He’s seems to be senile at times and if he is not sleeping during a sermon, he is complaining aloud about what the minister says.
Joe-Allen, you say that like it’s a bad thing. Every church I’ve belonged to had people like that; surely they should be represented on the board, too. :)
Let it be known that I’ve never made fun of you here, nor will I. I suspect we agree on too many things for that and I respect your feelings in areas where we don’t. But frankly, I’m a little surprised to see you in favor of ordaining women to the pastorate. It seems out of sync with your other postings, which suggest a certain traditionalism.
Personally, I find myself uncomfortable with the idea of female pastors. It’s not for doctrinal reasons so much as just a sense that certain things ought to be male functions and that’s one of them. However, it’s certainly none of my business what ordination standards are followed by denominations I don’t belong to anyway. It’s like thrusting in an opinion on my neighbor’s family relations.
In any case, I’m Catholic, and female ordination isn’t even within the realm of possibility, despite the clamor of the media to the contrary. So it’s irrelevant to me anyway.
Perhaps, Mr. Doty, but others may have been baptized as children, when “whole households” were baptized–as in Acts 16. Even those baptized as babies, however, must be brought up as Christians and accept their baptism, or it has little, if any, effect.
In the absence of any firm evidence either way in the Bible, I go by early Church practice, which accepted infant baptism easily. There was not real debate on the issue, as far as I know, until the Reformation.
Oh, yes: being of age and being able to choose baptism for yourself does have some theological grounding to it–but it is easy for such baptism to become a “work” we do, rather than relying on God’s grace. As one baptized as an infant, I know that God’s grace was poured out on me before I could possibly act for myself, through the ministers of the Church, and my parents, who made so many other choices for me in those first two decades of life. My baptism, at least, cannot be described as any “work” or mine–but my faith comes through God’s acting in love and my response.
Doc, I was pondering today and I pondered what it would be like if we could ‘see’ ourselves the same way we ‘see’ others. I wonder how that would change our behavior.
You hate most in others what you don’t like in yourself.
For some reason I had only thought of it as fixing the problems with yourself (or trying to), rather than attempting to fix someone else. I didn’t think about the splinter blocking your vision of yourself. Hmmm……….
Being baptized in water does not offer salvation of any kind.
and
When whole households are baptized in the 1st Century, everyone of them in that house made a deliberate choice to accept salvation.
bmonk, you need to closely read Acts 16:16-34.
Nothing is mentioned about babies nor toddlers in the jailer’s household in verses 31-33.
All of the people accepted salvation after they heard Peter and Silas talk to them about the Lord’s salvation.
That is my point: nothing is said, either way. We cannot use that verse to argue for or against infant baptism. There is simply no evidence, in the Bible, for or against. Our tradition is that when he said “whole household” here, likely in Cornelius’ house (Acts 10), or when Paul speaks of baptizing the household of Stephanus (1 Cor 1:16), they would have included infants, who were then raised in the faith, as later generations have done.
As for baptism not offering salvation of any kind, it is our experience that it does offer grace: God’s gift and support in our journey of faith. And that grace comes before anything we can do to choose it. Given that, what is so wrong about baptizing infants? It is our way of maintaining the mandate to spread the Gospel, make disciples of all nation and baptize them, as in Matthew 28:19. And many other ideas from the Gospels, such as the use of “our” in the “Our Father”–we are not saved alone, but in the family of God, the Church, and so on.
But, “using an argument from silence” is what you are doing, bmonk.
You are putting words in your interpretation which are NOT in the text.
The real Church of Jesus the Christ is each and every believer. And it is NOT a denomination nor a building where worship services are held.
You cannot make a disciple for the Lord out of a child who is NOT old enought to know what is going on.
Actually, I am not. I am saying that the Bible does not say either way, and historical evidence does: the early church did accept infant baptism, without much problem, as if the tradition had been there from the first.
You are the one who insists on Bible evidence. I am saying there is not clear evidence. And so we must look elsewhere.
The real Church of Christ is the Body of Christ, the community of the faithful–and in the Nicene (Constantipolitan) Creed, we profess the four marks of that Church: one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. The Catholic Church comes closest on all four counts, and has a historic continuity from the time that Jesus established the community with his disciples.
Simplified: infant (or young child) baptism is blessing a youth and a promise by adult members of the faith of the family (usually parents & Godparents) to help the child learn about their faith and to make wise decisions until they are mature enough to do so for themself.
It does not guarantee that a person will get into Heaven (or whatever) whether the person is baptized as an infant or an adult. It is the continued practice of God’s teachings that determines how one will be judged.
Does a person need to be baptized to be accepted into Heaven (or whatever)? Any more details I should know (without going to in depth)? Oh and if you baptize an infant/child and do not follow through on the teaching and guiding of the child in the faith is that a big no-no?
About Freedom of Speech and Religion. A book that is never dusty has an Article about that. I believe it is the first cause it is the most important. I think it will be interesting When the Supreme Court hears Doty vs GoComics. Yale’s School of Law and School of Divinity ought to get a couple of semesters out of that. Will C-SPAN cover it?
Are we saved by Grace alone or by a public bath? Martin Luther could have been executed for banging that on the door. Glad I live in America where you can say what you want.
We call it Baptism because it does more than simply dedicate the baby to God. As we understand it, it includes God accepting the child into his family, giving it a rebirth into grace by water and the Holy Spirit, forgiveness of sin, and anointing into the offices of Jesus as prophet, priest and king. All the sacraments involve not only human action–taken by the parents and sponsors for the child–but more important is God’s action toward the child.
