prisonchaplain
-
Posts
13955 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
92
Posts posted by prisonchaplain
-
-
Or in other words, while I can see how you may actually have authority to officate in your church, because the members of your church do have the power to authorize people to act as leaders in their behalf, I have neither seen nor heard any evidence from you or anyone else to suggest or explain how you (or your church) received your authority from God or our Lord Jesus Christ.
This issue of authority--which may well resonate more powerfully with Catholics--comes down whether we believe that God ordained the apostles to be office-holders, who would be succeeded by others throughout church history. In this particular post, you answer this with a rather passionate yes. I suppose Catholics would do likewise, believing for example, that the Pope is the spiritual descendent of Peter.
Most Protestants do not see apostolic succession as God's plan. LDS theologians look at the failures of Catholic church history and see the prophesied apostasy. Protestants simply see the failure of men. Ironically, one understanding of the word "apostle" is missionary. They were the ones to go out to other lands and spread the gospel, planting churches, building God's kingdom. They did not hold positions of grand administrative power, but rather, were privileged to walk with Jesus, and to be on the front-lines of evangelism after the ascension.
So where do we think we get God's approval to do gospel work? We see it in Jesus commands to spread his teachings. These commands were given to the apostles, yes. But, also to the 72. And, ultimately, all believers were to spread the Word.
Bottom line variance here: LDS theologians look for the authority to do gospel work, whereas Protestants--especially evangelicals--would consider a sin for any believer NOT to do gospel work.
And btw, nobody can receive authority by simply reading about how other people received their authority either, so quoting from the Bible which shows that Jesus Christ gave His authority to His apostles doesn't mean that He or they gave their authority to you.
If Jesus ONLY gave his authority to the apostles, you'd be right. However, Jesus gives authority to all his followers. He sends out the 72. He obviously blesses the efforts of the woman at the well (brand new to the faith mind you) to go and tell her village. He sends a man delivered from demons back to his city to spread the word. We see Jesus bestowing priesthood responsibilities to all believers.
-
Once again, I come out of hiding. This time, I'm forced to respond to my own post, because the one NO vote only offered a reference to another website. So, here's my rebuttal against the NO:#1 IMHO is that it is strongly anti-union.
In the Seattle-Tacoma area the newspapers seem to carry 2-3 anti-Walmart letters to the editor per week. The consistancy of themes suggests to me that it is union money and thinking that is at the root of the opposition. One letter writer even said people shouldn't purchase at Walmart because doing so would be to support the Red Chinese communist regime.
Those elitist liberal intellectual types were probably thinking, "How do we convince Red State America to stop frequenting these stores? We'll rehash the Red Scare. Those idiots will fall for it." NEWS FLASH: Ideological communism fell with the Berlin Wall. Yes socialism and dictatorships still prevail, but there is no international "workers of the world unit to overthrow bougeasie capitalism" conspiracy left to fight. Low wages and benefits for employees.
Most of the workers are part-time, and most are doing entry-level work. So, yes, the wages are relatively low. However, they are not lower than many other entry-level positions, and they are often well above legal minimums.
Too many part-time positions--meaning again, low wages and few benefits
Most people working part time are supplementing family income, gaining pocket money while studying, or they are new to the job market, and need an entry-level position.
Vendors are forced to sell at extremely low prices
As the famous Oingo Boingo pop music group sang in the 80s: There ain't nothing wrong with capitalism, there ain't nothing wrong with free enterprise--What's wrong with you you middle-class socialist brat! You ain't worked a day in your life!!"
Hey, it's called business. You want to provide products for Walmart to sell, you've got to provide a lot, and you've got to provide it cheap. If you don't like it, approach Nordstrom's (or insert your typical high-end department store name).
More and more, it seems Walmart is purchasing from China, which has a poor human rights record.
As does Dollar Tree, the 99-cent stores, Kmart, the membership clubs, most internet sites, and even many high-end stores. If you want to boycott China move to a rich neighborhood, where the stores can afford to sell you fancy-sounding French stuff at five times the price, and often half the level of reliability. Got freedom fries?
-
Sorry, I can't resist...
