prisonchaplain

One trick I use is to discern the overall meaning of a post.  If I get caught up in particular phrases, or single sentences, I may find a weakness I can exploit.  However, will I persuade or influence?  Doubtful.  Instead, at minimum I will appear a winner, but offend the very one I'm trying to win over.  Sure, I beat them at the battle of words.  But I lost any hope at influence.  Worse, I failed to do any learning or teaching.  Far better to ask myself:  What did s/he mean?  What was the main idea?  How are they understanding me?  Have I communicated clearly and respectfully?

I am quite happy and content.  This doesn't mean my life is perfect.  It just means I feel truly blessed by all God has done for me and given me. We aren't rich.  Our home is small.  Our cars are old.  I am frequently sick, thanks to lupus.  But, I have a husband who loves me, wonderful children (two grown, one almost grown) a darling doggy, good friends, peace in our home and most of all the complete assurance of God's love for me as an individual.

This is why you "win" the most civil award. :)
 
I find myself ashamed. I am so often caught up in winning with words. Thank you for the advice.

One trick I use is to discern the overall meaning of a post.  If I get caught up in particular phrases, or single sentences, I may find a weakness I can exploit.  However, will I persuade or influence?  Doubtful.  Instead, at minimum I will appear a winner, but offend the very one I'm trying to win over.  Sure, I beat them at the battle of words.  But I lost any hope at influence.  Worse, I failed to do any learning or teaching.  Far better to ask myself:  What did s/he mean?  What was the main idea?  How are they understanding me?  Have I communicated clearly and respectfully?

"Genocidal" may be too strong.  However, their litany of alleged crimes against them is lengthy.  The article I read lamented that government leaders regularly compare them (LBGT) with pedophiles.  That same writer said he fears that even a meaningless glance he might make could be misconstrued, leading to an angry--possibly violent--encounter. Additionaly, they are quick to tie the rhetoric of some ministers with acts of violence and murder committed against them.  Bottom-line:  traditional marriage advocates are like the KKK to them.  We are in the wrong and must be re-educated. 
 
My concern then--what is the agenda now?

What concerns me is the number of articles doubling-down on the Mozilla approach.  Boundaries are being drawn.  The most adament of the LBGTQI folk have come to believe that they were/are an oppressed minority, and that those who disagree with them are genocidal.  Thus, they may indeed call for tolerance and accommodation, while affording no mercy to traditional marriage advocates.  They see no hypocrisy, because they are defending a weak minority.  The evil bully majority deserves no support.  They must be isolated, astrocized, and even 'disappeared.'  I've seen this argued. 
 
Lord Acton was right.  Power does corrupt.

You are the paramount example of civility in these forums PC. 

Anatess is so right.  We assume way to much on these forums.  Sometimes, strings degenerate when one phrase, often meant as an introductory transition into the subject, gets taken out of context, and debated.  So, I try to keep the main thing the main thing, and yes, to assume that posters mean well.  When I'm pretty sure they do not, I tend to disengage.

The Folk Prophet may have stumbled upon an aspect of what happens after conversion that even Evangelicals disagree about:  the possibility of "falling from grace."  If the grace we receive is 100% Christ-dependent than can we lose it, neglect it, or otherwise let go of the salvation it brings?  Some--myself included--say that yes, it is possible.  We can give it up.  We can neglect it to the point of losing it.  We can reject it in favor of sin.  We can even renounce our grace and our salvation.  Our position begins to look similar to the LDS view, then.  The one aspect I would strain at is that Evangelicals argue that the one who obeys the Lord in baptism is doing so as one who is already saved.  The Christian who "endures to the end," was saved the entire time.  He doesn't gain assurance of his salvation at the end.  He's had it all along the way.  The good works are signals of a salvation already gained, not some kind of installment payments that assure that I get the salvation when the mortgage is paid off.
 
