Survey: Americans switching faiths, dropping out

[Ciel]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Can a person absolve themselves from sin? No.

Thomas

I see this otherwise Thomas.

A person who sees the wrong in themselves and then moves with rightful intention to make amends is a continuous absolvement and living proof.

God moves with all moved by God.

- c -

[China Cat Sunflower]

I wonder if religion didn't evolve entirely from the ritualization of sex.

Chris

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Ciel

I see this otherwise Thomas.

A person who sees the wrong in themselves and then moves with rightful intention to make amends is a continuous absolvement and living proof.

God moves with all moved by God.

- c -

Exactly Ciel...this is called "repentance."

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I wonder if religion didn't evolve entirely from the ritualization of sex.

Chris

Interesting thought Chris...care to expand on it?

[China Cat Sunflower]

I'll try to work something up tomorrow.

Chris

[China Cat Sunflower]

I'll try to work something up tomorrow, Juan. I have a tiny germ of an idea but I'm too tired to do anything about it right now.

Chris

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Thomas

This is a strawman argument ... it really doesn't stand.

More to the point ... Jesus doesn't stand for it either, not for one instant:

"Judge not, that you may not be judged. For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye? Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
Matthew 7:1-5

Brother Thomas,

If you don't already know, then please accept that I greatly value your scholarship. Even more so I greatly value you as a person.

Having said this, I must protest, for mine is not a strawman argument, and this is a very trite way to try to dismiss my argument. Are we *not* to beware of wolves in sheep's clothing?

Ecclesiastes 7:16 Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself ?
Ecclesiastes 7:17 Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish: why shouldest thou die before thy time?
Ecclesiastes 7:18 It is good that thou shouldest take hold of this; yea, also from this withdraw not thine hand: for he that feareth God shall come forth of them all.
Ecclesiastes 7:19 Wisdom strengtheneth the wise more than ten mighty men which are in the city.
Ecclesiastes 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

So…

Originally Posted by Thomas

The difference is, everyone looks for what's wrong. I know what's wrong. I work for what's right.

The Preacher said it well:

Ecclesiastes 10:1 Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour: so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honour.

Originally Posted by Thomas

I want His light to be visible in the world, and His truth, and His way, and His life ...

Accentuate the positive, as the saying goes, and walking away is an admission of failure ...

Are we *not* to be wise as serpents and gentle as doves?

I haven't walked away. The point is that I desire Him, I seek His presence. I do so without the direct and continual aid of other humans.

If that is wrong of me, I have none other to blame than myself alone. I stand naked before G-d now, because surely I will stand naked before Him later.

As for mysteries, there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed, nothing secret that will not be shouted from the rooftops. Are we to be closet cannibals when we partake of the Lord’s supper, simply to satisfy a mysterious institutional sacrament? Are we to burn in hades for not kowtowing to a particular institutional teaching about the end times that is in opposition to the plain language of the sacred text? Are we any less saved for not being enamoured of the trappings of status of *human* authority? Are we to knowingly and wantonly partake in obvious pagan practices in direct opposition to the sacred texts? G-d is no respecter of persons. I do not wish to get personal here, trying to coerce with such as sacraments, eschatology and liturgy is an appeal to *earthly* authority.

Psalms 5:8 Lead me, O LORD, in thy righteousness because of mine enemies; make thy way straight before my face.

Psalms 5:9 For there is no faithfulness in their mouth; their inward part is very wickedness; their throat is an open sepulchre; they flatter with their tongue.

Psalms 5:10 Destroy thou them, O God; let them fall by their own counsels; cast them out in the multitude of their transgressions; for they have rebelled against thee.

Psalms 5:11 But let all those that put their trust in thee rejoice: let them ever shout for joy, because thou defendest them: let them also that love thy name be joyful in thee.

Psalms 5:12 For thou, LORD, wilt bless the righteous; with favour wilt thou compass him as with a shield.

You are welcome to read the texts *your* way, and apply them as you deem correct. I assure, I have read the texts for myself, and I apply them as I understand them.

Ecclesiastes 12:11 The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd.
Ecclesiastes 12:12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.
Ecclesiastes 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
Ecclesiastes 12:14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

Originally Posted by Thomas

The truth can sometimes be hard to accept.

But the Truth matters.

Indeed:

Ecclesiastes 9:14 There was a little city, and few men within it; and there came a great king against it, and besieged it, and built great bulwarks against it:
Ecclesiastes 9:15 Now there was found in it a poor wise man, and he by his wisdom delivered the city; yet no man remembered that same poor man.
Ecclesiastes 9:16 Then said I, Wisdom is better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom is despised, and his words are not heard.

Institutions do not get to be institutions by being poor.

[Thomas]

Then Christ was wrong to found a church?
He was wrong when He instituted Baptism for the remission of sin?
He was wrong when He instituted the Eucharist?

He was wrong to go up to Jerusalem?
He was wrong not to deny Himself before the Sanhedrin?
He was wrong to accept the Cross?

We are approaching Easter ... the Passion ... and if I accept the common view that the Church is merely an institutiuon, and that the Sacraments are mere theatre ... I'm left wondering ... what was the point of it all? Why did He go through such a bloody charade?

What He should have said to His disciples was, "OK, chill out, lay back ... look after yourselves, the world will look after itself"? I mean, as soon as they started talking, there's the institution, as soon as one of 'em said, "No, it's not like that ... "

And again, if it were not for the Church, none of us here would ever have heard the Name, or the Word, of God. Scripture is the sacra doctrina of the Church.

And again, no-one has been able to demonstrate to me anything other than a selective reading of the texts to suit themselves, "I like the idea of Jesus, I just don't buy all the things He said."

