The God thread

[1549]

Yes, yes, absolutely yes!  Surviving long enough to leave the most progeny is what it is all about in teh living world.

*deep sigh* It doesn't mean the slightest bit.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I disagree with how you measure definition of success.  If a guy lives 40 years and makes a few billion dollars, cures cancer, makes a best-picture movie and wins a nobel peace prize, is he more successful than his neighbor who did jacks*** for 80 years? 

 

In my opinion yes. 

 

Success can't be measured by endurance, only achievments.

 

Alligators have practically been here since the beginning of f***ing time and they still haven't done anything but lay in the sun.  In a nano-second of time humans have already grasped firm control over the alligator that has been around for so much longer.

 

Summary: we own.

You are measuring success in terms of human superficial importances. Crocadilians are wildly successful - they have existed since the Age of the dinosaurs and survived the K-T impact event that did them in.

 

In biological terms, $80 billion is nnot successful. Nor is curing cancer if it results in an aged human population that lives well past its reporductive usefulness and is a net drain on the finite resources required by the population.

[1549]

You are measuring success in terms of human superficial importances.  Crocadilians are wildly successful - they have existed since the Age of the dinosaurs and survived the K-T impact event that did them in.

 

In biological terms, $80 billion is nnot successful.  Nor is curing cancer if it results in an aged human population that lives well past its reporductive usefulness and is a net drain on the finite resources required by the population.

When a population has the ability to pretty much create and control its own recources, living past the reproductive age isn't a bad thing.

[BrandoFan]

2: Though some biblical stories may only be symbolism, much of it is true, especially the new testament.

 

Well la-di-da....how convenient....are you sure you're a Christian and not a Jew?

 

 

[Soxy]

I'm going to nitpick Soxy, because you are not a lazy thinker and you will take it in teh spirit in which it is intended.

 

"Bugs", Order Hemiptera, are one small group within the insects.  it is actually beetles (Order Coleoptera) that are the hands-down winners of the diversity battle.

Point taken. I knew I should have taken Animal Phys.

[FlaSoxxJim]

When a population has the ability to pretty much create and control its own recources, living past the reproductive age isn't a bad thing.

Not to get into hairy social issues, but the aging Boomers are poised to test your assertion. They will be retired and so will not be contributing to the system in tangibel ways, nor will they be of reproductive age. They will possibly wipe out social security and Medicare and will continue to drain those resources for decades because we have gotten good at prolonging life. Again, the social issues are way more complex than I set forth here, and I truly do value the older generations, but all the public health experts (including my father who is the former Deputy Director of public health for Chicago - and an agng Boomer himself) say the aging Boomers is something we are just not prepared for.

 

So, say we can cure most cancers - it could happen in our lifetimes (My institution is in preclinical trials of some marine active compounds that make Taxol look like Pez as far as their efficacy against some very tough cancers). Does that mean we should? Yes, much human suffering will be allieviated. But cloning for the sake of organ harvest or pursuing stem cell research, etc., will also allieviate much suffering (I'm very pro stem-cell research btw). Should we not do these things too? If we cure cancers and raise the average American lifespan to 100 years, we then have an even bigger, older, longer lived social crisis, as health care costs to fight the other diseases and keep worn out bodies going skyrockets. Human vessels were designed to wear out and, yes to succumb to dread diseases as well. But evolution has succeeded in moving most of these life-threatening illnesses into our senescent years after we have made our reproductive contributions to future generations. That is all you can ask selection to do, and by artificially increasing life expectancy we only open new cans of worms in terms of the other illnesses scheduled to erupt in these hitherto rarely experienced advanced years.

 

As with most things, our scientific and medical knowledge and ability to bend the rules far outpaces our ability to deal with the ethical questions tied to the issues. There will be more than 8.5 billion people on Earth by 2025. If more and more of these are living longer, requiring food, housing, medical care etc., the human suffering we see now in the world will pale compared to what we bring on ourselves in teh future.

 

We do not, as you say "create and control our own resources." Not by a long shot. We are entirely dependent on teh living resources of the planet for the air we breathe and teh food we eat. We don't break the rules of ecology either, we merely stretch a highly elastic system to bear maximum. But, all elastic systems eventually have to snap back or they fail. Neither scenario is appealing.

[Soxy]

Well, I have a "modest proposel" for that Problem Flaxx. We must eat those we are no longer viable producing members of society. We must keep our elderly well noureshed--feed them well and keep them in tip top shape--and then we can "recycle" them.

