Actually, His4Ever did show a more human side, in this thread anyway. We also exchanged a few civilized and pleasant e-mails, but then she went back to posting verses condemning various and sundry without backing up her statements. What made matters worse on my end is I came back from a religious retreat with faith which was a bit more wobbly in its details than when I went in and a spiritual crisis which has not been fully resolved yet.
I wish this hadn’t happened the way it has, but right now I need a new church. I get the impression that even if this thread hadn’t happened, I still wouldn’t be welcome in His4Ever’s.
Mangetout, I think you have an excellent idea there, I hope it comes to fruition.
His4ever (and lel, I suppose), I followed that link to the page where the guy gives the “balanced view” of God, where he explains that God is not all love and mercy, but can also a wrathful, vengeful hothead when the situation dictates.
My response to that is: Then what makes God any different than me? If God can lose his temper, go apeshit and smite/comdemn people for petty reasons, then isn’t he just some dude who happens to be all-powerful? I can’t imagine worshipping some random dude. I’m some random dude. It would be like worshipping myself. Actually, maybe that’s not a bad idea, but I digress.
I guess I tend to think of deity in the abstract. I think it should be more than a story or a legal code, it should be everything and encompass everything. Tall Tales of the Israelites just seems so, I dunno, small. That God just seems too much like the authority figure human beings would dream up for themselves if they had a society and wanted to give legitimacy to their customs and mores. How conveeeenient.
cjhoworth, something you said a few posts ago alarms me a little. What’s this about His4ever “driv[ing] you away… from life itself”? Are you feeling less than completely safe right now?
My God, lel, I’ve wondered the same thing. I still can’t get rid of that image of God throwing me into a lake of fire after a lifetime of indoctrination. Because I can’t seem to believe with the same type of blind devotion that my parents do. I just have too many questions.
To those who tell me that H4E’s way is the only way, I ask, why did God make me so screwed up that I can’t believe it (and I’ve spent 20 years trying).
cuauhtemoc, it’s ok. I’ll be at my therapist’s in about an hour and half for a routine appointment. I’ve been dealing with depression for over 20 years from now, and so I’ve got a lot of practice. I’m just used to having a priest available as back up.
ouisey , (and lel ),
The idea of predestination is very complex, and even after growing up in a denomination that teaches it, it is still somewhat of a mystery to me. It was actually explained to me as a paradox. (predestination vs. free will). But I do know that the idea of predestination is not explained as a way for God to deny access to Himself. I can actually see it as a comfort, as in God chose you before you even knew Him. His Grace is there for you, but he will never force people to turn to Him. God does not deny Himself to those that seek Him.
“Ask and it shall be given, Seek and you shall find, Knock and the door will be opened to you.”
God won’t turn you away because you’re “not in the predestination club”, so to speak. I understand your questions, though, I have gone through the same thing, and sometimes still wonder if I am interpreting the Bible correctly, or am completely deluding myself. I just have to trust the way God reveals Himself to me, but I am always open to new interpretations. I think we are meant to grow in our faith and not hit a plateau, like “well, this the the way things are, the end.” I think it is good that you ask more questions than your parents, it shows an active desire to know more about God. If you want to get to know someone, you ask them questions yourself, you don’t read a book about them and assume that’s all there is to know.
I know I’m entering this thread late, but I finally had time to read it all, and I’m so impressed and challenged by so many people here.
I did a paper about baptism in college with a partner who grew up in a denomination who baptised adults, while I am from a denomination who baptises infants, and has a ceremony of “Profession of Faith” as an adult. After lengthy research and discussion, we came to the conclusion that there is not much difference in the ideas behind each, it’s just that the ceremony with water happens at different times. The public ceremony of accepting Christ as an adult in each case is very similar, with the reasons behind each ceremony also very similar. It really comes down to a small nit-pick over when the water is applied. Denominations that baptise infants emphasize God’s choosing us before we even know him, and God’s commitment to us, and it is also a replacement of the circumcision ceremony. Denominations that baptise adults emphasize our new life in Christ, and follow the example of adult baptisms done by Jesus and the apostles. Both symbolize God’s forgiveness.
A good case can be made for each, IMO, and both denominations do have some type of ceremonies for both infants and adults.
It was an interesting paper to work on.
Velma, sounds like you were dealing with a Protestant-baptize-as-infants scenario. A more challenging one to reconcile with the fundies’ baptism practices would be Catholic baptism, which is an actual sacrament that confers Grace and has saving power in the action itself, which literally washes away sin, and is not just figurative. This is also the position on Baptism held by the Orthodox, and, I believe, Anglicans (meaning, between the three churches, the vast majority of the world’s Christians believe this form of baptism, which is diametrically opposed to the point of view of Protestant fundamentalists, whose baptisms are just getting wet, convey no grace or spiritual redemption and are done at a much later age).