And, as with any of the sacraments, they are effective in accord with how the recipient receives them. Nothing we do guarantees that we will “get into heaven.” Not baptism, not keeping the commandments, not saying prayers or whatever. It’s God’s free gift. At best, say that we must receive that gift of heaven. Certainly, we don’t earn it.
An adult has to accept the gift of grace in baptism and live the responsibilities; so does a child. And it is the particular responsibility of the parents, and sponsors to some extent, to be sure the child is raised to know the faith and formed to accept their baptism.
JOE Are you saying that Yale School of Divinity is not equal to your cow college (where you did not get a degree) because it is nonsectarian? It attracts the brightest minds on earth. I have two friends who received their doctorates at Yale and they are the best debaters I have met.Although all the faculty may not teach religion (or believe), please tell me how Logic needs faith.
Perhaps Tulsa Community has better instructors than MIT.
Somehow a Harvard grad might make a better lawyer than a Oklahoma State. law grad.
Funny, I thought theology was derived from theory. so do I want a professor who says “XYZ means ABC” or one who says, “I will attempt to prove that XYZ means ABC”? Do I want something rammed down my throat because someone believes it is true or someone to give support to his theory?
Example: Millions of people have died over the question “Does wine turn to blood in the glass”? There is no proof, but that didn’t stop the genocide by the English in 19th century Ireland. Half the Irish population was lost because the British said it did not turn to wine. Their Dogma did not contain the ability to debate.
Much like your preaching., “God said it. I believe it. I’m right. Your wrong.”The greatest theologians have doubt (see: Jesus, doubt, any Bible you want). How are you so sure what God wants when Jesus questioned him? Are you bigger than——?
Most comments here are based on having faith in your beliefs and therefore does not mean any one person is wrong. I have my beliefs and if one doesn’t agree, I’m fine with that. With some, if others don’t agree, they get angry and try to force it upon them. Wrong answer. I don’t agree with many beliefs but I’m secure in mine. Enough said for now.
So I worded it slightly wrong. My meaning was the same.
And I don’t agree with someone adding the Genius badge to someone (if they have it) is being hateful, Joe.
I’ve seen you jump several times very recently around Gocomics and I think your replies of people being mean are not always warranted. You just did it at one strip (I don’t recall offhand now) but I just let it pass. I see you bring enough of it on yourself. I don’t understand. And I know I am on just about as much as you are. Of course this is my honest opinion only.
When do we start burning heretics at the stake? Spanish Inquisition/Puritan witch burners. Ain’t it great that both sides use death to spread the Gospel.
If you copy/paste a persons comments, and they have a genius account, the software on the site spells out “genius badge” instead of showing the badge itself
@LuvH8, I think the “sin of birth” would be what St. Augustine calls “original sin”.
The way I see it is that sin is first an action, based on a choice to go against God’s will, as Adam and Eve in Genesis 1.
However, because we sin, we become sinners: sin affects our ability to know what is right (to lie effectively, we must believe the lie on some level, warping our sense of truth), to choose what is right, even to want what is right.
So, we sin because we are sinners, and we are sinners because we sin: the original vicious circle, especially appropriate because we are dealing with vice.
SIn also affects our society, because we are social creatures. (If you doubt this, just analyze any TV show, movie, TV ads, or just about any other social media, such as romance novels.)
Hence, any child born today is also doomed to be a sinner, because that child’s teachers (including parents) are sinners, the child is growing and living in a sinful society. Original sin is a way to express this tragic fact.
Lewreader, St. Anselm’s classic definition of theology is “faith seeking understanding.” That is, the best way to study or do theology is to be a person of faith who seeks to understand what you believe. Any other way begs to go astray.
In order to sin we have to knowingly choose to act against God’s will/teachings. So we have to have both knowledge and the ability to choose (mental capacity and free will).
The more often we commit a sin, the more acceptable it seems. Thus destroying our sense of right and wrong.
We learn to sin from those around us (by their examples).
Because we are taught to sin, and our sense of right and wrong become warped it is impossible for us not to sin.
I have often found myself wondering: If it is impossible not to sin, why should we try not to?
I tend to think that if something doesn’t cause any apparent harm (who ever knows for sure) that it is okay to do, even if the Bible says otherwise. Therefore, yeah doomed to failure.
It recently occured to me, I don’t actually know what it means to use the Lord’s name in vain. Is there a correct way to do it?
I have found that as I started talking to God. (which is actually easier than praying) That I am also trying not to use religious terms in negative ways. I feel guilty, like it is rude.
Ummm……… is it considered offensive to (Blow Raspberries) at God? Or to say things like, “Fine, be that way.”, “You did that on purpose.” or “I don’t like that, but thank you anyway.”?
@LuvH8, that description of birth and sin sounds pretty much right, except that I would add that, once we sin, we get trapped into sin. Which means that, without God’s grace, we have no hope: it may be theoretically possible to live without sin, but in practice, we cannot pull it off. And once we sin in the least, it’s all downhill.
It is impossible for us not to sin–but we should still try to avoid sinning as much as possible, to avoid making a bad thing worse. If you have to run through mud, would you rather have just your shoes muddy, or drop to your knees, or maybe even roll in it? I think most of us would want to limit the mud on our clothes as much as possible, and so we’d be careful to keep the mud only on our shoes.
And, more important, is to forgive others their sins that harm us, and being forgiven by God. Sin is inevitable; suffering eternal death for sin is not.
