Nicholas Thomas Wright is Anglican Bishop of Durham, England. The "On Faith" panelist taught New Testament studies for 20 years at Cambridge, McGill and Oxford Universities before becoming Dean of Lichfeld in 1994. He was named Canon Theologian of Westminster Abbey in 2000, and consecrated bishop in 2003. He has written hundreds of articles and more than 40 books, including Judas and the Gospel of Jesus (2006) and Evil and the Justice of God (2006). He has served as Visiting Professor at numerous institutions including Harvard Divinity School, Gregorian University in Rome and the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Dr Wright holds four degrees, including a divinity doctorate from Oxford University, and honorary degrees from several universities and colleges.
Close.
N. Thomas Wright
Anglican Bishop of Durham, England
Nicholas Thomas Wright is Anglican Bishop of Durham, England. The "On Faith" panelist taught New Testament studies for 20 years at Cambridge, McGill and Oxford Universities before becoming Dean of Lichfeld in 1994. He was named Canon Theologian of Westminster Abbey in 2000, and consecrated bishop in 2003.
more »
Thanks for your very thoughtful post. I think it's great that you're thinking about "spirituality."
I'll keep this brief but here are a couple of my thoughts that may be of help in your spiritual journey:
I'm a Christian and have found John Wesley, an 18th century Anglican Priest, who founded what has later become the United Methodist Church, extremely helpful in my own journey of faith. Wesley was known to combine all three of the things you mentioned (intellect, emotion, & action) in his approach to the Christian faith. More specifically, he said that to interpret the scriptures, one needs three things: 1) reason 2) experience & 3) tradition.
His thinking was that if someone tried to understand the scriptures apart from those three things, that we can easily end up misinterpreting the scriptures. I have found John Wesely to offer a wholistic approach to the Christian faith. It's also worth noting that during Wesley's day, Wesley was caught in a crossfire because of his theology. On one hand, he emphasized that our relationship with God is dependent upon God's grace and God taking the initiative and on the other hand, Wesley also believed that we aren't to just sit on our hands either and have the attitude that if I'm saved, that's all that matters. Wesley, as well as the scriptures, remind us that we are claimed by God to take action and help transform the world the way God has always intended (a world of no hunger, no war, no abuse, etc.) Wesley believe that it was God's grace working in us that lead us into action.
I think it's amazing that the United Methodist Church (thanks to Wesley's theology) is committed to social action and justice issues (not that there are other denominations who can't say the same.)
Dr. Wright, the author of this particular post, himself an Anglican Bishop, has written a wonderful book entitled, "Simply Christian," which also might help you along your journey. Most bookstores have this in stock.
What are these? How do they fit together?
For a few thousand years mankind has described itself as made of head, heart and hand or body: With 1- head meaning mind, intellect, with 2 - heart meaning emotions, love, feelings, with 3 - body meaning action, behavior.
Thus faith involves the intellect, love involves the emotions, and behavior involves the body.
Further, each of these abilities is operated by a separate, independent, but tremendously interconnected brain: The intellect is operated by the cerebral cortex brain, the heart or love by the limbic brain, the body by the reptilian brain. Each brain can communicate with other persons, can remember and can reason by experience, trial and error, imagining, etc.
These three brains are constantly working together and constantly interacting with word or in the mind. The famous Harvard professor William James called these streams of inner feelings, thoughts, and behavior – body language, ‘streams of consciousness’.
Here are examples of streams of consciousness:
You wake up in the morning (action). You feel lousy (emotion). You get that new medicine (action). You read the instructions (intellect). You take the medicine (action). You feel better (emotion). You get the newspaper (action). You read the paper (intellect). You read some bad news and feel sad (emotion). Then you read (intellect) some good news and feel better (emotion). You think about your investments (intellect). You write a note to your broker (action). Your sore thumb is still hurting (emotion).You pour a cup of coffee (action).It tastes good (emotion). You calculate you are going to need a new tin of coffee soon (intellect).
And so it goes. Even if you are just sitting there having a cup of coffee, your mind is still active and switching between feelings, intellect, action, and thoughts. Even in your dreams it does not stop.
Now we notice people vary greatly in their nature of using these three brains or abilities or drives. Some people are very emotional, others are very intellectual, and others are very physical, in their thinking and behavior. It is said that a good salesperson will immediately size up a new client to see how he should be appealed to, i.e. intellectually, emotionally or physically. Because this affects the way a person commonly thinks and makes decisions. Some people weigh the pros and cons etc, and use their intellect in making decisions. Business people make a lot of decisions based on experience and habit and can not tell you precisely intellectually why or how they made the decision. Einstein often thought in terms of diagrams and intuition. Many Americans are idealists – what should be? Many English use tradition, experience – what’s done in these circumstances? Their so-called constitution has been a behavioral, traditional one in contrast to the American intellectual, legal one. A religious person, in effect, tries to follow the interpretation the mystic gives of his experiences of meditation with God. Polls show that people are seldom fired for lack of intellectual skills but for behavioral or relationship reasons. Many companies with a high hiring turnover are now also checking applicants for emotional development and relationship skills.
Some people’s intellect is not highly developed or used but their emotions and behavior are well developed and used. Others are well developed in their behavior and not in the intellect and emotions. And so on with various combinations and degrees of development.
Now that we have an outline of the workings of a human being in this area i.e. what is available for them to work with and how it usually operates, then we are ready to see the possibilities that each person has available to use for religion and worship.
In regard to a person’s religious development and use of these three brains it often follows their life-long natural development Some are great Christians due to their great love (God is love), others have a great faith due to their intellectual development and still others are great Christians because of their great works.
To be a Christian all three areas, emotion, intellect and behavior must be dedicated to follow Christ no matter how much or how little each is developed and used. All abilities are essential. Any combination of development is important. As the nature of our decision-making and the nature of our ‘streams of consciousness show – no one ability is in charge all the time.
So faith (intellect), love (emotions), and works (behavior) are all essential and the use and importance of each will vary with each person in religion and in daily life.
To express it one way: As St. Paul, Martin Luther, and others have indicated, the important key to being a Christian is to have Jesus Christ live in you (and you in him) and have Christ be your guide. This daily guiding of course involves every thought, feeling, and behavior.
Quote: King James version, ROMANS Chapter 8, verse 1 and 2.
“There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Peter Jackson
I am a retired Chartered Accountant who has taken quite an interest in consciousness, religion and spirituality.
A couple of quotes from Dr. Wright regarding the physical resurrection of Jesus and of believers:
Question: A lot of scholars seem to look at the Pauline phrase which in Greek is "pneumatic" body and in English is "spiritual" body, and they seem to think the resurrection won't be physical at all.
Dr. Wright: The word "spiritual" in 1 Corinthians 15 comes from the Greek "pneuma." But the word is pneumatikos. Greek adjectives that end in -kos do not describe the substance out of which something is made. They describe the force that is animating the thing in question. It's the difference between saying on the one hand, "Is this a wooden ship or a steel ship?" and saying on the other hand, "Is this a nuclear-powered ship or a steam-powered ship?" And the sort of adjective it is of the latter type, it's a spirit-powered body.
Reply: But it's still a ship.
Dr. Wright: Exactly! But it's still a body. And generations of readers have been misled-particularly by the RSV and the NRSV-into thinking that the distinction Paul is making is between a physical body, in the sense of something you can actually get a grip on, and a spiritual body, in the platonic sense of something you couldn't get a grip on.
Question: It's in the Creed, but a lot of people seem to think it refers only to Jesus' body, not their own.
Dr. Wright: Either to Jesus' body or they think that actually the resurrection of body is a kind of fancy, early Christian way of saying a spiritual survival--which is precisely the opposite of what it is.
Going back to 1 Cor. 15, Paul says [we] begin with one sort of body and then it is another sort of body. The word he uses for the first sort, which is translated in the RSV and NRSV as "physical," actually there cannot mean physical. It is a bizarre mistranslation to say "physical" there.
The first word is a word formed out of "psyche"--which is the word for "soul." If you wanted to say in the ancient world that something was non-physical, you might use the word psychekon. The point is that the present body is a body animated by the ordinary human soul, and the future body will be a body animated by God's spirit and hence not corruptible.
I think FAKE PREACHERS EXPOSED AGAIN has missed the point of Bishop Tom's article altogether. Seems he thinks the good bishop is saying we are saved by our good works. He must have skimmed the article with his prejudices firmly fixed front and center. A man that blinkered is never going to receive any truth from anyone.
He is some kind of Christian, but seemingly one incapable of the grace that makes for the building up of a faith community whether at home in the town he lives or on-line.
BTW Since Hell is frequently depicted underground its atmospheric pressure may be quite a bit higher than sea level. Sulphur's boiling point increases with pressure, just like any other substance, but above its critical point it can only exist as a very dense gas (super-critical fluid.) The critical temperature for liquid sulphur is 1041 C, or 1314 K. Thus Hell could be hotter than a Heaven at 525 C.
Incidentally Earth's equilibrium temperature - where heat in from the sun matches heat out - is currently 255 K, so a 49 times higher insolation level gives an equilibrium temperature of 674.65 K, or just 401.5 C. A 33 degree greenhouse effect means the average surface temperature is 288 K. With the same greenhouse effect Heaven's equilibrium temperature rises to 762 K - just a bit too toasty.
Well that's an old joke that one. Of course the problem is obscured by the fact that the Apocalypse describes the New Jerusalem being without light from the Sun or Moon - all its light will be from God.
Incidentally the Moon reflects roughly 12% of the light that strikes it. Its maximum visible magnitude is roughly -12.5, while the Sun's is -26.65. A difference of 5 magnitudes is 100 fold increase/decrease. The Moon and Sun are 14.15 magnitudes apart, thus (100)^(14.15/5) is the luminosity ratio - i.e. the Sun's apparent brightness is currently 457,000 times the Moon's. Thus for the Moon to be as bright as the Sun, the Sun must be at least 55,000 times brighter than it currently is. Thus the Earth's average temperature would be 4,270 K or about 4,000 degrees C.
