markomalley

I think you nailed it better than anybody else on this thread. The PC trying to be pc. That's what appears to be happening, not only in the PCUSA but in many of the "traditional" Protestant denominations. The episcopals, the methodists, the UCC, significant parts of the lutherans (particularly the ELCA), and so on. They seem to be straying away from the principles upon which they were founded in order to try to stay "relevant" in society. An examination of the membership roles of these denominations also shows that they are shrinking fairly significantly as time goes on. Are these compromises an attempt to stop the bleed or did compromise cause the bleed? (the chicken-egg argument)

I think this argument really belongs down in Doctrinal for it to be properly responded to...

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. - June 30, 2006 (UPI) -- Leaders of the Presbyterian Church (USA), meeting in Alabama, have come up with 12 new phrases to describe the Christian doctrine of God in three entities. Instead of "Father, Son and Holy Spirit," worshippers may substitute "Compassionate Mother, Beloved Child and Life-giving Womb" or "Rock, Cornerstone and Temple," the Los Angeles Times reported Friday. Delegates to the group's 217th General Assembly voted 282-212 to "receive" those substitutions and 10 others written by a panel of pastors and theologians who felt the traditional language implied men are superior to women. "For this and other distortions of Trinitarian doctrine we repent," the report said. Although delegates didn't officially adopt the report, by not rejecting it, individual churches can decide how to use the new phraseology. The Presbyterian Church (USA) is the largest of the three Presbyterian groups with 2.3 million members and 11,000 congregations. Other actions taken by delegates include endorsing medical marijuana and giving local authorities the ability to ordain gays and lesbians living openly with same-sex partners. Source: UPI, via the Post Chronicle I was rather disappointed by this. I think there were many others that they could have used... Snap, Crackle, Pop Larry, Moe, Curly Rock, Paper, Scissors Since they opened up the definition, why limit it to those others?

Ding-ding-ding-ding We have a winner!!!

Now where did I say anything about having two wives? Never said I was a polygamist Nope, no annulment either...

Maybe he got it from reading those Jack Chick cartoons...

If you live nearby a college library around where you live, you may be able to get some free access to their electronic databases (from a computer within the library). There is an electronic database called J-Stor that may be of help to you. It contains scanned copies of many, many old magazines. I know when I was going to school a few years ago, I was able to pull up some magazines from as far back as 1850 through the use of that database. FWIW

On my second marriage. No divorces though.

You two ever think about unchecking the "remember me" box in the logon screen? It would seem that this would help reduce the problem... (no offense)

Good. Have a nice day.

Goey, Very good. Later. on edit: you're right. It was quite rude. No I don't apologize.

(deleted due to rudeness)

I personally think their reliance upon the Textus Recepticus (for the most part) and upon the KJV was abhorrent. It gave enough knowledge to people to make them vulnerable to suggestion but not enough for them to do much of the research themselves. (Please keep in mind that all of this is IMHO and YMMV...) There are many, many places where the KJV just had it simply wrong. For example, 1 John 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [[but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also]. The editors of the KJV has the second phrase in italics...implying that it is not in the original text. And it's not in the Textus Recepticus. However, the vast majority of critical manuscripts have that phrase. (Footnotes in your Englishman's Greek NT should show you this) Another example, 1 John 5:7-8 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. There is NO manuscript that records these verses in this way. They SHOULD read, "For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." Acts 8:37 appears in NONE of the manuscripts. There are many, many other examples. Most of these examples have been rectified in modern translations, such as the RSV, the NASB, etc. As you say, jr4jc, using this archaic (and in large part inaccurate) translation put people so that they were dependent upon the MOGs with their "literals according to usage" and less dependent upon reliance on the Holy Spirit for the illumination necessary to understand the Scriptures. Even though there are far more accurate translations and translations in more modern usage readily available they didn't. So that way, they could point out "Acts 8:37 is in none of the manuscripts." Then the followers could go "oooh, aaah" and give great honor to the MOG who revealed this before unrevealed truth. Why not just use the RSV and not worry about it? Good topic, jr4jc!

Here's your poster child for your church's charity fund!

Sounds like they're getting some advocacy behind them.

