prisonchaplain
-
Posts
13955 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
92
Posts posted by prisonchaplain
-
-
Ray says: Heh, I think people could “run in some pretty sci-fi directions” with the amorphous concept of God too, with more ideas which make much less sense to me.
You don't have to guess, Ray. You have 3400 years of history to troll through. Did people come up with sci-fi directions based on the Judeo-Christian teaching that G-d is incorporeal?
But if you do not recognize the fact that God has a body just as we do, then you do not see how much more like God we are, both male and female.
If the teaching is true, then it's true. But, if you are asking me to speculate, then, if I were a female, and I knew that God had a male body, I would feel that I was less in the image of God than my male counterparts.
-
Second, John seems pretty specific in stating that G-d is spirit:
John 4:24 (King James Version): 24God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
Ray responds: God is a Spirit within His body, just as our Lord is also a Spirit within His body, and just as we are also a Spirit within our body. Only God is more glorious than we are.Or in other words, God is not a body, and neither are we.
You can argue this way. However, understand that LDS theology here runs counter to, not just 2000 years of church teaching, but 3400 years of Judeo-Christian teaching. Whatever linguistic rendoring of "image of God" you can come up with, the notion that G-d has a body is only true if the LDS are truly the restored people of God (not just church, but people, since the Jews would have gotten this wrong, also).
-
After I wondered aloud whether Jewish theologians believe God has a body, Ray responded thus: Really? How curious would you be? Enough to ask some Jewish people, perhaps?
Many Jews continue to accept the idea that God has a physical body, and I think most "early" Christians developed a different perception of God from the influence of "Greek" ideas.
I took Ray's challenge, and did a simple google. Here's what I found:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/g-d.html
G-d is Incorporeal
1. Although many places in scripture and Talmud speak of various parts of G-d's body (the Hand of G-d, G-d's wings, etc.) or speak of G-d in anthropomorphic terms (G-d walking in the garden of Eden, G-d laying tefillin, etc.), Judaism firmly maintains that G-d has no body. Any reference to G-d's body is simply a figure of speech, a means of making G-d's actions more comprehensible to beings living in a material world. Much of Maimonides' Guide for the Perplexed is devoted to explaining each of these anthropomorphic references and proving that they should be understood figuratively.
We are forbidden to represent G-d in a physical form. That is considered idolatry. The sin of the Golden Calf incident was not that the people chose another deity, but that they tried to represent G-d in a physical form.
-
In Genesis when G-d is outlining the physical form for the creation of humans, the English version of this design is translated as “lets us make man in our IMAGE and LIKENESS”. I have used all caps to emphasize the English interpretation, in particular the word image that caries strong connotations to a physical modeling. The ancient Hebrew text from which the English version comes has even stronger connotations to a physical model and replica. The two Hebrew words from which image and likeness are rendered in English form a stronger notion denoting a precise detailed model or exact replica. Might I suggest that in our modern terms the idea of a CLONE could easily fit within the intent of this description? Perhaps even, let us make man a clone of us?
Two thoughts on this. First, since Genesis is originally part of the Torah, and since you've chosen to write the title of G-d with Judaic sensitivities, I would be curious to know if any Jewish scholars have considered the possibility that the Almighty has a physical body?
Second, John seems pretty specific in stating that G-d is spirit:
John 4:24 (King James Version): 24God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
The very thing that causes many non-LDS Christians to hyperventilate about the notion that G-d has a body, is that this could lead to the idea that we're really the seed of some highly advanced alien race, of which G-d is simply one being. I am not saying that you are going there, but that many could take the God as physical being concept in run in some pretty sci-fi directions with it.
I think something has been lost in the translation when we attempt to modify the meaning of Genesis and say the image of G-d “within” us. This creates an unnecessary abstraction and ambiguity to which the reader is open to all kinds of interpretations. I believe the concept would be better served to say that we are that image of G-d. This concept indicates that there is nothing – absolutely nothing about us and how we are, what we are and what we think and do that cannot be subjected to and therefore understood as divine. May I add here that this even includes gender?