I just caught the last post The Folk Prophet published, and want to add that he captures the dilemma quite well.  LDS strive to please God even as they are repenting.  We Evangelicals (and Protestants in general) believe there is no pleasing God until we first repent.  We come empty-handed.  We don't dare try to bring anything that would appear to lessen the reality of our sin.  The agency is in choosing to repent.  Once converted, what will we do for God.  30-fold?  60-fold?  100-fold?  That too is agency.  Those of us who do believe salvation can be lost would add that, whether through renunciation or neglect, the giving up of salvation is also agency.  Without love, and without the direction, approval and yes empowerment of the Holy Spirit, our good works, even after conversion, won't amount to much.  The greatest work is sincerely walking with God--doing his thing in his way and in his time.

The Folk Prophet may have stumbled upon an aspect of what happens after conversion that even Evangelicals disagree about:  the possibility of "falling from grace."  If the grace we receive is 100% Christ-dependent than can we lose it, neglect it, or otherwise let go of the salvation it brings?  Some--myself included--say that yes, it is possible.  We can give it up.  We can neglect it to the point of losing it.  We can reject it in favor of sin.  We can even renounce our grace and our salvation.  Our position begins to look similar to the LDS view, then.  The one aspect I would strain at is that Evangelicals argue that the one who obeys the Lord in baptism is doing so as one who is already saved.  The Christian who "endures to the end," was saved the entire time.  He doesn't gain assurance of his salvation at the end.  He's had it all along the way.  The good works are signals of a salvation already gained, not some kind of installment payments that assure that I get the salvation when the mortgage is paid off.
 
I just caught the last post The Folk Prophet published, and want to add that he captures the dilemma quite well.  LDS strive to please God even as they are repenting.  We Evangelicals (and Protestants in general) believe there is no pleasing God until we first repent.  We come empty-handed.  We don't dare try to bring anything that would appear to lessen the reality of our sin.  The agency is in choosing to repent.  Once converted, what will we do for God.  30-fold?  60-fold?  100-fold?  That too is agency.  Those of us who do believe salvation can be lost would add that, whether through renunciation or neglect, the giving up of salvation is also agency.  Without love, and without the direction, approval and yes empowerment of the Holy Spirit, our good works, even after conversion, won't amount to much.  The greatest work is sincerely walking with God--doing his thing in his way and in his time.

BTW...the chicken was first. 
 
 

Great questions Mordorbund.  First, James1's use of "religion" as a negative (or nuetral) term--one not sufficient to describe how he relates to God--is different from the larger culture's aversion to organized religion.  Probably since the "Jesus People" movement of the 1960s-70s, Evangelical Christians have used "religion" as a contrast to what is really needed to reconcile with God.  "Religion" came to mean rules/regulations/rituals etc. that people do to appease God and earn salvation.  In contrast, as the Billy Graham invitational hymn says, we come "Just as I am, without one plea, but that Thy blood was shed for me."  It is a humble, repentent approach to God that brings salvation.  "God forgive me...a sinner...because of Jesus' crucifixion."
 
The larger culture took the spirit of that approach, combined it with the anti-establishment mood of the time, and started touting phrases like, "I'm not religious--I'm spiritual."  "I believe in 'God,' but I'm not into organized religion."  So, I'll say the Lord's Prayer, read the Psalms, wear a crucifix, put a Buddha statue in my living room, and I'll take the Book of Mormon the missionaries offered me and put it on the shelf next to my box of crystals.  BTW, isn't my pyramid poster cool?
 
20 years ago we worried about losing our men--today it's our young.  Promise Keepers was the largest manifestation of Evangelical efforts to make Christianity relevent to men.  Today, we see many of the larger Evangelical churches led by pastors in the mid-40s, trying desperately to look and act like their in their late 20s. 
 
None of this is necessarily bad.  However, we'd waste less effort if we simply sought the direction and moving of the Holy Spirit, and stuck to preaching/teaching 'the whole counsel of God' (i.e. more than just a few pet 'success passages').
 