I think that you would be surprised to find that although WM does offer jobs to unskilled laborers, this is not the cas for a majority of employees. Also, the low-priced products are priced low at the cost of the companies who sell them to wallyworld, and the underpaid/underbenifited employees. And although elitism may be a factor from some, I would contend that it is by far the minority of people. Elitists are fair-weather shoppers. I would say that the majority of people that I have talked to and seen who are vehemently against wm, are part of the middle class, who could definitely use the lower prices, but find that as a principal, they think that it is important to support those in the community around them. Not to say that people who shop at wm don't support their community on purpose, but that they aren't as informed as those who understand the danger of wm and, to a lesser degree but still a factor, other big box stores. I recently read a report put out by The NY Times comparing Walmart and Costco, that pointed out that although costco's prices are higher than walmarts, their profits are about half. Where do you think the difference is?
Rather than respond here, buried in the midst of a string that is waning, I've started a new poll. Should Christians patronize Walmart? So, here's the blatant promotional plug (hey, I'm an evangelical...I can't help it!): Visit my new poll, and let's see if the Walmart controversy will stir things up.BTW: This is a hot issue...it's made Christianity Today, and I've seen it in several newspapers as well.
-
Arguments in favor of Walmart:
Low prices
Family friendly policies. The store often pulls, or places in discreet locations, items that are of questionable values.
Hire many unskilled workers who might not otherwise find employment.
Arguments against Walmart:
#1 IMHO is that it is strongly anti-union.
Low wages and benefits for employees.
Too many part-time positions--meaning again, low wages and few benefits
Vendors are forced to sell at extremely low prices
More and more, it seems Walmart is purchasing from China, which has a poor human rights record
-
The introduction of the movie Footloose was likely an accidental move...but a helpful one. A thoughtful viewing of that production will show: A. That the parents and religious leaders were not narrow-minded and uncompromising. They cared about the children and were trying to do right by them. B. The children who wanted to dance were able to think through and justify there requests. They used a Bible quote to show that dance could be celebration. It could be joy. The result was that the dance took place, and parents and children learned to respect each other all the more.
What a far cry from much secular music and dance today! I'll not condemn all genres, or even any one genre in particular. However, the music that plays in my house will be lovely, good and noble, not degenerate. Call me a
if you want, but as for me and my house, our music will serve the Lord. -
... but for some reason, I think you are saying what you are saying while not considering us to be among those other Christians.
Actually the topic of LDS status in the broader Christian world was not part of the thread. Oh well, since you brought it up. Barna says that 34% of LDS adherents who answered theological questions for his survey, did so in a manner that most evangelicals define as "born again." I find that interesting.There are some LDS doctrines that track differently than what is often called "historic Christianity's" answers. Many of these different answers hit "core doctrines." The plan of salvation, the nature of God the Father, of God the Son, and of God, the Holy Spirit. The eternal progression of God. The pre-existence of each human. The role of Satan, of sin, and of course, the ultimate destiny of each of us.
What I've learned here is that in many ways evangelical Christian culture and LDS culture are similar. We practice a rigorous faith that effects our finances, our behavior, and our beliefs. We love our houses of worship, and the communities we worship with. We love to share and explain what we believe with others.
We also have liberal, open-minded, ecumenical types, and the more fundamentalist ones. Ironically, when it comes to music, movies etc., many here actually seem more liberal than the norm for my faith group.
All this to say, I'm doubtful that LDS theology could ever coalesce with my Pentecostal understandings, nor with most statements of faith in evangelical groups. However, there sure is plenty for us to talk about. And those conversations can certainly be friendly, informative and respectful. :)
-
Originally posted by USNationalist@Nov 15 2005, 12:53 PM
i vote libertarian. This country is not a theocracy, and morality has no place in the law. The law is ment to protect liberty- not shakle people with the moral convictions of others.
I actually dabbled with Libertarianism during a season of my life. Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged proved intriguing. However, I ultimately saw that Objectivism, like Communism, is built upon the flawed assumption that humanity is basically good. Representative democracy, with its separation of powers, and sometimes 'coerced charity,' is also flawed. However, it best takes into account the fallen, sinful condition of the world. -
The question is not propaganda. Are the proponents of Intelligent Design also the proponents of Young Earth Creationism?