If G-d has a body, and He is our Father, then I would reach the opposite conclusion. By seeing the "image of God" as relating to our character, personality, and spirits, it seems much easier for us to be inclusive. Indeed, we do believe that Eve also was made in the image of God.
Genesis 1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them
This notion is also reiterated in the parable of 10 virgins but at a more telling level. The virgins represent believers in Christ striving and preparing to receive the Christ in his glory. But 5 of the believing Christians are foolish and do not prepare sufficiently in that they lacked oil for their lamps. The meaning of the oil is often given to wild differences in interpretations. Can we at least agree that 5 of the believers waiting on the glory of G-d did so in error because they were not prepared in that there was something they lacked? I would also point out that in the parable it was not that the 5 virgins did not know what was needed for their lamps – they had somehow became convinced that what they ought to have really was not entirely necessary.
In the context of the parables Jesus told surrounding the parable of the virgins, the warning is that the 5 virgins represent believers who were not ready for Jesus' return. Yes, they knew what they needed, but they were not ready. They had gotten spiritually lazy.
The most common understanding of the oil that I have heard, is that it represents the Holy Ghost. These five virgins may have gone to regular church meetings, kept up appearances, but they were not hungry for G-d, his Spirit, or the return of his Son.
I would also point out it was not the obligation of G-d to provide the oil but it is the believer that is responsible for the oil.
You make a good argument for what we Pentecostals call "tarrying" for the Holy Ghost. Yes, G-d is ready to pour out his Spirit, but are we willing vessels, ready to receive, not only salvation, but fresh vision, fresh anointing, greater power to be, do, and say all that he's called us to? This is not a specific word to any group of believers, but to all who call themselves Christians. See, you got me to preachin'
-
Sgallon claims: Evangelicals make us a disporportionately high percentage of the prison population. Atheists make up a disporportionately low percentage of the prison population.
I didn't say this....
Sorry about that It was Snow who asked. I've modified my post. -
And btw, a “multi-party” system has already been put in place, with Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and several other “parties” consisting of people with both conservative and liberal values.
Yeah! Time for me to jump in. This is an obscure, but passionate issue with me. I do not support a multiparty system. As contentious as having two parties can be, at least we get something close to a leader elected by a majority (or overwhelming plurality). Advocacy groups (be they from the 'religious right' or 'environmentalists' or 'libertarians') generally end up lobbying the most receptive majority party. It's a clumsy system, but it is also a moderating one, that is ponderous, and therefore not given to sudden, radical shifts.My support of the two-party system is also why I would never support a specifically Christian third party. My guess is, there may be an issue or two that folk like Jason, Sgallon and I might agree on (increased government support for young Olympic hopefuls, perhaps
). Third parties, and multi-party systems encourage political ghettoism, and extremism. If you think polarization is bad now--just see what a third or fourth contender-party would do to our politics -
Edgar says: firstly let me say that i forgot that i joined this forum,. The last time i checked is'nt Santa just a bit of magic for kids. so guys and gals lighten up alittle and a very merry christmas to all ho ho ho
Kudos to the new guy! He changed my mind.
Well, actually you've all convinced me that this is probably the least important post I've ever started. I'm still not gung ho on Santa Claus. However, here's the clincher: THE TOOTH FAIRY IS COMING TO OUR HOUSE TONIGHT Your many valiant defenses of the abundant man in the red suit have led me to do what Gov. Terminator will not--I'm declaring clemency for good ole S.C. -
SNOW says: In other words - being a Christian is a matter of faith AND works.
... hmm, they call come around sooner or latter.
Absolutely
BECOMING a Christian merely requires the faith to receive. BEING a Christian means not only receiving from the Master, but turning and following him. -
Snow asks: Evangelicals make us a disporportionately high percentage of the prison population. Atheists make up a disporportionately low percentage of the prison population.
In this particular example, without God's influence, morality goes up.
It goes without saying Mormons are significantly under-represented in the ranks of the incarcerated.