Literalism in Biblical hermeneutics is thus shown to be absurd when pushed too far.
The temperature of heaven can be rather accurately computed. Our authority is the Bible, Isaiah 30:26 reads, Moreover, the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold as the light of seven days. Thus, heaven receives from the moon as much radiation as the earth does from the sun, and in addition seven times seven (forty nine) times as much as the earth does from the sun, or fifty times in all. The light we receive from the moon is one ten-thousandth of the light we receive from the sun, so we can ignore that. With these data we can compute the temperature of heaven: The radiation falling on heaven will heat it to the point where the heat lost by radiation is just equal to the heat received by radiation. In other words, heaven loses fifty times as much heat as the earth by radiation. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann fourth power law for radiation
(H/E)4 = 50
where E is the absolute temperature of the earth, 300°K (273+27). This gives H the absolute temperature of heaven, as 798° absolute (525°C).
The exact temperature of hell cannot be computed but it must be less than 444.6°C, the temperature at which brimstone or sulfur changes from a liquid to a gas. Revelations 21:8: But the fearful and unbelieving... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." A lake of molten brimstone [sulfur] means that its temperature must be at or below the boiling point, which is 444.6°C. (Above that point, it would be a vapor, not a lake.)
We have then, temperature of heaven, 525°C (977°F). Temperature of hell, less than 445°F). Therefore heaven is hotter than hell.
Someone said that I claim to be a Christian but call Christians names. I think it was Pablo.
I think he may have been referring to my comments about people who are "psycho for Jesus" and people who are "Jesus-maniacs." I think I made the statement that a "Jesus-maniac" is not a Christian. Therefore, I don't really think the term "Jesus-maniac" is calling a Christian a bad name.
I feel sorry for these people. But their posts, in defense of Christianity, and Christians, just amount to senseless babbling. They do not know what they believe nor why. Alot of people who post their religious beliefs here are obviously mental cases. Should I be sorry and apologietic for making this observation? I am not!
For the most part, I don't argue with atheists, because, from my point of view, it is not necessary. If someone doesn't believe in God, then I cannot force such belief. And if they are bitter against Christians, because they have had some run-ins with "Jesus-maniacs" then I feel more like apologizing to them, than arguing with them. (I don't want them to think I am a Jesus-maniac).
Alot of anti-Christian people who post here, do not seem to realize the wide-range of belief among people who consider themselves to be Christians. The meaning of the Bible, the meaning of salvation, the characterization of Jesus, the many and various considerations of the trinity, just for starters, divide Christians in perpetual dissension. I admit, and agree, it is a problem.
I used to give those sort of origins theories of the Resurrection tradition a lot of credence, but I find the Empty Tomb an inescapeably early tradition. The current Sceptical historical view is of an early removal of Christ's corpse - and thus a mistaken conclusion by the women, plus a serious of post-mortem hallucinations to reinforce their beliefs. That doesn't really work either. The Gospels certainly disagree about timing and location of Christ's appearances. Matthew and Mark disagree with Luke about Galilee vs Jerusalem, while John's account is an unwieldy hybrid. It's certainly a very strange "physical" resurrection if Matthew is to be believed - the disciples climb a hill in Galilee and "see Christ", but "some doubted".
Very strange, but is mistaken timing really enough to explain the data?
Tday, when I speak of "Hell" as a mistaken doctrine I am by no means advocating annihilationism - something utterly foreign to the Bible, inter-Testamental Judaism and the Apostolic Fathers. I find it rather curious that a bevy of heretical and heterodox off-shoots of Protestantism propagate such an ahistorical doctrine - Seventh Day Adventism (heterodox, not heretical), Christadelphians, Russellites/Bible Students, Jehovah's Witnesses, The Way International, United Church of God (and all its split-offs), and countless others. It has an appeal to literalists who want an "inerrant bible" without the nasty implications of "eternal damnation".
But "eternal damnation" was never a universal (catholic) doctrine of the early church, and Origen wasn't alone in preaching eventual universal salvation. Many have advocated the view that unrepented sin will be punished, but no sin is worth an infinite punishment - people will remain in Hell ("the outer darkness" is JC's term) for as long as God's justice requires. In the "Apocalypse" the gates of the New Jerusalem remain open always, ready to receive anyone who repents and gives up their sinful ways.
But that may well be a very long time. As C.S.Lewis's masterful fantasy, "The Great Divorce" , describes a soul in Hell may well choose isolation and miserable darkness because being confronted with its own sinfulness is unbearable. But what is impossible for man...
The physical resurrection of Jesus, as per many contemporary exegetes, did not occur.
The physical resurrection of Jesus as per currernt theology teachings at many large Catholic universities-
"Heaven is a Spirit state or spiritual reality of union with God in love, without earthly -- earth bound distractions.
Christ 's and Mary's bodies are therefore not in Heaven. For one thing, Paul in 1 Cor 15 speaks of the body of the dead as transformed into a "spiritual body." No one knows exactly what he meant by this term.
Most believe that it to mean that the personal spiritual self that survives death is in continuity with the self we were while living on earth as an embodied person.
The physical Resurrection (meaning a resuscitated corpse returning to life), Ascension (of Jesus' crucified corpse), and Assumption (Mary's
corpse) into heaven did not take place.
The Ascension symbolizes the end of Jesus' earthly ministry and the beginning of the Church.
Only Luke's Gospel records it. The Assumption ties Jesus' mission to Pentecost and missionary activity of Jesus' followers The Assumption has
multiple layers of symbolism, some are related to Mary's special role as "Christ bearer" (theotokos). It does not seem fitting that Mary, the body of Jesus' Virgin-Mother (another biblically based symbol found in Luke 1) would
be derived by worms upon her death. Mary's assumption also shows God's positive regard, not only for Christ's male body, but also for female
bodies."
Amazing how this agrees with Professor Crossan and the Jesus Seminarian's conclusions based on attestations and stratums.
Oaul wanted to be rescued from his body, because it was a body of death.
You have to love the way Christians proclaim that this means Paul thought his body would be saved.
They simply insult our intelligenmce by such talk.
I am deeply offended that people try to pull such games.
DANIEL
It is embarassing that people with obvious mental disturbances should speak for Christians
CARR
Very true.
Jesus taught that the Queen of Sheba would rise from her grave to judge people (Despite such alleged talk in the Gospels, early Christians just didn't seem to think it relevant that their Lord and Saviour had preached a resurrection. Paul never thought of telling people the views of Jesus on the resurrection)
Pauil himself believed he had gone to the third Heaven in a trance. That makes him a nutcase.
1) Jesus Christs resurrection
2) Resurrection of those who have died in the faith at His return
3) Resurrection of all else who have lived (after the 1000 year reign of Christ on earth...sometimes referred to as the Great White Throne judgement)
The current concept of hell thru most of Christian teaching is erroneous...a school of thought, if you will, that arose through, once again, mankinds own view of the matter.Another reason of Rev 12:9..how the adversary has deceived the world as a whole. Whether it be from the Hebrew or Greek, there is no basis to an ever burning torment. Rather, especially in the NT greek transaltion, the only close referenece to it is 'gahenna', which is a consuming fire (aka lake of fire burning with brimstone...something that one cannot survive in).
Along that line, there is no scriptural basis that all who have died in the faith go to heaven. Rather, scripture speaks of 3 resurrections, very clearly and plainly.
Um no Paul didn't Neither Paul nor any other who walked upon earth wearing Human Flesh knew either the day or hour of the return and there was a good purpose in this for we as Christians are supposed to live each day as if the next minute might be the time of the second coming.
The Devil or Satan if you prefer was the first Rebel - the first and chiefest of sinners. The devil makes no one do anything under compulsion for to do so would make the act his own, rather he provides convenient excuses for sinners to go ahead and do that which they of their own selfishness already desire.
Hell Isn't imperfect. It is a place of perfect Justice and the fire is a last act of mercy for it takes your mind off things you'd rather not think about. I suspect it is also quite a boring place because all anyone will ever talk about is the heat for all else leads inexorably to other thoughts that no human being can fully bear.
1) If Paul's Lord and Savior knew not the days and times under question here, why would we expect Paul to have known them? He was taught, as were all the disciples, to confidently expect that His Messiah was COMING. Period. Paul's confident expectation (hope) is not the same as those modern "prophets" that predict days and times.
2) Paul wanted to be rescued (SAVED... same word as salvation) from his body that was characterized by death. In 1 Corinthians 15, he calls THIS SAME body 'soma psuchikos' (soulish body), and contrasts it with the future 'soma pneumatikos' (spiritual body). Thus, it is clear that it is not SOMA itself that Paul wishes to escape, but 'deathly body.'
Context, dear readers.
And let us not forget that if Paul had intended to speak of a bodiless existence, there was no lack of Greek language for it. Plato especially expounded at length upon eternal bodiless existence, and he didn't use 'soma' to describe 'soma'lessness. Paul chose 'soma pneumatikos' because it means spiritual BODY, not spiritual existence.
"Paul's beliefs, according to a literal interpretation of the Epistles:
A literal interpretation of Paul's epistles shows that Paul anticipated the second coming of Jesus in his near future, and during his own lifetime. Again, this would have happened during the 1st century CE. He wrote 1 Thessalonians about 50 or 51 CE. Many theologians believe that this is the oldest book in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament).
In 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, he wrote: "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." Here, Paul seems to be referring to himself and some of the recipients of his letter as being alive when Jesus returns.
