No no, we shall not publish. Yes, political correctness rankles us, because we know that's what it is: a blatant double-standard that is more about politics than truly trying not to hurt feelings. Note also, all the Baptist churches that have been burned down recently. Yet the hate-crime professionals (they must be--it's how they make a living) are saying "NO hate crime, here." The churches are multiracial...must be something else. I guess it's not a hate crime if you target Baptists (after all, most of them probably vote for the other party).
Sorry for the sarcasm...but it's important to express how I feel, before I offer my solution.
My suggestion is that Christians should indeed OPPOSE the publishing of the cartoons. Why? Jesus told us to love our enemies. When Paul met with the philosophers, he did not berate their polytheism, he used their religious traditions to build bridges. "I see you have an altar to the Unknown God. I know who He is. Let me tell you about him, and his Son."
Muslims may have the wrong god that they worship, but they are clearly God-seekers. Our role should be to draw them in, not to enrage, antagonize and belittle them. Jesus gave a cup of water, he offered healing, he delivered from demons...he blessed sinners. Let's bless our enemies, and see God work a miracle.
-
Has anyone seen this movie?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0439707/
I watched it with my daughter last weekend..it was very, very funny! I think it was a pretty good potrayal of LDS people in general, and the contrast between the Italian criminal lifestyle and the Mormon one was good to see...
A good family comedy..
I have not seen this movie yet. We use Netflix, and even Brigham City is yet to be available. The two LDS movies I have seen are The Other Side of Heaven and God's Army. My thoughts:
The Other Side of Heaven is one of those non-sectarian productions that give Mormons a good name. It showed the struggles a missionary of any faith might endure--especially in an area that was largely brand new the Christianity in general. My one complaint was that the missionary's love relationship with the girl back home was trumped up in the publicity, but played a very background role in the film.
God's Army catered almost exclusively to a Mormon audience. As such, it was quite impressive. From the outside looking in, I was impressed that it grappled with a missionary who had a crisis of faith, and apparently left the church. How very biblical to deal with failures and struggles, rather than sugar-coating everything. Bravo.
-
I see the problem of salvation is that many seem to think that positive scriptures only speak to them (excluding others - especially those that do not think like them) and the negative scriptures speak of someone else (excluding themself). If G-d saves you and you do not deserve it; why assume that he cannot save another that does not deserve it? As for me I cannot believe that a loving and caring G-d that would sacrifice his very life and then would allow one person of any time and place that wants in their heart to embrace good to be damned. I do not believe that such is "good news".
Quite often Christians, evangelicals in particular, are accused of arrogance, elitism, etc. for claiming that all nonbelievers will be damned. However, Jesus said he was the only way to the Father, and that none could come to the Father, except through him (John 14:6). I understand that Mormon theology says, "Right. So, only the worthy will go the Celestial Kingdom and see the Father." Then, sincere good people go to an eternal reward that looks much like evangelicals describe heaven anyway.
It just strikes me as a rather forced reading in John 14 to suggest that Jesus was merely extoling himself as a way to the BEST REWARD, rather than warning the people that they needed to follow him.
If there is one such in all eternity that would be lost then I pray that it is me for I could not accept eternal bliss knowing one other that was good or could be good in their heart, was damned - I am sorry I cannot sing songs of joy and and adoration to a "all powerful" G-d that would delight in such a thing for the G-d that I worship will leave the 99 to make sure that that every last one lost sheep is found. It pains me when any one implies that G-d would just sit back and say woops to bad for that one - oh well the rest of us will have great fun - lets party!!!
The Bible says there is none righteous, not one. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. We are without excuse. Those who sin, have given themselves over to such sins, even though the knew God is. I say with confidence--I have this testimony in my heart--that on the Day of Judgment no protests, no questions will be raised. When we see who is blessed and who is damned, all will say "Yea and amen. God is good, God is just, God is merciful."
BTW, this testimony did not come to me easily. Someone close to me converted to Christ, then three days later committed suicide. My question to God, of course, "Where is he?" After three weeks of seeking God's face, I got an answer much like Job got: God says, "I am good and just." So, did he pretend to convert to give me peace? Was he sincere, but did not endure to the end? Will God see his mental state, and have mercy on a soul that cried out to him in sincerity? The answer: God is good, God is just. My peace is not where he is at, but in whom I worship.
