Start by Understanding Salvation

bimester stephana keacorn borromean retrogradingly pneumopericardium subverticillate cyclus
http://amppower.blogspot.com/ >Amp Power
http://www.digitaldays.net

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!

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.

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.

You guys are very entertaining. Keep up the good works.

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.

Bloody sad, eh!

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.

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...

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.

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...

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.

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.

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)

TDAY,

And the three resurrections are????

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

>>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.

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.”

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)

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.

Concerned Christian,

Paul did not predict Jesus to return during his life.

SHow me the scripture, instead of lying outright as you do.

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.

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?

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.

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."

First commandment say no strange Gods.

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.

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.

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.

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

When did their creeds change?

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.

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.....

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."

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.

Anon,

Ok. Keep reviewing the religious founders' synopsis previously presented to put reality back into your religion.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:
Anon,

"My embellished commentary gets to the point quickly. Even quicker, the divine right of kings/queens/dictators/popes/ayatollahs/priests/
ministers is over."

No Concerned. Your comments are reprehensible and out of line and I will no longer take your time.

Anon,

My embellished commentary gets to the point quickly. Even quicker, the divine right of kings/queens/dictators/popes/ayatollahs/priests/
ministers is over.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

Take religion out of the equation for a moment - you're quote is extremely hateful and embarrassing.

"Humankind will never be free until the Last King, The Last Queen and the Last Dictator are strangled with the entrails of the Last Priest, the Last Minister, the Last Evangelist, the Last Caliph, The Last Imam, The Last Ayatollah, The Last Mawlana and/or the Last Mullah."

Anon,

The "god speakers" have spoken what needs to be said for believers in the old religions. The Internet, Google, common sense, and rational thought now supersedes these old religions and said founders.

A quick review of said founders:

1. Abraham founder of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men. 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have concluded that Abraham was mythical as is much of the OT. For a scientific human time line, see National Geographic's Genographic Project on-line.

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth. Analyses of his life by many contemporary NT scholars via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of his sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish, and Gentile groups.

3. Mohammed, an illiterate, hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the Koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

4. Luther, Calvin, Smith et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

5. Hinduism - (from an on-line Hindu site) "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centred and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’"

The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."

"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/BUDDHISM/SIDD.HTM

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations/embellishments and myths surrounding the founders of said rules of life.

BGone states:
AA:

"That post was to, DEFINE SALVATION, and not Dr Wright. The short answer is "buying a ticket to hell" what people do in church worshipping the Devil.

Calling Devil God does not make Him God but does make Him happy.

If the shoe fits...."

That's a relief! For a minute there, I thought you were bashing 2.1 billion people who claim to be Christian, many of whom worship on a weekly basis. You never know on message boards like these...So many intolerant people. I'm glad you're not one of them.

AA:

That post was to, DEFINE SALVATION, and not Dr Wright. The short answer is "buying a ticket to hell" what people do in church worshipping the Devil.

Calling Devil God does not make Him God but does make Him happy.

If the shoe fits....

Anon States,

"Considering the problems caused by the list of "entrailees", it is simply the truth. In this age of fact over fiction and embellished history, we no longer need these "god talkers" and they should all be given "pink slips"."

Your categories would include Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Bishop Tutu, John Newton, John Woolman, etc.

I am totally shocked that you are standing by your quote.

Anon,

Considering the problems caused by the list of "entrailees", it is simply the truth. In this age of fact over fiction and embellished history, we no longer need these "god talkers" and they should all be given "pink slips".

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated:

My embellished version was:

"Humankind will never be free until the Last King, The Last Queen and the Last Dictator are strangled with the entrails of the Last Priest, the Last Minister, the Last Evangelist, the Last Caliph, The Last Imam, The Last Ayatollah, The Last Mawlana and/or the Last Mullah."

This is one of the most prejudicial statements I have ever read. Liberated, huh?

Anon,

Having a "politico"/womanizer like Henry VIII establish a religion always struck me as strange.

