prisonchaplain

Jason quotes me saying Another friend ended up deep into the Jehovah's Witnesses Jason says: Tell me Chap, what right do you have to insult the Jehovah's Witnesses? Jason, I'm not sure what's got you turned upside down and looking backwards on this response. I was pointing out that many of those around me ended up in vastly different paths. In fact a fuller quote would have shown that I contrasted this fellow who ended up in JWs with his brother who ended up in jail. Jason says: Especially considering that it's your church whose membership is best know for talking jibberish and rolling on the floor like the mentally insane? Do you pass out helmet's before services? Have you padded the walls and pews? I'm not sure if you're under deep conviction here, and that's what's causing your allergic irrational spasm to my simple story, or maybe you're just feeling awnry today. Maybe I should bring out the snakes and find out if you've got any Holy Ghost in ya or not?

In postmodern society you can argue with someone until you're blue in the face. You figure you've nailed them intellectually, logically, scientifically, and rationally. After several hours of conversation (or dozens of back and forth posts), your spiritual sparing partner throws up his/her hands and says that great conversation-ender (or grave-sign for a string of posts), "Oh well...whatever works FOR YOU." You've worked so hard to prove that you are right, and the ultimate retort is, "Perhaps you are right...for you anyway." I never consider such encounters a waste. Both the Old and New Testaments declare that anyone who sincerely searches for God will find him. The Scripture also declares that it is powerful, and will not be unfruitful. Nevertheless, my encouragement to believers with a burning desire to share their faith is to be able to tell their story. How did they become believers, and what difference has God made in their lives. So, here's my challenge to everyone here, regardless of denominational affiliation. What has brought you to your current state of faith, and what difference has God (or disbelief in God, or disbelief in God's active personal involvement in his creation) made in your life? My own story is that at the age of 10 people from the local Assemblies of God church came out to our neighborhood with candy and balloons. They passed them out and said if we came to Sunday School we would hear fun stories and get more candy and balloons. So, my friend, who was older and bigger than me, dragged me to Sunday School so he would win a free candybar. He got his chocolate, and I received the gospel. The teacher explained to us that God loved us so much that he sent his one and only Son, Jesus, to die for our sins. If we would believe in him, and confess our sins, he would forgive our sins, and help us to be good boys and girls, and to some day go to heaven. So, in November 1974 I prayed, and became born again. What difference has God made in my life? He got me through my adolescent years without drugs, alcohol, premature sexual relationships, depression. This despite growing up in a nonChristian non-churched home. My senior year five of my classmates died. Three from alcohol related traffic accidents, two from suicides. One person very close to me growing up committed suicide in his mid-twenties. Another friend was on his third marriage by mid-twenties. Another friend ended up deep into the Jehovah's Witnesses, and his brother ended up in and out of jail, disappearing from his family for months at a time. My story then, the one I share with the prison inmates, is that God called me to minister to them this simple message--that they can return to their homes and their neighborhoods, and not reenter the life that got them locked up. Hey, if God can protect a 10-year old kid, he can sure protect an adult convert. That's my initial testimony. Let's hear yours.

Ray says: But, hey, if you only want to pay attention and respect those people who you think know the truth, instead of listening to those of us who are telling you that you should only pay attention to God and what He can reveal to you through the power of the Holy Ghost, that’s up to you. Frankly I liked the first 90% of your post so much. You really seemed to have heard me. Then, you brush aside all nuance, and insinuate that I would totally disregard what laypeople have to say. Ray, I'm a Pentecostal. Our movement actually started AFTER the LDS did. Our founders were mostly of low education, low status, and little or no income. Our churches we on the wrong side of the tracks. Tar and feathering were common welcomings for our early pioneers. Many of our pastors and missionaries were jailed for practing medicine without a license (praying for the sick). That said, of course I believe that God can--and often does--speak through humble but willing servants. I strongly believe in the lead and direction of the Holy Ghost. If we really say that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, then we had better be letting the Spirit's voice direct us as we study it And, as an aside, I don't know you, your age, or your background, but I have indeed found your postings some of the most intriguing and heartfelt.