 

Sorry, I'll keep out of this discussion as I clearly have nothing of worth to add. And just for the record I'm a vegetarian.

 

http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

Edited January 27, 2004 by ChiSoxyGirl

[soxfan420]

Well, I have a "modest proposel" for that Problem Flaxx. We must eat those we are no longer viable producing members of society. We must keep our elderly well noureshed--feed them well and keep them in tip top shape--and then we can "recycle" them. 

 

Sorry, I'll keep out of this discussion as I clearly have nothing of worth to add. And just for the record I'm a vegetarian.

 

http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

thats really gross

[Soxy]

thats really gross

You have to follow the link--it's a mickey take of Jonathon Swift's satiric piece "A Modest Proposal."

[FlaSoxxJim]

You have to follow the link--it's a mickey take of Jonathon Swift's satiric piece "A Modest Proposal."

Not a "mickey take" at all, Soxy, I think it's right on.

 

Swift's readers got deep into "Modest Proposal" nodding in affirmation until the arguments became so absurd and they realized they were the but of the joke. Similarly, the well-heeled members of modern society will have no problem with science pursuing ways to allow their lives to be extended and damn the social cost. It's no coincidence that nancy Reagan has softened her stance on stem cell research, having been informed that stem cell research may hold promise for... tada... Alzheimers sufferers. Bill Mahr noted this in "If you Drive Alone, You Drive with Bin Ladin," and half-jokingly said we should wish that all the arch conservatives should get glaucoma and their kids should be gay, and then we'll see how their stance on medical marijuana or gay rights changes in the changing light of enlightened self interest.

[doubleM23]

 

 

Seriously... how does a species continue to survive for billions of years.. without some sort of intelligence? Heck.. look at us.. we supposedly have brains and every time you turn around someone wants to drop the bomb and wipe us all out. 

I think you're confusing the terms intelligence and instinct. I'm not going to get into a whole lot of mumbo-jumbo about what goes on in a cockroaches' noodles, but given what I have seen of the planet thus far, I really find it hard to believe that other animals have even the slightest capabilities of intellect. Many of them are very advanced in the art of instinct, but it's a real stretch for me to think that any other being on the planet can process information the way we do.

 

Cockroaches don't die because they are built to not die. They're not big and clumsy like dinosaurs, have excellent natural body armor unlike humans, and can basically survive on very limited food and water, unlike pretty much everything to supercede them evolutionally. Animals may be bigger, faster, smarter, and stronger, but when it comes down to durability, it's hard to outlive 'em.

[Flash Tizzle]

Well, I have a "modest proposel" for that Problem Flaxx. We must eat those we are no longer viable producing members of society. We must keep our elderly well noureshed--feed them well and keep them in tip top shape--and then we can "recycle" them. 

Sounds great. May I recommend a movie........

 

[soxfan420]

i dont think ive ever heard of a 12 pound baby being born, and that is with all the food you can eat nowadays.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I really find it hard to believe that other animals have even the slightest capabilities of intellect.  Many of them are very advanced in the art of instinct, but it's a real stretch for me to think that any other being on the planet can process information the way we do.

The differences between us and the other high-intellect mammals are differences of magnitude and not type. Dolphins and other toothed whales are incredably intelligent, well beyond instinct. The learn, they communicate, they hunt cooperatively, and they have dynamic social structure. They have sex for pleasure and commit acts of deviant sexual behavior like homosexuality and gang rape. Sex for any reason other than innate reproductive imperitave is accepted by ethologists (animal behavioralists) and human sociologists as a sign of intelligence.

 

Chimpanzees and Gorillas are equally impressive in their intelligence.

 

Border collies and service dogs hold down steady jobs better than most humans. Heck, sea otters can use tools. You are giving high-intellect mammals short shrift if you chalk it all up to hardwired instinct.

[cwsox]

I am avoiding this thread for my own reasons - part of it being things get too complex to explain in 20 words or less and I tend to go too much and still just scratches the surface barely.

 

FlaSoxxJim says it very well on many things - I don't buy the "odds are..." theory because of the reasons Jim has given, mathematical odds are a human construct anyway, and my certainty of God does not depend in the slightest on the "odds" of anything.