NO. Intelligent Design is not Young Earth Creationism. Frankly, I am not an expert on this. The Discovery Institute, in Seattle, WA is the main think tank behind this system. My understanding is that the I.D. curriculum primarily argues that there are gaps in the theory of Evolution--particularly if random selection is insisted upon as the only possible explanation for how things do evolve. These gaps, it is suggested, can be explained if an intelligent designer is behind it all. Of course, classic evolutionists immediately see GOD as that designer and cry out that this is theology, not science. However, the theory of Intelligent Design basically argues that Evolution by random selection has too many difficulties, and that a designer solves them. The curriculum does not identify who the designer is, what his/her/its nature is, or dwell upon the age of the earth or the universe, to my knowledge.
For example - Do you believe the age of the earth is closer to 3 billion years old or 10,000 years old? Was the creation static - meaning that all creatures are today as G-d created them or has there be vast evolutionary changes in species?
Once again, the curriculum does not focus on these issues, to my knowledge. It concentrates on the gaps in Evolution by random selection, and posits an intelligent designer, as a plausible solution.
Are the organizations pushing Intelligent Design the same organizations that insist on young Earth Creationism?
There may be some cross-over, but the short answer is NO. Some of the staunchest creation-science advocates have argued that Intelligent Design is a sell-out, that it gives up too much, that it does not drive home the truth that the Bible is scientifically sound. There have been passionate debates between creationists and I.D. proponents.
There has been a strong movement in recent scientific thought toward G-d as a force of evolution and initialization of the universe but no one in this scientific consideration is a believer in a young earth based on scientific evidence that I am aware of.
Even Young Earth Creationists admit that only about 5% of scientists support their theories. Of course, in science, popularity does not mean correctness.
IMHO God created the world. Unlike LDS teaching, I do believe he created it out of nothing. It would not burst my theological bubble if He used the evolutionary process to make it happen. My concern with this threat is: A. Intelligent Design has been intentionally misrepresented in a "nip it in the bud" campaign, sponsored mainly by public school science teachers. B. Part of the nastiness in tone of opponents of I.D. is indirectly aimed towards conservative people of faith. This is part of the Red/Blue divide. In the process, I.D. is not getting a fair hearing. Ultimately, the theory may prove unworthy of integration into school curricula. However, to date, a reasoned analysis and debate has not taken place.
One important consideration of ideas is someone's point of view - So I as straight forward as I can - if you are a proponent of Intelligent Design are you also a proponent of young earth creationism?
Straightforward answer: I'm not a scientist. I believe God created the world. Young Earth Creationism is attractive, because it most closely tracks with a literal reading of Genesis. However, I'm not a proponent. Frankly, I like I.D. because it tries to do a few, more reasonable things, and do them convincingly. Rather than sell students and teachers on an unpopular and weakly supported theory that parallels the Book of Genesis, I.D. says: Maybe, just maybe something intelligent is behind all this. Such an idea would sure explain a lot of the difficulties Evolution by random selection leaves us. Simple, plausible, intelligent, reasonable notions.
-
Originally posted by Snow@Nov 14 2005, 10:48 PM
prisonchaplain,
I believe that the 500 million figure comes from a theologian named Harvey Cox.
... (half that is more reasonable).
Like I said, even at 100 million, my point that this movement would not have flourished, were it not for the willingness of Pentecosal pioneers to endure the humiliation of being put out of their denominations, of being labeled "demon possessed," of being arrested by local law enforcement for praying for the sick (practicing medicine without a license), etc.--they never would have risked so much to experience the restoration of Holy Spirit power--the kind they read about in Acts and 1 Corinthians. If you're willing to give me 250 million, the point is even stronger. But, Barna does support my contention about the wide variance of belief that is inherent in a fractured Christianity. According to Barna, here are some figures that show the variance of the low versus high percentage of what different denominations think about key doctrines or things:
Bible is totally accurate: low denomination = 22%; high = 81%; Christ was sinless: 28% vs 73%; God is an all powerful creator: 59% vs 96%; Satan is real: 17 vs 59; Works don't earn heaven: 15 vs 64;
What's clear to me is that Christians don't agree too much.
