prisonchaplain

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?

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.

YES

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.

"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

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!

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

And yet more: http://members.aol.com/garypos2/Hoagland.html http://www.ufowatchdog.com/hoagie.html http://www.ufo.se/ufofiles/english/issue_2/ukhoag-2.html I'm thinking that GR88T has been taken in by Richard C. Hoagland: a guy that knows a little more science than the average person, and has a lot of showmanship and charisma. Put those together, sprinkle in some new age spirituality--nothing to specific mind you--and you have http://www.enterprisemission.com

Guess we'd have to go with God being upset about some wrongdoings or nonrightdoings that the people of that era knew about. Therefore, we should make sure God doesn't get upset with us about stuff we know we ought not be doing (or that we ought to be doing but aren't).

This string qualifies as more of a biblical studies one, than one requiring debate or apologetics. You're certainly right that no one's salvation rests on this issue. However, some possible different lessons depending on viewpoint: 1. If the Sons of God were demons, lessons against relying on astrology, dabbling in the occult, consulting fortune tellers, horoscopes etc. might be bolstered. Additionally the worldview of God and his people vs. Satan and the evil ways of this world is strengthened. Our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against spirits and principalities... 2. If the Sons of God were the righteous line of Seth, then teachings on strong families, raising up godly children, providing godly family examples to a wayward world, etc would be bolstered. 3. If the Sons of God were powerful leaders, then the "setting our eyes on things above" "Seeking first the kingdom of God" "Not be snared by the worries of this world"--such lessons that demonstrate that even the powerful cannot avoid God's righteous judgment against their wicked ways could be highlighted.

We've hit on this topic before, but I found an intelligent couple of article that happen to support my argument that the Sons of God and Nephilim (Giants) had demonic origins. At the same, there is some recognition given to the view that they could have been the descendents of Seth marry the those of Cain. It might also be interesting here to discuss what lessons we might draw from the different interpretations. Here are the reference articles: http://www.gotquestions.org/Nephilim.html Argues that the Nephilim, or giants, “men of renown” were the offspring of fallen angels who had either directly had relations with human women, or who had possessed men, who then had relations with women. http://www.gotquestions.org/sons-of-God.html Argues that the sons of God were mostly likely fallen angels.

Oh come sgallan! You were right on the verge of theism...of believing in intelligent spirituality, and Red's apologetic tipped you back towards Deism! You're trying to making feel bad, aren't you? I seriously doubt that Red's posts had much impact on you one way or the other. As Snow would say, take responsiblity for your own actions, beliefs, and spirituality. BTW...me thinks you set up a false dichotomy. Most Christians value science, and believe all truth ultimately comes from God. It's common, even for fundamentalists, to refer to science as the study of God's creation. Additionally, my view that perfect science will harmonize perfectly with perfected biblical study is a common one. We thank God for doctors, and yet, many of us all believe God can work through and beyond doctors.

I've never argued that there were many, but had to take of the challenge of looking for ONE scientist who is not religiously motivated who questions Darwinism and macro evolution (note my broader inquiry, versus the narrow 6-10K year one. Even many creationists believe that 25-30K would still rendor a literal, fundamental interpretation of Genesis possible). So, here we are. A non-Christian scientist who disgrees with evolution: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/188058224...802449?n=283155 As for your other contentions--possibly worthy of a string each, if detailed discussion were the goal, I'll offer these simple responses: 1. No evidence that Moses authored the five books of Moses. While there is debate on this issue, there are plenty of reputable biblical scholars who give strong arguments that Moses did indeed author the books, with perhaps some additions by others later on. 2. Red Sea vs. Sea of Reeds. I suppose the whole contention comes down to whether you believe the writers, and trust that they were prophets, kings, and scribes of God or not. Did the writers exaggerate, turning intelligent tricks into miracles of God, or did God perform miracles? Call me dogmatic, but I believe an omnipotent God could certainly perform supernatural acts. 3. Science vs. Scripture. The ultimate Truth is Jesus (John 14:6). Science is the study of God's creation. Scripture is the word of God. Properly understood, they are both truth about the Truth.