 

GOWT, I am in total understanding of what you are saying. I would point out that all of the evidence we have today from archeology and elsewhere (and especially important here is what is broadly called the historical critical if Biblical studies) tells us that the Biblical narratives are indeed surviving stories that stem from a people who did live in those times long ago. There is no doubt that those are ancient storiues which have survived to today and have way too much internal and extinsic evidence to not accept that. And there is external evidence for what Moses would have been. The fall of the Hyksos dynasty would have been the end of Moses time of grace with those in power and it is undoubtedly Rameses II who is the Pharoh to whom the Moses stories speak of. On the other hand, I doubt the total historicity of much of the magic sounding stuff in those accounts.

 

That said: I think searching for "Noah's Ark" is like a huge National Enquirer" waste of time. I don't believe that Noah's Ark ever existed - or happened. Every ancient Mesapotamian cultures and many other cultures has flood stories. People lived in places where there were floods. To believe all animal species and varieities (let alone humans) stem from whatever was brought on to a boat is ludicrous. Plus the internal evidence in the Noah accounts as we have them are several wildly divergent stories and sources combined (redacted) into one text that makes no sense. How many animals? 2? 7? How could Noah know what a "clean" animal was long before Moses established the covenant - total impossible. The story never happened

 

Much of what is in both the Prime Covenant (aka Old Testament) and the Christian Covenant (New Testament) as narrative is what is termed by Biblical scholars as myth. Myth has an exact meaning and it is *not* "make believe." Myth, Biblically, is an account or story that whatever the original basis has no historical accuracy or meaning whatsoever. It never happened - or happened in a way that cannot be reconstructed, perhaps surmised, but it didn't happen that way - at all. The only analogy I can give is the George Washington chopping down the cherry tree story - it never happened, Parson Weems made it up, but it survives because it answers the question of how honest was G Washington and what his character really like.

 

The Biblical narratives are a human attempt (guided, I believe by the Spriit) to explain what is unexplainable - the relationship between God and God's people. Which means that while the narratives have no or stupendously exaggerated historical accuracy at all, that is not the point. The stories are true because they attempt to convey truth while the historicity is negligent. There is so much truth, to me, in the Scriptures and it has nothing remotely to do with whether anything can be "proved" because it simply cannot be. My knowledge of God as revealed in the Scriptures (which are the source of the faith and life of the Church, to me) has nothing to do with what can be "proved" or not.

 

In fact all attempts to"prove" faith are by nature tautologies.

 

The teachings of Scriptures are the most neglected part of everything. The radical call to live life in a covenantal relationship is *not* the listing of things to do or not do, or doctrines to agree with or not agree with. The call is far deeper, to be in covenant. That is why time and time again people want to return to the superficial and make mountains out of things that are negligble in Scripture, or offer "simple basic Biblical truths" which simply do not exist, the "straight and simple appliable Bible rules" do violence to the Scriptures. It is not that simplistic. And indeed we are called to wrestle with God (see, Jacob/Israel for example) and really struggle with what the call of God is for us in our realities - not make lists of rules or laws that do not exist in Scripture and are human attempts to control. The exhaustive listings of canon law are the other side of the attempt to control, and these things are neither from God either.

 

Control. Yes the church has been (is yet still in some places) a despotic tyrannical institution that has been all about control. There is much to be said theologically and historically to that fact. And yes, that is not what the Church originally developed and is what the Church is - there has to be a separation from the human (and thus corrupted) institution. That the Church can be simultaneously a palce of much human fault and corruption and yet the Body of Christ in the world is not difficult for me to accept. After all, what human relationship of love does not have its positive and negative. So much more so is the covenantal relationship of love between God and God's people.

 

When Zach (for example) writes of his profound contempt for the church that he has experienced, I agree with him - the church that he experienced is one that many have experienced and the validity there cannot be denied. I embrace Zach my friend for what he says about the Church that means everything to me because he speaks honestly of real experiences. When others write of the Church that has meant good thinsg to them, yes, I agree there too.

 

I generally find myself, a person of toital faith, agreeing with the athetists and skeptics because I think all these things require that type of perspective - and they are speaking what is reality as opposed to defending things are not at all defensible and take us away from what is really being said by God, what is rally important.

 

Now I am pissed off many ( how can he say those things and still call himself a believer!!!! ) but God is so much greater than our fallible attempts to "prove" what cannot be proved by the devices of our own construction.

 

What any one believes is not words but I will post this next Confession of Faith which says as much more as I will say, doing it all in one post beause I am not trying to run up my post count. (This is the confession of faith of the church body to which I belong and when we put things togetehr anewin 1996, I wrote this - this is my writing adoptd by the church body.) Note: point #7 may be of some interest to some.