Taking God’s name in vain means using it when it is not addressing God, which makes it empty. [It would also apply when trying to use God’s power (for Israel, names captured the person’s power) as in magic spells to force God to act.] So, using God’s name (or Jesus) as a expletive (“swear” word or “curse”) is using it in vain. The correct way to use a name is the way we use any name: to refer to the person, or to address them. So, when we talk about God or to God, it’s OK to use the name.
Prayer is, most simply, talking to God. We can be as formal or informal as we want; God is good at accepting us where we are. Of course, God is also extremely good at getting us to change to be where we should be…which sometimes feels like nagging or not accepting us, but that’s love.
As for blowing raspberries at God, or being angry with God, if that’s what you truly want to tell God, do so. If you can’t get angry with God, who can you get mad at? God, of all people, is the best at taking it. Being honest with God helps us be honest with ourselves, and others. But you may not want to be quite so forthright when praying with others, unless you trust them and know they will take it properly.
And, speaking of formal prayers, some people find it hard to pray the “cursing” or “angry” Psalms–they were even left out of the 1970s Roman Breviary for that reason. But it’s nice to know that even the Psalms get mad at God, or ask God to repay others for their malice–which is better than repaying them ourselves, and may lead to an even better response.
And, more important, is to forgive others their sins that harm us, and being forgiven by God. Sin is inevitable; suffering eternal death for sin is not.
I don’t understand, I know it is bad for us not to forgive or be able to forgive a person. (Holding hate close to our heart?) And yes I do still have problems with some forgiveness. But I don’t understand how it effects the other person. If the other person feels justified in their actions or simply just doesn’t care. What does it matter to them if they are forgiven?
Formal prayers? Not even am I close to doing that. I may almost being willing to admit that there is a God (or whatever), but the Bible and people’s interepretations of it I still am very skeptical about.
It’s more like ‘talking’ to God is okay. But asking God to help people is still very weird and is more difficult. (But then asking for help is always more difficult for me.)
It’s not so much being angry at God as being annoyed. If everything happens for a reason, and it happens because God wants it that way for whatever purpose then it is God’s fault when something apparently bad happens. (even when I am responsible)
So when something happens that appears to be bad I try to look for something positive that will come out of it. But before I do that, I just seem to feel the need to blow raspberries. I don’t blow raspberries when I am seriously angry. I am sure if I think about it enough, or eventually I will be angry at God but not yet.
Trying to use God’s power? Would that include trying to get people to do/believe what you want them to by saying that it is God’s will? Or using God to justify actions, when the actions are against His teachings?
@LuvH8, forgiveness is more for the forgiver than the forgiven. We say that we will not carry around that hurt and let it dictate how we will live and act. We will not stoop to becoming like the one who hurt us.
It may not matter to the other person, the sinner, that they are forgiven–but if they ever do repent, then it will. Then it can bear even more fruit, both in the one who forgives and the one forgiven, and in everyone they touch.
Formal prayers are most useful when you don’t know what to say to God, when you are freaking out or stressed beyond words, or overwhelmed in other ways, such as by loss and grief. In those cases, having something familiar to fall back on is a blessing. It keeps you going until you are ready to talk.
Being annoyed with God is part of being angry with God–only to a minor degree, such as when we really know we are (partially or wholly) to blame.
I don’t think that all that happens is how God wants it to be, so much as he accepts our choices and consequences. For example, I seriously doubt he wants me to be a sinner, or wants any of my sins. That said, God’s genius is seen in how he uses apparently bad things to bring about good. As in the old saying, “God writes straight with crooked lines.”
I think I meant using God’s power more in the sense of magic: trying to force God to do what I want. One example–really a counter-example–would be in the Gospels, when the Pharisees demand a sign from Jesus, a miracle done on command. To give in to their demand, because they would not accept what God freely gave, would mean that Jesus must use a sick person to show God’s power, use God to prove his origin, and so on. He refused: he never used others in that way.
Oh, and asking God for help is a natural outgrowth of talking to God. As we share more of ourselves, just “hanging out” with God, we naturally talk about our difficulties, or the problems of those we love, and from there it’s not so far to asking for advice, or help.
If it helps, remember that God always answers prayers. The answer is not always what we want or demand. It’s what we need most. If you go into prayer hoping for that, you will not be disappointed.
But, in the last regard, don’t worry too much about the details of your prayer. Let God lead you. Just keep the talking and listening going, be sure it is God you are listening to–and the rest will come when it’s needed.
Bmonk, are you sure God didn’t over-bake the brownies? I think he did it so I would only eat enough brownies for my chocolate craving and not go overboard.
I don’t think God would be mean enough to actually ‘talk’ to me. At least I hope not. (No need to add schizophrenia to my diagnosises.) Maybe He does other things to communicate? Cause talking to me would totally freak me out!
So is praying the same as talking to God? Do we sometimes talk to God without realizing it? I do a lot of hoping and wishing for things but don’t consciously ask God for them. Like I hope that the Monkeys’ father will realize the mistakes he is making with them and that he is using his religious beliefs to spread hate rather than love. I don’t like him but………. I love my Monkeys.
When I am consciously asking God for things it is usually very general. Like wishing for the best possible outcome, a lessening of someone’s pain, etc. I leave the details to God. I think part of that is following your previous advice and part of it is that I just don’t think that I necessarily know what the best thing would be. (not quite that arrogant)
Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions, Bmonk.
