Civil Religious Discussions : all things Christianity II

[foszoe]

Sometimes do you think that aborted babies got their ride through here without having to prove themselves because of being prequalified?

I don't know what you mean by pre-qualified. Do you mean that they go to heaven? If so yes.

 

[JettaKnight]

I don't know what you mean by pre-qualified. Do you mean that they go to heaven? If so yes.

I've only heard that term applies to loans, not soteriology.

 

[HoughMade]

As to what happens with young children, babies included, when they die. I am familiar with the "age of accountability" belief and neither accept, nor reject it...though it has a lot of appeal.

Since the Word is not explicit on that, I will leave it to God's infinite love and justice.

My responsibility as a human and not a decision maker as to ultimate destination is to do such things as not harm children, love them and defend them. These things are crystal clear in the Word.

If we spend our time doing what we know we are supposed to do, maybe the things we don't know won't matter to us as much. God doesn't answer to me.

 

[2A_Tom]

People that believe in the age of accountability use this verse as evidence.

Lutherans and others say that it only applys if one of the parents is saved. Hence familial salvation.

Others reject it out of hand.

2 Samuel 12:23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

Shared via Bible KJV http://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.gyc.ace.kjv

I stand firm in the opinion that I don't know. After a million years of worshiping, praising and thanking Adinoi for Jesus blood, I may think to ask.

PS. I know there is no time in Eternity, but it is difficult to relate to that concept on this "temporal" plane.

 

[foszoe]

The deeper reason this is a difficulty is rooted in the doctrine of original sin in Western Theology.

For the Orthodox, its not even a problem to be considered because we do not hold man to be inherently evil or sinful.

Protestant difficulties arise because they don't accept one of the following points, usually the 2nd or 3rd.
1. According to the Genesis account, God created everything Good this included Man and Woman and by definition that includes human nature.
2. The fall came about because part of being created in the image and likeness of God includes free will.
3. Sin is an external sickness upon the soul of man foreign to human nature not an integral part of human nature. Thus there is no Original Sin passed down from generation to generation as it is often depicted in Western Theology.

Based on the above, I would say the Word IS explicit, in Genesis 1, on the state of aborted babies.

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah, so there's a history and context to the question that involves original sin and Christ's atonement on the cross.

But, yeah, for INGO purposes, maybe let's just agree that we won't know for sure until its too late to explain it to other INGOers.

ETA:
Well, bless his heart, foszoe beat me to it.

 

[2A_Tom]

That is a good point.

 

[T.Lex]

To borrow the Orthodox vocabulary for the stem-cell issue (partly because I like that framework, as I understand it), the sin of the abortion can be chalked up to the moral sickness of the mother who opted for it (and probably the medical staff that conducted it).

From my personal Catholic framework, that was an action that separated the actors from God.

Under either rubric, the child was blameless.

To what extent did the actors' moral sickness/detachment carry through to the subsequent actions of those who used the aborted stem cells for research is the evaluation that relies on personal conscience, IMHO.

Now, God knows if we rationalize a justification for bad acts. "Matter of conscience" isn't carte blanche.

 

[2A_Tom]

My heart says that aborted babies are now with the L--d in Heaven.

My problem with abortion is that it is blatant murder.

Who knows what great minds have been destroyed, cures to disease not developed or inventions not made.

 

[TangoFoxtrot]

I think something important to understand is that you really will not find contradictions in the "66 books " of the Christian canon.. you can make contradictions if you look at individual verses and do not place them in the context of the surrounding events.. just like if I was to say "my friend died on the operating table " and you only heard that part and didn't hear me finish the sentence with "but they were able to revive him and he is in stable condition now" ... if that is not read or heard in the full context, alot of people would interpret that as me saying my friend is dead (sorry for using such a morbid comparison but it seems to make my point well)
My father was a devout Christian and a Pastor and something I learned beyond any doubt from him is that the Bible is a encrypted texted, written by over 40 authors, most of which didn't even know eachother. It is a self authenticating message from our creator to us when you realize this. One of the clues is christ saying in Isaiah 28:10.. he is in part telling us that the truth is spread out like a broad spectrum encryption to stop enemies from jamming it... in other words you can remove sections of the Bible yet the whole of the message can still be gleamed. It is full of little tidbits like the story of Abraham and Isaac... if you study that story you will find many subtle tells of the future such as they brought enough supplies for 3 days (you have to read the Torah to get this) Isaac was Abraham's only begotten blood son (he had a step son) , Isaac asked his father, what of the sacrifice and his father told him "God will provide of himself a sacrifice"... now ready for the mind blower?? That exact place where Abraham was going to sacrifice his only son is the exact same place where 2000 years later God sacrificed his only son... the Bible is FULL of little hidden layers like this that were written by people that didn't even know eachother. The old testament is the new testament concealed and the new testament is the old testament revealed... just my 10 cents
I would like to challenge any non believer to at least read the book by David Limbaugh "the case for christ" and see if it doesn't at least open your heart to the possibility. At the very least it is a good read and will give you a good insight to our legal system