In 1 Thessalonians 5:2-11, he wrote: "For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober." Here, Paul urges the recipients of his letter to be on guard at all times, because he expected the second coming to happen within their lifetimes. "
1) 1 Thess 4:13-18
(2) Did. 16:6-8
(3) Matt 24:30a
(4) Mark 13:24-27 = Matt 24:29,30b-31 = Luke 21:25-28
(5a) Rev 1:7
(5b) Rev 1:13
(5c) Rev 14:14
(6) John 19:37
Crossan analysis:
Item: 2
Stratum: I (30-60 CE)
Attestation: Multiple
Historicity: not historic Jesus
Common Sayings Tradition: No
Miracle Tradition: No
Concerned the Christian... just curious, Why do you think Henry VIII was saved? Why do you think he did good works? I can only go by what I have read and I did not notice many good works at all - he is remembered for having wives and finding ways - including beheadings and changing the church - to do so. Your posts are interesting though,
Peace Troll - I am not sure why you include peace in your name. Of course, it may be that you just like debate. You quote quite a bit of scripture in your posts to get your point across; however, I have found that scripture can be used by both sides to make their points. Sometimes, each side will use the same passage to prove a point. It all depends on the point of view. Point of View means where you are standing at the time and what influences you have brought with you. You believe in a translation of the Bible and Scriptures because that is what you have been taught. What you have been taught may or may not be correct. The bible itself, was not written down at the time it was happening. It was written in different languages - Hebrew, Greek...As you know if you have ever tried to translate words from a foreign language, some things do not translate. I myself, believe that most of the Bible was to be treated like Aesops - morals and ethics to live our lives by. You believe differently and that is your right. The problem comes when you try to foist your beliefs on others or when others try to foist their beliefs upon you. But what about the things that you can agree on? What about finding common ground on issues? Can you do so?
Thanks EFAVORITE - for the Franklin info. It is a shame that some people will put words in someone's mouth to make their point. Especially when it is about hatred.
Mary Cunningham, Thanks for that wonderful poem.
In my opinion, I think that works are definitly important. Salvation should be secondary.
Did they not ridicule Jesus? Would you crucify me?
http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul Ah, but you were threatened with hell while you were too young to think and now you're too scared to think. You're as stuck as a bug on fly paper.
A little googling found that the only mention of “Maxims of George Washington by A. A. Appleton & Co” is by numerous people quoting it, as was done in this thread. A separate search for A. A. Appleton & Co yielded nothing and a separate search for “Maxims of George Washington” yielded a few interesting results.
On Amazon, there is:
- “The Maxims of George Washington” by a guy named Fredrick Schroeder, published by Hess in 1998 and
- “Life and Times of Washington by John Frederick Schroeder and Benson John Lossing
- “Maxims of Washington” by John Frederick Schroeder, in 1854. Here’s the description: “Political, social, moral and religious, to which is added an address on George Washington's character and Washington's farewell address. A small volume of the words of Washington taken from public documents, private letters, manuscripts and printed volumes, with a view to the completeness and interest of the collection found within. Nothing but authentic materials were used in this compilation.”
Part of that book review says, “We count no fewer than 600 individual topics such as Republicanism * Evils of democracy * Civil liberty * Taxation * The four pillars of independence * State rights * Character of the First Congress * The Constitution * Prosperity * Emigration * Non-intervention * Treaties * The currency * Speedy extinguishing of the national debt * A standing army * Character and sufferings of the army of the Revolution * Readiness for war * Abolition of slavery * Spirit of freedom * Self-control * Honesty * Talents, without virtue *”
Notice, there’s no mention of Washington’s thoughts on Jews. Considering the conservative nature of this site, I’d expect it to mention a quote that is such hit elsewhere on the internet.
Then I checked Snopes.com (Key words “George Washington” “Jews”) and found this: “This quote is a recasting of something Washington did say, providing just enough of an aura of authenticity to sound believable. What Washington actually wrote (or, at least, what is attributed to him in Maxims of George Washington), regarding currency speculators who sought to profit by taking advantage of soldiers and others during the Revolutionary War, was:
"This tribe of black gentry work more effectually against us, than the enemy's arms. They are a hundred times more dangerous to our liberties, and the great cause we are engaged in. It is much to be lamented that each State, long ere this, has not hunted them down as pests to society, and the greatest enemies we have to the happiness of America."
Washington's private life and writings reveal no evidence of anti-Semitism, and his public attitude towards religious tolerance was well expressed on a 1790 goodwill visit he paid to [The Newport, Rhode Island Hebrew Congregation]”
Regarding the Franklin quote:
http://www.adl.org/special_reports/franklin_prophecy/franklin_documenting_fraud.asp
Documenting a Fraud (from the Anti-Defamation League)
________________________________________
The fraudulent nature of the Prophecy -- and the fact that anti-Semitism was foreign to Franklin’s behavior — has been substantially documented by eminent historians. The late Charles A. Beard reported, "I cannot find a single original source that gives the slightest justification for believing that the Prophecy is anything more than a barefaced forgery. Not a word have I discovered in Franklin’s letters and papers expressing any such sentiments against the Jews as are ascribed to him by the Nazis — American and German. His well-known liberality in matters of religious opinion would, in fact, have precluded the kind of utterances put in his mouth by this palpable forgery . . . In his writings on immigration, Franklin made no mention of discrimination against Jews."
Beard also noted that "the phraseology of the alleged Prophecy is not that of the 18th century; nor is the language that of Franklin. It contains certain words that belong to contemporary (Nazi) Germany rather than America of Franklin’s period. For example, the word ‘homeland’ was not employed by Jews in Franklin’s time. It was created in connection with the Palestine mandate." Beard also showed "positive evidence" that Franklin held Jews in high regard, citing the instance when the Hebrew Society of Philadelphia sought to raise money for a synagogue in Philadelphia. Franklin signed the petition of appeal for contributions to "citizens of every religious denomination" and gave 5 pounds himself to the fund.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
PLEASE CHECK YOUR SOURCES BEFORE PROMULGATING THIS TYPE OF OBVIOUSLY QUESTIONABLE INFORMATION.
(This prediction was made during the intermission of the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787, and was recorded by Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, a South Carolina delegate.): “I fully agree with General Washington, that we must protect this young nation from an insidious influence and impenetration. That menace, gentlemen, is the Jews. In whatever country Jews have settled in any great number, they have lowered its moral tone; depreciated its commercial integrity; have segregated themselves and have not been assimilated; have sneered at and tried to undermine the Christian religion upon which that nation is founded, by objecting to its restrictions; have built up a state within the state; and when opposed have tried to strangle that country to death financially, as in the case of Spain and Portugal. For over 1,700 years, the Jews have been bewailing their sad fate in that they have been exiled from their homeland, as they call Palestine. But, gentlemen, did the world give it to them in fee simple, they would at once find some reason for not returning. Why? Because they are vampires, and vampires do not live on vampires. They cannot live only among themselves. They must subsist on Christians and other peoples not of their race. If you do not exclude them from these United States, in this Constitution, in less than 200 years they will have swarmed here in such great numbers that they will dominate and devour the land and change our form of government, for which we Americans have shed our blood, given our lives, our substance and jeopardized our liberty. If you do not exclude them, in less than 200 years our descendants will be working in the fields to furnish them substance, while they will be in the counting houses rubbing their hands. I warn you, gentlemen, if you do not exclude Jews for all time, your children will curse you in your graves… A leopard cannot change its spots. Jews are Asiatics, are a menace to this country if permitted entrance, and should be excluded by this Constitutional Convention.”
So I will.
This is a new translation of an ancient poem —the earliest work extant in ancient Anglo-Saxon. It has praise and reverence aplenty:
Caedmon’s Hymn
Now we must praise to the skies,___the Keeper of the heavenly kingdom,
The might of the Measurer,____all he has in mind,
The work of the Father of Glory,____of all manner of marvel,
Our eternal Master,___the main mover.
It was he who first summoned up, ____on our behalf,
Heaven as a roof,____the holy Maker.
Then this middle-earth,________the Watcher over humankind
Our eternal Master,_____would later assign
The precinct of men,_____the Lord Almighty.
Interesting discussion. Can’t quite reconcile all the competing New Testament quotes—and non Catholics say Church teachings are confusing!
Anyway, I was lucky to have a Jesuit uncle and, growing up, we used to have good discussions. The motto for the society is “Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam” (for the greater glory of God), man’s purpose in life, humankind’s reason for being on this earth, is stated as follows (this time in English):
“"Man is created to praise, reverence, and serve God Our Lord and by this means to save his soul."
There! That was easy wasn’t it? Serving the Lord means emulating him in all his works / doing our best for his Creation, I guess we would call this today “good works”. But contemporary man—and this discussion certainly!-- omits the first two attributes: “praise and reverence.” These are just as important. Nobody has mentioned them.
BGone is promoting crypto-Gnosticism through his (or his friend's) books - with nice combative titles like "The Bible Hoax" and full of cobbled-together tendentious arguments. Never have I read so much misquoted material, so much flimsy historical argument, such arrogant metaphysical claims, and really quite tedious rehashings of countless other books.
So BGone are you going to be Heresiarch of your Renewed Marcionite Church?
Well Paul predicted the second coming in his life time. Still waiting for that one. When did you say the next one will be?
Hmmm, Satan the fallen one or is he simply another modern day demon of the demented?
Father Edward Schillebeeckx, the famous contemporary theologian, has a different take on hell. He reasons that the Singularity does not tolerate imperfection in his spiritual realm. Therefore, any soul dying in mortal sin will simply disappear since hell the imperfect state does not exist.
One does not sell one's soul to the devil. God either saves or he does not. Salvation is the result of God's direct interference via the Holy Spirit in the normal course of events which leads inexorably to hell otherwise.
The Devil has no need to purchase your soul for in the fullness of time lest God act to intervene it will join him as another prisoner in hell and please note Satan is not the ruler of hell but its foremost prisoner after the second coming.
One does not sell one's soul to the devil. God either saves or he does not. Salvation is the result of God's direct interference via the Holy Spirit in the normal course of events which leads inexorably to hell otherwise.
The Devil has no need to purchase your soul for in the fullness of time lest God act to intervene it will join him as another prisnoer in hell and please not Satan is not the ruler of hell but its foremost prisoner at the second coming.
Ah so, SPEED123, another STRANGE GOD worshipper, shameful and simple minded. No, sorry, genious.