Allow me to fog up your clarity. You've quoted Barna's figures correctly, but misinterpreted what they represent. Barna's message to church leaders is that many of those who flock to our churches do not understand basic Christian teachings. Those % you quote are what lay people answered, in response to a questionnaire--NOT what the church leaders or denominations actually teach!You and others correctly warned me not to base my understanding of LDS doctrine and theology upon the opinions of lay members here--but to go to the lds.org website, or invite a missionary who's been called to represent the church. Likewise, if you wish to investigate the doctrines of various Christian denominations, you ought to look to their statements of faith, not to the opinions of those who might warm a seat on a Sunday morning. http://www.ag.org, for example will give you the set of doctrine's my denomination holds to.
I'll give you a funny example to show my point. Seventh graders in Assemblies of God Sunday School take a 3-month course entitled "Foundations of Faith." In the class they learn the basic 16 fundamental doctrines we hold to. For fun I gave the final exam, a multiple choice questionnaire, to my friend, who happened to be a Jehovah's Witness. If I remember right he got 18 out of 20 "right." Trust me on this: there is no imminent merger coming between the Assemblies of God and the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society!
SNOW: No doubt, you can find differences between Christian denominations, in what we teach, and how we go about worshiping God. However, there is also incredible cooperation, unity on core teachings, and love, trust and tolerance in most areas we disagree about. My best friend in the ministry, for example, happens to be a Southern Baptist minister.
-
Originally posted by Josie+Nov 14 2005, 03:21 PM-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Ray@Nov 14 2005, 03:15 PM
while you can learn something about the beliefs of members of the Church through what we say, you can not learn the truth of the message which is taught in the Church by listening to us. You are simply learning about us and what we have to say, instead of learning about God from what God has to say in the scriptures and through His living prophets.
Points well taken. I have visited lds.org, have access to copies of the standard works, and will certainly consult them in gaining my working knowledge of doctrine. I suppose more of what I learn here is how LDS people translate those teachings into short, conversational nuggets for the occasional off-the-cuff inquiry. Additionally, I get to see how the beliefs translate into every day conversation about other topics. So, this site serves to translate the theology into a everyday living format.Or in other words, I think it's best to study doctrine as it comes directly from God and His prophets, instead of studying people who believe or declare what God has to say, because what should matter most to you is whether or not the doctrine came from God, whether or not anyone else believes it.
:) Okay...balance the official theology with practical, unofficial comments I gain here. Good advice.
And I personally want to thank you for coming to someone that is a member of the church to learn about our beliefs. If I want to learn to do accounting, I am not going to go to a construction worker to teach me, nor am I going to go to someone that I know has just been fired for embezzling from his firm. When you go to someone that has left the church in anger, or someone that is not even a member that is drawing their own conclusions, you are going to get a tainted picture. If I wanted to learn to type I would not go to someone that has never done it before themselves to learn.
People who go to EX-anything for advice are looking for ammunition, not data or authoritative information. -
It's time to let the cat out of the bag!
I believe that God would have ME vote Republican. Lock-step? No. Are there exceptions? Yes. We have a state representative who is intelligent, works hard, and shows great respect for people of faith. I generally vote for him, even though he's Democrat. However, especially for national elections, I nearly always vote Republican. Why? Because Orthodox Jewish Rabbi, Daniel Lapin is right when he says American will rise or fall depending on whether it continues to embrace (or returns to embracing) its Judeo-Christain foundational mores. I want to keep the 10 Commandments posted in public places. Schools should be nuetral, not antagonistic towards religion. Abortion should be illegal in most cases. Intelligent Design should at least get a hearing in something other than a media kangaroo court. Abstinence should be the anchor of any sex education curriculum. Faith-based charities should not be immediately suspect, when it comes to public funding. School vouchers and other charter options would open private, religiously grounded education to more students. In all of these issues, there is one party that clearly agrees with me. Additionally, with the unfortunate extreme polarization into Red and Blue, the Democrats have increasingly taken a hostile stance against religion--especially evangelical Christianity. One party seeks to attract preachers, while the other appeals to Hollywood. I prefer the former.
People of faith vote for Democrats, and they have compelling reasons. But, the question is, What would God have me do? The issues that attract me draw me to the other side of the aisle.