 

Confession of Faith

1. This church confesses Jesus Christ as Sovereign of the Church. The Holy Spirit creates and sustains the Church through the Gospel and thereby unites believers with their Sovereign and with one another in the household of faith.

2. This church confesses that the Gospel is the revelation of God’s sovereign will and saving grace in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the Word Incarnate, the Word of God, through whom everything was made and through whose life, death, and resurrection God fashions a new creation.

3. This church confesses the ecumenical creeds, Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, as true declarations of the faith of the Church.

4. This church confesses the Holy Scriptures as the norm for the faith and life of the Church. The canonical Scriptures of the Prime Covenant (Old Testament) and the Christian Covenant (New Testament) are inspired by the Spirit and record God’s redemptive acts, which reveal and announce God’s covenants with the children of God. The Scriptures bear witness to God’s love and redemptive acts for the children of God in every generation. The canonical books of the Christian Covenant (New Testament) proclaim the revelation and covenant centering in Jesus Christ. Through all of the Scriptures God’s spirit speaks to us to create and sustain Christian faith and call us to service in the world. In the continuation of the proclamation of the Church, God speaks through the Scriptures and realizes the Gospel’s redemptive purpose generation after generation.

5. This church confesses that it acknowledges the Spirit’s gift of the ecumenical tradition of the Church. This church will, as we are able, by reason and mutual consultation, mediate that tradition anew in each generation, always seeking the aid and guidance of the Spirit.

6. This church confesses that the Gospel revealed in Jesus Christ, transmitted by the Scriptures and confessed in the ecumenical creeds, to which the ecumenical tradition bears witness, is the treasure of the Church, the substance of its proclamation, and the basis of its unity and continuity. The Holy Spirit uses the proclamation of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments to create and sustain Christian faith and unity, to create and sustain the Church for God’s mission in the world.

7. This church confesses the oneness of all humanity, for each person has been made in the image of God, created by God and breathes with the breath of life given by God. In the Gospel we all are one in Jesus Christ. The Church, for the sake of the Gospel and for its own sake, is called to regard each human being as a person created and loved by God, a person for whom Christ is Incarnate. The Gospel is to be proclaimed to all people. The evangelical mission of the Church is to all people. Each person is called by the Spirit to receive the welcome, comfort, shelter, and redeeming love of the Church; to partake in the gifts of Word and Sacrament as a member of the family of faith in response to and faith in the Gospel; and share in the mission and ministry of the Church. In accordance with the Gospel, this church rejects distinctions amongst people for reasons of race, ethnicity, color, gender, physical challenges, sexual orientation, cultural heritage, or any other false dichotomy when these distinctions result in divisions in the family of God, for the very diversity of humanity reflects the image of God.

8. This church confesses that it is but a portion of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church which is, will be, and remain forever. This is the assembly of all believers among whom the Gospel is preached in its purity and the Holy Sacraments are administered according to the Gospel. For it is sufficient for the true unity of the Church that the Gospel be preached in accordance with a pure understanding of it and that the Sacraments be administered in accordance with the divine Word, which is Jesus Christ.

9. This church confesses that it is mindful of Jesus Christ’s prayer that the Church be one. This church confesses that the multitude of individual church bodies, of which this church is but one, is a scandal and a sin against Christ and the evangelical mission of Christ’s Church. Accordingly, this church shall not exist for its own sake or seek to perpetrate its existence in human history. This church shall endeavor to work with other church bodies in the proclamation and mission of the Church. This church shall endeavor to dialogue with other church bodies regarding the common faith we share and the differing insights into the fullness of the Gospel that God has granted to the various church bodies and faith-traditions. All are called to be a part of the catholic unity of the people of God, a unity which is harbinger of the universal peace it promotes. This church, seeing itself as catholic, shall take steps necessary, in conformance with this confession of faith, to acknowledge as one in faith and doctrine other church bodies for the furthering of the ecumenical and evangelical witness. With integrity to the Spirit’s calling of this church into being and without forsaking our own history and confession, this church shall seek organic unity with other church bodies as we are able, and where unable, to have communion with other church bodies in the fullest measures that are possible. It will be the continuing fulfillment of this church’s purpose and witness when its clergy and laity can unite with other church bodies in organic unity in our faithful and obedient response to Jesus Christ’s prayer that the Church be one.