How strange is "the God of your father...?"
*ball-of-fire God was not strange enough
*man put in fire = man-on-fire God
*stranger God than all, man levitating above bush on fire = man-getting-hotfoot God
I've seen better Gods on a totem pole and I've seen some pretty strange looking Gods on totem ploes.
Confusious say, "man with strange God become low man on totem pole."
Without the scroptures where do we get God's truth?"
Very simple, actually!
God = IT (not he or she)
IT has created everything in the universe, not by hand, but by spirit, therefore, God is in all of us. We do not need bibles, prophets, preachers and such to explain good or evil, we inherently know right from wrong.
IT lives in us and when we die our spirit will reunite with IT. IT is the life force of everything and nothing. It's really not that hard to understand.
Salvation is being saved from the jaws of the 'boogie demon' that lurks about in the dark passage between this life and the next.
The 'boogie demon' is a hoax, http://www.hoax-buster.org Without the demon there is nothing to be 'salvationed' from.
The boogie demon has a history that is carelessly left out of the history books and midevil religious conceptions of it substituted. Religion runs, (ruins) education. Lies that cause people to believe, (in the boogie demon) are moral.
Threaten with hell, pass the plate and my how the money rolls in.
No censorship of this blog, please!
It's about God, so let God sort out the crazies.
Besides, there's always a chance that even the crazies will read something that makes shocking new sense to them, might even cure their craziness.
Besides, crazies--OK, all of us--need to ventilate not into the void but somewhere where we'll be heard & maybe even responded to. Credit WASHINGTON POST / NEWSWEEK for providing the space.
Besides, where else will you find brief, stimulating posts by such a variety of competent panelists? A current newsmagazine calls Tom Wright, the writer this thread is responding to, "the greatest New Testament scholar of our time."
Pablo said: "One other issue for Daniel. You say you are a Christian but you keep calling other Christians names."
I've noticed this too Pablo. You know, I've NEVER seen a self described atheist consistently talk down to another atheist -or- call a fellow atheist names on these boards, ever. If someone else has, please show me the thread. Of course I see this behavior from "christians" to other "christians" all the time. But just maybe some of these "christians" aren't really, you know, "christians" after all.
Sometimes I think that those who visit the boards to fight against Christianity/Christ know more about what they are fighting against than the actual Christians know what they are fighting for.
Here is the key to you the person trying to figure out Christianity on here of all places. Find the ones who speak with grace and humility, and believe that Jesus is who he said he was in the bible. Watch them treat others with respect. Then watch them get hammered mercilessly for voicing an opinion (which is why I think there are so few regular christian posters here). Then form your own opinion on what they say and how they act. It's a free country.
Sometimes I don't think there are more than 1 or 2 people in here actually trying to figure stuff out with a semi-open mind. I mean who are we kidding, this is "On Faith". We're ALL extremists ;)
Cranmer:
Dear Mr. Bishop,
If you had the slightest sense of what "good works" means, you'd abstain from writing such trite rubbish.
The Church of England doesn't even believe in God anymore and here you are in your purple robe (and high heels?) lecturing us on faith.
Whitened sepulchres, whitened sepulchres
There is no consistent Christian account of how humans are supposed to be saved, although this is of the utmost practical urgency. It is absurd that the aim of Christianity is human salvation and yet Christian doctrine does not make clear how this is achieved. Indeed, there are conflicting ideas of salvation suggested by the creeds, the gospels and Paul's letters. For example, one view of salvation presented in the Synoptic Gospels is that a person is saved by following a moral code. A second view, one maintained by Paul, John, and the Creeds, is that a person is saved by having faith in Jesus. In other words, the first path to salvation seems to be through works, whereas the second path to salvation is by faith alone.
The second route is the one most commonly associated with Christianity. However, it is not clear just what it involves besides belief. Even when one concentrates only on the cognitive dimension of faith there are unclarities. The Creeds seem to demand the kind of belief that defines orthodox Christianity: namely, everything from the Virgin Birth to the Second Coming, from the Resurrection to the Incarnation. But John only seems to demand belief in the incarnation and Paul only seems to demand belief in the resurrection. Neither Paul nor John demands belief in the Virgin Birth or in the Trinity but the Creeds do.
So Christians who read the New Testament and the Creeds of Christianity carefully should be utterly confused for they are presented with conflicting doctrines. They will not know whether one is saved by works or by faith and, if by faith, by faith in what.
In Christianity the goal is salvation yet in Christian doctrine there is no clear and consistent way to achieve it. There is in fact an incongruity between Christianity's inconsistent views of salvation and the central place of salvation in Christianity. It is as if Christianity says, "Above all seek salvation! But there is no clear or consistent way to do it!"
Could a Christian avoid this conclusion? Of course, he or she could try to interpret the New Testament so that these conflicting doctrines of salvation are harmonized or so that one of them is discounted. But such interpretations cannot be arbitrary. Absurdity should not be avoided by arbitrariness.
It is well known that there is a long-standing conflict between Catholics who stress salvation by works and Protestants who advocate salvation by faith. Indeed, there is a vast amount of scholarly literature devoted to trying to understand the conflict. This traditional controversy and the scholarly response certainly suggest that my thesis that the Bible offers conflicting advice is hardly strained.
Another possible way of trying to avoid the problem is to maintain that since the path of salvation is unclearly specified in the Bible one should cover both bets by having faith in Jesus and also doing good works. Given the mysterious nature of God, whether this is a good prudential suggestion is unclear. After all, God may not want us to follow both paths at once. But in any case it does not avoid the main problem. It is absurd that Christians should have to use this strategy in order to avoid the problem. If following both paths simultaneously is what God wants, why is this not clearly specified? Surely the path of salvation should be stated in a way that is easy to understand.
Unknown and Pam
You are absolutely correct. Any deity worth following would have to appreciate those who do His work without expecting reward (even without knowing where the impulse comes from) over those who talk the talk without walking the walk. Which is worse, doubt or hypocrisy? To me it's no contest.
I try to avoid this subject here at On Faith, because it sounds terribly condescending to, essentially, tell atheists that G-d works through them whether they acknowledge it or not. It would be arrogant of me to try to tell them what is or is not in their hearts. I certainly wouldn't want my spiritual life interpreted by someone whose beliefs I found silly.
Dear Mr. Bishop,
If you had the slightest sense of what "good works" means, you'd abstain from writing such trite rubbish.
The Church of England doesn't even believe in God anymore and here you are in your purple robe (and high heels?) lecturing us on faith.
Whitened sepulchres, whitened sepulchres.
Steven Carr:
WRIGHT
'...so that to imagine that 'salvation' means being rescued FROM the world is to deny the most fundamental article of the creed. '
PAUL THE HERETIC
'Who will rescue me from this body of death?' Romans 7:24
Curiosly, when Wright quotes from Romans 7:24 in his commentary 'Romans for everyone' book, he decides 'Who will rescue me?' is an adequate quote.
Wright presumably doesn't want to remind his readers of what Paul wanted to be rescued from - namely, his body.
Steven: What bible translation are you using? Read Romans 7:24b again - "Who is going to rescue me from the body of this death." By not including "of this death," in your translation, you're missing a big part of Paul's point. It's not the body he's trying to escape - it's the body "of this death."
All Comments (97)
bimester stephana keacorn borromean retrogradingly pneumopericardium subverticillate cyclus
Amp Power
http://www.digitaldays.net
December 21, 2007 2:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 21, 2007 14:33
Peter Jackson:
"Faith: Love: Works:
What are these? How do they fit together?"
Dear Peter,
Thanks for your very thoughtful post. I think it's great that you're thinking about "spirituality."
I'll keep this brief but here are a couple of my thoughts that may be of help in your spiritual journey:
I'm a Christian and have found John Wesley, an 18th century Anglican Priest, who founded what has later become the United Methodist Church, extremely helpful in my own journey of faith. Wesley was known to combine all three of the things you mentioned (intellect, emotion, & action) in his approach to the Christian faith. More specifically, he said that to interpret the scriptures, one needs three things: 1) reason 2) experience & 3) tradition.
His thinking was that if someone tried to understand the scriptures apart from those three things, that we can easily end up misinterpreting the scriptures. I have found John Wesely to offer a wholistic approach to the Christian faith. It's also worth noting that during Wesley's day, Wesley was caught in a crossfire because of his theology. On one hand, he emphasized that our relationship with God is dependent upon God's grace and God taking the initiative and on the other hand, Wesley also believed that we aren't to just sit on our hands either and have the attitude that if I'm saved, that's all that matters. Wesley, as well as the scriptures, remind us that we are claimed by God to take action and help transform the world the way God has always intended (a world of no hunger, no war, no abuse, etc.) Wesley believe that it was God's grace working in us that lead us into action.
I think it's amazing that the United Methodist Church (thanks to Wesley's theology) is committed to social action and justice issues (not that there are other denominations who can't say the same.)
Dr. Wright, the author of this particular post, himself an Anglican Bishop, has written a wonderful book entitled, "Simply Christian," which also might help you along your journey. Most bookstores have this in stock.
God bless you in your journey!
July 21, 2007 6:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 21, 2007 18:49
Faith: Love: Works:
What are these? How do they fit together?
For a few thousand years mankind has described itself as made of head, heart and hand or body: With 1- head meaning mind, intellect, with 2 - heart meaning emotions, love, feelings, with 3 - body meaning action, behavior.
Thus faith involves the intellect, love involves the emotions, and behavior involves the body.
Further, each of these abilities is operated by a separate, independent, but tremendously interconnected brain: The intellect is operated by the cerebral cortex brain, the heart or love by the limbic brain, the body by the reptilian brain. Each brain can communicate with other persons, can remember and can reason by experience, trial and error, imagining, etc.
These three brains are constantly working together and constantly interacting with word or in the mind. The famous Harvard professor William James called these streams of inner feelings, thoughts, and behavior – body language, ‘streams of consciousness’.