Roy, Good thread again. The points you bring up is why I try to refer to the teachings of the Church Fathers, particularly those who lived and wrote in the first four centuries of Christendom. Have you ever looked at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library in your studies (http://www.ccel.org)?

Socks, A Calvinist view of the subject is as follows: Psychopannychy, or soul sleep, is the doctrine that the soul sleeps between death and resurrection. It has been held sporadically in the church. It is not a heresy in the narrower sense, due to the paucity of Scripture teaching on the intermediate state, but it may be called a doctrinal aberration. Some Anabaptists endorsed it. In the Forty-two Articles of Edward VI, which preceded the Thirty-nine Articles, the following statement, as the Fortieth Article, was included: "They which say that the souls of those who depart hence do sleep being without all sense, feeling or perceiving till the Day of Judgment, do utterly dissent from the right belief disclosed to us in Holy Scripture." The case for soul sleep rests principally on these considerations: (1) Human existence demands the unity of soul and body. If the body ceases to function, so must the soul. (2) The use of the term "sleep" in Scripture for death is alleged to point to the cessation of consciousness. (3) A state of consciousness between death and resurrection, characterized by bliss or woe, unwarrantably anticipates the judgment of the last day, when the basis for these experiences provided. Source: here Please pay special note to the second paragraph. I understand what you're saying that word-for-word Wierwille did not teach exactly the same thing as the Seventh Day Adventists, just as I'm sure he didn't teach the exact same thing as the JW's or the WWCG or other groups. But TWI's beliefs on the subject are classified in with this because they contain the essential elements of that doctrine.

I'm not Anglican so I really can't justify those beliefs one way or the other. I personally don't see any justification for the change, but, again, I can't speak for them. There is an interesting paper published by an Charles Gore (Anglican Bishop of Worcester) in 1930 located here. It may shed some light on it for you.

I knew it was going to have to be moved to doctrinal if we actually discussed the topic... Give me a bit and I'll get into the theory now that it's here...

You can find that there are 19 organizations with the word "atheist" or "atheism" listed as tax-deductible charities by the IRS: These charities are: American Atheists Ghq Inc. Aka the American Atheist Center Parsippany NJ USA -- American Atheists Inc. Parsippany NJ USA -- Atheist Alliance Minneapolis MN USA -- Atheist Community of Austin Inc. Austin TX USA -- Atheist Law Center Inc. (Until December 2006) Montgomery AL USA -- Atheists & Other Freethinkers Sacramento CA USA -- Atheists of Florida Inc. Tampa FL USA -- Atheists of Minnesota (Until December 2006) Minneapolis MN USA -- Atheists of San Francisco Region Inc. San Mateo CA USA -- Atheists of Utah Midvale UT USA -- Atheists United Los Angeles CA USA -- Charles E. Stevens American Atheist Library and Archives Inc. Pasippany NJ USA -- Gay and Lesbian Atheists and Humanists Washington DC USA -- Idaho Atheists Inc. Boise ID USA -- Metroplex Atheists Mansfield TX USA -- Minnesota Atheists Minneapolis MN USA -- Nyc Atheists Inc. (Until December 2007) New York NY USA -- United States Atheists Portland OR USA -- Wonderful Atheists of Central Florida Orlando FL USA -- If you were to take al look at the United States Atheists website, you'd note they list in the purpose statement the following: United States Atheists, based in Portland Oregon, promotes Atheism as both a fact about the world and as a way of life. Our mission includes: Ministering to the needs of non-believers Promoting Atheism as a positive belief system Defending the civil rights of all Atheists Fighting the religious right and their authoritarian agenda Atheists of Florida lists the following as their purposes: 1. To advocate for social acceptance of the essential fact that there is no reason or evidence that supports the proposition that gods or supernatural phenomenon exist. 2. To offer the Atheist proposition as a foundation for a truly free and fulfilling life. 3. To advance Atheism as a necessary premise of any social and ethical philosophy which accepts as valid, only propositions verifiable by sound logic and the scientific method, and rejects supernatural or other explanations contingent on non-rational ideologies. 4. To educate the general public about Atheist ideas, history, methods, and objectives. 5. To defend freedom of thought and expression as well as the complete and absolute separation of state and church as guaranteed in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. 6. To vigorously campaign for higher educational standards that fully embrace scientific discipline in acquiring reliable knowledge, and emphasize the development of critical thinking skills in every person. 7. We welcome all whose concern is to positively contribute to the advancement of human well being through clarity of thought, and the application of rational principles. Seems like somebody beat you to the punch, Garth...