Snow says: Personally, I wouldn’t agree to that. When I said the Bible was clear, I was trying to define the sola scripture position but I think the Bible is far from clear in the ways you just described. In many cases it is morally confusing. For years the Bible was used by “good christians” to justify slavery. The Bible recommends beating children with a stick. The Bible promotes genocide of those of other religions. The Bible authorizes legal rape, the punishment of grandchildren of a sinner. It seems to allow for the murder of someone who practiced birth control, etc. One of my arguments is that confusion comes most often when people try to force the Bible to directly answer questions it does not directly answer. Slavery is a perfect example. It was prevelent during biblical times. God's commandments about fair treatment of those who serve us is clear. Beyond that, people on both sides of the debate try to enlist the Bible as ammunition for their causes. For reasons that God knows, He did not offer a clearcut "Thou shalt not own slaves. Thou shalt oppose slavery wherever it is found." So, the Bible "was not clear" because proud men tried to use it for their own purposes. As for disciplining children, the Bible clearly calls for it. Corporal punishment, done properly, was far more effective than our current system, where children learn early to say, "You can't hit more or I'll call the police." Again, anyone who would use the Bible to say it's okay to beat a child or abuse him/her is not seeking God's will, but ammunition to buttress their own agenda. I could go on, but I think the point is clear. Additionally, be careful of conflating some of the compromises that God allowed--i.e. divorce regulations, with God's perfect will. Snow says: I don’t think it is a false dichotomy at all. You are free to interpret the Bible how you will but if you take something outside of the Bible and use it as a mandate to decide what the Bible means, you are no longer adhering to strict sola scriptura. Requiring one particular interpretation of the scriptures, puts that “creed” on par with the scriptures an that blows the whole principle. Let me restate your dichotamy. Either, we allow 6 billion interpretations of the Bible, and consider them all equally valid, or we adhere to one interpretation, issued by God's ordained authority...at this point in your argument, either the Roman Catholic Church, or the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints. My contention is that there are not 6 billion valid interpretations of Scripture, nor two billion (the # of those claiming Christian affiliation), but rather that most Christian denominations have, over history, concurred on certain key teachings, and that the differences over key theological questions are remarkably few. Snow says: I didn’t actually do that [argue for choosing between Scripture Only or Scripture + Tradition]. Personally I have no great respect for tradition... that is if by tradition we are obligated to accept the creeds and councils of 1600 years ago. Actually, for Mormons, if I'm not mistaken, the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church is discarded as having been corrupted. Instead, the traditions, history, and pronouncements of LDS prophets becomes the tradition that is held co-equal with Scripture. I believe you said as much in a different response to someone else--that you would not need to wait for canonization if Mormon prophets or leaders concurred on a matter. Snow says: You like Mormons to the fratricidal Cain, I say that is absurd and you retort something about victimization... No, you drew the conclusion. What I said was that if God has indeed revealed himself to humanity, and anyone rejects that revelation in favor of his/her own tradition or understanding, then that rejection is similar to Cain's error. Cain's initial error was not killing his brother, but offering a sacrifice to God that was not according to God's dictates. I went to say that the warning against wrongly worshiping God is not directed at Mormons. It goes out to anyone who would forsake a true revelation of God in favor of their own tradition or upbringing. Indeed, though the consequences of not doing following God as revealed are far less severe in your theology, Mormons offer the same alarm to the world--you need to join us, we have the true revelation of God, through our prophet Joseph Smith, and those who followed him. Snow says: That is precisely the difference between mainstream Christianity and the Church of Jesus Christ. You can’t/won’t say that you are right. Actually, "We" are right. However, "we" is not the General Council of the Assemblies of God. We Christians are right in declaring Jesus Christ as the one Way, the one Truth, the one Life. We know who he is. We worship him, commune with him, are guided by him, live and die by him. Some of us are martyred for his glory. Others are jailed. Others lose jobs, family, friends, and suffer humiliation. We look forward to gathering together at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, for a great reunion. I look forward to dining with men of my brothers and sisters--yes from various denominations--but all followers of the Way.