One more point. I do believe that it is wise to find the party that most often rallies for my issues, and to support that party. There is power in working together. The people that are most likely to vote independent are moderates. Even there, the contrast between the GOP and the Democrats is so stark these days, it should not be to hard to commit, at least generally, to the moderate wing of one or the other.
So, there's my bombshell for the day.
P.S. Walmart is a social blessing, IMHO. It offers jobs to unskilled laborers, who are often taking their first job. It also offers low-priced products to people who greatly need to get a lot with a little. Ultimately, those who are so harsh in their criticism of Walmart, are often guilty of elitism. They would never shop there because...hey, they have enough money, so they don't have to.
-
But to say that we condemn anti-mormons to outer darkness is not quite true. First of all, we do not have the right to condemn anyone. That is God's call, not ours. And "outer darkness" as you put it is reserved for a very few.
So much for my trying to make a clever analogy. I did not mean to imply that Mormons condemn anti-Mormons. My suggestion was that the term should be narrowly applied to the truly hostile, much as the outer darkness, in LDS theology, is reserved for a select few who are truly wicked.I think that is one thing that sets Latter-day Saints apart from other faiths. We believe that all born to this earth will be ressurected and received a glorified body and will receive some form of glory after this life, except a very few that will be in this "outer darkness" or "hell". Which I think is a further indication of God's love for his children.
You're absolutely right. This aspect of your theology is attractive to many. It is a marked distinction from most of Christianity, which proclaims "It is appointed on to man once to die, and then the judgment." Ultimately, it's heaven or hell, depending on one's response to the simple Good News of Jesus.On the other hand, Universalism is, in some ways, even more attractive. It says even Hitler goes to heaven. Why? "Can anyone out sin the love of God?"
Of course, attractiveness has nothing to do with truth. What does God really say? I can appreciate nice-sounding doctrines. However, I will only "die to self" for those truths that I am convinced are absolutely from God. Some of those teachings may not be so attractive.
-
Red,
I'd just like to offer a warning by saying that it would not be wise to base your understanding of official Church teachings on anything Snow says, or on anything ApostleKnight says, or even on anything I say, because while we may honestly believe we do know the truth or the teachings as taught by the Church, we may have an incorrect understanding of at least some of the doctrines, and you would then be building your foundation upon what we have said which may not be correct.
Most LDS people are well aware that there are numerous books written by evangelicals about Mormonism. Some of you may have had the unpleasant experience of having a non-Mormon tell you what you believe. You respond, "No I don't." They answer, "Yes you do. I read it in this book. You're problem is that you don't even know what your own church teaches." Were you not angry? Did you not complain that nobody should tell you what you believe? One of my reasons for visiting this site is that I want to understand Mormon beliefs as explained by Mormon lay-people. Granted, I may mishear, and you may offer an incomplete explanation. However, what you say to us guests is far more 'real' than what we may read in some official publications.
So, while Red may do well to compare what he has heard with official Scripture and pronouncements, he also does well to hear, digest and respond to how everyday adherents explain their faith.
-
Originally posted by lisajo+Nov 14 2005, 01:14 AM-->
<!--QuoteBegin-prisonchaplain@Nov 14 2005, 12:11 AM
The Rev. Jerry Falwell once preached a sermon entitled "Why Christians should not be involved in politics." He later repented of his message, and founded the Moral Majority. Religious conservatives avoided politics throughout the civil rights era of the sixtiesand early seventies. The 1972 Roe v. Wade decision was seen as a wake up call, that lead to the formation of the "religious right." Yet, the religious left has never died. There have been renewed calls for Christians to protect the environment, to support worldwide AIDS relief through the One Campaign, to oppose Walmart for it's anti-union and low wages/benefits for workers. What would God have his people do?
You are so deep in thought!
I just have to have my Wal-mart would God not want me to go there? LOL
Thanks for your nice posts
Do not read any leanings into my post. I'll share my thoughts once this string takes off, and my vote is buried in the statistics. My hope is that this particular topic will prove fun and stress relieving. Hey, at a website where most posts are religious, deeply personal, and intensely felt, even politics feels like "just chatting!" -
The Rev. Jerry Falwell once preached a sermon entitled "Why Christians should not be involved in politics." He later repented of his message, and founded the Moral Majority. Religious conservatives avoided politics throughout the civil rights era of the sixtiesand early seventies. The 1972 Roe v. Wade decision was seen as a wake up call, that lead to the formation of the "religious right." Yet, the religious left has never died. There have been renewed calls for Christians to protect the environment, to support worldwide AIDS relief through the One Campaign, to oppose Walmart for it's anti-union and low wages/benefits for workers. What would God have his people do?