As a SLIGHT correction, the Catholic Church doesn't believe in no birth control. What they teach on the subject is as follows: The fecundity of marriage 2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which "is on the side of life"150 teaches that "each and every marriage act must remain open 'per se' to the transmission of life."151 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."152 2367 Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God.153 "Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility."154 2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality: When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.155 2369 "By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man's exalted vocation to parenthood."156 2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.157 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:158 Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.... the difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.159 2371 "Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understood only in reference to man's eternal destiny."160 2372 The state has a responsibility for its citizens' well-being. In this capacity it is legitimate for it to intervene to orient the demography of the population. This can be done by means of objective and respectful information, but certainly not by authoritarian, coercive measures. the state may not legitimately usurp the initiative of spouses, who have the primary responsibility for the procreation and education of their children.161 It is not authorized to intervene in this area with means contrary to the moral law. 150 FC 30. 151 HV 11. 152 HV 12; cf. Pius XI, encyclical, Casti connubii. 153 Cf. ⇒ Eph 3:14; ⇒ Mt 23:9. 154 GS 50 # 2. 155 GS 51 # 3. 156 Cf. HV 12. 157 HV 16. 158 HV 14. 159 FC 32. 160 GS 51 # 4. 161 Cf. HV 23; PP 37. Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church btw, I know that the word "fecund" is not in all that common useage. It simply means 'capable of producing offspring.' Anyway, as you can see above, natural methods for regulating birth are fully approved and condoned. There are a number of methods that, when used properly, are reported to be 95-99% effective. Included are the Basal Body Temperature method and the Standard Days method. There are others that are in various stages of development. You can look at this site: epigee women's health for some more information. (No, this is not a Catholic site or even a Catholic-endorsed site). The disadvantage to these methods is that they require self-control to be used by the partners. They also require the active participation of both to work. The advantage is that there are no side effects. Another advantage is that they can also be used if a pregnancy is desired. One other thing...as I pointed out in an earlier post, ALL churches proscribed artificial methods of birth control until 1930....