But it also reminded me of a quote that "HK" noted a few threads ago:

HK,

"Diderot said it best-

"Man will never be free until the Last King is strangled with the entrails of the Last Priest."

My embellished version was:

"Humankind will never be free until the Last King, The Last Queen and the Last Dictator are strangled with the entrails of the Last Priest, the Last Minister, the Last Evangelist, the Last Caliph, The Last Imam, The Last Ayatollah, The Last Mawlana and/or the Last Mullah."

Got any more rain dances for us, sachem? Same old tired superstition!

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:
Bishop Wright,

"So it was the faith or the works of Henry VIII that saved him???"

Just curious - By asking this question, are you anti-Anglican? Or anti-church in general? If so, why? If not, what's your point?

BGone states:
DEFINE SALVATION: buying a ticket to hell.

How it works:
a) A person sells h/er soul to Devil.
b) Grasping sacred, (totally burned up) scripture entices others to follow.
c) Followers pay Devil's due to soul seller under the disguise of "gifts to God"
***gifts to God are tax free, tax deductible and property where "gifting" is done is tax exempt. Thus your government is in on it too.
d) The more followers the soul seller gets the greater the reward, (the big money goes to those who lead the multitudes to hell) so you may want to become a minister. Pray hard.

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul and hurry for hell is almost full. You wouldn't want to go to heaven and miss out on the big eternal party, the perpetual people roast. As much fun as it is to watch other people burn, it's worlds more fun to be the center of attraction. So hurry and little nothing you too can get to be somebody. You do want to be the center of attraction?"

You're miles away from the point of Dr. Wright's post. How does this connect with what he said?

God saves His people for good works.

"For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" (Ephesians 2:10).

The work of Christ in His death burial and resurrection bought salvation for those who believe. If anyone thinks that they can add to what Jesus has done in His work on the cross they are insulting Him and are implying that what Jesus did was not enough.

Jesus saved us for good works. He said you will know a tree by its fruit.

One other issue for Daniel. You say you are a Christian but you keep calling other Christians names. Do you get that from the scriptures?

PAM:

More life, eternal life even, after this life is a matter of natural consequence, like gravity. There is nothing anyone can do to cause it to happen or prevent it from happening.

Hell is one man's dream of stopping his dead enemies killed by his soldoers from retaliating when he too passed on and arrived in the next world. That has been dug out of the written historical record, 5,000 year old or more, about the time Adam and Eve were being thrown out of paradise, (wink wink).

Jew, Christian, Muslim all believe him. Hell is what their faith is in, that all will not enjoy eternal life or at least more life. The God they claim to believen in is actually Devil. Sometimes it's hard to stop laughing.

http://www.hoax-buster.org for the origins of the three great faiths.

Some faith vs. good works history, as per my good friend, a Catholic Theology professor at a large Catholic university: It is all about Purgatory -

"Protestants because of Luther's "sola Scriptura" do not accept Purgatory as a valid doctrine of Christianity. Luther argued that "Purgatory"
is not explicitly found in the Bible. Many scholars believe that he rejected the notion because of its ties to the selling of writs of indulgence. People viewed indulgences as a means for lessening the time of temporal punishment
in purgatory. Protestants also argue that Purgatory negates the satisfaction of sin by Jesus' death. God's grace through the merits of Christ is the only thing that saves. Religious services / prayers by loved ones and the
good works of repentance for deceased persons can do nothing to help a person earn heaven. The rejection of purgatory, is part of a bigger tendency in Protestantism toward individual relationship with God and away from a
sense of participation in a bigger "communion" of the faithful.