-
Concerning Torah, I recognized that your dictionary's third usage was broader than just the first five books of Moses. I'd simply point out that in all my conversations with Jews, including rabbis, Torah has always referred to the five books of Moses. Additionally, the whole idea of asking a Jew, "Are you Torah-observant," suggests the laws of Moses.
Jesus said: (Matthew 5:17-18) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (KJV)
Yeah - I knew you would say that... and the way the law was fullfilled was by changing it - obviously, seeing how it changed and all.
Are trying to prove Jesus contradicted himself? In this case, what's the point? If we follow Jesus, we'll obey his commands. Our understanding is that Jesus completed some of the law (thus, we're no longer obligated--such as the food laws you mentioned earlier). He explained some laws (lust = adultery). And, yes, he certain 'changed' some of the mistaken interpretations. Perhaps THAT was his real point. Perhaps what he was getting at is: I know what my Father had in mind. Y'all mussed it up, and I'm here to tell you what He had in mind. I'm changing nothing God intended--only your skewed applications.
One thing we know for sure about those writing... they are the record of man's (the Jews) relationship with God... from man's point of view. God himself is silent on the matter.
Well, the letter to Timothy tells us that all Scripture is inspired by God. It's pretty clear that at the time of writing, he was referring primarily to our Old Testament. So, unless Paul was a false prophet, I'm not sure how we can say God is silent.
-
This has been well circulated in email...I received it from 2 friends from different parts of the world. :-) Below are my answers. Copy/paste and answer the questions as they apply to you.
- Mrs. A
WELCOME TO THE 2006 EDITION OF "GETTING TO KNOW YOUR FRIENDS"
1. What time did I get up this morning?
It's Saturday--my day off--I got up at 10AM.
2. What do you prefer diamonds or pearls?
Diamonds
4. What is your favorite TV show?
When I had time to watch TV (pre-children days, it was sci fi shows, such as Star Trek and all its offshoots)
5. What do you usually have for breakfast?
Cereal and a beverage that does not violate my own religious principles.
6. What is your middle name?
C.
7. What is your favorite food?
Glazed donuts along with my breakfast beverage.
8. What foods do you dislike?
Green peas, soy milk, bland foods or foods not heated/chilled properly.
9. What is your favorite chip flavor?
Probably "original" with a good dip
10. What is your favorite CD at this moment?
WORSHIP, by Michael W. Smith
11. What kind of car do you drive?
Buick LeSabre or Lincoln Continental (from the last millenium, of course)
12. What is your favorite sandwich?
Rueben
13. What characteristic do you despise?
mean people
14. What is your favorite item/outfit you like to wear?
Anything with a "trimming" effect.
15. Where would you like to travel?
Israel. It's said two weeks in Israel is like taking a year of religious studies.
16. What color is your bathroom?
Beige, white
17. What is your favorite brand of clothing?
Men's Wearhouse is my favorite store. Do men care about brands?
18. What location would you like to retire?
Right here in Western Washington
19. What is your favorite sport to watch?
The news. B)
20. What is your favorite sport to play?
Volleyball or bowling. Would like to learn golf, though.
21. What is your goal in life at this moment?
To be used by God to bring healing, wisdom, direction, hope, peace and support.
22. When is your birthday?
The day before leap day.
23. Your favorite flower?
The one that's on sale and will still make her happy.
24. Are you a morning or a night person?
Night owl
25. What was your childhood dream of becoming?
Rich
-
I'm using the word Torah as in the "entire body of Jewish religious literature, law and teaching as contained chiefly in the Old Testament and Talmud."
Okay. As FYI, the Torah = the five books of Moses. The Tanakh is what we call the Old Testament. The Talmud is a rabbinic commentary, from roughly 500 AD, I believe.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make about not changing the law (not that Jesus - or better said, unknown authors who never met Jesus writing decades after the fact - defined what he meant by the "law") but we Christians believe that Christ in fact changed the law completely... you do eat pork don't you, or at least wear clothes made of mixed fabrics?
Jesus said: (Matthew 5:17-18) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (KJV)
So, my point is that Jesus, if we take these writings as God's Word, and if we believe that the writers accurately recorded Jesus words (and I do), saw the continuity between the Old Testament and what would become the New Testament. When He says "The Law"--that's Torah. When he says the prophets, we basically have the Tanakh.