Even at ldstalk.com I give some posters more attention than others, and I'm not even LDS! Context is so important! Thank you Ray for highlighting my point. We were discussing the Scripture-Only vs. Scripture + Tradition debate. I was arguing that Scripture is our ultimate source of teaching, but that lessons offered by respected scholars and teachers obviously would carry more import than those offered by some unknown individual. Then came the quote above--the point being that even at this site, where theology is discussed primarily in a framework that is outside of my own faith tradition, I recognize that some here have garned more knowledge and understanding than others. Ray...I was speaking positively, not negatively. That LDS laypeople can draw and hold the interest of a Protestant clergyperson should be seen as a compliment.

1. Aquinas (100%) Click here for info 2. St. Augustine (100%) Click here for info 3. Ockham (81%) Click here for info 4. Jeremy Bentham (73%) Click here for info 5. Spinoza (73%) Click here for info 6. Kant (72%) Click here for info 7. John Stuart Mill (64%) Click here for info 8. Prescriptivism (57%) Click here for info 9. Plato (55%) Click here for info 10. Aristotle (54%) Click here for info 11. Jean-Paul Sartre (53%) Click here for info 12. Ayn Rand (46%) Click here for info 13. Nel Noddings (45%) Click here for info 14. Epicureans (36%) Click here for info 15. David Hume (33%) Click here for info 16. Nietzsche (21%) Click here for info 17. Stoics (21%) Click here for info 18. Cynics (14%) Click here for info 19. Thomas Hobbes (14%) Click here for info Hey...what'd you expect ?

No problems. Correct again. However, I would caution that human interpretations are subject to error. Amen! This is the one that is most open to "over-interpretation." If by clear you mean that there is always one, easy-to-see answer to any question we may ask, then no, the Bible is not always clear. More directly, if you mean that the Bible has clear answers to every question imaginable, then no it's not clear. However, the Bible is clear in teaching us who God is, how we should live, what our primary mission is. In fact, while the Bible offer limitless teaching material, if you compiled all the sermons preached on a given Sunday, my guess is they could quickly be categorized and summarized into relatively few themes. Too often, where controversy and lack of clarity arise, is at the place we try force answers to questions the Bible does not directly address. Here is an oft-repeated axiom: In essentials unity; in nonessentials liberty; in all things charity. And this is the real false dichotamy you seem to be driving at: Either we must account ANY individual interpretation as equally valid to all others, or we must submit to a single source of authoritative doctrine. If the second answer is true, then, the argument goes, would the Catholic Church be that source? Since most non-Catholics are troubled by many aspects of Catholic history and teachings, that would lead us to an alternate source...the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Alternatively, I would suggest that all believers do have a responsibility to study and understand the Scriptures--that there is a level of biblical teaching that is imminently clear, and that all literate Christians should master. Furthermore, that there are indeed learned teachers and leaders, who's offerings demonstrate great gravitas, in contrast, for example, to some of the lay-sites on the internet. Even at ldstalk.com I give some posters more attention than others, and I'm not even LDS! Snow, you love clearcut equations. You've offered me an A OR B equation (Scripture Only vs. Equal consideration for Scripture & Tradition) and my bottom-line answer is: YES. You accuse me of falling on both sides of the fence. My contention is that the Bible, rooted in eastern thinking as it is, often offers paradox and solutions that do not neatly fit into our western courtroom style of reasoning. You said: “Instead, rejecting God's true revelation of himself, through his Son, and adhering to "another Jesus...another gospel" is to commit the sin of Cain. Cain has his own way of worship, and when God called him on it, he lashed out at the one worshipping God in spirit and in truth, instead of changing his ways.” If you want to be a victim, you can join all the other religions who say the same thing: How can you say that your religion is the only right way? The short answer is: I don't. There are roughly 2 billion Christians in the world, including 1 billion Catholics and about the same number of non-Catholics. Do I believe that all Catholics will go to heaven? No. But, then again, neither will all those who attend Assemblies of God churches. I have some serious concerns about some RCC teachings. I disagree with sacramentalism (salvation is found in religious rituals, such as baptism). However, we agree on who God is, what our sacrad writings are, who Jesus is, etc. We have enough in common that I'm convinced that most faithful Catholics will be with me in heaven. I disagree with Southern Baptists about eternal security, about the baptism in the Holy Spirit as a second work of grace, etc. However, we'll figure those issues out in heaven. Lots of people will disagree with me about lots of matters, and we'll still have eternal fellowship in heaven. We're back to the bottom line question: Is your understanding of Jesus and the gospel so different that it fits under what the Apostle Paul called "another?" I don't have that answer for you. You are right...it's not about me. It's between you and God. Again, though, I'm hoping to gain further insight by reading "How Great the Divide." It should prove interesting.