I wonder what prisonchaplain has to say about this? First, I'm not sure the claim that evangelicals are overrepresented in prison systems rings true. Our highest faith group is Catholic, followed by No Preference.I think a better indicator would be the rate of spousal and child abuse. There is a myth out there that the number is quite high, proportionally, amongst fundamentalist/evangelical Christians. Ironically, a Catholic sociologist decided to dig deeper. Here's what he found:
1st: The number was indeed high amongst those men who claimed to be fundamentalist/evangelical/Bible-believing type Christians--IF THEY WERE NOT REGULAR CHURCH ATTENDERS
2nd: The number was well below the national average amongst men who both claimed conservative Christian beliefs AND THEY WERE REGULAR CHURCH ATTENDERS.
Conclusion: Aberrant social behavior is going to be highest amongst hypocrites, and shallow believers (you know--doctrine that's a mile wide, but only an inch deep), and lowest amongst those with a rigorous spiritual belief and practice.
BTW: I've heard many reports that the so-called fundamentalist Muslim suicide bombers and terrorists, generally are men with a very poor track record of personal piety.
-
I don't often post my Bible studies, but sometimes approaching an old debate from a new angel brings fresh insight to all. Most Christians of most stripes, and indeed most religious people of good will believe that works and faith are both good. Yet, we agonize over how these fit in our religious doctrine flow charts. As I looked back at this study on the image of God within us, the whole issue seemed to come into harmony. See if you agree.
THE IMAGE OF GOD IN US
Tony Compalo is a Christian sociology professor. He is also an ordained Baptist minister. One day he takes a late-night flight, and the passenger next to him wants to talk. He brags about how important he is, and goes on for what seems to be an eternity. Finally, the passenger asks Compalo, “So, who are you?”
“Oh, I am someone very important.”
“Really, what’s your name?”
“My name is Tony Compalo.”
“Huh...never heard of you.”
“Oh, it’s not me that’s really well-known. It’s my father.”
“Yeah...well, who’s your father?”
“Mister, I am the son of God!”
The man looks at him as if he had just escaped from an asylum, and asks, “Are you okay?”
Compalo explains that as a Christian, he is a brother of Jesus and a son of Almighty God. Likewise, brothers, we too bare the image of God in us.
Genesis 1:26-27 tells us: Then God said, ‘let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air; over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
We are made in god’s image and likeness. God made us. He loves us. We are his masterpiece. Therefore, we should not worry–God will take care of us. In Matthew 6:25-27 Jesus says: Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air. They do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly father feeds them. Are you not much ore valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?
Not only will God take care of us. He will redeem–or pay the price for–our wrongdoings. No matter what evil we have done, we are still creations of God. We still have hope and worth. Consider the story of Cain. Genesis 4:15-17 says: But the lord said to him, “not so; if anyone kills Cain he will suffer vengeance seven times over. Then the lord put a mark on cain so that no one who found him would kill him. So Cain went out from the lord’s presence and lived in the land of nod east of eden. Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch.
Even though Cain murdered his own brother, God spared his life and commanded others to do likewise. There was still worth in him–still hope. That hope eventually bares fruit in his son, Enoch. From the beginning of time until now parents have tried to justify their difficult and seemingly failed lives by looking to the successes of their children. Indeed, if we look at the genealogical line of Cain we find that his descendants became raisers of livestock, musicians who played harps and flutes, and forgers of tools made out of bronze and iron. Perhaps they were not the most glamorous figures in history. Yet, most seemed to make contributions to their communities.
It is wonderful to know that I can redeem my life through my children, and through God’s mercy. How do I go about obtaining God’s forgiveness? The answer is found in the Good News. The image of God is restored within us when we are saved. Ephesians 4:24 says, “And to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.” When we become part of the kingdom of God, through belief in Christ and repentance, we put on a new self–which is the image of God! Our original godly images were distorted by the poison of sin that entered humanity when Satan deceived Adam and Eve. Thank God for his pronouncement against the Devil in Genesis 3:15, “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heal.” Jesus has crushed Satan, and his curses. This means that sin and death are no longer our nature. We can once again bare the unblemished image of God in us!
Leaving the theological language and imagery behind, what we have just learned is that we can succeed at being righteous–or, simpler yet, we can be good. Galations 5:22-23 lists the good characteristics we are capable of if we wear the full of the image of God: But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. The key here is that these are fruits of the Spirit, not of our labor or will power. Zecharia 4:6 says that our victories are, “Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit says the lord.” My prayer is that God will fill us with his Spirit, that we might live the fruits of the Spirit. Amen? Amen!