-
I wish I had a great response to this PC...however, I can only think that this illustrates that O.Roberts and those who teach his idea of 'seed faith' have only distorted the above teaching. Have I understood this correctly?
That's probably a fair assessment. In most cases, it's not false teaching, but an overemphasis on one aspect of truth. So, distortion is a good word. There is blessing in giving. You can't out give God. And, Christians who give to TV ministries are bound to be blessed for their giving. However, too much "seed faith" type teaching, and we begin to chase the tool of money, rather than the God we thought we would serve with the tool.
-
Are you saying Aristotle that people should not take responsibility for their actions but always blame their weaknesses on Satan?
M.Perhaps a little story will help clarify this matter of Satan's missions against us:
One evening in a backwoods Pentecostal church, the meetin' had gotten to the 'deliverance' time. On the stage was a 400 lb woman. She says, "Pastor, I need you to pray and deliver me from the demon of fat." So, the pastor whips out some prayer oil (Crisco I believe), when suddenly, a man stands, and says, "Pastor, I have a word from the Lord."
It turns out, the man was Richard Simmons (the diet guru). Pastor says, "Speak, Bro. Simmons, speak!"
Pastor, this kind of demon only comes out with prayer, and much fasting!"
-
Another way to put it is: decades after the fact, unknown authors who probably never met Jesus write of him quoting a few limited passages from the Torah. Whether Christ thought the Torah was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is completely unknown.
Jesus quoted more than the Torah. His quote from Isaiah about coming to bring freedom to the captives, etc. is well known. We do not see Jesus arguing over canon in the New Testament accounts. He does say that he would not change one jot or tittle of the law.
-
If I am not mistaken.....I think it was Oral Roberts who built or was going to build a Prayer Tower...don't know for sure if that project ever happened or not.......Just curious
I think you're right. He built the prayer tower. Then he went on to build a hospital that would combine the best of modern medicine with the best of healing prayer. It was the hospital that brought the pressure to raise added funds.
-
In response to another string, in which I was asked what I thought of "Seed Faith" (Give and God will give you 100X back), I post the following teaching:
I HAVE LEARNED TO BE CONTENT
Introduction:
1. Have you ever suffered terribly, and somebody said to you, “I know how you feel?”
2. Perhaps you wanted to slap them and say, “You’ve never been where I am–you do NOT know how I feel.”
Scripture: Philippians 4:11-12: Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content. I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: everywhere and in all things I am intstructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need.
Proposition: Contentedness is not a product of circumstances.
Interrogative: In what circumstances can I be content.
Transition: You can be content in good times.
I. You can be content when life is easy.
A. When we are well-fed
1. Even the full get sick
a. Heart disease
b. Indigestion
c. Liver disease (from alcohol abuse)
d. Alcoholism
2. Full but poorly nourished
B. When we have plenty
1. It’s never enough if you count on it.
a. Insurance for car, life, health, home
b. Savings accounts for retirement, children’s college tuition, weddings, rainy days
c. “Need” for another car, a better car, a mini van, an SUV
d. A bigger house in a better neighborhood
e. Jewelry to make up for what you could not afford early in the marriage
f. Satisfying the family by keeping up with the neighbors. Of course, as you move in to those bigger houses in better neighborhoods, you have more to keep up with.
2. The Parable of the Sower: The concerns of this world choke the life out of us just as weeds destroy the harvest.
3. The rich get sick, divorced, psychological troubled, and they ultimately die, the same as us all.
4. The rich are best able to realize that life is meaningless without God. Ecclesiastes was written by Solomon–the richest, wisest man who ever lived.
Transition: No matter how hard one tries to stir up sympathy for the well-to-do, those of us who are not would lay claim to greater difficulties.
II. You can be content when life is difficult.
A. When we are hungry.
1. It is often said that you cannot feed a man’s soul until you fill his belly.
2. Yet, when we need God for our “daily bread,” we realize that He is all we need.
3. The discipline of fasting teaches us the powerful truth that God is our nutrition–our strength.
B. When we are poor.
1. So many pastors and missionaries have testified to praying to God for their family’s next meal–and God provided.
2. The gospel seems to spread faster and stronger in areas that are economically struggling.
3. Jesus says that it is the rich that have a hard time finding God and heaven, because they are deceived by their possessions.
a. They actually believe they are self-sufficient.
b. The belief that we can be independently adequate is Satan’s original lie to Adam and Eve in the Garden.