Thomas

[Thomas]

Hi Ciel —

Originally Posted by Ciel

I see this otherwise ... A person who sees the wrong in themselves and then moves with rightful intention to make amends is a continuous absolvement and living proof.

Not in a fully Christian context, it's a bit too existential for us, there's a vital element missing:
Sin is an offence because it interrupts and disorders the right-relation of things, the logos of things. The communio. The Sermon on the Mount, the founding text of Christian ethics (being inclusive of the Decalogue), is all about right relation between self and other — be it God or neighbour — in which true Unity, and Union, is attained.

As sin interrupts the order of right relation, it is primarily an offence against an other, and only then an offence against self, second and subsequently. (All sin offers an immediate benefit to self — that is its attraction.)

So there are two parties involved always, self and other, and for right relation to be established again, both parties need be involved.

The self must acknowledge and admit the error, and endeavour to make amends, and that is called repentance.

The other acknowledges this action and forgives, by putting the offence away, and that is absolution.

We cannot oblige the other to absolve us — it is always their free choice, and their gift.

Repentance comes from within. Absolution comes from without.

Thomas

[Ciel]

Originally Posted by Ciel

I see this otherwise Thomas.

A person who sees the wrong in themselves and then moves with rightful intention to make amends is a continuous absolvement and living proof.

God moves with all moved by God.

- c -

Yes Thomas, in my complete quote I am promoting God's grace.
In this I acknowledge the two parties involved.

At this point it seems we must beg to differ with a certain grace ourselves for we have come full circle on circle, and shall never agree........

For "she" sees God as free to be........
And "he" as he property of the church.

And thus the sweet song goes on and on.............

- c -

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Not in a fully Christian context, it's a bit too existential for us...Repentance comes from within. Absolution comes from without.

Thomas

This may be the 'Church's take on things Thomas. But you must remember while the 'Church' was busy 'unifying', twasn't all who jumped on board. The 'Church' spent centuries 'insisting' that they were the only one and true way and many still refused to go that way. Since then many more have left or not taken in all those beliefs, tradition. It isn't the church, it isn't Christianity, it isn't universal, it is Catholicism, a denomination of Christianity. It is your choice and your belief, but not that of all of us.

Just like my beliefs don't set well with all others. I have no issue with that, that is fine. But for me, G!d is within, and for me, Jesus taught us that and showed us the way. God's grace doesn't require Jesus. It's us Christians that need Jesus teachings.

[mee]

ok then ,

most of the people spoken of in REVELATION 7;9-10 have dropped out of their former religions and now they are united all togeather on a world wide scale .
but some of those people have remained as they were taught by their parents , thats because their parents taught them the truth .

but millions of those people have left their former religions and now they are on the road to EVERLASTING LIFE .John 17;3

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Thomas

And again, no-one has been able to demonstrate to me anything other than a selective reading of the texts to suit themselves, "I like the idea of Jesus, I just don't buy all the things He said."

Kindest Regards, Thomas!

I for one have nothing to sell. I am certain I have said enough already to get me burned or filleted alive were I surrendered into the custody of the "army of god."

Presumption is an arbitrary accusation, certainly in our case going here now. Where you see me guilty of certain ambiguous interpretations, I see you equally guilty. In the end, what difference does it make? Do you, personally, speak for G-d? I don't, and I don't pretend to. I do speak to G-d, and open my heart and soul to listen to His response. He seldom speaks to me in words, but He does speak often. Were I a Jew, or a Muslim, would your response be the same to me? Or is this about the little intra-Christian schism begun by Luthur?

Yes, we are approching the Passover season, and the remembrance of the Passion. What have Oester bunnies and colored Astarte eggs to do with any of it? Why is the seder not still observed, when it was never done away with (not one jot nor one tittle)? Let us keep things in perspective. You wish to observe by tradition, that is obviously the path laid upon your heart to follow. I cannot fault that. For all of my misgivings with the institution, I have no quarrel with the people. There is some degree of innocence in ignorance.

Some of us have had it laid upon our hearts to distance ourselves from certain corrupted traditions, corrupted traditions that yes, do call certain presumptions into question. It is historically normative for certain missionaries from a certain religious institution that has existed for over a thousand years to absorb and morph pagan and other regional religions into the conquering paradigm, effectively inventing traditions as they go along. I really don't want to go there out of respect, but I have looked into it in the past and will be happy to share examples if you prefer. The question comes down to me as where and when did this comingling begin, and how can I sort out the genuine original from the conquered traditions that were merged? That is my burden, I do not sell it to others.

Jesus was a Jew. One needn't buy it but it is fact, and what is more is that it is truth. It seems to me any "church" he would have started would be more like a synagogue. That includes the church that Paul built, as well as the one James and Peter built that was lost when Jerusalem was sacked by the Romans.

[Thomas]

OK. I think I have said what I wanted to say with regard to the Church, whether one chooses to believe it or not, is a matter of personal opinion.

For me, in short:
The Church is the hostage of God,
outside Her,
God is the hostage of man.

Thomas

[Joedjr]

Hi Thomas,

Originally Posted by Thomas

OK. I think I have said what I wanted to say with regard to the Church, whether one chooses to believe it or not, is a matter of personal opinion.

For me, in short:
The Church is the hostage of God,
outside Her,
God is the hostage of man.

Thomas

It does seem to be important where one is standing. Some don't see G!d doing the hostage taking, but do see "the church" in this regard. Some see G!d as the liberator from the bondage of "the church". John 8:32, such a great passage from the New Testament. Rev 7:12

Joe