Not only can we succeed in being good. We can also overcome the evil temptations that still endeavor to entice us. Romans 6:15-16 says: What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means! Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey–whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?
While will power will not produce holiness, we must determine in our hearts that we want to live in obedience to God, rather than to sin. Then we can pray with confidence, “God, help me to be, say and do all that you want of me.” We can also pray as Jesus taught us to, “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.”
If you are not a Christian, do you not want to have the image of God restored in your life? Ask Jesus to help you today. If you are a Christian, thank God for such a great salvation. You can be good and pure before God. Ask Jesus to help you today.
-
WinnieG says: I have to say your post interested me.
Every time someone makes a deal out of gracing me with his presence with the sentence “I am a Christian” I think “really or do you profuse it or do you live it”?
Jesus told us to do both--not to be ashamed of him, to be ready to give an answer for our faith, yet at the same time to love our neighbor, love our enemy, pray for those who despitefully use us, etc.
A real Christian cares enough to act like one and to allow others to be who they are.
Yes, we should act like Christians. However, to allow others to be who they are? The apostles would not have had to go to all the trouble of getting martyred, if that's all God wanted us to do. Of course, we cannot force God on anyone. However, I will not be ashamed to proclaim "the offense of the cross," even if it sometimes offends.
On the other hand, I always hope I can disagree without being disagreeable. And, I never want to force a religious conversation on someone who just isn't interested. And, yes, I can have good friends who do not believe as I do. So, please don't pigeon-hole all Christians as hate-filled bigots.
This comes from an up bringing in a family that is multi faiths.
Those who profuse the hardest lost the most respect in my book.
They missed many family gatherings by not being invited.
Bible pounding zealous are a black eye to Christ him self and I stand by that.
A jerk is a jerk, regardless of faith. However, to fault someone for having strong religious beliefs requires little courage. Far easier to say, "Live and let live" than to engage one another in conversation, and perhaps learn from each other. I appreciate this forum because Mormons gather with agnostics, evangelicals, lutherans and others, and engage in challenging, yet mostly polite religious conversation. How refreshing!
I mean really, why would our father in heaven bring his son in to a family of the Jewish faith then in turn ask others to disrespect them?
I don't disrespect Jews at all. I highly admire their devotion to God--especially how the Orthodox observe all 613 basic commandments of the Torah. However, I respectfully disagree with the Talmud's declaration that Jesus was a false prophet, just as Mormons strongly disagree with the position of many evangelicals that Joseph Smith was a false prophet. You can say "10-ways to heaven" all you want. Either Jews or Christians are right about Jesus, and either Mormons or evangelicals are right about Joseph Smith. We may all end up in the same place, but does it not behoove us to at least attempt to understand God's truths. Is it so offensive to even suggest that one person's notions may be superior to anothers?
If you do not ask your self “what would Jesus do” with understanding and tolerance then your not a Christian.
Just so long as we keep in mind that this same Jesus did say: Take up your cross and follow ME.
-
How come nobody is answering the questions? :)
Just to put a face to the questions.... here is a pic of the kid having a moment with an Olympic gold medalist from Egypt a couple of years ago. He took a liking to her. She is a bit of a young prodigy in that sport herself beating up the boys (most of them anyhow as she's 4 time state champion) and the girls (2-time national champion). Pretty smart too.....
http://www.amateurwrestlingphotos.com/meng...aber%200089.htm
First, it's no wonder you're proud. She does look active, attractive and smart--almost as wonderful as my 3 cherubs
Second, THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION: This is actually quite simple. If there is no God, or God has left us to our own devices, or God is unknowable, or even if the LDS Church is right, and almost everyone gets into some type of heaven, then you're probably right--religion has very little to offer your child, that you do not already provide her. However, if Christians are right, and there is a definite Way that a personal God is calling his creation to, then we offer your sign posts assisting your discovery of that path. Furthermore, the LDS would tell you, why settle for a decent heaven, when you could spend eternity in exaltation?