Here are examples of streams of consciousness:
You wake up in the morning (action). You feel lousy (emotion). You get that new medicine (action). You read the instructions (intellect). You take the medicine (action). You feel better (emotion). You get the newspaper (action). You read the paper (intellect). You read some bad news and feel sad (emotion). Then you read (intellect) some good news and feel better (emotion). You think about your investments (intellect). You write a note to your broker (action). Your sore thumb is still hurting (emotion).You pour a cup of coffee (action).It tastes good (emotion). You calculate you are going to need a new tin of coffee soon (intellect).
And so it goes. Even if you are just sitting there having a cup of coffee, your mind is still active and switching between feelings, intellect, action, and thoughts. Even in your dreams it does not stop.
Now we notice people vary greatly in their nature of using these three brains or abilities or drives. Some people are very emotional, others are very intellectual, and others are very physical, in their thinking and behavior. It is said that a good salesperson will immediately size up a new client to see how he should be appealed to, i.e. intellectually, emotionally or physically. Because this affects the way a person commonly thinks and makes decisions. Some people weigh the pros and cons etc, and use their intellect in making decisions. Business people make a lot of decisions based on experience and habit and can not tell you precisely intellectually why or how they made the decision. Einstein often thought in terms of diagrams and intuition. Many Americans are idealists – what should be? Many English use tradition, experience – what’s done in these circumstances? Their so-called constitution has been a behavioral, traditional one in contrast to the American intellectual, legal one. A religious person, in effect, tries to follow the interpretation the mystic gives of his experiences of meditation with God. Polls show that people are seldom fired for lack of intellectual skills but for behavioral or relationship reasons. Many companies with a high hiring turnover are now also checking applicants for emotional development and relationship skills.
Some people’s intellect is not highly developed or used but their emotions and behavior are well developed and used. Others are well developed in their behavior and not in the intellect and emotions. And so on with various combinations and degrees of development.
Now that we have an outline of the workings of a human being in this area i.e. what is available for them to work with and how it usually operates, then we are ready to see the possibilities that each person has available to use for religion and worship.
In regard to a person’s religious development and use of these three brains it often follows their life-long natural development Some are great Christians due to their great love (God is love), others have a great faith due to their intellectual development and still others are great Christians because of their great works.
To be a Christian all three areas, emotion, intellect and behavior must be dedicated to follow Christ no matter how much or how little each is developed and used. All abilities are essential. Any combination of development is important. As the nature of our decision-making and the nature of our ‘streams of consciousness show – no one ability is in charge all the time.
So faith (intellect), love (emotions), and works (behavior) are all essential and the use and importance of each will vary with each person in religion and in daily life.
To express it one way: As St. Paul, Martin Luther, and others have indicated, the important key to being a Christian is to have Jesus Christ live in you (and you in him) and have Christ be your guide. This daily guiding of course involves every thought, feeling, and behavior.
Quote: King James version, ROMANS Chapter 8, verse 1 and 2.
“There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Peter Jackson
I am a retired Chartered Accountant who has taken quite an interest in consciousness, religion and spirituality.
July 3, 2007 12:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 3, 2007 12:41
JD States:
"You guys are very entertaining. Keep up the good works."
I haven't found the Christian faith too entertaining yet. Surprising? Amazing? Yes. But entertaining? Not so much.
June 19, 2007 7:05 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 19, 2007 19:05
You guys are very entertaining. Keep up the good works.
June 19, 2007 9:54 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 19, 2007 09:54
A couple of quotes from Dr. Wright regarding the physical resurrection of Jesus and of believers:
Question: A lot of scholars seem to look at the Pauline phrase which in Greek is "pneumatic" body and in English is "spiritual" body, and they seem to think the resurrection won't be physical at all.
Dr. Wright: The word "spiritual" in 1 Corinthians 15 comes from the Greek "pneuma." But the word is pneumatikos. Greek adjectives that end in -kos do not describe the substance out of which something is made. They describe the force that is animating the thing in question. It's the difference between saying on the one hand, "Is this a wooden ship or a steel ship?" and saying on the other hand, "Is this a nuclear-powered ship or a steam-powered ship?" And the sort of adjective it is of the latter type, it's a spirit-powered body.
Reply: But it's still a ship.
Dr. Wright: Exactly! But it's still a body. And generations of readers have been misled-particularly by the RSV and the NRSV-into thinking that the distinction Paul is making is between a physical body, in the sense of something you can actually get a grip on, and a spiritual body, in the platonic sense of something you couldn't get a grip on.
Question: It's in the Creed, but a lot of people seem to think it refers only to Jesus' body, not their own.
Dr. Wright: Either to Jesus' body or they think that actually the resurrection of body is a kind of fancy, early Christian way of saying a spiritual survival--which is precisely the opposite of what it is.
Going back to 1 Cor. 15, Paul says [we] begin with one sort of body and then it is another sort of body. The word he uses for the first sort, which is translated in the RSV and NRSV as "physical," actually there cannot mean physical. It is a bizarre mistranslation to say "physical" there.
The first word is a word formed out of "psyche"--which is the word for "soul." If you wanted to say in the ancient world that something was non-physical, you might use the word psychekon. The point is that the present body is a body animated by the ordinary human soul, and the future body will be a body animated by God's spirit and hence not corruptible.
June 18, 2007 8:15 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 18, 2007 08:15
I think FAKE PREACHERS EXPOSED AGAIN has missed the point of Bishop Tom's article altogether. Seems he thinks the good bishop is saying we are saved by our good works. He must have skimmed the article with his prejudices firmly fixed front and center. A man that blinkered is never going to receive any truth from anyone.
He is some kind of Christian, but seemingly one incapable of the grace that makes for the building up of a faith community whether at home in the town he lives or on-line.
Bloody sad, eh!
June 17, 2007 7:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 17, 2007 19:19
BTW Since Hell is frequently depicted underground its atmospheric pressure may be quite a bit higher than sea level. Sulphur's boiling point increases with pressure, just like any other substance, but above its critical point it can only exist as a very dense gas (super-critical fluid.) The critical temperature for liquid sulphur is 1041 C, or 1314 K. Thus Hell could be hotter than a Heaven at 525 C.
Incidentally Earth's equilibrium temperature - where heat in from the sun matches heat out - is currently 255 K, so a 49 times higher insolation level gives an equilibrium temperature of 674.65 K, or just 401.5 C. A 33 degree greenhouse effect means the average surface temperature is 288 K. With the same greenhouse effect Heaven's equilibrium temperature rises to 762 K - just a bit too toasty.
Puerile humour. Gotta love it.
June 16, 2007 6:03 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 16, 2007 06:03
Steven Carr:
"Wright claims Christians do not want to be rescued from the world.
Paul wanted to be rescued in Romans 7:24 from his 'soma', from his physical body."
Did you read my response because your above post doesn't appear you did? Read the whole verse...
June 14, 2007 11:21 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 14, 2007 11:21
Well that's an old joke that one. Of course the problem is obscured by the fact that the Apocalypse describes the New Jerusalem being without light from the Sun or Moon - all its light will be from God.
Incidentally the Moon reflects roughly 12% of the light that strikes it. Its maximum visible magnitude is roughly -12.5, while the Sun's is -26.65. A difference of 5 magnitudes is 100 fold increase/decrease. The Moon and Sun are 14.15 magnitudes apart, thus (100)^(14.15/5) is the luminosity ratio - i.e. the Sun's apparent brightness is currently 457,000 times the Moon's. Thus for the Moon to be as bright as the Sun, the Sun must be at least 55,000 times brighter than it currently is. Thus the Earth's average temperature would be 4,270 K or about 4,000 degrees C.
Literalism in Biblical hermeneutics is thus shown to be absurd when pushed too far.
June 13, 2007 7:30 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 13, 2007 07:30
The temperature of heaven can be rather accurately computed. Our authority is the Bible, Isaiah 30:26 reads, Moreover, the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold as the light of seven days. Thus, heaven receives from the moon as much radiation as the earth does from the sun, and in addition seven times seven (forty nine) times as much as the earth does from the sun, or fifty times in all. The light we receive from the moon is one ten-thousandth of the light we receive from the sun, so we can ignore that. With these data we can compute the temperature of heaven: The radiation falling on heaven will heat it to the point where the heat lost by radiation is just equal to the heat received by radiation. In other words, heaven loses fifty times as much heat as the earth by radiation. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann fourth power law for radiation
(H/E)4 = 50
where E is the absolute temperature of the earth, 300°K (273+27). This gives H the absolute temperature of heaven, as 798° absolute (525°C).
The exact temperature of hell cannot be computed but it must be less than 444.6°C, the temperature at which brimstone or sulfur changes from a liquid to a gas. Revelations 21:8: But the fearful and unbelieving... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." A lake of molten brimstone [sulfur] means that its temperature must be at or below the boiling point, which is 444.6°C. (Above that point, it would be a vapor, not a lake.)
We have then, temperature of heaven, 525°C (977°F). Temperature of hell, less than 445°F). Therefore heaven is hotter than hell.
June 12, 2007 6:25 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 12, 2007 18:25
Someone said that I claim to be a Christian but call Christians names. I think it was Pablo.
I think he may have been referring to my comments about people who are "psycho for Jesus" and people who are "Jesus-maniacs." I think I made the statement that a "Jesus-maniac" is not a Christian. Therefore, I don't really think the term "Jesus-maniac" is calling a Christian a bad name.
I feel sorry for these people. But their posts, in defense of Christianity, and Christians, just amount to senseless babbling. They do not know what they believe nor why. Alot of people who post their religious beliefs here are obviously mental cases. Should I be sorry and apologietic for making this observation? I am not!
For the most part, I don't argue with atheists, because, from my point of view, it is not necessary. If someone doesn't believe in God, then I cannot force such belief. And if they are bitter against Christians, because they have had some run-ins with "Jesus-maniacs" then I feel more like apologizing to them, than arguing with them. (I don't want them to think I am a Jesus-maniac).