10. We confess that we do not have the option of keeping the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to ourselves. The uncommunicated gospel is a patent contradiction. Evangelism is rooted in gratitude for God’s self-sacrificing love, in obedience to the Risen One. Confessing Christ must be done today. It cannot wait for a time that is comfortable for us. We must be prepared to proclaim the Gospel when human beings need to hear it. But in our zeal to spread the Good News, we must guard against fanaticism which disrupts the hearing of the Gospel and breaks the community of God. The world requires, and God demands, that we recognize the urgency to proclaim the saving word of God - today. God’s acceptable time demands that we respond in all haste.

[soxfan420]

I am avoiding this thread for my own reasons - part of it being things get too complex to explain in 20 words or less and I tend to go too much and still just scratches the surface barely.

 

FlaSoxxJim says it very well on many things - I don't buy the "odds are..." theory because of the reasons Jim has given, mathematical odds are a human construct anyway, and my certainty of God does not depend in the slightest on the "odds" of anything.

 

GOWT, I am in total understanding of what you are saying. I would point out that all of the evidence we have today from archeology and elsewhere (and especially important here is what is broadly called the historical critical if Biblical studies)  tells us that the Biblical narratives are indeed surviving stories that stem from a people who did live in those times long ago.  There is no doubt that those are ancient storiues which have survived to today and have way too much internal and extinsic evidence to not accept that.  And there is external evidence for what Moses would have been.  The fall of the Hyksos dynasty would have been the end of Moses time of grace with those in power and it is undoubtedly Rameses II who is the Pharoh to whom the Moses stories speak of.  On the other hand, I doubt the total historicity of much of the magic sounding stuff in those accounts.

 

That said: I think searching for "Noah's Ark" is like a huge National Enquirer" waste of time. I don't believe that Noah's Ark ever existed - or happened.  Every ancient Mesapotamian cultures and many other cultures has flood stories. People lived in places where there were floods.  To believe all animal species and varieities (let alone humans) stem from whatever was brought on to a boat is ludicrous.  Plus the internal evidence in the Noah accounts as we have them are several wildly divergent stories and sources combined (redacted) into one text that makes no sense.  How many animals?  2?  7?  How could Noah know what a "clean" animal was long before Moses established the covenant - total impossible.  The story never happened

 

Much of what is in both the Prime Covenant (aka Old Testament) and the Christian Covenant (New Testament) as narrative is what is termed by Biblical scholars as  myth.  Myth has an exact meaning and it is *not* "make believe."  Myth, Biblically, is an account or story that whatever the original basis has no historical accuracy or meaning whatsoever.  It never happened - or happened in a way that cannot be reconstructed, perhaps surmised, but it didn't happen that way - at all.  The only analogy I can give is the George Washington chopping down the cherry tree story - it never happened, Parson Weems made it up, but it survives because it answers the question of how honest was G Washington and what his character really like.

 

The Biblical narratives are a human attempt (guided, I believe by the Spriit)  to explain what is unexplainable - the relationship between God and God's people.  Which means that while the narratives have no or stupendously exaggerated historical accuracy at all, that is not the point.  The stories are true because they attempt to convey truth while the historicity is negligent.  There is so much truth, to me, in the Scriptures and it has nothing remotely to do with whether anything can be "proved" because it simply cannot be.  My knowledge of God as revealed in the Scriptures (which are the source of the faith and life of the Church, to me) has nothing to do with what can be "proved" or not. 

 

In fact all attempts to"prove" faith are by nature tautologies.

 

The teachings of Scriptures are the most neglected part of everything.  The radical call to live life in a covenantal relationship is *not* the listing of things to do or not do, or doctrines to agree with or not agree with.  The call is far deeper, to be in covenant.  That is why time and time again people want to return to the superficial and make mountains out of things that are negligble in Scripture, or offer "simple basic Biblical truths" which simply do not exist, the "straight and simple appliable Bible rules" do violence to the Scriptures.  It is not that simplistic.  And indeed we are called to wrestle with God (see, Jacob/Israel for example) and really struggle with what the call of God is for us in our realities - not make lists of rules or laws that do not exist in Scripture and are human attempts to control.  The exhaustive listings of canon law are the other side of the attempt to control, and these things are neither from God either.