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

 

[Cameramonkey]

I just wanted to share this thing that happened. God is good.

So I'm helping to build a new elevated sound booth at the back of my church's sanctuary with fellow trustees and the pastor's husband. Not a single one of us has the skills and talent to pull this off ourselves because we are all just hobbyists. But building slowly, and talking through it all step by step, we are making one hell of an awesome perch for the multimedia team to work in. (and improving our online worship video and eliminating the distractions to the families that sit behind the current multimedia equipment) As a collective, we have the info to pull this off in a way that none of us could do individually. Its an AMAZING team.

So we are buying lumber, including the precut stair stringers and the 4 of us think we have what we need. We are standing by a loaded lumber cart discussing something, and the cart's owner walks up. The pastor's husband says to the guy "What are you doing? You are in our way!" Turns out he knows the guy and has for years. That guy just happens to be the owner of a construction company buying materials for a job.

We ask for his guidance and he makes us realize we are about to make a MAJOR mistake in our choices, and graciously gives us free advice that quite literally shoves us away from a HUGE pitfall we were just about to fall into because, well, you know what you know, and what you dont know, you dont know. And boy howdy did we misunderstand what we were about to try.

I feel that God put that gentleman in that place, just like he guided us to stop in that same place so that our paths would cross. I've had major apprehension going into this project that we couldnt pull it off. But so far, we are doing well.

Now if we can just get the carpet contractor in soon enough to have it ready by Easter.... Just have to have faith that he will provide.

 

[foszoe]

Protect Religious Freedom – Pass The Do No Harm Act - Americans United

www.au.org

 

[NKBJ]

So if we're here because we messed up the age before (what with the rebellion and all) and now we get the clean slate chance to decide who we're gonna serve...

That's the source of the concept of how come our aborted brothers and sisters don't have to stay here and make up their minds. That perhaps they are prequalified even though they still have to pass through this physical dimension like all the rest of us screw ups. Is that the case, the way it is? I don't know but since being informed of the concept it is something that I've had the opportunity to consider. And I've not found a reason to say it aint so.

What I do know for sure is that yes, God knew us before and yes He made provision for us to have this chance at redemption, to pass once through this construct.

 

[TangoFoxtrot]

So if we're here because we messed up the age before (what with the rebellion and all) and now we get the clean slate chance to decide who we're gonna serve...

That's the source of the concept of how come our aborted brothers and sisters don't have to stay here and make up their minds. That perhaps they are prequalified even though they still have to pass through this physical dimension like all the rest of us screw ups. Is that the case, the way it is? I don't know but since being informed of the concept it is something that I've had the opportunity to consider. And I've not found a reason to say it aint so.

What I do know for sure is that yes, God knew us before and yes He made provision for us to have this chance at redemption, to pass once through this construct.

I'm not sure I 100% understand what your asking... but I will say if I understand part of it (I think I do) it's because free will has to be accounted for. When you say "aborted brothers and sisters" ill guess you mean aborted children... they belong to God , they never reached a point where they could understand . God even tells us that children belong to him but the ones that make the choice to murder them will have to answer for their crime.. God said "it would be better that a mill stone be bound to your neck and you be thrown into the depths of the see than what I will do to you for hurting a child" (sorta paraphrased there )God makes it pretty clear that because of the innocence and lack of sinful knowledge of children that they are uniquely special to him. None of us will have any excuse on that great day of judgement, none of us will be worried about what someone else did, we will only feel the shame of our own sin and the abundant grace of the undeserved forgiveness we recieve

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

 

[NKBJ]

Not asking but rather stating my thinking to date.
God knew us before. We messed up. He arranged this physical reality for us to choose who we would serve and which way we were going to lean. We each get to pass through here once to decide.

So if the ones who weren't a bunch of screw ups also have to pass through this physical reality but don't need to decide who they are going to serve then OK, they don't have a need to do more than make the brief appearance before they return to Father. The rest of us obviously need to be here a while, however long it takes.

