I agree that right now a city is generally safer than the suburbs as long as you have local knowledge and stay away from dangerous places. For example, bars and taverns after dark. <G>
I'm not frustrated because I don't take other people's problems personally. It's probably a mental quirk. Group injustices rile me . . . Stalin said something like, "Ten people die, a tragedy. Ten million people die, history." I take the opposite tack. For most people, "You made your bed, lie in it. For a person with normal health and smarts who grew up in the US there is no economic or political reason to be on the bottom of the food chain. There might be theological reasons. <G>
For me, I lived through the best times (post WW2) and the best place (USA) the working person has seen since Adam got thrown out of the Garden and I am very thankful to God for it. In 70 years I never unintentionally missed a meal. How many people can say that? All five of our kids turned out to be decent people, good neighbors. All the grandkids are doing fine. It's a miracle from God.
But I think the post WW2 middle class bubble is deflating and we are regressing to the world historical norm of 80% working poor and unemployed poor. The grandkids will have a tougher row to hoe. The reasons don't matter because it is a done deal. There will still be much opportunity in the middle of the food chain.
Slightly off track . . . but do any of the changes add or subtract from the ways we may love God or love our neighbors? If not, then why do they matter?
For 6000 years, as I think someone recently noted in "The Banner," the primary goal of the Jewish religion has been a proper attitude and actions towards God and neighbor. The primary goal of Christianity is proper thinking about theological propositions. To me, this is a Big Deal! The phrase "Judeo-Christian" religion makes as much as "Christian-LDS" religion. The Jewish to Christian jump is larger than the Christian to LDS jump. The main difference is the LDS more honest about the requirement of good works.
(The large print giveth and the small print taketh away. I love arguing the small print)
Q & A 62
Q. Why can't the good we do
make us right with God,
or at least help make us right with him?
A. Because the righteousness
which can pass God's scrutiny
must be entirely perfect
and must in every way measure up to the divine law.^1
Even the very best we do in this life
is imperfect
and stained with sin.^2
Agree 100%. A better answer is because Jesus settled the sin problem and reconciled humans to God. In other words, our being "right with God" is a done deal and can't be improved upon.
Answer 62 creates more problems than it solves because there is no objective test for regeneration except continuing good works.
Second, if all our good works are in the same basket then all our evil works are in the same basket and it is the same basket. There is no such thing as an intrinsically good or intrinsically evil act. There is only good or evil intent. But we are not mind readers readers and can only know one's stated intent thus there is no basis for discipline, said to be one of the three marks of the true church.
Or look at it this way. If we are not legally obligated to obey God's commandments then there is no punishment for ignoring God's commandments. "Law without punishment is merely advice." What is the legal basis for a church sanctioning a member? Insufficient gratitude? What is the objective test for sufficient gratitude?
It is an interesting problem. It has been my philosophy that sometimes one has to do something even if it is wrong and take it up with God later. Does that also apply to trying to do something that is right?
If no act is intrinsically good, then what about our "hero" industry? These days every public employee or GI who gets himself killed is automatically a "hero." How else would fat old men convince young healthy people to go into harm's way? (Me, I became a police officer because I got laid off at Boeing and needed a job.) Roofers and welders - people with really dangerous jobs - need better organization.
>Hi Bill, Your second commit under answer 62 is a false assumption that the act is separate from the intent. Evil intent cannot produce good works and good intent will not produce evil actions. Now there are good intentions that can produce a undesirable results and evil intentions that produce results that appear to be good.
The Law of Unintended Consequences - then no such thing as justice in this life and "truth" is whatever 12 randomly selected people on a jury panel think it is truth. Pilate was wise when he responded, "What is truth?" In The Bible, the bad guys get the good one liners - except for St Peter. My favorite Bible Verse, "I'm going fishing."
>By committing unrepentant evil acts you open yourself to judgment of fellow believers. Did you get sanctioned?