Alot of anti-Christian people who post here, do not seem to realize the wide-range of belief among people who consider themselves to be Christians. The meaning of the Bible, the meaning of salvation, the characterization of Jesus, the many and various considerations of the trinity, just for starters, divide Christians in perpetual dissension. I admit, and agree, it is a problem.
June 12, 2007 5:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 12, 2007 17:03
Hi Concerned The Christian Now Liberated & Tday,
I used to give those sort of origins theories of the Resurrection tradition a lot of credence, but I find the Empty Tomb an inescapeably early tradition. The current Sceptical historical view is of an early removal of Christ's corpse - and thus a mistaken conclusion by the women, plus a serious of post-mortem hallucinations to reinforce their beliefs. That doesn't really work either. The Gospels certainly disagree about timing and location of Christ's appearances. Matthew and Mark disagree with Luke about Galilee vs Jerusalem, while John's account is an unwieldy hybrid. It's certainly a very strange "physical" resurrection if Matthew is to be believed - the disciples climb a hill in Galilee and "see Christ", but "some doubted".
Very strange, but is mistaken timing really enough to explain the data?
Tday, when I speak of "Hell" as a mistaken doctrine I am by no means advocating annihilationism - something utterly foreign to the Bible, inter-Testamental Judaism and the Apostolic Fathers. I find it rather curious that a bevy of heretical and heterodox off-shoots of Protestantism propagate such an ahistorical doctrine - Seventh Day Adventism (heterodox, not heretical), Christadelphians, Russellites/Bible Students, Jehovah's Witnesses, The Way International, United Church of God (and all its split-offs), and countless others. It has an appeal to literalists who want an "inerrant bible" without the nasty implications of "eternal damnation".
But "eternal damnation" was never a universal (catholic) doctrine of the early church, and Origen wasn't alone in preaching eventual universal salvation. Many have advocated the view that unrepented sin will be punished, but no sin is worth an infinite punishment - people will remain in Hell ("the outer darkness" is JC's term) for as long as God's justice requires. In the "Apocalypse" the gates of the New Jerusalem remain open always, ready to receive anyone who repents and gives up their sinful ways.
But that may well be a very long time. As C.S.Lewis's masterful fantasy, "The Great Divorce" , describes a soul in Hell may well choose isolation and miserable darkness because being confronted with its own sinfulness is unbearable. But what is impossible for man...
June 12, 2007 5:36 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 12, 2007 05:36
The physical resurrection of Jesus, as per many contemporary exegetes, did not occur.
The physical resurrection of Jesus as per currernt theology teachings at many large Catholic universities-
"Heaven is a Spirit state or spiritual reality of union with God in love, without earthly -- earth bound distractions.
Christ 's and Mary's bodies are therefore not in Heaven. For one thing, Paul in 1 Cor 15 speaks of the body of the dead as transformed into a "spiritual body." No one knows exactly what he meant by this term.
Most believe that it to mean that the personal spiritual self that survives death is in continuity with the self we were while living on earth as an embodied person.
The physical Resurrection (meaning a resuscitated corpse returning to life), Ascension (of Jesus' crucified corpse), and Assumption (Mary's
corpse) into heaven did not take place.
The Ascension symbolizes the end of Jesus' earthly ministry and the beginning of the Church.
Only Luke's Gospel records it. The Assumption ties Jesus' mission to Pentecost and missionary activity of Jesus' followers The Assumption has
multiple layers of symbolism, some are related to Mary's special role as "Christ bearer" (theotokos). It does not seem fitting that Mary, the body of Jesus' Virgin-Mother (another biblically based symbol found in Luke 1) would
be derived by worms upon her death. Mary's assumption also shows God's positive regard, not only for Christ's male body, but also for female
bodies."
Amazing how this agrees with Professor Crossan and the Jesus Seminarian's conclusions based on attestations and stratums.
See http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/017_Resurrection_of_Jesus for added details.
June 12, 2007 2:08 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 12, 2007 02:08
Oaul wanted to be rescued from his body, because it was a body of death.
You have to love the way Christians proclaim that this means Paul thought his body would be saved.
They simply insult our intelligenmce by such talk.
I am deeply offended that people try to pull such games.
DANIEL
It is embarassing that people with obvious mental disturbances should speak for Christians
CARR
Very true.
Jesus taught that the Queen of Sheba would rise from her grave to judge people (Despite such alleged talk in the Gospels, early Christians just didn't seem to think it relevant that their Lord and Saviour had preached a resurrection. Paul never thought of telling people the views of Jesus on the resurrection)
Pauil himself believed he had gone to the third Heaven in a trance. That makes him a nutcase.
June 12, 2007 1:41 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 12, 2007 01:41
Anonymous
1) Jesus Christs resurrection
2) Resurrection of those who have died in the faith at His return
3) Resurrection of all else who have lived (after the 1000 year reign of Christ on earth...sometimes referred to as the Great White Throne judgement)
June 12, 2007 12:10 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 12, 2007 00:10
TDAY,
And the three resurrections are????
June 11, 2007 11:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 11, 2007 23:21
Adam
You hit it right on the nailhead.
The current concept of hell thru most of Christian teaching is erroneous...a school of thought, if you will, that arose through, once again, mankinds own view of the matter.Another reason of Rev 12:9..how the adversary has deceived the world as a whole. Whether it be from the Hebrew or Greek, there is no basis to an ever burning torment. Rather, especially in the NT greek transaltion, the only close referenece to it is 'gahenna', which is a consuming fire (aka lake of fire burning with brimstone...something that one cannot survive in).
Along that line, there is no scriptural basis that all who have died in the faith go to heaven. Rather, scripture speaks of 3 resurrections, very clearly and plainly.
June 11, 2007 6:45 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 11, 2007 18:45
Um no Paul didn't Neither Paul nor any other who walked upon earth wearing Human Flesh knew either the day or hour of the return and there was a good purpose in this for we as Christians are supposed to live each day as if the next minute might be the time of the second coming.
The Devil or Satan if you prefer was the first Rebel - the first and chiefest of sinners. The devil makes no one do anything under compulsion for to do so would make the act his own, rather he provides convenient excuses for sinners to go ahead and do that which they of their own selfishness already desire.
Hell Isn't imperfect. It is a place of perfect Justice and the fire is a last act of mercy for it takes your mind off things you'd rather not think about. I suspect it is also quite a boring place because all anyone will ever talk about is the heat for all else leads inexorably to other thoughts that no human being can fully bear.
June 11, 2007 5:37 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 11, 2007 17:37
2 points:
1) If Paul's Lord and Savior knew not the days and times under question here, why would we expect Paul to have known them? He was taught, as were all the disciples, to confidently expect that His Messiah was COMING. Period. Paul's confident expectation (hope) is not the same as those modern "prophets" that predict days and times.
2) Paul wanted to be rescued (SAVED... same word as salvation) from his body that was characterized by death. In 1 Corinthians 15, he calls THIS SAME body 'soma psuchikos' (soulish body), and contrasts it with the future 'soma pneumatikos' (spiritual body). Thus, it is clear that it is not SOMA itself that Paul wishes to escape, but 'deathly body.'
Context, dear readers.
And let us not forget that if Paul had intended to speak of a bodiless existence, there was no lack of Greek language for it. Plato especially expounded at length upon eternal bodiless existence, and he didn't use 'soma' to describe 'soma'lessness. Paul chose 'soma pneumatikos' because it means spiritual BODY, not spiritual existence.
respectfully,
Nick Gill
Frankfort, KY
June 11, 2007 4:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 11, 2007 16:19
Hi BGone
I think I confused you with someone else. Your stuff is even trippier than the "The Bible Fraud" books.
As for Hell... nope. I didn't believe in it for a long time, only half believed it when I did, and currently think it's misunderstood.
June 11, 2007 4:17 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 11, 2007 16:17
Wright claims Christians do not want to be rescued from the world.
Paul wanted to be rescued in Romans 7:24 from his 'soma', from his physical body.
June 11, 2007 3:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 11, 2007 15:36
GJKBEAR,
I don't think Henry was saved. I just wanted Bishop Wright to give his opinion about it since Henry was the founder of the Anglican church.
June 11, 2007 11:46 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 11, 2007 11:46
Anon,
http://www.religioustolerance.org/end_wrl16.htm
"Paul's beliefs, according to a literal interpretation of the Epistles:
A literal interpretation of Paul's epistles shows that Paul anticipated the second coming of Jesus in his near future, and during his own lifetime. Again, this would have happened during the 1st century CE. He wrote 1 Thessalonians about 50 or 51 CE. Many theologians believe that this is the oldest book in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament).
In 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, he wrote: "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." Here, Paul seems to be referring to himself and some of the recipients of his letter as being alive when Jesus returns.
In 1 Thessalonians 5:2-11, he wrote: "For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober." Here, Paul urges the recipients of his letter to be on guard at all times, because he expected the second coming to happen within their lifetimes. "
Jesus Apocalyptic Return
http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/002_Jesus_Apocalyptic_Return
1) 1 Thess 4:13-18
(2) Did. 16:6-8
(3) Matt 24:30a
(4) Mark 13:24-27 = Matt 24:29,30b-31 = Luke 21:25-28
(5a) Rev 1:7
(5b) Rev 1:13
(5c) Rev 14:14
(6) John 19:37
Crossan analysis:
Item: 2
Stratum: I (30-60 CE)
Attestation: Multiple
Historicity: not historic Jesus
Common Sayings Tradition: No
Miracle Tradition: No
June 11, 2007 11:39 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 11, 2007 11:39
Concerned the Christian... just curious, Why do you think Henry VIII was saved? Why do you think he did good works? I can only go by what I have read and I did not notice many good works at all - he is remembered for having wives and finding ways - including beheadings and changing the church - to do so. Your posts are interesting though,
Peace Troll - I am not sure why you include peace in your name. Of course, it may be that you just like debate. You quote quite a bit of scripture in your posts to get your point across; however, I have found that scripture can be used by both sides to make their points. Sometimes, each side will use the same passage to prove a point. It all depends on the point of view. Point of View means where you are standing at the time and what influences you have brought with you. You believe in a translation of the Bible and Scriptures because that is what you have been taught. What you have been taught may or may not be correct. The bible itself, was not written down at the time it was happening. It was written in different languages - Hebrew, Greek...As you know if you have ever tried to translate words from a foreign language, some things do not translate. I myself, believe that most of the Bible was to be treated like Aesops - morals and ethics to live our lives by. You believe differently and that is your right. The problem comes when you try to foist your beliefs on others or when others try to foist their beliefs upon you. But what about the things that you can agree on? What about finding common ground on issues? Can you do so?