 

[breakingcontact]

I think admitting "we don't know" is an acceptable answer that should be employed more often and we would avoid many leaps and twisted interpretations.

This topic has caused a great many churches to 99.99% hold to the LBCF 1689...with some minor tweaks, which may be unnecessary if we read the words and not read into the words.

 

[JettaKnight]

I think admitting "we don't know" is an acceptable answer that should be employed more often and we would avoid many leaps and twisted interpretations.

This topic has caused a great many churches to 99.99% hold to the LBCF 1689...with some minor tweaks, which may be unnecessary if we read the words and not read into the words.

"We don't know"? You must be new to the internet.

I'm a Calvinist, so I hold firm on the "western" doctrine of original sin. But, I also hold to predestination, so God chooses who he wants; and you don't get a say in it. So the "age of accountability" really doesn't play into it for me. Babies are sinful (I mean you changed a diaper, right?), and God can provide them with salvation if he chooses.

If you an Arminian that holds to an original sin concept, it's a lot harder to do the mental gymnastics.


That's my view, but I'm not going to tell anyone else they're wrong.



On a light note, the local TV station did a piece on our Church. We bought an old orphanage (that was the YWCA for a while), and that's our new home. We're moving from Vanilla Village to downtown.

Renovating with love: former orphanage off Wells Street shining again – and there are tunnels

Rich history can be found throughout Fort Wayne, Indiana. Unique landmarks filled with stories, making the city what it is today. A property at 2000 N. Wells Street has played a key role in shaping…

www.wane.com

 

[Cameramonkey]

I dont get it.

So the United Methodist Church is going through internal struggles with doctrine. Older, more conservative traditional churches want to continue to follow biblical teachings like they have from the beginning. Now newer, more progressive members want to change, and if they cant come to an agreement, a split will happen and a new denomination will be created in order to appease both groups and allow each group to worship exactly as they feel. (general difference is allowing LGBT marriages and LGBT pastors. Even the traditionalist still recognize the marriage and treat them with love and respect and allow them to become members.)

So why is the traditionalist group based on originalist (bibilical) views being forced to change their name, (Global Methodist Church as I recall) while the new progressives that want the changes get to take over the old name and continue.

That seems backward to me. Seems to me, if you dont like something, you leave. You dont take over the organization and force those wanting the status quo to leave.

Back in the 1800s, when those in the Methodist church objected to the practice of not only tithing, but also paying to rent your family's pew, They spun off and became the Free Methodist church. They didnt take over and tell the Methodists to go start another church and take their pew rental with them.

The whole thing sounds backwards to me.

 

[2A_Tom]

New thread:

I'm new and your rules draw in breath quickly, please change them for me.

 

[JettaKnight]

I dont get it.

So the United Methodist Church is going through internal struggles with doctrine. Older, more conservative traditional churches want to continue to follow biblical teachings like they have from the beginning. Now newer, more progressive members want to change, and if they cant come to an agreement, a split will happen and a new denomination will be created in order to appease both groups and allow each group to worship exactly as they feel. (general difference is allowing LGBT marriages and LGBT pastors. Even the traditionalist still recognize the marriage and treat them with love and respect and allow them to become members.)

So why is the traditionalist group based on originalist (bibilical) views being forced to change their name, (Global Methodist Church as I recall) while the new progressives that want the changes get to take over the old name and continue.

That seems backward to me. Seems to me, if you dont like something, you leave. You dont take over the organization and force those wanting the status quo to leave.

Back in the 1800s, when those in the Methodist church objected to the practice of not only tithing, but also paying to rent your family's pew, They spun off and became the Free Methodist church. They didnt take over and tell the Methodists to go start another church and take their pew rental with them.

The whole thing sounds backwards to me.

Why?

It's typically the more conservative group that branches off. An example would be PCA branching off from the PCUSA. There's a reason the mainline is the more liberal one.



Personally, I think the UMC name is tainted, and they'd be better leaving that ship to sink into the moral relativism swamp.


TBH, I think this was lost way back when the UMC accepted alternatives to the traditional Christian view of marriage; the conservatives are the ones trying to change the course (back to God's way).


EDIT: Thinking about it, The UMC has already said, "this is OK for Christians, but not for ministers." How can that even been considered valid? (Stay out T.Lex! ) At some point you had to know that mealy mouth rule was going to cause problems.