Transition: It is easy for the Apostle Paul to say that God is all we need, whether rich or poor. “My problem is neither,” you say. “ I am in prison! I need to be free!”
III. You can be content in prison.
A. Philippians 1:12-14: But I would ye should understand, bretheren, that the things which happened unto me have fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the gospel; So that my bonds in Christ are manifest in all the palace, and in all other places; And many of the bretheren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear.
1. Paul wrote these words while he was in prison!
2. Although I am here 40+ hours a week, I cannot tell you, from experience, that you can be content in prison.
3. Paul can–and he does!
B. The testimony of so many of God’s people.
1. Old Testament prophets were frequently imprisoned–and even killed.
2. Jesus and ten of the disciples were imprisoned and executed for the Good News.
3. John was not killed, but served a life sentence at FDC Patmos for the Good News.
C. The testimony of a Chinese Pastor-Fugitive.
1. As long as I am free, I travel from village to village preaching the Good News, surviving with what Christians feed me and give me as clothes.
2. If I am captured I will be sentenced to 10 years of hard labor. I will preach the Good News to officers and inmates alike!
CONCLUSIONS
1. Are you full and wealthy today? God knows your psychological and physical sufferings. He can make you content and relieve the pain that nobody sees.
2. Are you hungry and poor today? Jesus is the Bread of Life. He can satisfy your hunger, provide your needs, and bring peace where there is inner turmoil.
3. Are you in prison today. Jesus came to set the captive free! He can free you from sin, and he will be your advocate–your defense attorney–before God and man!
-
Ben said: 'I also believe that there are those in "The Ministry" that it is a great place for someone with charisma to bring dollars to their pockets nad not necessarily a calling from the Lord.'
I agree with him, and wondered whether Prison Chaplain was familiar with the TV Evangelist Oral Roberts, who spreads his 'Seed Faith' gospel to his followers...my friend is one who sends money to him monthly, as she has been promised that God will reward her 100fold for her contribution to his Ministry. I believe he was once known as a Charismatic Pentecostal, and would like to hear PC's opinions on such as Oral Roberts and other TV Evangelists who preach the same as he does...I'm not sure if he is still a Pentecostal, as I believe he left to set up his own Ministry....
The 1980s were perhaps the darkest spiritual period for my movement, and for Pentecostalism in general. The "Prosperity Gospel" "Seed Faith" "Kingdom Now" etc. teachings were very prevelent. A litany of the bad fruit:
1. Jimmy Swaggart falls to sexual voyuerism.
2. Jim Bakker has a tryst with Jessica Hahn, and is imprisoned for financial misdeeds.
3. Oral Roberts infamously says that God will 'take him home' if he doesn't raise $8 million in a month.
4. Robert Tilton is exposed for having his ministry team extract checks from prayer letters, and simply dumping the letters/prayers etc.
Yes, it was a dark time. In my own area, our national leadership came out to the local pastors meeting in the early 1980s, and implored them to forsake prosperity teachings that might call into question the faithfulness of some of our most faithful and faith-filled members, who happen to be of meager means. The result? About 5% walked out, left the fellowship, and started their own "prosperity churches." Lines in the sand are tough, but afterwards, our movement has stepped clear of the obvious excesses of these teachings.
We are children of the King. God does want to bless us. He rewards faithful givers. However, the rewards are not always financial, or even physical. Perhaps our child will be called to a particularly successful mission. Perhaps that particularly obnoxious coworker will say "Yes" this time, when we ask him/her to come to church with us.
BTW, I'm posting a teaching I did a while back on contentedness, that addresses this issue more fully and scripturally.
-
<div class='quotemain'>
For salty junk food I love heavily salted french fries that I dip in mayo (cf Pulp Fiction).