Our discussion here is about whether God is immutable (changeable). You have cited both LDS prophets and quotations from the Standard Works to show that he is not. Then comes the great exception. You say the Bible does not address how God's nature and character might have changed or been prior to the beginning of time. In response to the nature of God, I am offering to links, which represent the two best Christian understandings of God's eternal nature: God as atemporal, or beyond time; and God as omnitemporal, or everywhere in all time. http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/publi...237251/toc.html http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/realtime.html Frankly, these writings grapple with some pretty substantial theological/philosophical thinking. I offer them only to point out that BOTH standard views of God's eternal nature preclude God being changeable or evolving from man prior to the existence of time. Furthermore, it seems self-evident that if God ever did change in nature, such change would indicate temporality--it would have to happen in the context of time.

I say: So, my bottom-line answer is: The Bible trumps tradition, but new interpretations have a burden of proof far greater than historic doctrines. Furthermore, learned teachers with recognized training bare more careful attention than a layperson who thinks they've discovered something. Snow responds: You can't have it both ways Prisonchaplain, The definition of sola scriptura is that scripture alone is the primary and absolute source of authority, the final court of appeal, for all doctrine and practice. It holds that the Bible is infallible, that it is sufficient, and that it is clear. So - either the Bible is clear and sufficient or it is not clear and sufficient; if it's not, if tradition is necessary to interpret and understand the Bible, then you don't believe in sola scriptura. I'm not sure I accept your forced dichotomy, nor your tailored definition. I'll stick with my understanding: Yes, the Bible outweighs tradition, and is the ultimate source for discerning God's words. The Bible is infallible, it is enough. Is it clear? Well, the Good News is so simple that very young children embrace its truths. On the other hand, theologians have spent a lifetime in full-time study of the Bible, and confessed that their understanding "only scratches the surface." Since you seemed to come down on the side of SS, I will assume that is your real position. I will not ask what happens when you assume. I will not ask what happens when you assume. I will not ask what happens when you assume--nor will I break the word up to explain. Now - back to your earlier point about "another Jesus." We both know that we aren't talking about "another Jesus" but rather the same Jesus of Nazareth. Actually, when Paul criticizes the Corinthians for accepting teachings about "another Jesus," I am fairly certain he does mean wrong teachings about Jesus...not that the false teachers were presenting an alternative to Jesus. What you are really talking about is that Mormons believe certain things about Christ's character that are so different from what you believe that you hold that, potentially, Mormons will not be saved despite having accepted Christ as their Savior and repented of their sins. Another way to put it is that because Mormons believe certain things about Jesus, Christ's grace may not be sufficient to save Mormons. Keep in mind, first of all, that non-LDS Christians do not agree with the LDS teaching on a general grace, or a near-universal salvation. We believe it is heaven or hell, and that the way to heaven and God is through Jesus. To offer a neutral example of a religion that believes in and honors Jesus, consider Islam. Muslims refer to Jesus as a prophet (peace be upon him). At first glance, there reverence is strong. They believe he was born of a virgin, and they always refer to him with honor, and with a special blessing attached to his name. Yet, they deny that he is the Son of God, and do not consider him the way to God. In fact, Islam says that whoever says that God has a son, or that the Son is God is an infidel (an unbeliever). So, Muslims believe in Jesus. And, we are talking about the Nazarene--not your definition of "another Jesus." Yet, they do proffer "another Jesus." It is no honor to call God the Son a mere human prophet. Snow, I believe your argument ultimately is that requiring right doctrine about Jesus is tantamount to attaching works to God's grace. Instead, rejecting God's true revelation of himself, through his Son, and adhering to "another Jesus...another gospel" is to commit the sin of Cain. Cain has his own way of worship, and when God called him on it, he lashed out at the one worshipping God in spirit and in truth, instead of changing his ways. So, in that vain, God does offer a universal grace--but his creation must embrace the offer. To refuse the gift is to refuse reconciliation. Likewise, to say to God, "I'll take your grace...but on my own terms, according to the ways I was raised in," is no acceptance at all. The open question is whether or not what Mormons believe about Jesus is so far removed from what God has revealed, that it amounts to an actual rejection of His revelation. Frankly, I'll be interested to read How Wide the Divide, for better perspective on this matter. I have it on order. Ultimately though, this is a matter between you and God. Personally I think that is a wholly indefensible position just on the face of it. More ever, since you (I think) accept sola scriptura, and Mormons believe everything that the Bible teaches about Christ is it absurd to think that God's grace will not save them. Snow, this is the bottom-line question, all right. True - we believe things about Christ and God that are not part of the Bible but they do not contradict the Bible; they do fill in Biblical gaps. Those things may contradict YOUR interpretation of the Bible but they do not contradict our interpretation. As a sola scripturian you cannot tell us how we must interpret the Bible - that would violate the entire principle of sola scriptura that holds the Bible to be clear and sufficient. Any interpretation you mandate is at best superflourous and at worst holding itself up as superior to the word of God. I've already suggested that your definition of SOLA SCRIPTURA is bit too tailored to this debate, and creates a false dichotomy.