No, not me. Like most of us humans, I'm adept at hiding my sin nature and fitting in. Only the State of Oregon makes me nervous. I never know if I am to drive 15 over or 20 over the posted speed limit. <G>
No, not hurt. I don't take anything personally. No one has offended me. I hope I have offended no one. Maybe my sense of humor is a different. Bad logic and things that don't add up offend me. Consider me an observer, not a participant. What would space alien see on this list?
Thanks for the offer. Be happy to talk/write off list (I hate telephones).
>We have justice Bill because we believe in Jesus.
And people who don't believe in Jesus don't have justice?
We talking about justice in this life or in the next? I've seen very little evidence of justice in this life.
We want justice for other people and mercy for ourselves. If there was justice we would all be in hell.
Is there not some relationship between the things we call "sins" and the things we think that God should judge? (Justice is connected to judging?) Protestant Christianity claims that all sins are equal in God's sight? Is it a sin to violate civil/criminal law? Ergo, most every person who drives a car is guilty of rape and murder in God's eyes?
Doesn't the Bible claim we are all liars and no one seeks righteousness? Is this a correct statement? Am I the only person on this lis who is by nature a liar? Am I the only person who, at least in part, wants "fire insurance" and who doesn't always seek righteousness? Don't we mostly lie to ourselves about our motives?
Is it "just" that Jesus died for my sins or is it God's mercy?
AGREE 100%! I claim to be an orthodox Christian because I accept the ecumenical creeds as true. I am probably hetrodox (modern) CRC. I was a dispensational Christian until I read the Institutes cover to cover twice. I rejected (OPC) presbyterian interpretation (Everything is TULIP) of Calvin and the Bible. I never heard of the CRC until we moved 5 blocks south of Everett CRC. I like the Dutch interpretation and the old Dutch ways. I signed on with the CRC and then discovered that our elected leadership is trying to dump the reasons for which I enlisted.
Personally and off the record <G> I think Christianity got off the track after AD 70 when the Jerusalem Synod disappeared and Paul's gentiles took control but we have what we have and there is no way to erase 2000 years. We don't know what was lost. compare 2nd century Church and Jewish (rabbinical) leadership policies. The Church tried to erase all dissenting opinion but the rabbis included dissenting opinion in the Talmuds. (NOT that I'm an expert. Most of my Jewish info comes from Jacob Neusner's writings.)
The GOOD NEWS is that Jesus died for the sins of the world and the Resurrection resolved and settled the sin question between God and the human race. All the rest is commentary. The commentary got bogged down on the money trail 1500 years ago. Money controls every denomination including the CRC. From what I can tell our World Missions and CRWRC is the most honest and authentic representation of Christianity of all the denominations.
If http://www.greatschools.org/cities.page?city=Grand%20Rapids&state=MI is a fair representation of the Grand Rapids metro area then the Grand Rapids School District seems to be a typical large American city with good schools in the rich districts and poor schools in poor districts. Would you who might pull your kids out of Christian schools be putting your kids in a rich school or a poor school? I suspect the rich neighborhoods are not very "diverse," maybe less so than the church you attend?
Are your children old enough to understand the social and educational implications of making this change? Are you qualified and have the time to home teach your kids to make up for any deficiencies in the public school you choose?
I admire adults who intentionally go into harm's way for a good cause but is it "fair" to use one's children no matter how good the cause?
Why? Because allowing children to participate without a public confession of faith would nullify Lord's Day 30. In my Baptist days I have talked with people who said they had five year old children who should receive believer's baptism because they "invited Jesus into their hearts." You want 5 year olds taking communion?
c.1600, "act of carrying off," from Middle French rapture, from Medieval
Latin raptura "seizure, rape, kidnapping," from Latin raptus "a carrying off, abduction, snatching away; rape" (see rapt). Earliest attested use in English is of women and in 17c. it sometimes meant rape (v.), which word is a cognate of this. Sense of "spiritual ecstasy, state of mental transport" first recorded c.1600 (raptures).
The word is about 350 years older than John nelson Darby's invention of dispensational eschatology.