 

Control.  Yes the church has been (is yet still in some places) a despotic tyrannical institution that has been all about control.  There is much to be said theologically and historically to that fact.  And yes, that is not what the Church originally developed and is what the Church is - there has to be a separation from the human (and thus corrupted) institution.  That the Church can be simultaneously a palce of much human fault and corruption and yet the Body of Christ in the world is not difficult for me to accept.  After all, what human relationship of love does not have its positive and negative.  So much more so is the covenantal relationship of love between God and God's people.

 

When Zach (for example) writes of his profound contempt for the church that he has experienced, I agree with him - the church that he experienced is one that many have experienced and the validity there cannot be denied.  I embrace Zach my friend for what he says about the Church that means everything to me because he speaks honestly of real experiences.  When others write of the Church that has meant good thinsg to them, yes, I agree there too.

 

I generally find myself, a person of toital faith, agreeing with the athetists and skeptics because I think all these things require that type of perspective - and they are speaking what is reality as opposed to defending things are not at all defensible and take us away from what is really being said by God, what is rally important.

 

Now I am pissed off many ( how can he say those things and still call himself a believer!!!! ) but God is so much greater than our fallible attempts to "prove" what cannot be proved by the devices of our own construction.

 

What any one believes is not words but I will post this next Confession of Faith which says as much more as I will say, doing it all in one post beause I am not trying to run up my post count.  (This is the confession of faith of the church body to which I belong and when we put things togetehr anewin 1996, I wrote this - this is my writing adoptd by the church body.)  Note: point #7 may be of some interest to some.

 

Confession of Faith

1. This church confesses Jesus Christ as Sovereign of the Church.  The Holy Spirit creates and sustains the Church through the Gospel and thereby unites believers with their Sovereign and with one another in the household of faith.

2. This church confesses that the Gospel is the revelation of God’s sovereign will and saving grace in Jesus Christ.  Jesus Christ is the Word Incarnate, the Word of God, through whom everything was made and through whose life, death, and resurrection God fashions a new creation.

3. This church confesses the ecumenical creeds, Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, as true declarations of the faith of the Church.

4. This church confesses the Holy Scriptures as the norm for the faith and life of the Church.  The canonical Scriptures of the Prime Covenant (Old Testament) and the Christian Covenant (New Testament) are inspired by the Spirit and record God’s redemptive acts, which reveal and announce God’s covenants with the children of God.  The Scriptures bear witness to God’s love and redemptive acts for the children of God in every generation. The canonical books of the Christian Covenant (New Testament) proclaim the revelation and covenant centering in Jesus Christ.  Through all of the Scriptures God’s spirit speaks to us to create and sustain Christian faith and call us to service in the world.  In the continuation of the proclamation of the Church, God speaks through the Scriptures and realizes the Gospel’s redemptive purpose generation after generation.

5. This church confesses that it acknowledges the Spirit’s gift of the ecumenical tradition of the Church.  This church will, as we are able, by reason and mutual consultation, mediate that tradition anew in each generation, always seeking the aid and guidance of the Spirit. 

6. This church confesses that the Gospel revealed in Jesus Christ, transmitted by the Scriptures and confessed in the ecumenical creeds, to which the ecumenical tradition bears witness, is the treasure of the Church, the substance of its proclamation, and the basis of its unity and continuity.  The Holy Spirit uses the proclamation of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments to create and sustain Christian faith and unity, to create and sustain the Church for God’s mission in the world.

7. This church confesses the oneness of all humanity, for each person has been made in the image of God, created by God and breathes with the breath of life given by God.  In the Gospel we all are one in Jesus Christ.  The Church, for the sake of the Gospel and for its own sake, is called to  regard each human being as a person created and loved by God, a person for whom Christ is Incarnate.  The Gospel is to be proclaimed to all people.  The evangelical mission of the Church is to all people.  Each person is called by the Spirit to receive the welcome, comfort, shelter, and redeeming love of the Church; to partake in the gifts of Word and Sacrament as a member of the family of faith in response to and faith in the Gospel; and share in the mission and ministry of the Church.  In accordance with the Gospel, this church rejects distinctions amongst people for reasons of race, ethnicity, color, gender, physical challenges, sexual orientation, cultural heritage, or any other false dichotomy when these distinctions result in divisions in the family of God, for the very diversity of humanity reflects the image of God. 

8. This church confesses that it is but a portion of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church which is, will be, and remain forever.  This is the assembly of all believers among whom the Gospel is preached in its purity and the Holy  Sacraments are administered according to the Gospel.  For it is sufficient for the true unity of the Church that the Gospel be preached in accordance with a pure understanding of it and that the Sacraments be administered in accordance with the divine Word, which is Jesus Christ.