First, let me summarize the rather lengthy set of quotes this post developed into. Snow explained that the LDS Church believes that the Bible, and indeed none of the Standard Works, describe the nature of God prior to this world's beginning. Furthermore, than when scriptures do address God using terms like "eternity," they are referring to this world's time frame. Quite frankly, these claims--with reference to the original languages--will require a bit of digging on my part. I do not wish to give an off-the-cuff response to a substantial theological posit. So...I want to address the last portion of the post. Snow says: That our understanding differs from the orthodox Christian understanding bothers us not one bit. We do not measure ourselves against the mainstream. Our measuring stick is our canon and the prophets. On one level, this goes without saying. The LDS Church does not consult the Assemblies of God, the National Association of Evangelicals, nor the various Councils of Church, before formulating doctrinal statements or teachings. However--me thinks you do have concern for what "the mainstream" thinks. Most Mormons would be quite pleased if the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints were to be embraced by other Christian denominations. Many of you have proudly proclaimed your sense that you are solidly Christians--even "born again Christians." So, perhaps this is a good time to address the LDS understanding about Christians who lived between 100 - 1800 A.D. Were they mostly apostate? Are the teachings and theology that came out of this time of any value? When you think of the creeds that came out of that time, do you do so with derision, or appreciation?

It's okay to disagree with me. We can still be friends. Hey, sometimes I even disagree with myself. Occasionally power listens, and we've proven ourselves a blessing. Come on now! I don't think my perspective is that narrow.

Jason, I'm not sure you are prolife. Are you suggesting that in order to be consistent, we would have to oppose abortion even if the pregnancy would kill the mother, and the child would not survive to term anyway? I prefer black and white to gray, when it comes to morality, but your attempt to push prolifers into an unsustainable position will not succeed. When it comes to morality, ethics, and what's right: the mother's life (not health) seems to be the only valid "except." However, what prolifers are fighting for is baby's lives. So, if we can succeed in limiting abortions to cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life, we believe we've done well. There really is no room in your ethical reasoning for guilty or wrong, but with mitigating circumstances, is there? Sometimes people do "wrong," but the circumstances surrounding that cause us to say, "Wow. It wasn't right, but this person's suffered enough."

I do not believe you will have success finding a Jehovah's Witness to engage you here, as they are discouraged from representing their faith on the web. For a brief explanation see the following: http://www.religioustolerance.org/witness4.htm There is an unofficial site called Jehovah's Witnesses United, but it is very cautious in what it offers, and also encourages visitors to go to the official site.