Posted in: Adopt the Belhar (The Banner, Nov 2010)
I agree that right now a city is generally safer than the suburbs as long as you have local knowledge and stay away from dangerous places. For example, bars and taverns after dark. <G>
I'm not frustrated because I don't take other people's problems personally. It's probably a mental quirk. Group injustices rile me . . . Stalin said something like, "Ten people die, a tragedy. Ten million people die, history." I take the opposite tack. For most people, "You made your bed, lie in it. For a person with normal health and smarts who grew up in the US there is no economic or political reason to be on the bottom of the food chain. There might be theological reasons. <G>
For me, I lived through the best times (post WW2) and the best place (USA) the working person has seen since Adam got thrown out of the Garden and I am very thankful to God for it. In 70 years I never unintentionally missed a meal. How many people can say that? All five of our kids turned out to be decent people, good neighbors. All the grandkids are doing fine. It's a miracle from God.
But I think the post WW2 middle class bubble is deflating and we are regressing to the world historical norm of 80% working poor and unemployed poor. The grandkids will have a tougher row to hoe. The reasons don't matter because it is a done deal. There will still be much opportunity in the middle of the food chain.
Posted in: Amendments to the Three Documents
Slightly off track . . . but do any of the changes add or subtract from the ways we may love God or love our neighbors? If not, then why do they matter?
For 6000 years, as I think someone recently noted in "The Banner," the primary goal of the Jewish religion has been a proper attitude and actions towards God and neighbor. The primary goal of Christianity is proper thinking about theological propositions. To me, this is a Big Deal! The phrase "Judeo-Christian" religion makes as much as "Christian-LDS" religion. The Jewish to Christian jump is larger than the Christian to LDS jump. The main difference is the LDS more honest about the requirement of good works.
Posted in: Amendments to the Three Documents
(The large print giveth and the small print taketh away. I love arguing the small print)
Q & A 62
Q. Why can't the good we do
make us right with God,
or at least help make us right with him?
A. Because the righteousness
which can pass God's scrutiny
must be entirely perfect
and must in every way measure up to the divine law.^1
Even the very best we do in this life
is imperfect
and stained with sin.^2
Agree 100%. A better answer is because Jesus settled the sin problem and reconciled humans to God. In other words, our being "right with God" is a done deal and can't be improved upon.
Answer 62 creates more problems than it solves because there is no objective test for regeneration except continuing good works.
Second, if all our good works are in the same basket then all our evil works are in the same basket and it is the same basket. There is no such thing as an intrinsically good or intrinsically evil act. There is only good or evil intent. But we are not mind readers readers and can only know one's stated intent thus there is no basis for discipline, said to be one of the three marks of the true church.
Or look at it this way. If we are not legally obligated to obey God's commandments then there is no punishment for ignoring God's commandments. "Law without punishment is merely advice." What is the legal basis for a church sanctioning a member? Insufficient gratitude? What is the objective test for sufficient gratitude?
Posted in: Amendments to the Three Documents
Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, Canons of Dort. Are there any others? We have no authority to change the ecumenical creeds.
Posted in: Amendments to the Three Documents
It is an interesting problem. It has been my philosophy that sometimes one has to do something even if it is wrong and take it up with God later. Does that also apply to trying to do something that is right?
If no act is intrinsically good, then what about our "hero" industry? These days every public employee or GI who gets himself killed is automatically a "hero." How else would fat old men convince young healthy people to go into harm's way? (Me, I became a police officer because I got laid off at Boeing and needed a job.) Roofers and welders - people with really dangerous jobs - need better organization.
Posted in: Amendments to the Three Documents
>Hi Bill, Your second commit under answer 62 is a false assumption that the act is separate from the intent. Evil intent cannot produce good works and good intent will not produce evil actions. Now there are good intentions that can produce a undesirable results and evil intentions that produce results that appear to be good.
The Law of Unintended Consequences - then no such thing as justice in this life and "truth" is whatever 12 randomly selected people on a jury panel think it is truth. Pilate was wise when he responded, "What is truth?" In The Bible, the bad guys get the good one liners - except for St Peter. My favorite Bible Verse, "I'm going fishing."
