The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles)

Associated Press ^ | 3/24/01

[IMRight]

Oh I agree with you. I'm just discussing levels of theological disagreement. If they refer to infant baptism then this is one more piece of evidence from the early church for infant baptism. Some of my favorite defenses for the doctrine are the early heretics. Some were debunked by saying "if what you say is true, then you wouldn't baptize babies (which we all know to be correct), therefore you are in error". I thought this might be another example.

If the priest who baptized you was in some way unfaithfull (examples abound today)... I can at least see why human logic would cause someone to question the validity of the sacrament. This fails to recognize Who it is who takes the oath, but is at least understandable. Neither theology is correct, but one is more interesting than the other. I can see mis-informed cafeteria Catholics having the same problem.

[malakhi]

Didn't know there really were such people. You sure it isn't a poor translation of "bathing" daily?

They are an interesting group. They are not Christian -- they don't hold a trinitarian belief. Rather, they trace their founding to John the Baptist. They are monotheist but are not Muslim. They may have an historical connection to the Ebionites. There are doctrinal similarities between the Mandaeans/Sabaeans and the Qumran community described in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The theory is that after the destruction of the community along the temple at the hands of the Romans in 70 C.E., these groups dispersed eastward. It is believed that they, along with Judaism and Christianity, had an influence upon the religious views of Mohammad. They still exist today, primarily along the Euphrates River in Iraq, but also in scattered communities elsewhere.

[malakhi]

One might as well confess to a priest and get absolution. It's the same type of "let's wipe the slate clean and start over" thing.

I think it more closely parallels crossing yourself with holy water when you enter church. A reminder of your baptism.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Oh I agree with you.

Imagine the odds. :-)

[malakhi]

but it doesn't leave the door opened about whether or not the ressurectioned happened.

True enough, if one accepts the validity of the report.

[IMRight]

Imagine the odds. :-)

Oh, "IMRight" doesn't mean that nobody else is right. Other people are allowed to be right too...

Like when they agree with me.

[IMRight]

I've read of them, though I had always heard them refered to as just "modern day follower of John the Baptist".

I can't imagine there are too many of them in Iraq today. Kinda like that small Jewism community in Baghdad that stretched back to the Babylonian captivity. I think the report talked about 2-3 dozen survivors with one in her 30's, but most unlikely to survive the next several years.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

But the exact same type of "similarities" in Mary to pagan myths is evidence, to you, of compromise and influence.

No. Not the exact type of similarities. Pagan ressurections are myth, Jesus' isn't. In Mary's case Diana's perpetual virginity is a myth and so is Mary's.

[IMRight]

No. Not the exact type of similarities. Pagan ressurections are myth, Jesus' isn't. In Mary's case Diana's perpetual virginity is a myth and so is Mary's.

Diana's original virginity is a myth... was Mary's?
Diana was a myth... Was Mary?

It's a self defeating argument.

[SoothingDave]

No. Not the exact type of similarities.

Yes, like I said. The arbiter is whether you believe it or not, not any objective criteria.

SD

[RobbyS]

You assume that the Scripture has to be read literally. It does not.

[RobbyS]

Goes back to the notion of myth as explanation. Much of modern science is mythological.

[RobbyS]

Very good.

[OLD REGGIE]

Reggie, what sin has a newborn baby committed?

I dunno. Wouldn't it be at least a venial sin if you pooped and peed in public?

[RobbyS]

Didn't St. Augustine look at an angry baby as the epitome of an unbridled will?

[biblewonk]

At least you guys are consistent. I am wondering how you look at a newborn baby and see a sinner, but you don't do that do you?

So to you the bible SHOULD read "All but babies have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"?

[Havoc]

No, dear friend, like I said, at Mary's conception she was saved. She never sinned at all. Please try to learn a thing or two about the Catholic faith sometime before you die. You might be surprised. Put down the comic books.

Impossible. One has to be flesh and have some clue to what they are agreeing in order to choose a master. It's as though you're asking a baby whether he wants a bicycle or a Harley Davidson for his sixteenth birthday while the kid is dividing into it's second cell. There is no point of reference. There is no end to what you will try to reason out that both violates God's law and is not only not in scripture;but, anti-scriptural. And I am keeping up. You're trying to sell us on the notion that God can willy nilly forgive sin and remove a servant from their master with no repercussion. You are clueless. I will ask again. If God did it for Mary, why did we need Jesus. Why couldn't he have just done that for everyone instead of running the coy game.

Who said He couldn't? Talk about tying God's hands. LOL

Scripture - God's own testimony, ties God's hands. You act like life is just one big free-for-all and that there are no bounds for anyone or anything. Like the universe can just turn on it's head because you can reason it so. It's no wonder. You pick and choose the Apostles' statements and contest anything you don't like - even to the extent of contesting Christ himself. Why should we imagine you doing anything else. You have all the traits of the enemy and attempt to pass yourself off as righteous. Anything goes.. Not with the Lord God of Hosts. There are defined limits and requirements to salvation. And he says any attempt to skate in around it is robbery and will fail. That's not limiting God to time, that's you playing philosophy games and trying to reason out what seams right to you. Hope you like high heat.

[SoothingDave]

Wouldn't it be at least a venial sin if you pooped and peed in public?

If I do, yes. If a baby does, no.

Likewise, if I run around naked it is different than if my daughter does.

Perhaps you missed my discussion with Mack. I do not believe sin is something a person can commit until they are capable of understanding what they are doing is wrong, and then are capable of being punished.

A small child is neither capable of doing "wrong" nor of even udnerstanding the concept of "wrong." So I don't see how they can sin.

And, like I said, it is not always objective. If I rip up your paycheck, I have harmed you deliberately. That is sin. If Sarah does it without knowing it is wrong, she has not sinned.

SD

[malakhi]

is my light and my salvation;
whom shall I fear? (Psalm 27:1)

For God alone my soul waits in silence;
from him comes my salvation.
He only is my rock and my salvation,
my fortress; I shall not be greatly moved.
For God alone my soul waits in silence,
for my hope is from him.
He only is my rock and my salvation,
my fortress; I shall not be shaken. (Psalm 62: 1-2,5-6)

Our God is a God of salvation;
and to GOD, , belongs escape from death. (Psalm 68:20)

is my strength and my song;
he has become my salvation. (Psalm 118:14)

Behold, God is my salvation;
I will trust, and will not be afraid;
for is my strength and my song,
and he has become my salvation." (Isaiah 12:2)

But Israel is saved by
with everlasting salvation;
you shall not be put to shame or confounded
to all eternity. (Isaiah 45:17)

All of these are in the present tense, not looking forward to the future. Do you understand "salvation" to mean something different than what the gospel describes? If not, how can those who trust in the LORD not be saved? Did God change His conditions? Do His promises to Israel no longer stand?

And he believed ; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness. (Isaiah 15:6)

[SoothingDave]

So to you the bible SHOULD read "All but babies have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"?

No. My beef is not with the Bible, rather with some of its readers. The Bible should be understood within the context of human language and experience.

It should go without saying that "all have sinned" is not an absolute statement, but is meant to exclude certain peoples.

Once we have established that it puts forth a general thought and not an absolute one, then we can move on to discussing what natural exceptions should be made.

SD