If someone would like to better define the Moral Majority other than the group of Falwell, Robertson, Swaggert and the rest. Oh and don't forget my TV favorite, the Reverend Robert Tilton. What a hoot. Forget the term Moral Majority. Many made fun or expressed disapproval of the name. However, it disbanded in the late 1980s. This string is specifically about the "religious right." There are several organizations that come to mind--but the conversation here is not about televangelists, but about religious conservatives, primarily advocating against abortion, pornography, and gambling, and in favor of school prayer, religious liberty (i.e. nativity scenes in public), and Intelligent Design. See post #1 for more clarification.

DisRuptive1 says: The majority of the population tends not to agree with the religious right. The religious right, however, have a few people who shout a whole lot louder everyone else. Kind of like the youngest child in a family throwing a tantrum. What a brilliant observation. The Rlg. Right is not a majority. So, I guess they should just close down shop, and be quiet? I'm not interested in controlling the government--just of being able to speak righteousness in the public square. In the story of Sodom & Gomorrah, God said that if there had been just 10 righteous, the cities would have been spared. We have more than that going for us in America, so though we only represent about 20%, we will continue to speak the truth to power. Occasionally power listens, and we've proven ourselves a blessing. BTW: Homosexuals represent 2-4% of the population, and those interested in marriage are probably less than half that. Yet, through the courts and media, their voices blare. I doubt they'll be shutting down soon just because they don't represent a majority.

Pushka says: I'm pretty liberal and pretty moral too!! I find it difficult to relate to over zealous people who shout too much! Forgive me, but this is too easy. You don't like zeal and shouting, but you used three exclammation points in two sentences. I think we should aim for a happy medium in all things, considering each situation on its own merits rather than generalising, which is what I think the religious right seem to do too much. In Revelation 3 we are told that the Laodicean church was luke warm (read happy medium). When it comes to moral truths, God told them to be hot or cold. The luke warm would be spit out. Sometimes a little righteous indignation is healthy. For example, on homosexual marriage, it is outrageous that 1-2% of the population who choose to engage in behavior that human society has counted as immoral for 6000 years, can demand governmental endorsement and legal recognition--not just for marriage, but to have the 'normalcy' of their sexual behavior taught as fact in public schools. All these social changes are likely to occur in the next generation or so, because we're all trying to be "happy medium." The other side isn't. So, we keep moving halfway closer to them. Eventually the divide is insignificant.

Snow says: I am about as conservative as anyone (almost) and Utah is one of the strongholds of the religious right but I wouldn't want to be associated with people who I views and pretty screwy, at least in certain ways, like Fawell, Robertson and Dobson so I call myself conservative - not part of the religious right. I too am embarrassed by some of Falwell's past gaffes. Robertson seems to be particularly prone to "over the top" statements, lately. On the other hand, I cannot ignore the years that these men have put into "fighting the good fight." As for Dobson, he seems to have avoided most of the unnecessary controversies that are associated with thoughtless commentary. All this to say, I pray for Christian leaders who speak commentary that is usually righteous and godly. They are not prophets, but they do tend to speak 'prophetically.' They are not inerrant, but they are more often wise than not. I'll not disavow them for occasional getting things wrong.

What say I? Abortion: I'm in total agreement with the movement's current goal: to elect Supreme Court justices who will interpret the law rather than creating. Of course, when past decision were blatant "legislation from the bench" (i.e., Roe v. Wade), then even 'strict constructionist' judges could vote to overturn a past precedent. This issue needs to return to local legislatures. The 'best case' forseable outcome? Abortion clinics will gradually become relegated to blue states, and most localities will require parental notification, and perhaps some form of counseling. School Prayer: Frankly, this is almost a non-issue today. Ironically, it was President Bill Clinton's approval of "equal access" laws that made it largely irrelevent. Bible clubs and the like now have rights in public schools. The movement would do well to continue it's support of legal organizations like the American Center for Law and Justice and the Rutherford Institute, which offer pro bono legal representation in religious liberty cases. Anti-porn and anti-gambling: These are generally local issues, and quite frankly, don't interest me as much. I do find it ironic though that local museums and university's have no problem sponsoring religious offensive "art" exhibits (think crucifixes in animal urine or dung) in the name of free expression, yet an international Burger King quickly pulls its ice cream cone wrappers because on customer said the ice cream design looked too much like the name of God in Arabic. Burger King is more sensitive than public universities? Go figure! Creationism. This has morphed into the Intelligent Design's "Teach the Controversy" effort. I'm not so strong on this issue, but if the curriculum gains some traction in the scientific community, the battle could become hot. My own perception is that most scientists in the fields related to origins are non-theists, and that they are allowing the religious nonconvictions to cloud their judgment. The reaction against Intelligent Design has been little short of an intellectual jihad. So, with these stands, I find myself in strong sympathy with the movement. I'm not currently a card carrying member, though I have been. If I were to allocate some funds to the cause, I would probably go with those legal organizations representing religious liberty cases.