-
I voted for none of the above. Understanding that the term "Anti-Mormon" is meant to be negative, in the universe of this website, I would contend that the term should be reserved for those who consistently ridicule, condemn, condescend and stereotype Mormonism and its people. They are hostile, and the come to deliver a message, not to engage.
My definition is intentionally narrow. To use LDS afterlife terminology, anti-Mormons are those destined for the outer darkness.
-
Originally posted by Snow@Nov 13 2005, 10:41 PM
The poster is flat-out wrong here. He confuses Creationism--more specifically Young Earth Creationism--with Intelligent Design.
While Youth Earth Creation is just one type of belief in the larger context of creation theorys, it's fair to say that most people understand Intelligent Design to amount to little more than repackaged creationism, and little more than a ploy to oppose the theory of evolution and naturalistic explanations to life.
Actually, that is what opponents of Intelligent Design argue in their vehement propaganda. Science vs. religion. Don't let the evangelicals turn our schools back over to the dark ages! I'm surprised you've bought into a view that is perpetrated by anti-religious bigots so quickly. -
Martin Luther never intended to form a new church and resisted doing so.
He may not have INITIALLY intended to form a new church. He may have resisted doing so. However, at some point he decided not to comply. So, he ultimately did intend and succeed in forming a new church. Had he believed that, under all circumstances, Christianity must remain a one-denomination faith--that organizational unity bested any qualms about doctrine, corrupt practices, or the other concerns he laid out in his 95 theses, then that 2nd denomination never would have been formed.500 million pentecostals is a gross-exaggeration - it's one of those "lying-for-the-Lord type of things. I am familiar with the sources for such a claim but the number just doesn't stack up.
I believe the source is Barna. I see no need to defend his methods or conclusion, but it is a rather judgmental speculation for you to suggest his organization is lying. Disagree with their methods or conclusions...but beware of claiming to know the hearts of men. I am not even sure that Barna himself is Pentecostal. Additionally, it is an important distinction to note that I said Pentecostal/Charismatic. Keep in mind that many Charismatics are also mainstream Protestant, and some are even Catholics.There are only about 5 to 6 hundred million Protestant is the world, let alone pentecostals.
I've been led to believe that number is closer to one billion. Again, many Charismatics are also Protestant, and some are even Catholic (another billion person pool there).There's lots of sources. Check them out, here's one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism..._of_Protestants
I'm not interested in debating who's sources are more accurate. The overall point would be the same if the number were 100 million.Doctrines have changed drastically - say from 8th century Germany to 21st century New York, but what I think is more important is from the 1st century till today - that change is even more dramatic.
Essential doctrines have remained incredibly consistent. Who is God? Holy Trinity. The canon of Scripture remained consistent for over 1000 years. Around 1500 the Catholic church canonized some intertestamental books that Protestants have never recognized. Other than that, the Scriptures have remained the same. Of course, there have been different takes on the exactly how the end times will play out, when to water baptize, etc. However, it is remarkable just how much unity and cooperation there is amongst Christian denomination. Our bookstores now sell both Protestant and Catholic materials. Groups like Promise Keepers enjoy cooperation from a wide spectrum of churches. There is great cooperation on social issues such as abortion.
Bottom-line: Yes, your disagreements may have some merit. However, my essential points remain true.
-
Originally posted by DisRuptive1@Nov 13 2005, 08:04 PM
Ex Nihilo?
Just because we're LDS doesn't mean that we're automatically granted the gift of tongues.
Yes, but I've been led to believe that most LDS could look at a foreign word, and notice that right afterwards, the definition follows "or out of nothing." -
Originally posted by Ari@Nov 13 2005, 04:45 PM
For those who voted in Today's Music poll, I would be curious to hear your views.