"The Roman Catholic Church teaches that after death, those guilty of sins that are not serious (venial rather than mortal) and of mortal sins for
which persons have repented, must spend time being purified through "temporal punishment" or are given the opportunity to repent. The justice
of God requires some punishment for the sins we have committed, due to the harm they have caused. The Biblical basis for this teaching is 1 Cor 3:15. "If any person's work is burned up, he/she will suffer loss, though the person will be saved, but only as through fire." Purgatory is envisioned to be a purification, as gold is purified "as through fire," so is the soul of
the person who has committed sin. 2 Maccabees 12: 38-46 is also associated with belief in purgatory, because it refers to praying for those who havedied.

Some scholars trace purgatory as a teaching to the practice of third century Christians of praying for the dead. In the late 12th century
speculation emerged that depicted purgatory as a separate "place" or state of being existing somewhere between heaven and hell. At the Second Council of Lyons (1274) teaching about purgatory became an official doctrine of the
Catholic Church. It became fixed in the Catholic imagination due to Dante's Divine Comedy. During the Middle Ages (time of Crusades and Plagues)
Purgatory became an important element in Christian ascetical practices. Through such practices it was believed that the punishment due to sin could be paid here or in purgatory. In the Middle Ages speculation about Purgatory
heightened and the practice of offering masses for deceased loved ones began
along with the system of indulgences. Offering prayers and Masses for the
dead was seen as a way to be spiritually connected (in communion) with loved
ones.

For Catholics the doctrine of Purgatory is closely connected with belief in the Communion of Saints. This doctrine expresses the conviction that there is a communion between life after death (Saints in heaven and people making reparation for their sins in purgatory) and earthly life. Emphasis on the community of all persons living and dead is stronger in the Roman
Catholic Church than in Protestant Churches. Because of the belief in the
Communion of Saints, Catholics pray for loved ones who have died, and pray
not only to God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - but also to Mary and the
Saints, witnesses to and models of the Christian life. [Orthodox Christians
also have the practice of honoring and praying to the Saints.] Devotion to
the saints is viewed as an expression of love for those who have faithfully
loved the God who is love itself."

A Statement Against the Church and a Personal God
By Albert Einstein
About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indocrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws.

—W. Hermanns, Einstein and the Poet—In Search of the Cosmic Man (Branden Press, Brookline Village, Mass., 1983), p.132, quoted in Jammer, p.123.
No Will or Ought

Cerulean says:
" Nobody acts as the primary mover in their own salvation, either by faith or works. In other words, neither faith nor works will bring about the redemption and renewal of creation, only God will."

So, as an atheist, I may be saved by God anyway? And some of the thumpers who go around working so hard at it may not make it? What a hoot!

I just love all you Xians - whatever the parameters, you can come up with a story to cover it.

I hope this forum never goes away - it is *so* entertaining!

DEFINE SALVATION: buying a ticket to hell.

How it works:
a) A person sells h/er soul to Devil.
b) Grasping sacred, (totally burned up) scripture entices others to follow.
c) Followers pay Devil's due to soul seller under the disguise of "gifts to God"
***gifts to God are tax free, tax deductible and property where "gifting" is done is tax exempt. Thus your government is in on it too.
d) The more followers the soul seller gets the greater the reward, (the big money goes to those who lead the multitudes to hell) so you may want to become a minister. Pray hard.

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul and hurry for hell is almost full. You wouldn't want to go to heaven and miss out on the big eternal party, the perpetual people roast. As much fun as it is to watch other people burn, it's worlds more fun to be the center of attraction. So hurry and little nothing you too can get to be somebody. You do want to be the center of attraction?

If an atheist does good works, is not that superior to those done as a way of earning salvation? Conversely, if being saved is a prerequisite for good works, how can it be that atheists do good works, which they do in abundance. If there were no promise of salvation, would xians do good works?

Just wondering.

Dear Mr. Bishop, good argument, but I would take it one step further. Nobody acts as the primary mover in their own salvation, either by faith or works. In other words, neither faith nor works will bring about the redemption and renewal of creation, only God will. However, we can participate in the salvific renewal of creation with the full knowledge of faith, or simply through good works because full salvation is about life in the world, which we influence through our actions--whether we are believers or not.