Ironically, I believe H4E is a member of the Church of Christ, which, unique among Protestants AFAIK, believes in baptismal regeneration. The CofC is quite close to the Catholics on many issues, though they’d never admit it.
I love the idea of a civilized, rational debate between differing Christians. True-blue Scriptural Inerrantists probably will not play, though. From the website linked to by H4E on page 2 of this thread:
See? For these people, this sort of belief about the Bible is (literally) the Number One requirement. All the reason and evidence in the world will not convince a person with this belief that (say) Noah’s Flood did not happen exactly as described in the Bible. The first requirement of the faith is to believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. All that stuff about loving God and your neighbor seems to be secondary.
That’s true, Kirk. It would be interesting to discuss Baptism with someone who believes in baptismal regeneration. I wasn’t aware that so many denominations believed this.
Another idea I would like to see discussed is the idea of the rapture, or more generally, the end times. What different interpretations Christians have of how it’s all going to end, i.e. will there be a literal 7 years tribulation, Judgement day, etc. or even a rapture at all.
Belief in that a Raputure nonsense is pretty much an American thing, tied into our homegrown fundie death cults. It is totally incompatible with Catholicism, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, Orthodoxy or any other major branch of Christianity that arose prior to the 1800s.
The historical Christian churches have almost always been strictly amillenial, looking askance at anyone who tries to take the book of Revelation (which isn’t even about the future) as a map of the end of the world. I can’t imagine any church or denomination doesn’t believe in a Judgement Day of some sort.
Errrr, not quite Kirk… Eschatology (any religious doctrine that has to do with death, judgment, heaven and hell - especially in connection to ‘end time’ scenarios) has its origins in the Zoroastrian belief system and Jewish tradition - both well predating JC. Jewish eschatology remains complex and not as clearly ‘end time’ oriented as Christian. Christian doctrine has always heavily embraced eschatology due to Christ’s prophesied second coming and the whole judgment day belief. In the first millennium CE it created some problems of the ‘death cult type.’ To do away with it once and for all the Catholic Church adopted an interpretation of apocalyptic texts that relegated St. John et al to a purely symbolic place in the liturgy. In fact the Catholic Church maintains that “the thousand year kingdom” has started and that the struggle is ongoing, just that we do not know when the second coming, rapture and judgment day will be. It is strictly frowned upon in the Catholic Church to do any predictions as pertains to this.
The event of Protestantism in the 16th century turned all that upside down by decentralizing interpretation of scripture. All Protestant liturgy (both in the US and elsewhere) is more open to eschatological belief than Catholicism since the millenium is not yet here according to Protestant belief. It is for instance probable that Luther and Calvin themselves where millenarists of a sort. The differences in how millennial Protestant belief is will vary, while for instance Lutheranism is pretty lax about the whole thing the Pentecostals are pretty outspoken in their belief of ‘kingdom come’, but like most sensible people refrain from setting dates. A variety of Protestant sects all over the world are far more outspoken. It is undoubtedly so that some of the wackier ones (read the Millerites type sects) were and are of US origin, but I suspect that in percentages of Protestants you will find that the phenomena is pretty evenly spread across the Christian world. Also note that Islam too has some pockets of strong eschatological belief, but the Koran lends itself badly to such interpretation in an ‘end time’ context.
Horse apples. The thread title is based on my experience on this board with those members of the Church of the Nine Commandments (that’s a SDMB term). I don’t see any arrogance here other than your haughtiness.
I’m sure you don’t. When you Know the Facts, (as you do) then there is certainly nothing arrogant about stating them. If others have a different belief, it is not your fault that they choose deliberately to be deluded. You are not arrogant. You are just Correct, aren’t you Monty?
I don’t get it, either, vanilla. Apparently, Princhester got all bent out of shape because I’m using a word in American English, the way American English uses that word. Since I’m in America and haven’t been to Australia since 1988, I’m totally unconcerned with how that word’s used in Australia. At least that’s my guess on what’s gotten his goat.
Whenever I confront you, you don’t meet the substance of my argument. First you describe me as deluded, and then you sink down to the lamest option available to a poster who has arguments left, and accuse me of being a troll.
Uh, need to put in a word here. If baptismal regeneration means what I think it does, no I don’t believe in it. Being baptized doesn’t save anyone. It’s a symbol of what’s already taken place in the heart: acceptance of Christ into the heart as Saviour. There’s no saving power in being dunked in the water. We do it in obedience to the Lord. I wasn’t saved when I was baptized (tho I didn’t realize it at the time). I got saved when I was about 20. A person can be baptized yet not be saved. I know because that was the case with me. They go in a dry lost person and come up a wet lost person. If baptismal regeneration means something else, please tell me.
I am not starting an argument here H4E, it’s just that I thought 1- you were of the Church of Christ and 2 - that CoC taught that baptism (by immersion) is essential for salvation.