There is plenty of Scripture that tells us to think on things that are good, lovely, etc. To "take captive our imaginations." In ancient computer lingo, GIGO--Garbage In Garbage Out. Our local contemporary Christian music station bills itself as "family friendly radio...where you don't have to worry about inappropriate lyrics or advertising." My guess is that even many nonChristian parents tune in so they are not embarrassed by what they kids may here.
When my children are old enough to make their own choices they will. However, so long as I have a say, I hope to steer them towards music that is godly and wholesome.
-
On the gospel discussion board, a post about Intelligent Design diverted into a discussion about what a cult is. While the diversion topic is interesting, I found the original topic equally fascinating, and wanted to introduce it as a poll. Did God create the world? If so, did he use evolution? Is it possible for the creation story of Genesis to be literal, and yet ultimately mesh with science?
-
Originally posted by lisajo@Nov 11 2005, 10:34 PM
I find it hard that they can teach evolution in school but not the christian view....But yet my son came home and told me about the chapter in his history book about mormons and how we are a cult.....I checked it out and it was true....the princaple at the school just said it was history...........ah no it wasn't mormon history i knew!
Looks like your post took over the "evolution vs. I.D debate."
The word "cult" can simply mean group. Context determines whether the term is pejorative or not. Examples:
1. Evangelical Christians usually use "cult" to mean heterodox--not confirming to historic Christian teachings. As a simple example, those who believe the canon of Scripture was closed with the book of Revelation, would obviously consider the LDS faith to be outside the parameters of accepted doctrine, and therefore a cult.
2. Sociologists use the term "cult" to indicate a group that has excessive control over an individual. Such a label can be very subjective, with a government branch in France even highlighting mainstream Pentecostal groups as guilty of "mind control" techniques.
In either of these two cases, it is beyond surprising that a public school textbook or other assigned reading would label any legal religious organization as a cult. If, by cult, it simply met "group," then the term is too vague to be meaningful. I once had an English teacher hope to get a rise out of us Christians by speaking of the "creation myth." Fortunately, we knew that in literature myth means non-historic story. She was very disappointed that none of us reacted.
-
Originally posted by Traveler@Nov 11 2005, 10:19 PM
Currently we are hearing a lot about the concept of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution. I think it is important to understand the two concepts being presented and the differences between the two.
First off allow me to summerize evolution. ... Evolution is observable in every life form that exist. It is extremely well documented. There is not a real scientist today that does not believe evolution is a fact of life. Evolution is a proven and tested process. The theory of evolution is that all life is linked by this creative process, therefore all life is related to all other life through an ancient common source.
I'm not going to pretend to know much about evolution. However, like most scientific theories, the grand scheme idea with its attempt to explain the origins of the universe and of life on earth, is a theory--not a fact.A couple of areas of controversy: Macroevolution. It's one thing to say that species change--adapting to their environment. That's microevolution, and, it's true, no credible scientist questions that this happens. However, can these mutations result in a species becoming a different species? Can ape really become human, for example? Keep in mind, that mutations usually cause declines, not advances. The other controversy is the age of the earth and the universe. In order for random, non-causal evolution to hold true the world must be extremely old. Is it? Most scientists says yes. Some, mostly "young earth creationists" argue that it could actually be tens of thousands of years old, instead of billions.
Bottom-line: Roughly 90% of scientists do buy into the theory of Evolution, excepting that some would argue that God is the author of evolution. This is known as Theistic Evolution.
Intelligent design is a theory put forth by religionist that oppose the concept of evolution. In reality it is exactly the concept coming out of the Dark Ages that asserts that G-d created every creature as a new life form from dead matter or from nothing at all. That all creation took place about 6,000 years ago and outside of G-d’s initial creation there is no new “kinds” or variations of living types. This supposition is based on interpretations of biblical scripture. ... The proponents of intelligent design will not accept the possibility that G-d altered DNA and genome as a possibility of creation. They do not believe G-d could or would make one thing from another. In every way intelligent design appears to be the static concepts of life that science rejects. But they also want this theory taught to every other religion as the only alternative to evolution as a complete result of random G-dless chance. Personally I don’t buy it and I see no reason to advance the concept. Nor do I believe that any scientific advancement has resulted from such backward thinking.