I agree with James1 completely--salvation comes only through humble, repentence, and faith in Jesus' sacrifice for my sins.  I cannot prepare for my salvation-encounter by cleaning up, or beefing up my good works account.  In fact, attempting to do so is a sign that I don't get it.
 
On the other hand, once saved good works must needs follow.  Our fervent protection of salvation by faith alone can cause us to err, once we are saved.  We hesitate to do/promote good works, for fear of weakening the salvation doctrine.  The result is that converts don't know what to do next.  How do I mature?  How do I become strong?  How do I go from receiving salvation to becoming a messenger of it for the lost?  We have the answers.  They are the disciplines:  prayer, fasting, Bible study, meditation, sharing our faith in word and deed, etc.  Even as we engage in these activities, we know that it is faith and reliance on the Holy Spirit that brings blessing and success.  Nevertheless, I must cooperate with the Spirit. 
 
Works don't save, yet we honor those who engage in the greatest work of all--martyrdom.  More than once Revelation gives them special recognition.  Some Bible teachers even suggest that it is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
 
So, it's all about faith and grace in getting saved.  Further, it's faith, grace, and Holy Spirit anointing that cause our works--our disciplines--to be effective.  Yet, we are indeed to be about the Father's business.
 
Hope this helps!

Let's see if I can move this discussion along with some of understandings I've gained over the years.  Feel free to agree, disagree, fine tune a nuance, etc.
 
1.  Protestant Christians--especially Martin Luther--tend to insist that salvation (i.e. going to heaven and avoiding hell) is only possible through faith in Jesus Christ.  Our works are "filthy rags," according to Isaiah.  This tenent is so strongly held that if one claims to be a Christian and suggests that his/her good works had any part in appeasing God and earning salvation, we tend to view that person as a heretic.  Indeed most of us would wonder if such a one could be labeled a Christian.
 
2.  Many LDS have said to me that salvation is indeed by grace alone, through Jesus Christ.  However, that salvation is from the outer darkness, or hell.  It gains one entry into the Heavenly Realms--either the Telestial or Terrestial Kingdoms.  I've been led to believe that faith in Jesus is not required to enter these realms.  That faithful followers of almost any religion could enter the 2nd kingdom, and even some fairly immoral people could enter the 3rd one.  It may be that there would have to be some growth in faith in Christ, but that such faith could be gained after death.
 
3.  Protestants--and especially Evangelicals--and LDS tend to talk past each other on this faith/works discussion, because we have such different views of heaven, hell, and the actual meaning of salvation. 
 
4.  LDS believe that entry into the highest heavenly realm (Celestial Kingdom) requires certain levels of faithfulness and obedience.  Further, exaltation, at the highest levels of that realm, comes only after even greater "endurance to the end."
 
5.  In fairness, many Christians of various denominations would accept the idea that within Heaven there may be some who earn special honors for their sacrifices and faithfulness.

I think once anyone starts to recognize sin and it's seriousness (and have any desire to return to God) I think there will always be fear at some point.

Hey! My religion is much more absurd than yours!!!
Wait! Uh...errr...never mind.

I thought the same thing. However according to the article below, this time everything to be known is known. It really is a matter of the hospital disagreed with the diagnosis the parents brought the child in for, knew they would resist the new diagnosis, and so filed a medical negligence charge with Child Protective Services. This article also points out that 80% of anonymous reports received by CPS prove unsubstantiated. 4 out of 5 families they visit are found with no actionable abuse. Nevertheless, those 4 families now have the cloud of accusation hanging over their head. Too many think, \"Where there is smoke there is fire.\"
It also appears that the judge decided to take away custody BECAUSE the parents challenged his gag order. He more or less said, \"Fine, it was unConstitutional. But now I\'ll find against you because you interfered with the placement process by violating my gag order.
My head was exploding more and more as I read the article!
http://articles.courant.com/2014-04-02/health/hc-pelletier-rulling-response-20140402_1_justina-boston-children-linda-pelletier