Thanks EFAVORITE - for the Franklin info. It is a shame that some people will put words in someone's mouth to make their point. Especially when it is about hatred.
Mary Cunningham, Thanks for that wonderful poem.
In my opinion, I think that works are definitly important. Salvation should be secondary.
June 11, 2007 11:00 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 11, 2007 11:00
ADAM et al:
Did they not ridicule Jesus? Would you crucify me?
http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul Ah, but you were threatened with hell while you were too young to think and now you're too scared to think. You're as stuck as a bug on fly paper.
The one true religion is none at all.
June 11, 2007 9:48 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 11, 2007 09:48
>>QUIT POSTING THESE OBVIOUSLY BOGUS QUOTES<<
The Washington and Franklin quotes are frauds.
A little googling found that the only mention of “Maxims of George Washington by A. A. Appleton & Co” is by numerous people quoting it, as was done in this thread. A separate search for A. A. Appleton & Co yielded nothing and a separate search for “Maxims of George Washington” yielded a few interesting results.
On Amazon, there is:
- “The Maxims of George Washington” by a guy named Fredrick Schroeder, published by Hess in 1998 and
- “Life and Times of Washington by John Frederick Schroeder and Benson John Lossing
- “Maxims of Washington” by John Frederick Schroeder, in 1854. Here’s the description: “Political, social, moral and religious, to which is added an address on George Washington's character and Washington's farewell address. A small volume of the words of Washington taken from public documents, private letters, manuscripts and printed volumes, with a view to the completeness and interest of the collection found within. Nothing but authentic materials were used in this compilation.”
Then at the Conservative book service ( a site that also sells Ann Coulter books) there is “Maxims of Washington” by John Frederick Schroeder, 1854 http://www.conservativebookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=C5296#continue
Part of that book review says, “We count no fewer than 600 individual topics such as Republicanism * Evils of democracy * Civil liberty * Taxation * The four pillars of independence * State rights * Character of the First Congress * The Constitution * Prosperity * Emigration * Non-intervention * Treaties * The currency * Speedy extinguishing of the national debt * A standing army * Character and sufferings of the army of the Revolution * Readiness for war * Abolition of slavery * Spirit of freedom * Self-control * Honesty * Talents, without virtue *”
Notice, there’s no mention of Washington’s thoughts on Jews. Considering the conservative nature of this site, I’d expect it to mention a quote that is such hit elsewhere on the internet.
Then I checked Snopes.com (Key words “George Washington” “Jews”) and found this: “This quote is a recasting of something Washington did say, providing just enough of an aura of authenticity to sound believable. What Washington actually wrote (or, at least, what is attributed to him in Maxims of George Washington), regarding currency speculators who sought to profit by taking advantage of soldiers and others during the Revolutionary War, was:
"This tribe of black gentry work more effectually against us, than the enemy's arms. They are a hundred times more dangerous to our liberties, and the great cause we are engaged in. It is much to be lamented that each State, long ere this, has not hunted them down as pests to society, and the greatest enemies we have to the happiness of America."
Washington's private life and writings reveal no evidence of anti-Semitism, and his public attitude towards religious tolerance was well expressed on a 1790 goodwill visit he paid to [The Newport, Rhode Island Hebrew Congregation]”
Regarding the Franklin quote:
http://www.adl.org/special_reports/franklin_prophecy/franklin_documenting_fraud.asp
Documenting a Fraud (from the Anti-Defamation League)
________________________________________
The fraudulent nature of the Prophecy -- and the fact that anti-Semitism was foreign to Franklin’s behavior — has been substantially documented by eminent historians. The late Charles A. Beard reported, "I cannot find a single original source that gives the slightest justification for believing that the Prophecy is anything more than a barefaced forgery. Not a word have I discovered in Franklin’s letters and papers expressing any such sentiments against the Jews as are ascribed to him by the Nazis — American and German. His well-known liberality in matters of religious opinion would, in fact, have precluded the kind of utterances put in his mouth by this palpable forgery . . . In his writings on immigration, Franklin made no mention of discrimination against Jews."
Beard also noted that "the phraseology of the alleged Prophecy is not that of the 18th century; nor is the language that of Franklin. It contains certain words that belong to contemporary (Nazi) Germany rather than America of Franklin’s period. For example, the word ‘homeland’ was not employed by Jews in Franklin’s time. It was created in connection with the Palestine mandate." Beard also showed "positive evidence" that Franklin held Jews in high regard, citing the instance when the Hebrew Society of Philadelphia sought to raise money for a synagogue in Philadelphia. Franklin signed the petition of appeal for contributions to "citizens of every religious denomination" and gave 5 pounds himself to the fund.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
PLEASE CHECK YOUR SOURCES BEFORE PROMULGATING THIS TYPE OF OBVIOUSLY QUESTIONABLE INFORMATION.
June 11, 2007 9:28 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 11, 2007 09:28
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN
(This prediction was made during the intermission of the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787, and was recorded by Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, a South Carolina delegate.): “I fully agree with General Washington, that we must protect this young nation from an insidious influence and impenetration. That menace, gentlemen, is the Jews. In whatever country Jews have settled in any great number, they have lowered its moral tone; depreciated its commercial integrity; have segregated themselves and have not been assimilated; have sneered at and tried to undermine the Christian religion upon which that nation is founded, by objecting to its restrictions; have built up a state within the state; and when opposed have tried to strangle that country to death financially, as in the case of Spain and Portugal. For over 1,700 years, the Jews have been bewailing their sad fate in that they have been exiled from their homeland, as they call Palestine. But, gentlemen, did the world give it to them in fee simple, they would at once find some reason for not returning. Why? Because they are vampires, and vampires do not live on vampires. They cannot live only among themselves. They must subsist on Christians and other peoples not of their race. If you do not exclude them from these United States, in this Constitution, in less than 200 years they will have swarmed here in such great numbers that they will dominate and devour the land and change our form of government, for which we Americans have shed our blood, given our lives, our substance and jeopardized our liberty. If you do not exclude them, in less than 200 years our descendants will be working in the fields to furnish them substance, while they will be in the counting houses rubbing their hands. I warn you, gentlemen, if you do not exclude Jews for all time, your children will curse you in your graves… A leopard cannot change its spots. Jews are Asiatics, are a menace to this country if permitted entrance, and should be excluded by this Constitutional Convention.”
June 11, 2007 9:09 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 11, 2007 09:09
So I will.
This is a new translation of an ancient poem —the earliest work extant in ancient Anglo-Saxon. It has praise and reverence aplenty:
Caedmon’s Hymn
Now we must praise to the skies,___the Keeper of the heavenly kingdom,
The might of the Measurer,____all he has in mind,
The work of the Father of Glory,____of all manner of marvel,
Our eternal Master,___the main mover.
It was he who first summoned up, ____on our behalf,
Heaven as a roof,____the holy Maker.
Then this middle-earth,________the Watcher over humankind
Our eternal Master,_____would later assign
The precinct of men,_____the Lord Almighty.
(trans. Paul Muldoon)
June 11, 2007 8:45 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 11, 2007 08:45
Interesting discussion. Can’t quite reconcile all the competing New Testament quotes—and non Catholics say Church teachings are confusing!
Anyway, I was lucky to have a Jesuit uncle and, growing up, we used to have good discussions. The motto for the society is “Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam” (for the greater glory of God), man’s purpose in life, humankind’s reason for being on this earth, is stated as follows (this time in English):
“"Man is created to praise, reverence, and serve God Our Lord and by this means to save his soul."
There! That was easy wasn’t it? Serving the Lord means emulating him in all his works / doing our best for his Creation, I guess we would call this today “good works”. But contemporary man—and this discussion certainly!-- omits the first two attributes: “praise and reverence.” These are just as important. Nobody has mentioned them.
June 11, 2007 8:41 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 11, 2007 08:41
Concerned Christian,
Paul did not predict Jesus to return during his life.
SHow me the scripture, instead of lying outright as you do.
June 11, 2007 8:04 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 11, 2007 08:04
If you think its by works, your wrong.
Faith does lead to works, but by works you will always fall short.
Who was more justified?
THe pharisee or the politician who prayed in the temple?
Jesus Christ is the truth, the life and the light of all "MEN" who come into this world.
June 11, 2007 8:02 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 11, 2007 08:02
Hi All
BGone is promoting crypto-Gnosticism through his (or his friend's) books - with nice combative titles like "The Bible Hoax" and full of cobbled-together tendentious arguments. Never have I read so much misquoted material, so much flimsy historical argument, such arrogant metaphysical claims, and really quite tedious rehashings of countless other books.
So BGone are you going to be Heresiarch of your Renewed Marcionite Church?
June 11, 2007 5:37 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 11, 2007 05:37
Garyd,
Well Paul predicted the second coming in his life time. Still waiting for that one. When did you say the next one will be?
Hmmm, Satan the fallen one or is he simply another modern day demon of the demented?
Father Edward Schillebeeckx, the famous contemporary theologian, has a different take on hell. He reasons that the Singularity does not tolerate imperfection in his spiritual realm. Therefore, any soul dying in mortal sin will simply disappear since hell the imperfect state does not exist.
