Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
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.
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.
I think it more closely parallels crossing yourself with holy water when you enter church. A reminder of your baptism.
Imagine the odds. :-)
True enough, if one accepts the validity of the report.
Oh, "IMRight" doesn't mean that nobody else is right. Other people are allowed to be right too...
Like when they agree with me.
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.
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.
Yes, like I said. The arbiter is whether you believe it or not, not any objective criteria.
SD
So to you the bible SHOULD read "All but babies have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"?
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.
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
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)
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
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.