Talking to God is certainly one form of praying–but don’t forget listening to God as well. After all, if God can listen to us, God will certainly be able to say a few things as well.
And God seems to communicate quite well without words when he must. Of course, using words can be easier–hence the need to learn what God is like and how God speaks (and the sort of thing that he is likely to say).
We do that through the Bible, as well as more experienced mentors (spiritual directors), not to mention liturgies like Church services. Such rites–any that I am aware of anyhow–have not only readings from the Bible, but some sort of homily to explain and apply what the Bible is saying to us here and now. And then each person who hears must do the same in his or her own life.
I’m sorry to hear about the Monkeys’ father–I had to resist making him the Monkeys’ uncle ;-) –using religion to spread hatred, but so many people of faith still manage to miss the point. God already had to come down here and straighten things out once.
It is possible–not easy, but possible–to love someone without liking them. I always think of Matthew 5:44-45:
”I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.”
God may not like us very much when we are unjust (or otherwise sinful)–heck, we don’t like ourselves much just then–but God still loves us, still works for our good.
You are right we are “not to mention liturgies like Church services”. I have no desire to have an anxiety attack in a room full of people who are strangers, and I think it would be worse if I knew any of them.
It’s funny about the Monkeys’ Uncle, I have been refering to them as Monkeys since Monkey 1 was 2 so for seventeen years, and it was only a few months ago that it dawned on me that made my brothers Monkeys’ Uncles.
Okay, I admit I hope people who spread hate and choose to be enemies, realize what they are doing and change it for their own sakes. Being hateful and spreading hate makes people unhappy. I don’t like to see people unhappy, so really it is selfish too.
Maybe if God speaks through an interpreter? I don’t like reading the Bible still. It makes me not happy. ) :
@LuvH8, you might look into a monastic experience, especially if you know (in RL) any religious. Religious brothers and sisters have to learn tolerance, and are willing to accept people as they are.
If you have ever heard of Kathleen Norris’ Dakota, or one of her other books, we were one of the first communities she found. As a Presbyterian, we accepted her (she’s an oblate, a lay affiliate, someone who lives the ideas of the Rule as best she can in her state of life).
She was married to David Dwyer, an ex-Catholic, son of a former member of the Jesuit order. David was very opposed to Catholicism, but his wife didn’t drive, so he was forced to at least come and stay. He found some common ground with us, and he eventually did heal enough to attend a liturgy of profession at the local convent–about 90 minutes long at least. Benedictine patience and hospitality won in the end.
His wife also ruefully remarked (on his fascination with Therese de Lisieux): many middle-age men fall in love with a sweet young thing. Trust my husband to find one who’s been dead for 90 years…
I’d suggest you try visiting a monastery, but some might say I’m biased…
The remark about “offering it up”:
Catholics believe in purgatory, the state of being accepted into heaven, but knowing you are not yet worthy or able to enjoy it–you need more “purging”, hence the name. We also believe in the “Communion of Saints”, so that the saints prayers for us are effective, as are our efforts and prayers for those in purgatory. Because of these, we speak of “offering up” our suffering for those who need it, that is, the poor souls in purgatory.
Religious brothers and sisters have to learn tolerance, and are willing to accept people as they are.
Should I be offended? Okay, “Communion of Saints” I have never heard of, but I think I am at the end of new information for a little bit. I need time to assimiliate the new information you already gave me, first. Thank you, Bmonk.
What I meant by that was that people being nervous about liturgy, or not very used to ritual, or “freaked out” (I think that was your term) are not going to faze most religious.
“Communion of saints” is from the Apostles’ Creed, an ancient creed used in baptisms–as it still is, and also used for the renewal of baptismal promises every Easter.
I’m sorry Bmonk I was kidding about being offended. Ummm………. maybe? Most people find they have to have tolerance to put up with me at times. Luv to you. Still thinking.
Edcole1961 over 14 years ago
Shirley, she can’t be serious.
Mad-ge Dish Soap over 14 years ago
Shirley, Judge Knott a book by it’s cover.
Christopher Mokren Premium Member over 14 years ago
and don’t call me sherley
Ooops! Premium Member over 14 years ago
Shirley you should Judge Knott.
Ooops! Premium Member over 14 years ago
I like the old guy.
LordOfTheExacto over 14 years ago
He’s seems to be senile at times and if he is not sleeping during a sermon, he is complaining aloud about what the minister says.
Joe-Allen, you say that like it’s a bad thing. Every church I’ve belonged to had people like that; surely they should be represented on the board, too. :)
Let it be known that I’ve never made fun of you here, nor will I. I suspect we agree on too many things for that and I respect your feelings in areas where we don’t. But frankly, I’m a little surprised to see you in favor of ordaining women to the pastorate. It seems out of sync with your other postings, which suggest a certain traditionalism.
Personally, I find myself uncomfortable with the idea of female pastors. It’s not for doctrinal reasons so much as just a sense that certain things ought to be male functions and that’s one of them. However, it’s certainly none of my business what ordination standards are followed by denominations I don’t belong to anyway. It’s like thrusting in an opinion on my neighbor’s family relations.
In any case, I’m Catholic, and female ordination isn’t even within the realm of possibility, despite the clamor of the media to the contrary. So it’s irrelevant to me anyway.
bmonk over 14 years ago
Perhaps, Mr. Doty, but others may have been baptized as children, when “whole households” were baptized–as in Acts 16. Even those baptized as babies, however, must be brought up as Christians and accept their baptism, or it has little, if any, effect.