Note: Quotes are in highlighted blocks. My words or other peoples' words from previous posts are in plain text. Free2Love's words are bolded. Your comments back to Danny are uncalled for. You advocate the position of "soul sleep" as the only available position. As this is not a TWI, Seventh-Day Adventist, or Jehovah's Witness only board, you shouldn't make that assumption...then attacking somebody for not subscribing to that position. Whoa! Hold on there. I don’t recall attacking Danny nor did I intend to. I don’t know anything about any “position of ‘soul-sleep’”. (What is that?) I just read what the bible says because it says the truth. Did you read 1 Thes 4:13-18? What does it say? Is that the truth? Why do you think I want to attack someone? Down here in the "Doctrinal Basement," we discuss various Christian and non-Christian doctrines. There are a extremely wide variety of belief systems represented here, some of them very articulately. We have people who are Catholic, Evangelical Protestant, Fundamentalist Protestant, Calvanist (where is Cynic, anyway?), Jewish, and some who subscribe to TWI/post TWI systems. Some folks come down here to ask questions (which can then turn into drawn out discussions), etc. One sort-of unwritten rule down here and why we keep from ripping each other apart, despite the disparity of cult, is that we have a respect for each other's beliefs (even if we don't agree with those beliefs). Danny was commiserating with you for the loss of your Father. Your response to him was, "Had this *#$& Catholic Priest taught me TWI theology on the subject rather than Catholic theology, it would have been alright." I don't know how much you've lurked down here, but it doesn't appear to me that you actually know what Danny believes on the subject. It appeared (and appears) that you have your mind closed on the subject (I could be wrong) and anybody who doesn't agree with you is plain wrong. I say the above, based upon your statement where you say, I can appreciate your attempt to ‘make sense of it all’ but this is more an expression of the extreme ignorance of this priest, stating the exact opposite of the truth. The vast majority of Christianity outright rejects the doctrine of "soul sleep." Not just Catholicism. I recognize that you are attempting to use this as an excuse to attack Catholicism. You’re dead wrong on this. Many Catholics are born again and are my brothers and sisters. Do I disagree with much of Catholic doctrine? Yes I do but they teach about Jesus Christ and I think that's keen. I'm glad that you think that it's keen. But my observations still stand, even more so since I made that post. CWF said, Ain't that the truth! Got to love the message of God's never failing grace! Walkin in the spirit's the only way. To think we/I could ever discipline the flesh by our own minds (works)! Priest said the same thing when my father died. Told him to get out of my home, and don't expect a cash handout for his mumbo jumbo (Dad was catholic and Mom was taught their phobus). The priest foamed at the mouth mumbling something out the door. Never saw the jackass again. Great Post! Free2Love said, What can I say? Great response! Amen! Thank you! God Bless! Continuing on, I don't know what happened to you (other than this incident) nor do I really care to any degree more than simple human charity, but you need to keep in mind that, in addition to attacking my beliefs, when you say but this is more an expression of the extreme ignorance of this priest, stating the exact opposite of the truth, you are attacking the beliefs of many well-respected Protestants on this board, as well. Sorry ‘bout that but if you’re a priest, a pastor, a preacher, a bishop or whatever and you actually think that it’s God’s will in any way shape or fashion for His people to die, you are really ignorant of what the word of God says. BTW, ignorant means you don’t know certain facts. I didn’t say they were stupid. I agree, ignorance is a terrible thing. And I have run into ignorant priests, pastors, preachers, bishops, etc., in my own life, as well. But one thing that I'd caution you on is the error of being arrogant. You may not have been taught the scriptures as well as you think. That's why a discussion format in a diverse group such as this is valuable...rather than simply asserting your position as the truth and closing your mind to honest evaluation of others' beliefs as being wrong. You might end up better able to defend your beliefs in the end or you may find that you were in error on some subjects. Regardless, you may be able to learn something. If you want to attack Catholicism, I'd suggest you start a rant about a practice that is more uniquely Catholic, rather than attacking based on a belief that is held by the vast majority of Christians, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant. Well, ya know, I’ve never been all that impressed with numbers. The word of God is not established by majority vote. Jesus said in Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. I'm glad that you're not impressed with numbers. Nor should you be. But you should continue to read that passage from Matthew: Mat 7:15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. Mat 7:16 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? Mat 7:17 So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. Mat 7:18 A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Mat 7:19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Mat 7:20 Thus you will know them by their fruits. The whole passage is far more revealing. That's the only point I wanted to make. If you want to be shown the scriptural inaccuracy of the doctrine of "soul sleep," as advocated by TWI, there have already been threads on that subject in Doctrinal. I suppose we can re-engage on that subject again though. That’s ok. 1 Thes 4:13-18 is plain enough. The dead are dead and they will be resurrected when Jesus Christ returns. That saddens me that you are so convinced of your position that you don't care to attempt to discuss it. But it's your business, I guess. ps - Mark, I just went and re-read my reply to Dan and I gotta say, I think your response to me was a little over the top. Are you ok? Are you angry at me? Did I do something wrong to you? Pls send me a pm and let's talk about it. I'm not here to hurt anyone's heart. No, I am hardly angry with you. If I were, I wouldn't bother responding to you. This response may have been a bit strong, but all-in-all, I find that it is fairly accurate and on the spot. Have a great day!

"Soul Sleep" is a term used to describe the theology taught by TWI, the JWs, and the Seventh Day Adventists on the subject. Yeah, Wierwille called it "Are the Dead Alive Now." The doctrine is also referred to, by some, as "Conditional Imortality." The vast majority of Christianity rejects this concept.

I suspect the same as you. But it certainly would not upset me if I found that, by some miracle that I did not understand, that my suspicion was wrong.

BTW, it may be of interest to you that the use of artificial birth control was proscribed by all Christian denominations prior to the Anglicans lifting the proscription back in 1930. Resolution 15 of that Conference: Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience. Just a little historical context to the discussion.