9. This church confesses that it is mindful of Jesus Christ’s prayer that the Church be one.  This church confesses that the multitude of individual church bodies, of which this church is but one, is a scandal and a sin against Christ and the evangelical mission of Christ’s Church.  Accordingly, this church shall not exist for its own sake or seek to perpetrate its existence in human history.  This church shall endeavor to work with other church bodies in the proclamation and mission of the Church.  This church shall endeavor to dialogue with other church bodies regarding the common faith we share and the differing insights into the fullness of the Gospel that God has granted to the various church bodies and faith-traditions.  All are called to be a part of the catholic unity of the people of God, a unity which is harbinger of the universal peace it promotes.  This church, seeing itself as catholic, shall take steps necessary, in conformance with this confession of faith, to acknowledge as one in faith and doctrine other church bodies for the furthering of the ecumenical and evangelical witness.  With integrity to the Spirit’s calling of this church into being and without forsaking our own history and confession, this church shall seek organic unity with other church bodies as we are able, and where unable, to have communion with other church bodies in the fullest measures that are possible.  It will be the continuing fulfillment of this church’s purpose and witness when its clergy and laity can unite with other church bodies in organic unity in our faithful and obedient response to Jesus Christ’s prayer that the Church be one.

10. We confess that we do not have the option of keeping the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to ourselves.  The uncommunicated gospel is a patent contradiction.  Evangelism is rooted in gratitude for God’s self-sacrificing love, in obedience to the Risen One.  Confessing Christ must be done today.  It cannot wait for a time that is comfortable for us.  We must be prepared to proclaim the Gospel when human beings need to hear it.  But in our zeal to spread the Good News, we must guard against fanaticism which disrupts the hearing of the Gospel and breaks the community of God.  The world requires, and God demands, that we recognize the urgency to proclaim the saving word of God - today.  God’s acceptable time demands that we respond in all haste.

blah blah blah you just killed the thread

[Flash Tizzle]

Now I am pissed off many ( how can he say those things and still call himself a believer!!!! ) but God is so much greater than our fallible attempts to "prove" what cannot be proved by the devices of our own construction.

Thats a very interesting point. I'm willing to believe Gods existence through science (not partial to faith alone) though I never thought of that concept. Not that it changes my view on the big guy, but it puts some ideas in perspective.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Thanks for adding your input, Vince. It is, as always, very informative. I think confessional Item 7 is an outstanding example of what it should be to strive to live as a christian.

 

My youngest child is in pre-K at an Episcopal school because it is the single best place for him locally to get a head-start on his education. While his teachers are very loving and nurturing toward him and his classmates, this parish and most of the others in central Florida are currently aligning themselves on (I feel) the wrong side of the current liberal vs coonservative Episcopal debate. I am a classroom dad that volunteers to work with the kids 2 days each month. But I made some people in the parish (I am not a member, obviously) wary early in the year when I alone raised objections to the suggestiosn that all teachers, classroom volunteers, etc., make some kind of public affirmation of their commitment to 'family values' (the biggoted variety) before they were allowed in contact with the children.

 

Frankly, too many of these lip-service christians continue to disguise their prejudices and phobias as concern for 'family values.' Your words are refreshing, and a reminder of the inclusive, loving community the Church (and hopefully the individual church) is supposed to be about.

[baggio202]

I would argue that it conatins plenty of things that most people have dismissed.

For example, I don't think anyone really believes anymore that adam and eve is a true story, or Noah and the Ark, or the Red Sea, etc.

 

We don't really know if the writers of the bible got things wrong or not--there's simply not enough corroborating data to say right or wrong.  There's no real proof that most of the people in bible even existed--esp in the O.T.--the only evidence that they existed at all is found in the bible.  The bible doesn't concern itself with documenting world events, so who knows if what it says really happened or not.  Also, the stories they wrote don't require much knowledge of anything other than folklore passed to them, and a language to write with.  It's not like the bible was describing how DNA works or anything.  It's full of descriptive tales and exaggeration.