It's not a matter of arrogance or humility, or who does the most volunteer work, or who has the best personality. It's who's right. The Apostle Paul admits that if there is no resurrection, then Christians are the most pathetic people in the world. So, we're either pathetic, or we are saved, Spirit-filled, and headed for eternal glory.
-
DisRuptive1 says: The unforgivable sin is to deny knowledge that has been manifested unto you.
My only adjustment would be that God, in his mercy, often gives us multiple opportunities to respond, and often chases after us when we try to run away from him. So, my argument is that the unforgivable sin is to continually deny knowledge that has been manifested.
-
I have a quick question to ask. What is the true definition of the unforgivable sin, blasphemy against the holy ghost.
The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is not returning to a former sin. It is the continual rejection of the Holy Ghost's conviction. For example, you commit a sin, and the Holy Ghost makes you feel guilty. You ignore the feeling, and the sin becomes habitual overtime. Eventually, you don't even feel a twinge of guilt. You may come to realize that you've lost fellowship with God, but you do not care. Your heart has hardened. You have blasphemed the Holy Ghost.
If you still feel guilt, and a desire to turn away from sin and back to God, then you have not YET committed the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost. Make the turn. Repent. Come back to God. And praise him for his unending mercy!
-
sgallon says: Funny, from my perspective I suspect I would be either dead, or incarcerated very quickly in a Christian theocracy. Why? Because as your response shows.... there is no room for any save a Christian in your idea society. This is the way of most totalitarian governments whether they be religious or secular
Here's the shockaroo, sgallon
I agree with you. I've never supported a Christian party, or the establishment of a Christian theocracy. Lord Acton was right when he said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."I have been disappointed at times with the off-the-cuff remarks of some of our religious conservative leaders. They are indeed susceptible to getting drunk with power when they are too successful. It is also unfortunate that we have been driven into one political party. The polarization is not healthy, and has the potential to result in political fantaticism.
-
This string may be similar to the poll I posted recently about Christians and politics. However, my concern this time is the broader role of believers in society. Ultimately, our eschatology (beliefs about the end times) may influence our answers to these questions. Just how much can Christians hope to accomplish in America or the world? Should we try to control government? Is it possible for us to create a better world, or is the course set?
For my view, visit:
Click the "opinions" tab, and look for the Dec. 10 article, "Christians want to influence society, not take it over."
-
While we are what ifing - What if G-d really does love? What if Jesus was right about children and that we need to become like them? What if all the children in all the world are loved and cared for by G-d and that they are saved through Christ even though the children lever learned to utter the name of Christ let alone believe in him?
If there are a lot more people in Glory than we expect, I doubt that too many people will be disappointed. Regardless of how the Day of Judgment plays out, no one will be second-guessing God.
What if G-d so loved the world that no one was condemned because no one told them of Christ before they died? What if everyone that was loving and kind went to heaven even if they were Baptist, Mormon Catholic, Jewish, Moslem, Hindu or no religion at all?
Once again--no second-guessing God on Judgment Day. However, there is plenty of Scripture to suggest that we need to bring the Good News to the utter most parts of the world. The biblical sense of urgency seems "over the top" if everyone gets in, anyhow.
What if G-d really did judge all according to their works?
Since none are righteous, since in the prophet Isaiah fell on his face before God and declared his moral/spiritual filthiness, since all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God-------then this would be bad news indeed!
Can you just imagine all the religious fundamentalist making a fuss because they thought G-d only loved and saved them?
They'd get over it once they realized how far they were from the heart of God, and yet still welcomed into Glory.
What if there is no loving G-d and the evangelicals are right?
It wasn't the evangelicals that came up with Jesus' exclusionary statements: Whoever believes in him (Jesus) will not perish but haver everlasting life. I am the way, truth, and life, no man comes to the Father but through me.
What if most of the human family is damned because they lived in places and time when no one could teach them of Christ. What if people that are so compassionate and kind that they would give their lives for other are excluded from heaven because they messed up on doctrine?
Again, no one will question God's justice or mercy on Judgment Day. A hint at an answer, though, is in Romans 1. It suggests that there is a general revelation of God in nature, and that people who choose the way of sin are without excuse. It's easy to convince sinners that God is unfair, but nobody will be arguing with him on that great and glorious day.