In the absence of any firm evidence either way in the Bible, I go by early Church practice, which accepted infant baptism easily. There was not real debate on the issue, as far as I know, until the Reformation.
bmonk over 14 years ago
Oh, yes: being of age and being able to choose baptism for yourself does have some theological grounding to it–but it is easy for such baptism to become a “work” we do, rather than relying on God’s grace. As one baptized as an infant, I know that God’s grace was poured out on me before I could possibly act for myself, through the ministers of the Church, and my parents, who made so many other choices for me in those first two decades of life. My baptism, at least, cannot be described as any “work” or mine–but my faith comes through God’s acting in love and my response.
Ooops! Premium Member over 14 years ago
Judge Knott!!!! (giggles)
Ooops! Premium Member over 14 years ago
Doc it’s not paranoia if they are all out to get ya.
Ooops! Premium Member over 14 years ago
Doc, I was pondering today and I pondered what it would be like if we could ‘see’ ourselves the same way we ‘see’ others. I wonder how that would change our behavior.
You hate most in others what you don’t like in yourself.
Ooops! Premium Member over 14 years ago
Oh, so that is what that phrase means?
For some reason I had only thought of it as fixing the problems with yourself (or trying to), rather than attempting to fix someone else. I didn’t think about the splinter blocking your vision of yourself. Hmmm……….
bmonk over 14 years ago
Joe-Allen “Joe” Doty said, about 17 hours ago
Being baptized in water does not offer salvation of any kind.
and
When whole households are baptized in the 1st Century, everyone of them in that house made a deliberate choice to accept salvation.
bmonk, you need to closely read Acts 16:16-34.
Nothing is mentioned about babies nor toddlers in the jailer’s household in verses 31-33.
All of the people accepted salvation after they heard Peter and Silas talk to them about the Lord’s salvation.
That is my point: nothing is said, either way. We cannot use that verse to argue for or against infant baptism. There is simply no evidence, in the Bible, for or against. Our tradition is that when he said “whole household” here, likely in Cornelius’ house (Acts 10), or when Paul speaks of baptizing the household of Stephanus (1 Cor 1:16), they would have included infants, who were then raised in the faith, as later generations have done.
As for baptism not offering salvation of any kind, it is our experience that it does offer grace: God’s gift and support in our journey of faith. And that grace comes before anything we can do to choose it. Given that, what is so wrong about baptizing infants? It is our way of maintaining the mandate to spread the Gospel, make disciples of all nation and baptize them, as in Matthew 28:19. And many other ideas from the Gospels, such as the use of “our” in the “Our Father”–we are not saved alone, but in the family of God, the Church, and so on.
Ooops! Premium Member about 14 years ago
Doc, I think some people have logs in both eyes in that case.
Ooops! Premium Member about 14 years ago
Bmonk ~ Hello! Your input is always welcome!
bmonk about 14 years ago
Joe-Allen “Joe” Doty said, about 4 hours ago
But, “using an argument from silence” is what you are doing, bmonk.
You are putting words in your interpretation which are NOT in the text.
The real Church of Jesus the Christ is each and every believer. And it is NOT a denomination nor a building where worship services are held.
You cannot make a disciple for the Lord out of a child who is NOT old enought to know what is going on.
Actually, I am not. I am saying that the Bible does not say either way, and historical evidence does: the early church did accept infant baptism, without much problem, as if the tradition had been there from the first.
You are the one who insists on Bible evidence. I am saying there is not clear evidence. And so we must look elsewhere.
The real Church of Christ is the Body of Christ, the community of the faithful–and in the Nicene (Constantipolitan) Creed, we profess the four marks of that Church: one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. The Catholic Church comes closest on all four counts, and has a historic continuity from the time that Jesus established the community with his disciples.
Ooops! Premium Member about 14 years ago
Bmonk
Simplified: infant (or young child) baptism is blessing a youth and a promise by adult members of the faith of the family (usually parents & Godparents) to help the child learn about their faith and to make wise decisions until they are mature enough to do so for themself.
It does not guarantee that a person will get into Heaven (or whatever) whether the person is baptized as an infant or an adult. It is the continued practice of God’s teachings that determines how one will be judged.
Does a person need to be baptized to be accepted into Heaven (or whatever)? Any more details I should know (without going to in depth)? Oh and if you baptize an infant/child and do not follow through on the teaching and guiding of the child in the faith is that a big no-no?
lewisbower about 14 years ago
About Freedom of Speech and Religion. A book that is never dusty has an Article about that. I believe it is the first cause it is the most important. I think it will be interesting When the Supreme Court hears Doty vs GoComics. Yale’s School of Law and School of Divinity ought to get a couple of semesters out of that. Will C-SPAN cover it?
Are we saved by Grace alone or by a public bath? Martin Luther could have been executed for banging that on the door. Glad I live in America where you can say what you want.
bmonk about 14 years ago
We call it Baptism because it does more than simply dedicate the baby to God. As we understand it, it includes God accepting the child into his family, giving it a rebirth into grace by water and the Holy Spirit, forgiveness of sin, and anointing into the offices of Jesus as prophet, priest and king. All the sacraments involve not only human action–taken by the parents and sponsors for the child–but more important is God’s action toward the child.
And, as with any of the sacraments, they are effective in accord with how the recipient receives them. Nothing we do guarantees that we will “get into heaven.” Not baptism, not keeping the commandments, not saying prayers or whatever. It’s God’s free gift. At best, say that we must receive that gift of heaven. Certainly, we don’t earn it.