Disruptive1 says: If that is true, abortion is ok. The baby won't suffer but will be given a free ticket to heaven. Does this mean you advocate that we start killing off Christians too? Just because our heavenly Father has mercy on young ones, does not mean we should speed their journey to heaven along. If you are to condemn abortion, you must understand why you are condemning it. ... Whatever the reason, most people seem to feel that abortion is murder. Hence, abortion in cases of rape is committing a felony when another felony is committed. You quoted my view on the politics of abortion as if this were my bottom-line view of the ethics. In the same post I said the most pleasing thing to God for a victim to do would be to bare the child and give him/her up for adoption. Abortion is legal in this land, and in some cases, our tax dollars fund it. I would support legislation that limits the available only to women who are victims of rape or incest, or who's lives are endangered. One thing most people don't realize is that CRIMINALIZING ABORTION WILL NOT REDUCE ABORTION. Repeat an assertion enough times and people will believe it is a statistical fact. I have been told that alcohol consumption actually was significantly less during Prohibition. I doubt that there is statistical evidence one way or the other, but I do not believe for a minute that there were 1.5 million illegal abortions a year in this country, prior to legalization. Desperate women of means may still seek abortions, but most will not. Teaching people how to prevent themselves from getting into a situation that they would consider abortion is the better course of action IF YOU'RE AGAINST ABORTION. That means teaching comprehensive, age-appropriate, sex education. I'll agree if by comprehensive you mean: Look, by far the best approach for students is abstinence. Here's why (see http://www.4parents.gov for good ideas). Then, birth control methods could be discussed as options for those who choose to engage in sex, despite the difficulties.

If I've evolved from cagey and defensive to evasive, then y'all are making progress. Here's my qualified yes. The Catholic Church holds that Scripture and Tradition should be weighed equally, and that only the church has authority to interpret Scripture. Protestants hold that Scripture alone is the final authority, and that all believers should "study to show themselves approved, workmen that need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of God." That said, of course tradition, church history, and even creeds carry some weight. God has given some a gift of teaching. There are learned men and women who have dedicated their lives to the study of the word, who have mastered the biblical languages, and who's writings deserve respect. To use a non-controversial (for this site) example: When the Oneness Pentecostals proposed that the Trinity was wrong, that the formula of God was not three in one, but one in three (Jesus is God, manifested sometimes as Father, sometimes as Son, sometimes as Holy Spirit), the movement was right to go to theological war over the issue. The Trinity had stood the test of some 1700 years, and the teaching was not to be discarded easily. My denomination lost a fourth of its members and a third of its clergy over that battle. So, my bottom-line answer is: The Bible trumps tradition, but new interpretations have a burden of proof far greater than historic doctrines. Furthermore, learned teachers with recognized training bare more careful attention than a layperson who thinks they've discovered something.

First, my political views. I oppose abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life. Furthermore, stem cell research is extremely speculative, and quite frankly, seems to be more about finding a back door approach to legitimizing abortion, than serious research. Now my personal and religious views. First, I am a man, so this is tough, because I speak of that which I cannot experience. My sense, though, is that the course for victims of rape or incest that would most please God, our Father, would be for her to give birth to the child, and then offer him/her up for adoption. Truly special souls might even raise the child, but, my guess is that the psychological impact of raising the off-spring of such an unholy act would not be spiritually healthy in most cases. When the mother's life is truly at stake, she has to come first. The child will go into the hands of Jesus, unscathed by this old world.