Eh. s/indulgence/indulge/

Daniel wrote: "It is embarassing that people with obvious mental disturbances should speak for Christians."

From my point of view, I find this suspect.

They typical religious person (Christian or otherwise) exhibits no small number of the exact same traits as the mentally ill. Delusions of grandeur, 'communication' with voices that nobody else hears, and so forth.

What is someone such as myself, that doesn't indulgence in such beliefs, to make of this state of affairs?

If it walks like a duck ...

I think, ultimately, salvation means to be saved from death. There is a vary wide-range of belief among the many Christian groups, so that it would be difficult to be more specific than that.

Fundamentally, Christians believe that when you die, your soul continues to live, and your soul goes to Heaven. There is a multitude of conflicting descriptions on how this might happen, on what might qualify you in the eyes of God, or disqualify you.

That is why there is so much dissension amoung churches, and why Christians have never gotten along very well with each other. There is an extremely wide range of belief.

Can anyone tell me what exactly one means by salvation? Do peeple of all religions and faiths have the "same" salvation?

The Catholic Church has a very elabortate and legalistic characterization of its doctrines, which are pretty theologically dense, and which I would imgagine, the average Catholic lay person would not be familiar with or understand.

With regards to good works, we don't have anything in the Methodist Church like that. We do not have a complete legalistic system of thinking which congregants are asked to comply with. Instead, it is sort of a feeling you get from a longterm participation. So, you cannot suddenly become a Christian, and suddenly know all about it, and how to instruct everyone else. It is something that you acquire, over a long period of time.

Even though Methodist doctrine would state that good works result from being saved, and being saved and good works are intertwined in the Christian life, still it has been my experience that the Methodist Church strongly teaches good works over salvation.

In my upbringing as a Methodist, we were taught that we exist in the here and now, which we can feel and know and understand with some degree of certainty; but, that our belief in God and Jesus is somewhat speculative, that being, ultimately, the nature of spiritual matters.

And so it is best, not to sit in lonely solitude and contemplation about salvation, but it is best to engage in the world, to work for the best, hope for the best, intervene in the lives and affairs of others, to help them when we can.

We, Methodists, have sort of a reputation of being busy-bodies and do-gooders.

Well, that is my experience, and my two cents worth.

Daniel distracted me. I'm interested in the true meaning of the term, "good works." It's my understanding form the essay that good works lead to good things, heaven even.

Is good works and bad works like, up and down, in and out, like that or is it like over and under with the pissibility of through? I'm using the nontraditional definition of through, not meaning finished but not over or not under and in between those two.

If I choose to not do good works am I ipso facto choosing to do bad works or is there another possibility? It's my understanding that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, the loftiest of intentions being to get to heaven.

Dear Bgone
I know you gotta be talking about the Baptists!

Daniel, I do my best to avoid confusion, however. I do lump all 'three great faiths' into one humungus organization more akin to the mafia than any other organization I can think of at the moment.

Mafia - no product, no service, just money
Religion - ditto, ditto, ditto

Mafia - a loose organization of indepentents known as families.
Religions - (Ecumenical) a loose organization of independents known as faiths.

Mafia leaders - live in big houses known as prisions, eventually.
Religious leaders - live on big houses known as cathedrals, if they're successful.

I'll bet I left something out that is even more one-for-one.

It's striking how the critical posts of Dr. Wright 1) do not connect directly with his post, 2) go off on tangents, and 3) do not represent a coherent train of thought.

I believe this is caused by people not having a grasp of orthodox Christian beliefs in the classic tradition.

bgone
Oh, you got it all wrong; I'm Methodist. Methodists are Protestants, and don't have a Pope; we have a World Conference, and "position papers," which are church opinions, with which we are all entitled to disagree. Most Protestant churches regard Methodists, along with the Catholics and Episcopaleans, as "apostates." We just laugh.