An adult has to accept the gift of grace in baptism and live the responsibilities; so does a child. And it is the particular responsibility of the parents, and sponsors to some extent, to be sure the child is raised to know the faith and formed to accept their baptism.
Ooops! Premium Member about 14 years ago
Thank you for clarifying for me Bmonk.
Just to be sure: The child’s responsibility increases as it becomes aware of what is expected and able to understand it’s own choices?
Also: What is the sin of birth? They were refering to it a few weeks ago, and I don’t have a clue why it would be a sin to be born.
lewisbower about 14 years ago
JOE Are you saying that Yale School of Divinity is not equal to your cow college (where you did not get a degree) because it is nonsectarian? It attracts the brightest minds on earth. I have two friends who received their doctorates at Yale and they are the best debaters I have met.Although all the faculty may not teach religion (or believe), please tell me how Logic needs faith.
Perhaps Tulsa Community has better instructors than MIT.
Somehow a Harvard grad might make a better lawyer than a Oklahoma State. law grad.
COWBOY7 about 14 years ago
What is a “cow college”, Joe?
lewisbower about 14 years ago
Funny, I thought theology was derived from theory. so do I want a professor who says “XYZ means ABC” or one who says, “I will attempt to prove that XYZ means ABC”? Do I want something rammed down my throat because someone believes it is true or someone to give support to his theory?
Example: Millions of people have died over the question “Does wine turn to blood in the glass”? There is no proof, but that didn’t stop the genocide by the English in 19th century Ireland. Half the Irish population was lost because the British said it did not turn to wine. Their Dogma did not contain the ability to debate.
Much like your preaching., “God said it. I believe it. I’m right. Your wrong.”The greatest theologians have doubt (see: Jesus, doubt, any Bible you want). How are you so sure what God wants when Jesus questioned him? Are you bigger than——?
COWBOY7 about 14 years ago
I asked you Joe because I have a choice of who I want to ask and thought I might get a straight forward answer. I guess not. Sorry I asked at all!
COWBOY7 about 14 years ago
Most comments here are based on having faith in your beliefs and therefore does not mean any one person is wrong. I have my beliefs and if one doesn’t agree, I’m fine with that. With some, if others don’t agree, they get angry and try to force it upon them. Wrong answer. I don’t agree with many beliefs but I’m secure in mine. Enough said for now.
(gets off the soap box)
COWBOY7 about 14 years ago
So I worded it slightly wrong. My meaning was the same.
And I don’t agree with someone adding the Genius badge to someone (if they have it) is being hateful, Joe. I’ve seen you jump several times very recently around Gocomics and I think your replies of people being mean are not always warranted. You just did it at one strip (I don’t recall offhand now) but I just let it pass. I see you bring enough of it on yourself. I don’t understand. And I know I am on just about as much as you are. Of course this is my honest opinion only.
COWBOY7 about 14 years ago
Joe - Are you having trouble getting Ginger Meggs. It won’t let me refresh!
lewisbower about 14 years ago
When do we start burning heretics at the stake? Spanish Inquisition/Puritan witch burners. Ain’t it great that both sides use death to spread the Gospel.
COWBOY7 about 14 years ago
I’ve seen that many times including when someone addressed me and never thought twice about it. Just trying to copy the name, it happens.
ottod Premium Member about 14 years ago
Doctor Toon ????? badge said, about 1 hour ago
If you copy/paste a persons comments, and they have a genius account, the software on the site spells out “genius badge” instead of showing the badge itself
Well, maybe it does make exceptions. : }
bmonk about 14 years ago
@LuvH8, I think the “sin of birth” would be what St. Augustine calls “original sin”.
The way I see it is that sin is first an action, based on a choice to go against God’s will, as Adam and Eve in Genesis 1.
However, because we sin, we become sinners: sin affects our ability to know what is right (to lie effectively, we must believe the lie on some level, warping our sense of truth), to choose what is right, even to want what is right.
So, we sin because we are sinners, and we are sinners because we sin: the original vicious circle, especially appropriate because we are dealing with vice.
SIn also affects our society, because we are social creatures. (If you doubt this, just analyze any TV show, movie, TV ads, or just about any other social media, such as romance novels.)
Hence, any child born today is also doomed to be a sinner, because that child’s teachers (including parents) are sinners, the child is growing and living in a sinful society. Original sin is a way to express this tragic fact.
Lewreader, St. Anselm’s classic definition of theology is “faith seeking understanding.” That is, the best way to study or do theology is to be a person of faith who seeks to understand what you believe. Any other way begs to go astray.
Ooops! Premium Member about 14 years ago
(stupid computer lost my response)
Ooops! Premium Member about 14 years ago
Bmonk ~ Is this right?
Okay, it is not actually a sin to be born. (Yay!)
In order to sin we have to knowingly choose to act against God’s will/teachings. So we have to have both knowledge and the ability to choose (mental capacity and free will).
The more often we commit a sin, the more acceptable it seems. Thus destroying our sense of right and wrong.
We learn to sin from those around us (by their examples).
Because we are taught to sin, and our sense of right and wrong become warped it is impossible for us not to sin.
Ooops! Premium Member about 14 years ago
I have often found myself wondering: If it is impossible not to sin, why should we try not to?
I tend to think that if something doesn’t cause any apparent harm (who ever knows for sure) that it is okay to do, even if the Bible says otherwise. Therefore, yeah doomed to failure.
