 Posted Sunday, August 13, 2006 5:36 AM
|
|
|
|
Peter Frye,
Keep in mind that the book of Romans is a letter written to followers of Jesus (Paul says so at the beginning of the letter). His statements like "we are the children of God" are not addressing mankind in general -- he is talking to a specific group of people. For that reason, his statements cannot be used as the basis for generalized statements about the spiritual nature of mankind.
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, August 13, 2006 5:50 AM
|
|
|
|
Curious
I just noticed this. Yes me and CW have a great deal in common and we pray for each other regularly even though we have not met. For your information, we are not Evangelicals. We are Catholics, while we share many many beliefs of the Evangelicals on this site, we have many differences in our approach to faith as well.
My answer to your question is simple, I would not be surprised or offended at all.
In fact, At the height of my serious dispute with my wife over religion, I had a long meeting with her practicioner. I could tell the person knew a lot about me and my belief system. That could have only come from my wife. I did not really get upset about that person knowing the details of my marital disputes. What frustrated me was our conversation about theology. When we got into the details, the practioner, who was supposedly this Bible expert fell on her keister to the point where I was embarassed for her. All this did was demonstrate how lost she and the rest of her "flock" are. Shortly thereafter, this person's young husband died suddenly at 48 years old when days before he was perfectly healthy or so I thought. Turns out that was actually not the case and he died of a preventable disease. I can only pray that God is showing them his infiinte mercy.
As for your comment on the word wonderful.... next time get a Webster's Dictionary.. and get the true meaning of the word wonder. The only thing CW and I are in need of is to have our spouses come around to the Truth, which is Christ, and not be surrounded by all of the CS nonsense, like redefining words.
God Bless
SFJ
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, August 15, 2006 7:23 AM
|
|
|
|
Linda,
A religion that believes that being a child of God mean to be part of a specific group of people and not all of mankind, is a religion I do not want to be a part of.
It's all or nothing for me.
SFJ,
"The only thing CW and I are in need of is to have our spouses come around to the Truth, which is Christ, and not be surrounded by all of the CS nonsense, like redefining words."
S&H 18:15
Christ is Truth
|
|
|
Posted Friday, January 05, 2007 3:17 PM
|
|
|
|
| I'm not really any religion, but I am confused about a few things. First off, all Christianity is a set of beliefs based on your interpretation of the bible, I see no reason that Christian Science should be singled out. One of, or perhaps my best friend, is a Christian Scientist, he's a great guy, but you speak as though CS is the worst thing anyone could be. You seem to be preaching a lot of hate towards CS, which I personally don't understand. There are many types of Christianity, Catholic, Methodist, and they all have different beliefs, why is it that this one religion takes all the hits. Can you explain it to me? Also this site references man being a sinner and spiritually dead, but then says that God regenerates our spirituality, so doesn't that contradict itself? Second I don't think of myself as a sinner, yes I've made bad choices, but wouldn't it be more comforting to know that your Gods perfect idea? I can see why that is a much more attractive idea than being damned to hell unless we except our "sins".
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, January 06, 2007 8:31 PM
|
|
|
|
Anonymous 1/5/07 5:17:27 PM,
Welcome to the forums!
I'm not really any religion, but I am confused about a few things. First off, all Christianity is a set of beliefs based on your interpretation of the bible, I see no reason that Christian Science should be singled out. One of, or perhaps my best friend, is a Christian Scientist, he's a great guy, but you speak as though CS is the worst thing anyone could be. You seem to be preaching a lot of hate towards CS, which I personally don't understand.
Contrary to what some may say or feel, being a CSist is not the worst thing anyone could be. It's also important to consider CS from the perspectives of its teachings and of its culture. While I no longer accept either as being adequately aligned with the Bible or Christianity, the abuses of CS are far more dangerous than its actual teachings. The actual teachings of CS offer a lot of good on the surface. Unfortunately, they ignore a lot of the Bible, misrepresent what the Bible says, and contend much of the Bible is erroneous. Rather than directing people towards the Bible and Christianity, CS often leads people away from it.
In darkness, however, people tend to move towards the light no matter how dim it may be. Sometimes CS is the brightest light around which is a sad indictment on other churches. Many do consider Christianity to be merely a set of personally selected beliefs. They pick and choose what to believe in ways that accommodate other choices.
One of the things that drew me out of CS was the realization just how much picking and choosing we were doing. On the one hand, we said we believed the Bible to be God's word. On the other hand, we were taught how untrustworthy Scriptures are. I got to a point where I had to believe one or the other and found the Bible to be the more credible if I were not to become an atheist.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, January 07, 2007 6:52 AM
|
|
|
|
As I pointed out elsewhere on this forum, there are demonstrable mistakes in the Bible, both in the translations and in the ancient versions as they have come down to us through the work of copyists. These are matters of fact, not opinion.