As a rough and brief historic review of the modern religious right I offer the following summation: The Roe v. Wade decision of 1972 shocked many religious conservatives. Up until that point most of them askewed political involvement as "worldy." Suddenly lives were at stake. Rev. Jerry Falwell renounced his former sermon, "Why Christians should not be involved in politics," and started what became the Moral Majority. He hilighted several issues: Anti-abortion, anti-pornography, anti-gambling, pro-school prayer, and pro-Creationism. Ronald Reagan rode into power, at least in part, because of the New Right, or the Religious Right. Other groups have arisen with similar issues, including the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, the Christian Coalition, and Focus on the Family. Now, the focal point of the movement seems to remain the abortion battle. So, what say you?

YES. It's hard because sometimes I feel "out of touch" with the rest of the world. There are some fun things that I cannot do. I have things I could buy with God's money. The time I spend doing Christian activities could be spent entertaining myself. It's easy because my life has never been plagued by drugs, alcohol, immoral sex and the resulting relationship difficulties. I know who I am, where I fit in God's plan, where I am going, what my purpose is, and Who's hands I am in. I have a personal relationship with my Creator, and have seen him do miracles in my life, and in those of my family members. My work, my play, my family, everything that I am about, has purpose. I am blessed to live in a country where the hard part is less hard, and the blessings seem even more blessed. However, though these circumstances may change--I am sold out on the Christian life.

I would submit that Jesus' nature never changed. Philippians 2:6-7 says: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Jesus willingly humbled himself, taking on the form of humanity. He never ceased to be God. His nature did not change. The all-powerful, all-knowing, every-where present God that Christians have worshipped throughout history is perfect. By its nature, evolution or change, suggests that God is not perfect, but is improving. If so, the very nature of "God" becomes that of a mere being, who happens to be more powerful than us. Here's the bottom-line on what Christian churches have taught. God the Father was, is, and will always be the perfect Spirit. He was never anything but God. He created all that is. Jesus is God's one and only Son. He too has always been, is, and will always be. He was not created, and he is equal with the Father. He did take on the form of a man, dwelled amongst us, and was sacrificed for our sins. The Holy Spirit, was, is, and will always be God. These three persons are the one true and living God. There are no other gods, and there never will be any other gods. Do you mean to say that God the Father has always been Spirit, but that at some point in time, he took the form of a man? Perhaps I have misunderstood your theology. I thought that Mormons believed that God was once a man (like us), and that he became or evolved into a deity. It's one thing to say that Jesus humbled himself, and took on the form of man, and quite another to say that the Father created him as a human man. It is also one thing to say that God the Son submitted himself to the fashion of a man, and another to say that the heavenly father once was a man and became God. Now, you seem to be suggesting something else...that the heavenly Father has always been God, but used to be a man. I have never heard that before. Perhaps you can explain it. I can't save you and you can't save me. The Holy Ghost does the convicting. I much preferred Snow's approach to the question--asking me what I thought necessary for true salvation--was I insisting on a doctrinal litmus test? My answer to him is the same as my answer to you, Ray: The Apostle Paul complained that the Corinthian church tolerated teachers who taught "a different gospel" and "a different Jesus." My sense is that evangelicalism and Mormonism have beliefs that are divergent enough that one system is certainly more right than the other. The differences are significant enough that we'll not likely be invited to teach in each other's churches. Are the differences enough to effect our salvation? My simple answer is that both you and I would be happy to see the other convert to our way of thinking. Short of that, we are both God-seekers. That is enough to keep us at the table of conversation.

Do you believe that the Heavenly Father was once a man? Ray responds If God once was a man--as we now are--and now he is more, then he has changed. He has evolved. This notion is quite different from the historic Christian understanding. Do you believe that the Heavenly Father created Jesus? Historically, Christian churches have taught the incarnation--that God the Son humbled himself, and took on the form of man, making himself lower than the angels. The incarnation in no way suggests that Jesus was not always God. Did Jesus have a beginning--a starting point to his existence? Again, historically Christianity has taught that Jesus has always been God the Son. His birth in Bethlehem was an incarnation--God becoming a man to dwell amongst us. He has been, is, and will always be co-equal with the Father, in terms of his nature. Any suggestion that Jesus is less in nature than the Father, or that God the Father has evolved (from man to deity) would seem to counter scripture.