It recently occured to me, I don’t actually know what it means to use the Lord’s name in vain. Is there a correct way to do it?
I have found that as I started talking to God. (which is actually easier than praying) That I am also trying not to use religious terms in negative ways. I feel guilty, like it is rude.
Ummm……… is it considered offensive to (Blow Raspberries) at God? Or to say things like, “Fine, be that way.”, “You did that on purpose.” or “I don’t like that, but thank you anyway.”?
bmonk about 14 years ago
@LuvH8, that description of birth and sin sounds pretty much right, except that I would add that, once we sin, we get trapped into sin. Which means that, without God’s grace, we have no hope: it may be theoretically possible to live without sin, but in practice, we cannot pull it off. And once we sin in the least, it’s all downhill.
It is impossible for us not to sin–but we should still try to avoid sinning as much as possible, to avoid making a bad thing worse. If you have to run through mud, would you rather have just your shoes muddy, or drop to your knees, or maybe even roll in it? I think most of us would want to limit the mud on our clothes as much as possible, and so we’d be careful to keep the mud only on our shoes.
And, more important, is to forgive others their sins that harm us, and being forgiven by God. Sin is inevitable; suffering eternal death for sin is not.
Taking God’s name in vain means using it when it is not addressing God, which makes it empty. [It would also apply when trying to use God’s power (for Israel, names captured the person’s power) as in magic spells to force God to act.] So, using God’s name (or Jesus) as a expletive (“swear” word or “curse”) is using it in vain. The correct way to use a name is the way we use any name: to refer to the person, or to address them. So, when we talk about God or to God, it’s OK to use the name.
Prayer is, most simply, talking to God. We can be as formal or informal as we want; God is good at accepting us where we are. Of course, God is also extremely good at getting us to change to be where we should be…which sometimes feels like nagging or not accepting us, but that’s love.
As for blowing raspberries at God, or being angry with God, if that’s what you truly want to tell God, do so. If you can’t get angry with God, who can you get mad at? God, of all people, is the best at taking it. Being honest with God helps us be honest with ourselves, and others. But you may not want to be quite so forthright when praying with others, unless you trust them and know they will take it properly.
And, speaking of formal prayers, some people find it hard to pray the “cursing” or “angry” Psalms–they were even left out of the 1970s Roman Breviary for that reason. But it’s nice to know that even the Psalms get mad at God, or ask God to repay others for their malice–which is better than repaying them ourselves, and may lead to an even better response.
Ooops! Premium Member about 14 years ago
Bmonk
And, more important, is to forgive others their sins that harm us, and being forgiven by God. Sin is inevitable; suffering eternal death for sin is not.
I don’t understand, I know it is bad for us not to forgive or be able to forgive a person. (Holding hate close to our heart?) And yes I do still have problems with some forgiveness. But I don’t understand how it effects the other person. If the other person feels justified in their actions or simply just doesn’t care. What does it matter to them if they are forgiven?
Ooops! Premium Member about 14 years ago
Formal prayers? Not even am I close to doing that. I may almost being willing to admit that there is a God (or whatever), but the Bible and people’s interepretations of it I still am very skeptical about.
It’s more like ‘talking’ to God is okay. But asking God to help people is still very weird and is more difficult. (But then asking for help is always more difficult for me.)
It’s not so much being angry at God as being annoyed. If everything happens for a reason, and it happens because God wants it that way for whatever purpose then it is God’s fault when something apparently bad happens. (even when I am responsible)
So when something happens that appears to be bad I try to look for something positive that will come out of it. But before I do that, I just seem to feel the need to blow raspberries. I don’t blow raspberries when I am seriously angry. I am sure if I think about it enough, or eventually I will be angry at God but not yet.
Ooops! Premium Member about 14 years ago
Trying to use God’s power? Would that include trying to get people to do/believe what you want them to by saying that it is God’s will? Or using God to justify actions, when the actions are against His teachings?
bmonk about 14 years ago
@LuvH8, forgiveness is more for the forgiver than the forgiven. We say that we will not carry around that hurt and let it dictate how we will live and act. We will not stoop to becoming like the one who hurt us.
It may not matter to the other person, the sinner, that they are forgiven–but if they ever do repent, then it will. Then it can bear even more fruit, both in the one who forgives and the one forgiven, and in everyone they touch.
Formal prayers are most useful when you don’t know what to say to God, when you are freaking out or stressed beyond words, or overwhelmed in other ways, such as by loss and grief. In those cases, having something familiar to fall back on is a blessing. It keeps you going until you are ready to talk.
Being annoyed with God is part of being angry with God–only to a minor degree, such as when we really know we are (partially or wholly) to blame.
I don’t think that all that happens is how God wants it to be, so much as he accepts our choices and consequences. For example, I seriously doubt he wants me to be a sinner, or wants any of my sins. That said, God’s genius is seen in how he uses apparently bad things to bring about good. As in the old saying, “God writes straight with crooked lines.”
I think I meant using God’s power more in the sense of magic: trying to force God to do what I want. One example–really a counter-example–would be in the Gospels, when the Pharisees demand a sign from Jesus, a miracle done on command. To give in to their demand, because they would not accept what God freely gave, would mean that Jesus must use a sick person to show God’s power, use God to prove his origin, and so on. He refused: he never used others in that way.
bmonk about 14 years ago
Oh, and asking God for help is a natural outgrowth of talking to God. As we share more of ourselves, just “hanging out” with God, we naturally talk about our difficulties, or the problems of those we love, and from there it’s not so far to asking for advice, or help.