GEEE Chap i never figured you were a pulp fiction kinda guy LOL
You know, the first time I watched it, I hated it. Then, a few years later, someone was describing the movie, and made it sound like the best thing. So, I gave it a second look, and it kinda grew on me. Maybe it was the Samuel S. Jackson quoting Old Testament prophets? Maybe it was John Travolta extoling the virtues of fries dipped in mayo? Who knows?
-
From time to time there are decisions (among LDS) concerning the greatest and most noble calls. Usually the talk is that no calling is greater than any other - like the parts of a body are part of one body and the eyes to not think themselves greater than the hands and so forth.
Personally I am very much against what is normally known as "Leadership" because it tends to rank one kind of a person above another. I believe Jesus said that the servant is the most noble in G-d’s eyes – not the leader. I think of all things a person can do the greatest of all is a teacher of children.
I love the LDS concept of calling and church organization where persons are called for a time then released and others are called. One of the greatest sacrament meeting talks (sermons) I have heard was from a former Stake President (The LDS high priest over several wards (congregations)) that was released and called as the assistant nursery leader (teacher of 2 to 3 years olds in a ward). In tears he expressed that working with the children was the greatest spiritual experience of his life.
This may sound strange to our non-LDS friends when they learn that we believe we will one day serve in the calling of G-d but in LDS circles, aspiring to a calling is not considered a good thing at all. In relationship to this idea it is often said that anyone that aspires to any calling – deserves it. Often I have expressed my opinion when asked about someone serving in a bishopric for example – I have said that there is not anyone serving in a bishopric that can do an poor enough job for me to want to replace them.
I know there are great blessing in service and callings – and I will cheerfully serve in any calling for which I am asked – BUT I will much more cheerfully support anyone else that is called – especially to what is known as a leadership calling.
The Traveler
If I'm reading this correctly. your real issue is with power-seeking, title-seeking, and the like. Perhaps one of the prerequisites of leadership ought to be humility. Nevertheless, some people are better at childcare and education, while others excel at leadership. The proper response is that people should serve where God has gifted them. That leaders are held to higher moral/ethical/spiritual standards is a reality the Bible recognizes. Such ought not to be a source of pride. Jesus did indeed call upon leaders to "grab a towel" and wash some feet.
IMHO, some of the best leaders are those who stumble into the positions. They help out and help out, and eventually find themselves out front, with everyone else in line. They say, "I never sought this...never envisioned it, but here I am."
-
So, what do you like?
My favorite sweet of all time has to be: Tiramasu. It's a rich, moist cake that is the BOMB!
For salty junk food I love heavily salted french fries that I dip in mayo (cf Pulp Fiction).
And, for every day yummy cheap snacks, DONUTS! Especially old-fashioned glazed donuts, along with a beverage that does not violate my own religious tenets.
-
What are we exploring here? Should the qualifications for service be any different than qualifications for salvation? Should not the same things that make a Christian qualify someone to be called?
No. Those in spiritual leadership are held to a higher standard. In 1 Timothy 4:12, 15 Paul tells Timothy, "...be thou an example of the believers, in word, in coversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity. ... that thy profiting may appear to all." So, church leaders, whether you call them bishops and councilman, or deacons and pastors, are held to a higher example. Basically, they are expected to set the pace for the members to follow.
In my mind, a calling from G-d is not a popularity contest with the world. Pardon my question here but I do not see any of the "charms" being discussed as being all that important to G-d's work. From what I understand of those the represent G-d to the world; the character needed is based around "Love", "Compassion", and a willingness to sacrifice self - which BTW are also characteristics of G-d. Personally I see no difference in preparing for “a calling” from G-d than I see in preparing to live eternally with him.
The Traveler
I guess I'm confused about what "charms" you speak of. The lesson you are referring to is based upon Paul's letter to Timothy.
-
Says who? Who wrote, oh say, Job? Answer: No body knows. What evidence is there that God authorized the unknown writer of Job to speak for him? Answer: None. God himself is silent on the matter. Everything else is a simple matter of faith - that's all.
Interesting you should choose JOB--the unofficial patron saint of prisoners. Why, Job's writing about suffering, about loss, about a driving desire to know why evil besets us when we've been faithful--and then God's ultimate answer: I am God, who are you to advise me? Job is vindicated in the end, for his faith, and receives great reward.