 

I would argue that the main reason it hasn't been dismissed by society is that A)we don't have enough knowledge yet to disprove it(but we've only used it for 2000 years.  There are plenty of ancient religions, now regarded as bunk, that existed that long), and B) People are dismissing it without saying they dismiss it.  It's no coincidence that Catholic schools are closing due to shrinking enrollment, or that churches are seeing smaller and smaller audiences.  How many people fast on fridays?  What's the divorce rate these days?  How many people are becoming priests/nuns anymore?  All these answers point towards dismissing religion, even if most folks are too scared by what they were taught in childhood to come out and say so.

actually scientist have found fish fossils high up on the peaks of the himalayas..i cant give you a link but i remember reading that somewhere about 10 years ago..like in newsweek or something...so there was a time when almost or all of the earth was under water...now i cant remember if they were able to date how far back this event happened..but that could be used as corroberating evidence..

 

the OT also talks about the bitterness and the hatred between the jews and the muslims..and that they would bitter enemies until the end of time...they have been just that for thousands of years...its kinda wierd when you think about it..

 

there was an interesting article in a south bend paper about two weeks ago..it talks about the bible and science coming together...there was a story about how the east end of jeresalem is build on very unstable ground...and something like a 6.0 earthquake could wipe out the entire area with all the building destroyed and fire everywhere...the bible talks about jereselum burning to the ground..if im reading my map right the east end of town is where alot of the temples were located in jesus' time..which would be the part of jereselum the bible talks about burning down..

 

kinda cool if you think these things through...glad this topic was started..good way to discuss our differences on the afterlife without it becoming politcal..

[CrimsonWeltall]

There are marine fossils INSIDE high mountains, not on top of them. There isn't enough water to cover the planet in water.

[baggio202]

There are marine fossils INSIDE high mountains, not on top of them.  There isn't enough water to cover the planet in water.

im not saying that proved the noah's ark story..just an intersting find..that they found fossilized fish high up in the hymalaya's

 

but at one time couldnt there have been enough water to cover the earth???....im not a expert on this so im kind of asking for my own knowledge...granted there is not enough water now but at one time could there have been???

 

one thing about faith...thats what makes it faith..believing in something thats not provable..if God left no doubt that he existed then everyone would believe and the concept of free will , which was perhaps God's greatest gift outside of Jesus dying for our sins , wouldnt have been necessary...

[Chisoxfn]

I think essentially we've had the same amount of water for quite a long time, although I thought historically they do believe their is evidence of a major flood.

 

I know through differentiation, maybe very early, we could of had more water and it would of continued to evaporate into space. But once the planet differentiated enough an atmosphere was created and the gravitational pull was enough to keep the atmosphere together. Geologists theororize (horrible spelling on that) that many of the planets originally had water and even potentially oxygen, but that the gravity was to the opint that it would evaporate into space but sine we developed an atmosphere, it was able to stay in.

[Spiff]

f*** god, god is dead.

[BrandoFan]

f*** god, god is dead.

You're 130 years too late with that pronouncemen there Spiff.

[FlaSoxxJim]

actually scientist have found fish fossils high up on the peaks of the himalayas..i cant give you a link but i remember reading that somewhere about 10 years ago..like  in newsweek or something...so there was a time when almost or all of the earth was under water...now i cant remember if they were able to date how far back this event happened..but that could be used as corroberating evidence..

 

the OT  also talks about the bitterness and the hatred between the jews and the muslims..and that they would bitter enemies until the end of time...they have been just that for thousands of years...its kinda wierd when you think about it..

 

there was an interesting article in a south bend paper about two weeks ago..it talks about the bible and science coming together...there was a story about how the east end of jeresalem is build on very unstable ground...and something like a 6.0 earthquake could wipe out the entire area with all the building destroyed and fire everywhere...the bible talks about jereselum burning to the ground..if im reading my map right the east end of town is where alot of the temples were located in jesus' time..which would be the part of jereselum the bible talks about burning down..

 

kinda cool if you think these things through...glad this topic was started..good way to discuss our differences on the afterlife  without it becoming politcal..

Actually....

 

Scientists found marine fossils in teh Himilayas.

 

Creation "Scientists" try to use such discoveries as evidence of a great flood.

 

The realization of how plate tectonics work -- that all of the land masses of the planet reside on floating cructal plates that move over time -- turned all of the purported flood evidence.

 

The Himilayas were formed as the result of tectonic upthrust -- major continental plates colliding and rock that was originally under water (hence the marine fossils) was thrust ever higher in the air over hundreds of thousands of years until the mountain range was formed.

 

Creation "Scientists" regularly like to use a world view that real science discarded about 150 years ago. But for these folks, there is apparently no need to throw out perfectly good theories merely because they have been demonstrated to be hoplessly wrong...