To help you locate it in the Protestant flow chart of denominations, the Methodist Church is a cousin of the the Episcopal Church. And the Episcopal Church is the Americanized version of the Anglican Church. And the Anglican Church is the church that traces its origins back to Henry VIII, the Tudor King of England.

Henry wanted a son; his wife had not born him a son, so he wanted do divorce her. For all kinds of reasons involving international power politics too complex to go into here, the Pope would not grant him a divorce. So, Henry did away with the power of the Pope in England, and asserted the primacy of the monarchy over the church.

So, the Anglican church was not really formed over any kind of theological differences with the Catholic Church; it was merely King Henry's poltical expediency.

So that is where Methodists come from.

In the Methodist Church, freedom of thought and expression is acknowledged. The existence of doubt is acknowledged. It assumed that people may have varying degrees of belief and doubt. Discussions on the existnece of God are allowed.

I think you have got us confused with the Baptists.

anon.. the one that said: "These stereotypes are wrong. " above..
first, could you use a uniquer handle of some sort.... You seem sharp, thoughtful and articulate, but it'd be nice to be able to see more of your posts and tie them together for a more complete picture...
You've made an important point here, one that goes well beyond these geeky blogs.. that it is not so important that we all think the same way, or believe the same thing, but it is VITAL that we understand each other better. Kudos...

Daniel, anon

When you were children you were told the Moese story without the slightest hint it was phony. That story established the absolute existence of God and from that point forward you were led to the conclusuion that God created the Christian church through Jesus. The final piece of the puzzle put the pope in charge.

To firm it all up you were threatened with the fires of hell. Either you do as the pope dictates or hell. You were too young to ask the hard questions and bought it all hook line and sinker.

You're as stuck as a bug on fly paper. I got off the hook myself but I have no advice on how to do that.

GABY:

Without the scroptures where do we get God's truth?

It is embarassing that people with obvious mental disturbances should speak for Christians. It is not helping Christians to promote psychotic babbling as typical Christian thinking. They just add to the confusion. If there is no way to filter these people out, then it would better to do away with these forums completely.

Falantedios:

The problem is that the scripture doesn't hold god's truth.

Who really wrote the bible? God? Jesus? Nope!

Did Moses write about Moses, did Noah write about Noah? Nope!!

All the OT is a bunch of hearsay over generations, embellished, falisfied, just like a good rumor, and then a bunch of long-dead guys scibbled it down on some of old papyrus in some ancient language. Then it was translated and translated again and again. And voila! we now have the "hol(e)y scripture.

I agree Daniel.

Everyone has there own opinion. But we can use these blogs to break the stereotypes of both Christians and Atheists alike.

I believe this is important. It's assumed that most atheists believe that we Christians are all fanatical. And it’s assumed that we Christians believe that atheists are evil.

These stereotypes are wrong. I'm Catholic and I have my own beliefs and I also don't expect any atheist to believe in what I believe in. Like wise with the knowledge that I have about Catholism it would be a hard sell for an Atheist to make me a non believer. Because most of these questions posed in this forum is nothing new under the sun and has been addressed in the past.

We must accept each other for who we are.

To: Fake Preachers Exposed Again

You've only exposed yourself, sir.

Wow! The book of Euphesians, huh? I guess since Dr. Wright was reading from EPHESIANS, he didn't have the problem that you seem to have.

What problem is that, you ask?

Stopping your reading when you don't like what you're reading.

You can't just YANK Ephesians 2:8 out of the middle of Paul's essay, tape a sentence fragment from Galatians, two fragments from different sentences in Romans, and call it one coherent thought.

That's like pulling one line out of four different recipe books, and being shocked when your cake turns out to be a pile of goo.

Stop proof-texting, read the whole of Scripture, and let God's truth renew your mind.

in HIS love,
Nick Gill
Frankfort, KY

Speaking from a Christian point of view, these religeous forums and threads seem pretty freaky and weird. There seems to be alot of people who post here who are "psychotic for Christ" and who are not really able to make any sensible comments and don't really know what they believe or why. It is embarrassing for these Jesus-maniac types to comment on behalf of Christians and Christianity. Maybe it would be best for the Washington Post to abolish this whole thing completely. I don't think it is doing all that much good.