Who wrote it? We do not know. It may well be the oldest book in the Bible. However, I am with Red on this--the 39 books of the Old Testament, and the 27 books of the New Testament meld together "miraculously." 66 books written of the course of some 1400 years, by roughly 40 different authors, from different cultures--yet producing a book that details the victories and failings of God's people.
It is true that accepting the Bible as God's Word, true, largely literal--including the supernatural stories that are not obvious allegory or parable--requires an element of faith. There are some factors that point towards faith, and others that might give pause. My faith is not "blind," but it is faith--not purely rational conclusion. Ultimately, God did preserve his Word through the process of canonization.
My understanding is that Mormons accept this too, though they've parked themselves with the KJV translation, and added faith in other writings, left the canon wide open for addition and editing, put all under submission to modern prophecy. Such a stance is also a matter of some reason combined with faith. Perhaps what we are contending about here, is who is exercising more faith and who has more reason?
This is my problem with the Bible - that it is made out to be something other than what G-d said it should be. If G-d said it then I believe it but when men make it up without G-d - I do not believe it. And so far you refuse to acknowledge my concern - that you do not care is not my concern - my concern is that the Bible is made out to be something that it is not validated by G-d. If the Bible is capable of anything - why not capable of indicating that G-d command it to be cannon and not man.
The Traveler
I'm a little confused here. As a Mormon, do you not accept the KJV of the Holy Bible as the Word of God?
-
If a doctrine, idea or religious activity is not included in the "Cannon" then any believer (gullible or not) can be influenced by the same spirit inspiring the National Enquirer, or favorite TV preacher as what should be "gosple" as far as what a Bible or cannon should include or not include as cannon. This simply means that the Bible is not authority to define itself as cannon. Some other and higher authority must be used. If what is included as cannon in the Bible is not sufficent to define cannon gosple (doctrine) and some other authority must be used then that authority is always greater than the Bible and that authority should define gosple and every other needful religious activity and the Bible should be defined as nifty but un-needed inferior source of stuff that cannot be relied on for any important matter in which there is confusion or disagrement. I do not see any other conclusion to draw when such an important doctrine is missing - and that is my concern about the Bible. Not what it has but what it is missing. Being incomplete confusion and disagrement cannot be setteled by the Bible. But that is exactly what most of Christianity attempts to do with it.
The Traveler
A bottom-line "biblical" standard for canon--any writings that would be ADDED to the canon should complement the current standard. Of course, this next point is a difference we have: the new must submit to the old, rather than vice versa.
-
Let's hope that guy wasn't Mike Warnke!
Just kidding. Mr. Warnke did things the other way. Pretended to be an ex-satanist to see how many gulible people he could convince.
Selling Satan: The Tragic History of Mike Warnke
by Mike Hertenstein, Jon Trott
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/094089507...glance&n=283155
M.
Mike Warnke was a drug addict who got clean, became a Christian, probably dabbled very lightly into Satanism, and who was a master story teller. He often confused reality with fiction, and after many years as a successful ex-Satanist Christian evangelist/comedian, his falsehoods were exposed by Cornerstone Magazine.
Ironically, when this story broke, I was speaking with a minister, and he said, "I'm not surprised. Former drug addicts have become so adept at story telling (usually learned to get what they want from people), that they often confuse their stories with reality."
Supposedly Warnke has gone through a process of rehabilitation, and still has a small ministry going--but it is a shadow of what it once was.
-
As members of the LDS Church, we understand that there are different types of missions. There are personal missions...what our mission is in life; there are mission calls...missionaries called to serve in the mission field; there are ward missionaries (which my husband, Aristotle, was just called to serve)...aiding the missionaries and home teachers in teaching the gospel to part member/inactive families.
A different type of a "mission" I learned about years ago at a political forum I organized on satanism and the new age movement. My special guest speaker was a prison chaplain trained in the occult, and his job was to counsel prisoners who had been involved in satanism. At the meeting, he showed a videotape of a former satanist who had been called to serve a "mission" by Anton LaVey's Church of Satan (headquartered in CA) to infiltrate a Christian church. This man said the first thing he did was to create dissention amongst the congregation by gossiping about its members. When the members started arguing and fighting amongst themselves, he turned his attention toward the clergy, and soon the members began to question the pastor. The ex-satanist said his "mission" was very successful.