Well then I will die thinking and believing in the kind and compassionate and glad to be rid of a G-d that ignores the Good Samaritans that happen to belong to the wrong religion. I would rather be with those that cared more about G-dly works than doctrine.
If God really exists, and he chooses to involve himself personally in his creation, then I would think it wise to both know what He wants me to know, and do what he wants me to do.
-
I voted yes, though I won't literally dump him. My daughters will probably hear about him, see him, and may even watch a movie about him. However, it won't be mommy and daddy filling her head with promises of presents for girls who no how to be nice, and not naughty. And, when they are old enough to ask, we'll explain him as a funny folk tale people tell so children can have fun.
Santa Claus is, at minimum, a diversion. But, sometimes neglect is more successful than opposition.
-
Jason says: You have your myth's backwards. Santa Claus (ie Saint Nicholas) was a real person, though now very dead.
Count on Jason for the clever twists. I think we're all adults here, and we know that there was a historical Saint Nicholas. It surely was not too much for me to expect you to realize that by "the myth of Santa Claus" I was referring to the character who can magically fly with his reindeer to every child's home on earth in one evening.
P.S. Your issue may have been valid...but, please, start your own string
-
Taoist Saint says: That is what happened to me. I was raised Christian, but very liberally...rarely went to church...but I was taught about Jesus...the basics...and believed them. When I discovered that Santa was a myth, I think that did factor into my skeptism about Jesus. I remember being around 10 years old and realizing that I doubted the existence of the Christian God. That faith never returned. But don't you think that, despite the threat to your child's faith, that Santa Clause can be used to test their free-thinking? Is it better for a child to be indoctrinated from birth to never question his or her faith? I think that is dangerous, because if a child never experiences the loss of a belief (like Santa Clause)...they might not ever learn to think critically about other beliefs they hold. As a Christian, you might not like the idea that they might learn to question the Bible, Jesus, God, etc. ... But do you REALLY want your child to grow up without a healthy sense of skepticism? They need to learn that not everything they learn about is true. Then they can make their own decision regarding faith in Christ.
My concern is that my children, along with learning that Santa Claus is a myth, also learn that Mommy and Daddy will lie to them, for fun, and to preserve tradition. It's not so much that I don't want my children to question the existance of God or Jesus. At some point the faith has to become theirs. Usually, taking ownership of faith requires spiritual wrestling. What I DO NOT want to happen, is for my children to learn not to trust me to be truthful with them--especially about spiritual matters. So, I'm not worried about popping the Santa bubble, but my being perceived as deceptive by my own children.
-
We've all heard the stories of how various commerical retailers are forbidding their employees from using religion-specific holiday greetings, such as Merry Christmas. Some have suggested boycotts. Congressman Hassert went out of his way to have this year's Capitol Hill bush designated a CHRISTMAS (LIKE IT OR LUMP IT) TREE. Some Christians have chosen to give a very adamant "Merry Christmas" response to any generic renditions.
In Today's Tacoma News-Tribune (WA), the editorial suggested that in the past the secularists (I like to call them secular fundamentalists) were pretty adept at making donkey's hind-ends of themselves, but that this year, some Christians a responding in kind. The paper's legitimate question: What happened to the mercy and love and forgiveness?
All thoughts to keep your mind abuzz as you finish up your holiday shopping.
-
This sounds like some fundamentalist, hard-nosed question. Yet, it won't go away. I heard this talk over 30 years ago, and just had another conversation about it today. Do Christian parents do a disservice to their children by indulging in the Santa myths? On the other hand, is it possible that Santa Claus can lead people to the true Jesus?
-
It's not just an online thing. People get in cars or go into secluded areas with people they meet at the mall, etc. It's always best to be a bit paranoid rather than meeting up with a real-life "American Psycho" and being stuck with them alone (that goes for both males and females).
As the young people say, "True that!" I just read a story in our local paper of a young woman (early 20s) who got into a man's car, that offered her a ride. He raped her at gunpoint. All this less than a mile from my house
All the same questions came up: why did she get in the car? Had they chatted beforehand?I've got a house full of girls, and this stuff gets my protective genes activated. Mother tells them, "Every man is a wolf!" Some day when they're older, one will ask, "What about daddy?" She'll probably wink, and say, "ESPECIALLY your daddy!"