June 11, 2007 12:15 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 11, 2007 00:15
One does not sell one's soul to the devil. God either saves or he does not. Salvation is the result of God's direct interference via the Holy Spirit in the normal course of events which leads inexorably to hell otherwise.
The Devil has no need to purchase your soul for in the fullness of time lest God act to intervene it will join him as another prisoner in hell and please note Satan is not the ruler of hell but its foremost prisoner after the second coming.
June 10, 2007 8:57 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 10, 2007 20:57
One does not sell one's soul to the devil. God either saves or he does not. Salvation is the result of God's direct interference via the Holy Spirit in the normal course of events which leads inexorably to hell otherwise.
The Devil has no need to purchase your soul for in the fullness of time lest God act to intervene it will join him as another prisnoer in hell and please not Satan is not the ruler of hell but its foremost prisoner at the second coming.
June 10, 2007 8:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 10, 2007 20:56
Ah so, SPEED123, another STRANGE GOD worshipper, shameful and simple minded. No, sorry, genious.
How strange is "the God of your father...?"
*ball-of-fire God was not strange enough
*man put in fire = man-on-fire God
*stranger God than all, man levitating above bush on fire = man-getting-hotfoot God
I've seen better Gods on a totem pole and I've seen some pretty strange looking Gods on totem ploes.
Confusious say, "man with strange God become low man on totem pole."
First commandment say no strange Gods.
June 10, 2007 8:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 10, 2007 20:41
BGONE,
You are a simplistic idiot.
Soliciting hits for private websites should not be allowed on these forums....
STOP PROMOTING YOUR WEBSITE!
Be gone, already, you shameless simpleton.
June 10, 2007 4:45 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 10, 2007 16:45
ANONYMOUS you wrote:
"GABY
Without the scroptures where do we get God's truth?"
Very simple, actually!
God = IT (not he or she)
IT has created everything in the universe, not by hand, but by spirit, therefore, God is in all of us. We do not need bibles, prophets, preachers and such to explain good or evil, we inherently know right from wrong.
IT lives in us and when we die our spirit will reunite with IT. IT is the life force of everything and nothing. It's really not that hard to understand.
June 10, 2007 4:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 10, 2007 16:04
WILLIS E:
Be sure it's God and not Devil doing the sorting out of the crazies.
http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul but you probably already have by wroshiping Devil and calling Him God. Abide the FIRST commandment FIRST.
June 10, 2007 11:37 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 10, 2007 11:37
Salvation is being saved from the jaws of the 'boogie demon' that lurks about in the dark passage between this life and the next.
The 'boogie demon' is a hoax, http://www.hoax-buster.org Without the demon there is nothing to be 'salvationed' from.
The boogie demon has a history that is carelessly left out of the history books and midevil religious conceptions of it substituted. Religion runs, (ruins) education. Lies that cause people to believe, (in the boogie demon) are moral.
Threaten with hell, pass the plate and my how the money rolls in.
June 10, 2007 11:32 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 10, 2007 11:32
No censorship of this blog, please!
It's about God, so let God sort out the crazies.
Besides, there's always a chance that even the crazies will read something that makes shocking new sense to them, might even cure their craziness.
Besides, crazies--OK, all of us--need to ventilate not into the void but somewhere where we'll be heard & maybe even responded to. Credit WASHINGTON POST / NEWSWEEK for providing the space.
Besides, where else will you find brief, stimulating posts by such a variety of competent panelists? A current newsmagazine calls Tom Wright, the writer this thread is responding to, "the greatest New Testament scholar of our time."
June 9, 2007 10:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 9, 2007 22:46
Pablo said: "One other issue for Daniel. You say you are a Christian but you keep calling other Christians names."
I've noticed this too Pablo. You know, I've NEVER seen a self described atheist consistently talk down to another atheist -or- call a fellow atheist names on these boards, ever. If someone else has, please show me the thread. Of course I see this behavior from "christians" to other "christians" all the time. But just maybe some of these "christians" aren't really, you know, "christians" after all.
Sometimes I think that those who visit the boards to fight against Christianity/Christ know more about what they are fighting against than the actual Christians know what they are fighting for.
Here is the key to you the person trying to figure out Christianity on here of all places. Find the ones who speak with grace and humility, and believe that Jesus is who he said he was in the bible. Watch them treat others with respect. Then watch them get hammered mercilessly for voicing an opinion (which is why I think there are so few regular christian posters here). Then form your own opinion on what they say and how they act. It's a free country.
Sometimes I don't think there are more than 1 or 2 people in here actually trying to figure stuff out with a semi-open mind. I mean who are we kidding, this is "On Faith". We're ALL extremists ;)
June 9, 2007 10:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 9, 2007 22:09
Cranmer:
Dear Mr. Bishop,
If you had the slightest sense of what "good works" means, you'd abstain from writing such trite rubbish.
The Church of England doesn't even believe in God anymore and here you are in your purple robe (and high heels?) lecturing us on faith.
Whitened sepulchres, whitened sepulchres
When did their creeds change?
June 9, 2007 8:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 9, 2007 20:19
There is no consistent Christian account of how humans are supposed to be saved, although this is of the utmost practical urgency. It is absurd that the aim of Christianity is human salvation and yet Christian doctrine does not make clear how this is achieved. Indeed, there are conflicting ideas of salvation suggested by the creeds, the gospels and Paul's letters. For example, one view of salvation presented in the Synoptic Gospels is that a person is saved by following a moral code. A second view, one maintained by Paul, John, and the Creeds, is that a person is saved by having faith in Jesus. In other words, the first path to salvation seems to be through works, whereas the second path to salvation is by faith alone.
The second route is the one most commonly associated with Christianity. However, it is not clear just what it involves besides belief. Even when one concentrates only on the cognitive dimension of faith there are unclarities. The Creeds seem to demand the kind of belief that defines orthodox Christianity: namely, everything from the Virgin Birth to the Second Coming, from the Resurrection to the Incarnation. But John only seems to demand belief in the incarnation and Paul only seems to demand belief in the resurrection. Neither Paul nor John demands belief in the Virgin Birth or in the Trinity but the Creeds do.
So Christians who read the New Testament and the Creeds of Christianity carefully should be utterly confused for they are presented with conflicting doctrines. They will not know whether one is saved by works or by faith and, if by faith, by faith in what.
In Christianity the goal is salvation yet in Christian doctrine there is no clear and consistent way to achieve it. There is in fact an incongruity between Christianity's inconsistent views of salvation and the central place of salvation in Christianity. It is as if Christianity says, "Above all seek salvation! But there is no clear or consistent way to do it!"
Could a Christian avoid this conclusion? Of course, he or she could try to interpret the New Testament so that these conflicting doctrines of salvation are harmonized or so that one of them is discounted. But such interpretations cannot be arbitrary. Absurdity should not be avoided by arbitrariness.
It is well known that there is a long-standing conflict between Catholics who stress salvation by works and Protestants who advocate salvation by faith. Indeed, there is a vast amount of scholarly literature devoted to trying to understand the conflict. This traditional controversy and the scholarly response certainly suggest that my thesis that the Bible offers conflicting advice is hardly strained.
Another possible way of trying to avoid the problem is to maintain that since the path of salvation is unclearly specified in the Bible one should cover both bets by having faith in Jesus and also doing good works. Given the mysterious nature of God, whether this is a good prudential suggestion is unclear. After all, God may not want us to follow both paths at once. But in any case it does not avoid the main problem. It is absurd that Christians should have to use this strategy in order to avoid the problem. If following both paths simultaneously is what God wants, why is this not clearly specified? Surely the path of salvation should be stated in a way that is easy to understand.
June 9, 2007 7:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 9, 2007 19:59
Daniel
Keep trying. You've got allies, for sure.
Unknown and Pam
You are absolutely correct. Any deity worth following would have to appreciate those who do His work without expecting reward (even without knowing where the impulse comes from) over those who talk the talk without walking the walk. Which is worse, doubt or hypocrisy? To me it's no contest.
I try to avoid this subject here at On Faith, because it sounds terribly condescending to, essentially, tell atheists that G-d works through them whether they acknowledge it or not. It would be arrogant of me to try to tell them what is or is not in their hearts. I certainly wouldn't want my spiritual life interpreted by someone whose beliefs I found silly.
Which is my apology for having just done so.....
June 9, 2007 7:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 9, 2007 19:20
Dear Mr. Bishop,
If you had the slightest sense of what "good works" means, you'd abstain from writing such trite rubbish.
The Church of England doesn't even believe in God anymore and here you are in your purple robe (and high heels?) lecturing us on faith.
Whitened sepulchres, whitened sepulchres.
June 9, 2007 6:58 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 9, 2007 18:58
Steven Carr:
WRIGHT
'...so that to imagine that 'salvation' means being rescued FROM the world is to deny the most fundamental article of the creed. '
PAUL THE HERETIC
'Who will rescue me from this body of death?' Romans 7:24
Curiosly, when Wright quotes from Romans 7:24 in his commentary 'Romans for everyone' book, he decides 'Who will rescue me?' is an adequate quote.
Wright presumably doesn't want to remind his readers of what Paul wanted to be rescued from - namely, his body.
Steven: What bible translation are you using? Read Romans 7:24b again - "Who is going to rescue me from the body of this death." By not including "of this death," in your translation, you're missing a big part of Paul's point. It's not the body he's trying to escape - it's the body "of this death."
June 9, 2007 6:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 9, 2007 18:07
WRIGHT
'...so that to imagine that 'salvation' means being rescued FROM the world is to deny the most fundamental article of the creed. '
PAUL THE HERETIC
'Who will rescue me from this body of death?' Romans 7:24
Curiosly, when Wright quotes from Romans 7:24 in his commentary 'Romans for everyone' book, he decides 'Who will rescue me?' is an adequate quote.
Wright presumably doesn't want to remind his readers of what Paul wanted to be rescued from - namely, his body.
June 9, 2007 5:35 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 9, 2007 17:35
Anon,
Ok. Keep reviewing the religious founders' synopsis previously presented to put reality back into your religion.