- Mrs. A
My guess is that the majority of churches have such missionaries--except that they really believe themselves to be believers, and have no affiliation with organized Satanism.
-
What I do not accept is the claim that the Bible is the manual for true religious activity when there is no reference in the Bible of the activity for defining cannon (or the Bible).
Those that cannot see the flaw of the Bible as the authority for all religious activity are likely to misunderstand other important things as well.
The Traveler
1. Jesus was Jewish, and clearly recognized and used the canon of his day--basically the Old Testament--primary the LXX, or Greek venacular translation.
2. Timothy clearly had a finite set of writings in mind when he said, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God."
3. Without any canon whatsoever, some gullible believers might take the writings of the National Enquirer, or their favorite TV preacher, as gospel.
4. Ultimately, your own church has a canon.
Maybe the real question is not "should there be a canon?" but rather, "who has the authority to establish canon, and what standards should they use?"
-
Another teaching outline for your reading pleasure...brought to you by
-- (thought it would be nice to show you a video clip of me in action. ).FIFTEEN TESTS FOR LEADERS
Introduction:
Overseer is a pastor, reverend, minister, chaplain, or shepherd.
A deacon is a person dedicated to servant-leadership. They help with practical ministries of the church–and yet are esteemed as spiritual leaders.
Scripture: 1 Timothy 3:1-10:
1Tim.3
[1] This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
[2] A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
[3] Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
[4] One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
[5] (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
[6] Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
[7] Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
[8] Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
[9] Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
[10] And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
Proposition:
We should understand the standards to which those in positions of spiritual authority must live by.
By learning these characteristics we can gain an understanding of how God would have all of us to live.
Interrogative: What are the standards to which those in positions of spiritual authority must live by?
Transition: Leaders should lead by example.
I. They should be ABOVE REPROACH
A. Spiritual leaders should be without blame.
B. Of course all have sinned, and nobody should be quick to judge.
C. Yet, if one is continually being blamed for problems that are truly sinful, before he seeks ministry he needs to get victory over his temptations!
II. They should be THE HUSBAND OF BUT ONE WIFE
A. Different denominations have interpreted this verse in different ways.
1. In the Catholic church the priest cannot be married at all.
2. Some churches insist that a pastor must be married, based on this verse.
3. Some argue that this verse only refers to polygamy, and say it is OK for those who have been divorced and remarried to serve as pastors.
4. Others say that those who divorce and remarry should not serve as pastors because of this verse.
B. Surely, those who are spiritual leaders must strive to have healthy loving marriage relationships with their spouses.
III. They should be TEMPERATE
A. Temperance is very similar to moderation.
B. People will argue over whether or not Christians should drink, smoke, gamble or even dance.
C. Surely spiritual leaders should not over-indulge in any such activities.
D. Those who struggle with alcoholism, or behavioral addictions should get victory over those struggles before they seek to serve as spiritual leaders.
IV. They should BE SELF-CONTROLLED
A. Those with short tempers need to gain victory before they apply for ministry.
B. Those who over-eat, who are lazy, or who are impulsive need to gain mastery over their lives before they would seek to guide the lives of others.
V. They should be RESPECTABLE
A. Do you have habits or behaviors which you consider personal, but which annoy others?
B. Sometimes we must give up freedom in order to serve as leaders.
C. Example: Drinking.
1. May or may not be sinful.
2. However, I gave it up, because people inside and outside of the church generally do not respect religious leaders who drink.
VI. They should be HOSPITABLE
A. A pastor once said, “Ministry would be all right if it were not for the people.”
B. If you do not like people, you should not seek to lead.
C. We need to love people and come to the place where we take pleasure in showing them an enjoyable time.
VII. They should be ABLE TO TEACH
A. One does not have to be a great speaker to be able to teach.
B. Both Moses and Paul were poor speakers.
C. However, you should be able to communicate clearly what Jesus wants of people–both by your speech and the way you live.
VIII. They should be NOT GIVEN TO DRUNKENNESS.
A. People argue about whether it is okay for Christians to drink.
B. Surely spiritual leaders should not drink to the point of embarrassment, intoxication, or unconsciousness.
IX. They should be NOT VIOLENT, BUT GENTLE.
A. If you can turn your fighting spirit against sin and the
Devil you can be a great warrior for Jesus.