Guard your hearts, minds, and bodies gentle souls. We're to be innocent as lambs, but also as wise as serpents.
-
A related question:
I have heard people say that if you commit a sin, then you repent, but then a few years later commit that same sin then not only that sin weighs against you but also all the other times you committed that sin.
Is that correct or is it misinterpretation of scripture?
No. What God forgives is truly forgiven. In our courts the judge has the power to "forgive" a crime, meaning to withhold punishment. If the offender reviolates, the original charge is reactivated.
Our God does not work that way. Scripture says that when ours sins are forgiven they are removed as far as the East is from the West. The ultimate danger of returning to former sins, is that we will allow our hearts to become so calloused that we no longer respond to the conviction and drawing of the Holy Spirit. The end-line of that sad course is that we commit the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit--the one sin for which there is no forgiveness.
So, Saints, sinners, seekers, backsliders, and all those in between--repent today, turn from your wicked ways. Run quickly prodigal sons and daughters into the loving arms of your heavenly father!
BTW--I don't know where all that came from. You discerners of spirits will have to determine it.
You make a good argument for what we Pentecostals call "tarrying" for the Holy Ghost. Yes, G-d is ready to pour out his Spirit, but are we willing vessels, ready to receive, not only salvation, but fresh vision, fresh anointing, greater power to be, do, and say all that he's called us to? This is not a specific word to any group of believers, but to all who call themselves Christians. 
Sorry about that 
Yeah! Time for me to jump in. This is an obscure, but passionate issue with me. I do not support a multiparty system. As contentious as having two parties can be, at least we get something close to a leader elected by a majority (or overwhelming plurality). Advocacy groups (be they from the 'religious right' or 'environmentalists' or 'libertarians') generally end up lobbying the most receptive majority party. It's a clumsy system, but it is also a moderating one, that is ponderous, and therefore not given to sudden, radical shifts.
). Third parties, and multi-party systems encourage political ghettoism, and extremism. If you think polarization is bad now--just see what a third or fourth contender-party would do to our politics 
I'm still not gung ho on Santa Claus. However, here's the clincher: THE TOOTH FAIRY IS COMING TO OUR HOUSE TONIGHT 
I wonder what prisonchaplain has to say about this? First, I'm not sure the claim that evangelicals are overrepresented in prison systems rings true. Our highest faith group is Catholic, followed by No Preference.
I've never supported a Christian party, or the establishment of a Christian theocracy. Lord Acton was right when he said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Christian Values
in General Discussion
Posted
The problem is you get situations where "the tail wags the dog." Yes, the Republicans got 42% of the vote. But the ultraright White Antiimmigration Brigade (yes I made the WABs up) got 6%, and the Libertarians got 4%. So, to beat the Democrats, the coalition is made, and now we get Green Berrets patroling our borders, and legalized drug use as policies.
Or...to conjur a scenario that scares the likes of Sgallon, Jason, and even most LDS members, the Republicans align with the newly formed Christian Coalition Party, and Creationism becomes the mandatory science curriculum in all public schools.
So, why coalitions may make up larger majorities than one party, in a two-party system, our current system proves much more moderate, because advocacy groups must make their case within majority-party structures, rather than being able to tilt the balance of power.
BTW, IMHO, despite the sometimes heated rhetoric, both the Democrat and Republican parties are quite moderate, by European standards.
Canadians are just more polite. Also, despite the huge land mass of Canada, the issues the national government deals with are mostly similar to those most U.S. states deal with individually.
I am convinced the #1 issues that causes the red/blue division to seem so hot is abortion. When Roe v. Wade is overturned, and this issue gets battled out in the legislative branch, then a social consensus will develop, and the rhetoric will diffuse. Perhaps never settled, but diminished. Why? At least both sides will have had their say. As it stands now, pro-lifers believe they were co-opted by a few judges who invented law and so-called rights. Even some prochoicers realize this. So, let's forget a civil war, or a division of the country, and just get Roe v. Wade overturned.