If it helps, remember that God always answers prayers. The answer is not always what we want or demand. It’s what we need most. If you go into prayer hoping for that, you will not be disappointed.
But, in the last regard, don’t worry too much about the details of your prayer. Let God lead you. Just keep the talking and listening going, be sure it is God you are listening to–and the rest will come when it’s needed.
Ooops! Premium Member about 14 years ago
Bmonk, are you sure God didn’t over-bake the brownies? I think he did it so I would only eat enough brownies for my chocolate craving and not go overboard.
I don’t think God would be mean enough to actually ‘talk’ to me. At least I hope not. (No need to add schizophrenia to my diagnosises.) Maybe He does other things to communicate? Cause talking to me would totally freak me out!
So is praying the same as talking to God? Do we sometimes talk to God without realizing it? I do a lot of hoping and wishing for things but don’t consciously ask God for them. Like I hope that the Monkeys’ father will realize the mistakes he is making with them and that he is using his religious beliefs to spread hate rather than love. I don’t like him but………. I love my Monkeys.
When I am consciously asking God for things it is usually very general. Like wishing for the best possible outcome, a lessening of someone’s pain, etc. I leave the details to God. I think part of that is following your previous advice and part of it is that I just don’t think that I necessarily know what the best thing would be. (not quite that arrogant)
Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions, Bmonk.
bmonk about 14 years ago
Talking to God is certainly one form of praying–but don’t forget listening to God as well. After all, if God can listen to us, God will certainly be able to say a few things as well.
And God seems to communicate quite well without words when he must. Of course, using words can be easier–hence the need to learn what God is like and how God speaks (and the sort of thing that he is likely to say).
We do that through the Bible, as well as more experienced mentors (spiritual directors), not to mention liturgies like Church services. Such rites–any that I am aware of anyhow–have not only readings from the Bible, but some sort of homily to explain and apply what the Bible is saying to us here and now. And then each person who hears must do the same in his or her own life.
I’m sorry to hear about the Monkeys’ father–I had to resist making him the Monkeys’ uncle ;-) –using religion to spread hatred, but so many people of faith still manage to miss the point. God already had to come down here and straighten things out once.
It is possible–not easy, but possible–to love someone without liking them. I always think of Matthew 5:44-45:
”I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.”
God may not like us very much when we are unjust (or otherwise sinful)–heck, we don’t like ourselves much just then–but God still loves us, still works for our good.
Ooops! Premium Member about 14 years ago
Bmonk
You are right we are “not to mention liturgies like Church services”. I have no desire to have an anxiety attack in a room full of people who are strangers, and I think it would be worse if I knew any of them.
It’s funny about the Monkeys’ Uncle, I have been refering to them as Monkeys since Monkey 1 was 2 so for seventeen years, and it was only a few months ago that it dawned on me that made my brothers Monkeys’ Uncles.
Okay, I admit I hope people who spread hate and choose to be enemies, realize what they are doing and change it for their own sakes. Being hateful and spreading hate makes people unhappy. I don’t like to see people unhappy, so really it is selfish too.
Maybe if God speaks through an interpreter? I don’t like reading the Bible still. It makes me not happy. ) :
bmonk about 14 years ago
@LuvH8, you might look into a monastic experience, especially if you know (in RL) any religious. Religious brothers and sisters have to learn tolerance, and are willing to accept people as they are.
If you have ever heard of Kathleen Norris’ Dakota, or one of her other books, we were one of the first communities she found. As a Presbyterian, we accepted her (she’s an oblate, a lay affiliate, someone who lives the ideas of the Rule as best she can in her state of life).
She was married to David Dwyer, an ex-Catholic, son of a former member of the Jesuit order. David was very opposed to Catholicism, but his wife didn’t drive, so he was forced to at least come and stay. He found some common ground with us, and he eventually did heal enough to attend a liturgy of profession at the local convent–about 90 minutes long at least. Benedictine patience and hospitality won in the end.
His wife also ruefully remarked (on his fascination with Therese de Lisieux): many middle-age men fall in love with a sweet young thing. Trust my husband to find one who’s been dead for 90 years…
I’d suggest you try visiting a monastery, but some might say I’m biased…
The remark about “offering it up”:
Catholics believe in purgatory, the state of being accepted into heaven, but knowing you are not yet worthy or able to enjoy it–you need more “purging”, hence the name. We also believe in the “Communion of Saints”, so that the saints prayers for us are effective, as are our efforts and prayers for those in purgatory. Because of these, we speak of “offering up” our suffering for those who need it, that is, the poor souls in purgatory.
Ooops! Premium Member about 14 years ago
Religious brothers and sisters have to learn tolerance, and are willing to accept people as they are.
Should I be offended? Okay, “Communion of Saints” I have never heard of, but I think I am at the end of new information for a little bit. I need time to assimiliate the new information you already gave me, first. Thank you, Bmonk.
bmonk about 14 years ago
What I meant by that was that people being nervous about liturgy, or not very used to ritual, or “freaked out” (I think that was your term) are not going to faze most religious.
“Communion of saints” is from the Apostles’ Creed, an ancient creed used in baptisms–as it still is, and also used for the renewal of baptismal promises every Easter.
Ooops! Premium Member about 14 years ago
I’m sorry Bmonk I was kidding about being offended. Ummm………. maybe? Most people find they have to have tolerance to put up with me at times. Luv to you. Still thinking.