B. If you insist on turning your anger against people, the Bible says you are not qualified for ministry.
C. How can you say you love God whom you cannot see, if you fail to love people, whom you can see? (1 John 4:20)
X. They should be NOT QUARRELSOME
A. There are times when we must “fight” for what is right.
B. However, some people are always looking for fights.
C. The Bible tells us that as much as possible, we ought to live peaceably with one another. (Romans 12:18)
XI. They should be NOT A LOVER OF MONEY
A. Yes, God promises blessings to those who serve him.
B. Yes, prosperity is there for those who are faithful to God–particularly in their tithes and offerings.
C. However, the blessings of God can take many forms.
1. Perhaps rather than a second or third late-model car, God might bless you by calling your child to be a missionary.
2. Perhaps rather than a promotion, God might call you to a less demanding job, so you can spend more time with your family, which may desperately need your spiritual leadership.
D. The important balance to the prosperity vs. not loving money teachings in the Bible is Matthew 6:33.
1. Seek first God’s kingdom.
2. He’ll get you whatever you truly need.
XII. They should be MANAGE THEIR OWN FAMILIES WELL AND SEE THAT THEIR CHILDREN OBEY THEM WITH PROPER RESPECT
A. People have different styles of parenting. Some are very strict and others are more relaxed.
B. What is important is that you take the time to train your children.
C. Sometimes your children will resist instruction. This is when you are the mean, old-fashioned father. This is when your child might say, “I hate you!”
D. A real father will lead his children, rather than merely befriending them.
E. If you are too busy to train your children you are too busy to minister to others in the kingdom of God.
XIII. They should NOT BE A RECENT CONVERT
A. I’d prefer a young Christian adult to an old Christian baby.
1. I’d be happy to work with one who’s been a Christian for six months, but has proven stable, hungry, and who has shown continual spiritual growth.
2. I would hesitate to work with someone who’s been in the church 20 years, but who is lukewarm, easy to offend, and who is spiritually an infant.
B. Having said that, if God calls you to leadership, do not be in a hurry.
1. God has time.
2. He will make it work.
3. Let him prepare the way for you.
XIV. They should be OF GOOD REPUTATION WITH OUTSIDERS.
A. Sometimes we Christians are naive.
1. Because someone is a brother in Christ, we do not want to be judgmental.
2. We turn a blind eye to obvious problems in people’s lives.
B. However, a Christian leader should be known in the community as someone of strong moral character.
XV. They should be HOLDERS OF THE DEEP TRUTHS OF THE FAITH WITH A CLEAR CONSCIENCE
A. Christian leaders should know the beliefs of the church or denomination they belong to.
B. They should teach the truths of their fellowship without hesitation–and with enthusiasm.
C. As an example, I am ordained by the Assemblies of God.
1. My church believes in the baptism in the Holy Spirit, and in speaking in tongues.
2. Because we are in a chapel setting, with brothers from many different churches, I do not make an issue of this teaching very often.
3. However, if asked, I will gladly explain and defend my church’s belief.
4. In fact, I have on a few occasions offered a special teaching on this issue, by request.
CONCLUSIONS
1. If you believe God is calling you into spiritual leadership, these are the characteristics you need to develop.
2. Examine yourself, and ask God to help you become qualified for the high calling.
3. The Bible warns us about false teachers.
4. Never accuse someone because they rub you the wrong way, ask for too much money, or because you just do not like them.
5. However, if someone is truly a false teacher, these tests will demonstrate where they are wrong.
6. Remember too, that most of the time, when spiritual leaders are weak in an area, it means they simply need to pray through and get victory.
5. It’s only when a leader is unteachable, unrepentant, and hostile towards the Truth, that they should be treated as wolves in sheep’s clothing.
M.
-- (thought it would be nice to show you a video clip of me in action. 
).
Bible Under Fire
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
That would be like saying that when Jerry Falwell speaks about the Word of God, since he does not specifically mention the 66 books of the Bible, we cannot be certain that is what he is referring to. When Paul wrote his letter to Timothy, at minimum he was referring to the available Old Testament of his day.
Sure it does. It says, is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:16-17
You don't believe in miracles? You don't believe that God, on certain occasions, chose to supernaturally intervene in the lives of his people?