The poster is flat-out wrong here. He confuses Creationism--more specifically Young Earth Creationism--with Intelligent Design.Intelligent Design is a much more humble approach to the controversy over orgins. It suggests that Darwin's Evolution--including the notion that the universe developed purely by random selection, has some serious gaps that current science cannot account for. ID then opines that the existence of an Intelligent Designer, First Cause, or yes, God, could rationally explain those gaps.
ID does not insist upon a young earth, does not require membership in the Christian Coalition, does not denounce or denigrate scientific inquiry, and certainly does not posit a theological statement of faith.
I'm not competent to debate what is really an Intelligent Designer vs. Random Selection dichotomy, but it seems interesting to me that most people find their reflections on eternity and the existence of God multiply exponentionally when they are camping or otherwise immersed in nature.
The Traveler
-
THe problem is Chaplin that it's not a holiday that needs to be redeemed. All the evil and dark attributed to it came from christians trying to convert people away from the pagan faith. The true meaning of the original holiday was as a new year celebration and honoring the dead.
It's non Christian because it was never christian to begin with. It's like telling people that they need to find a reason to redeem ramadan or hanukkah. Why does it have to be anything but what it was meant to be?
The whole reason for this string is that Halloween is a widely-celebrated holiday in this part of the world. Yet, 99%+ of the participants are not Pagan. They do not celebrate the original meanings. So, believers have to look at the current understandings and say, "Can I, in good conscience, partake in this?" I've posted the most common answers previously.Why is Halloween more of a conversation topic than Ramadan or Hanukkah? Those holidays are strictly religious, and have not been secularized, popularized, or generalized. We don't 'redeem' the holidays of other religions, because there is no popular interaction with them. Halloween is different. The original meanings are lost on most Americans. Also, for Christians, paganism is not the pathway to God. So, it makes sense that we would do nothing to revive interest or encourage involvement.
Once again, I come out of hiding. This time, I'm forced to respond to my own post, because the one NO vote only offered a reference to another website. So, here's my rebuttal against the NO:
Those elitist liberal intellectual types were probably thinking, "How do we convince Red State America to stop frequenting these stores? We'll rehash the Red Scare. Those idiots will fall for it." NEWS FLASH: Ideological communism fell with the Berlin Wall. Yes socialism and dictatorships still prevail, but there is no international "workers of the world unit to overthrow bougeasie capitalism" conspiracy left to fight. 
Rather than respond here, buried in the midst of a string that is waning, I've started a new poll. Should Christians patronize Walmart? So, here's the blatant promotional plug (hey, I'm an evangelical...I can't help it!): Visit my new poll, and let's see if the Walmart controversy will stir things up.
Actually the topic of LDS status in the broader Christian world was not part of the thread. 
Oh well, since you brought it up. Barna says that 34% of LDS adherents who answered theological questions for his survey, did so in a manner that most evangelicals define as "born again." I find that interesting.
People who go to EX-anything for advice are looking for ammunition, not data or authoritative information.
Yes, but I've been led to believe that most LDS could look at a foreign word, and notice that right afterwards, the definition follows "or out of nothing."
Authority
in General Discussion
Posted
I understand what the figures represent and that makes my point all the more compelling. The "body of Christ" (so to speak) is not a collection of written documents but rather the collective beliefs, attitudes and behaviors of the adherents.
Where you see unity I see fracture and disagreement. Take a doctrine as fundmental as salvation, consider Evangelical beliefs vs Catholic beliefs vs Strict Calvinistic beliefs.
Salvation for Evangelicals and Calvinists is through faith in Jesus Christ and confession of sins. I believe that Catholics would possibly add that one must be water baptised. I know that there are different explanations as to how much of the salvation experience is dependent on God's will vs. our will, and what role other church sacraments have in the Christian life. But the bottom-line differences aren't as great as you suppose. Once again, this is why we have Catholics sometimes participating in Billy Graham crusades, Promise Keepers, etc. It's also why the Catholic church taps our theologians for discussions about what is going on with the Charismatic renewal--in the Catholic church! "Hey you guys--tell us what our people are doing!" Great stuff!
What unity there is now, and I think it large compared to your small, is a relatively recent development.
I'll grant you that Christian maturity, and seeing passed nonessentials differences for the sake of the kingdom, is a blessing that has come fairly recently. Don't you reckon that God is pleased?
←