It is agreed by everyone that there are mistakes in the translations. Why should God have abandoned his supposedly unerring direction of the copyists as soon as the work of translation began? In any case the copyists clearly made mistakes as well, as evidenced by contradictions which I pointed out elsewhere.
As we don't know what was in the original versions (the mss no longer exist) to speak of the total inerrancy of the Bible is meaningless.
There are also many biblical passages which, by any reasonable modern standard, would be judged as the relics of a more barbarous age. I have given examples of these on this forum.
I do not accept that Christian Scientists misrepresent what the Bible says. I have given examples elsewhere of how fundamentalists themselves misrepresent what would seem to be the plain meaning of the Bible.
Christian Science teaches that the Bible represents the unfolding understanding of the nature of God in the experience of the Jewish people--not that the human understanding was perfect and complete in every way. In many cases the authors of the Bible used myth, symbol, allegory, and various metaphorical devices to get their message across. To interpret the Bible in terms of narrow literalism and divine forensics--as fundamentalists do--is to miss the point.
Questions about the authenticity of biblical texts have been a commonplace of (mainstream, non-fundamentalist) biblical criticism for many years.
Erol
Do_Go_Be_Man (1/6/2007)
Anonymous 1/5/07 5:17:27 PM,
The actual teachings of CS offer a lot of good on the surface. Unfortunately, they ignore a lot of the Bible, misrepresent what the Bible says, and contend much of the Bible is erroneous. Rather than directing people towards the Bible and Christianity, CS often leads people away from it.
One of the things that drew me out of CS was the realization just how much picking and choosing we were doing. On the one hand, we said we believed the Bible to be God's word. On the other hand, we were taught how untrustworthy Scriptures are. I got to a point where I had to believe one or the other and found the Bible to be the more credible if I were not to become an atheist.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, January 07, 2007 10:01 PM
|
|
|
|
Anonymous, Post 13021,
Welcome to the forums. I'll try to address some of your comments and questions:
First off, all Christianity is a set of beliefs based on your interpretation of the bible, I see no reason that Christian Science should be singled out.
The reason CS is "singled out" on these forums is because most of the people who come here are current or former Christian Scientists. On a forum run by, say, former Mormans, the topics would revolve around Morman beliefs.
Regarding your comment that Christianity is a set of beliefs based on one's interpretation of the Bible -- There is room for interpretation within Christianity (hence, the many different Christian denominations), but there are certain core beliefs that can be gleaned from a straightforward reading of the Bible. Traditional Christian denominations have historically agreed on these issues which include doctrines like the deity of Jesus, the reality of sin, and the voluntary, sacrificial death of Jesus because of that sin. Christian Science "spiritualizes" these and other doctrines into ideas that contradict what the Bible says rather than clarifying it. If you want to see some evidence supporting that, just look at hymns written by people like Martin Luther (founder of the Lutheran religion) and Charles Wesley (Methodist) and at Christmas carrols. These old hymns and carrols are full of Christian doctrines and teachings that can be gleaned from a straightforward reading of the Bible. When CS has used these hymns, it has had to chang key words to fit its own teachings. (We've discussed the subject of hymns several places on the forums, including here.)
You seem to be preaching a lot of hate towards CS
A lot of people have been hurt in CS. Talking things over with others who have "been there, done that" can be a big help to them as they work through the things that are bothering them. We don't preach "hate" toward CS, but we do talk about its shortcomings.
Also this site references man being a sinner and spiritually dead, but then says that God regenerates our spirituality, so doesn't that contradict itself?
"Spiritually dead" refers, in part, to a person's soul -- the part of him that lives on after physical death. A spiritually dead person will be forever separated from God after death. Spiritual regeneration involves changing that status so that a person can live forever with God after physical death.
The Bible says that EVERYONE has sinned, so that means that even very nice, generally moral people sin (that is, they transgress the perfect, completely moral and just standards set by God). Spiritual regeneration involves confessing our sin and accepting God's provision for our sin -- the sacrificial death of Jesus. It also involves asking him to be the Lord (boss) of our lives. People who turn their lives over to the Lord are not "better" than other people; they just admit their inability to be perfect and their need for God's help and grace. For some Bible references regarding sin and spiritual regeneration, you might enjoy reading a short article on the Christian Way web site entitled, "Science and Health and the Bible: Do They Agree on Issues of Eternal Significance?
wouldn't it be more comforting to know that your Gods perfect idea? I can see why that is a much more attractive idea than being damned to hell unless we except our "sins".
Sure it's more comforting, unless you believe what the Bible says on the issue.Linda
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, October 19, 2008 7:57 PM
|
|
|
|
Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. (1 John 3:1)
|
|
|
|