B Gone is correct.

Moses deal get the Mosiac laws from the Dark side, the evil one...

Job 4:
17Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker?

18Behold, he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly:

19How much less in them that dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust, which are crushed before the moth?

Galatians 3
16Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, ((And to thy seed, which is Christ.))

17And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, ((cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.))

18For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: ((but God gave it to Abraham by promise. ))

19((Wherefore then serveth the law?)) It was added because of transgressions, ((till the seed should come to whom the promise was made;)) and it was ((((((ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. ))))))

20(((((Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. ))))*
DID YOU CATCH IT? READ 20 AGAIN

21Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

22But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

The Law was a device the Dark side of Elohim utilized in desire of condemning all souls to eternal death. All souls of the Light, and all adamic man.

Moses knew that he was dealing with a dark and nefarious powerful sentient being; who called himself God. He knew it was the dark side. He knew what he was dealing with, and was still a man from the Light, under suppression:

Exodus 23:
20Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared.

21Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.

22But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries.

The trick is, it was'nt an angel, but it was Elohim of the darkness. Calling himself God.

It even sought to kill Moses over a circumcision duty. This is the letter of the law, perfect in its strict since, but a failure due to those entrapped in flesh of doing them.

2 Corinthians 3:
12Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:

13And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:

14But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ

Acts 15:5
But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

Romans 2:29
But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

For added review about Faith vs. Works, see Professors Crossan and Reed's book, In Search of Paul, especially pp. 377-378.

An excerpt: " In the sixteenth century, Luther said two things about Paul's letter to the Romans, one fundamentally right, one fundamentally wrong, both fundamentally important. In the preface to his commentary on that letter he (Luther) said,

..............................
It is impossible to separate works from faith as burning and shining from fire.

That last sentence is both crucial and correct. "

Bishop Wright,

So it was the faith or the works of Henry VIII that saved him???

"We aren't saved BY good works but we are saved FOR good works -- for the rich, wise, mature human life which reflects God's glory into the world."

Good quote Bishop Wright.

Before we get to being saved by whatever means we must understand where we are going once saved.

REF: Excodus 3:6
Was the creature in the ball of fire Moses made the deal with God? That is the critical point of faith. Faith in what????

Interpretation 1,501 http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul cast a lot of doubt on that critter being God. That is especially so if it's Almighty God.

That God wanted the Israelites out of Egypt and gave them the land belonging to other people. The Israelites still haven't made it to that land, 3,300++ years later, and, if it's Jews that are Israelites they are way short in Judah.

Canan - Syria
Land of Hittites - Turkey

Everyone and everything Almighty God wants to be anywhere are there. Almighty God need only **WILL** it. Lesser Gods need help from angels and people. Devils are lesser Gods.

That's just one of a dozen indicators that the supernatural being Moses made the deal with is actually *A* Devil, the biggest one of then all, Lucifer who would-be, made self "like unto" God.

When the big money, Aztec and Inca gold for example stops going to those who lead the multitudes to hell we can talk about salvation.

What a load of CRAP!

He don't even know what he's reading in Euphesians! This guy is full of dead bones!

Here is the truth!

Ephesians 2:8
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Not of yourselves (works), but of faith. Let us continue in truth!

Romans 9:32
Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

Galatians 2:16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Hebrews 6:1
Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

There is a way that seemeth right to a man, to mankind to people. It is that salvation, or entrance into the future Kingdom of God is via your works. No flesh is justified by works.

Preach truth, Preach Christ Jesus.

Thank you, Bishop Wright! I have thoroughly enjoy reading this today and it is so encouraging to see you write these things. May God bless you this weekend and the week to come as always!

Thank You. Saved FOR good works makes a lot of sense to me.