>By committing unrepentant evil acts you open yourself to judgment of fellow believers. Did you get sanctioned?
No, not me. Like most of us humans, I'm adept at hiding my sin nature and fitting in. Only the State of Oregon makes me nervous. I never know if I am to drive 15 over or 20 over the posted speed limit. <G>
Posted in: Amendments to the Three Documents
No, not hurt. I don't take anything personally. No one has offended me. I hope I have offended no one. Maybe my sense of humor is a different. Bad logic and things that don't add up offend me. Consider me an observer, not a participant. What would space alien see on this list?
Thanks for the offer. Be happy to talk/write off list (I hate telephones).
[email protected]
[quote=Ken]
Hey Bill, Would you like to talk sometime?. I sense a hurt that is affecting a fellow believer and would be my privilege to help.
If your in Everett , were only 1.25 hrs. apart . 1429 Macdougle First CRC (correct) Thanks
Ken
[/quote]
Posted in: Amendments to the Three Documents
>We have justice Bill because we believe in Jesus.
And people who don't believe in Jesus don't have justice?
We talking about justice in this life or in the next? I've seen very little evidence of justice in this life.
We want justice for other people and mercy for ourselves. If there was justice we would all be in hell.
Is there not some relationship between the things we call "sins" and the things we think that God should judge? (Justice is connected to judging?) Protestant Christianity claims that all sins are equal in God's sight? Is it a sin to violate civil/criminal law? Ergo, most every person who drives a car is guilty of rape and murder in God's eyes?
Doesn't the Bible claim we are all liars and no one seeks righteousness? Is this a correct statement? Am I the only person on this lis who is by nature a liar? Am I the only person who, at least in part, wants "fire insurance" and who doesn't always seek righteousness? Don't we mostly lie to ourselves about our motives?
Is it "just" that Jesus died for my sins or is it God's mercy?
Posted in: Amendments to the Three Documents
Ken
AGREE 100%! I claim to be an orthodox Christian because I accept the ecumenical creeds as true. I am probably hetrodox (modern) CRC. I was a dispensational Christian until I read the Institutes cover to cover twice. I rejected (OPC) presbyterian interpretation (Everything is TULIP) of Calvin and the Bible. I never heard of the CRC until we moved 5 blocks south of Everett CRC. I like the Dutch interpretation and the old Dutch ways. I signed on with the CRC and then discovered that our elected leadership is trying to dump the reasons for which I enlisted.
Personally and off the record <G> I think Christianity got off the track after AD 70 when the Jerusalem Synod disappeared and Paul's gentiles took control but we have what we have and there is no way to erase 2000 years. We don't know what was lost. compare 2nd century Church and Jewish (rabbinical) leadership policies. The Church tried to erase all dissenting opinion but the rabbis included dissenting opinion in the Talmuds. (NOT that I'm an expert. Most of my Jewish info comes from Jacob Neusner's writings.)
The GOOD NEWS is that Jesus died for the sins of the world and the Resurrection resolved and settled the sin question between God and the human race. All the rest is commentary. The commentary got bogged down on the money trail 1500 years ago. Money controls every denomination including the CRC. From what I can tell our World Missions and CRWRC is the most honest and authentic representation of Christianity of all the denominations.
bill
Posted in: Religious Education
If http://www.greatschools.org/cities.page?city=Grand%20Rapids&state=MI is a fair representation of the Grand Rapids metro area then the Grand Rapids School District seems to be a typical large American city with good schools in the rich districts and poor schools in poor districts. Would you who might pull your kids out of Christian schools be putting your kids in a rich school or a poor school? I suspect the rich neighborhoods are not very "diverse," maybe less so than the church you attend?
Are your children old enough to understand the social and educational implications of making this change? Are you qualified and have the time to home teach your kids to make up for any deficiencies in the public school you choose?
I admire adults who intentionally go into harm's way for a good cause but is it "fair" to use one's children no matter how good the cause?
Posted in: Children at the Lord's Supper
Why? Because allowing children to participate without a public confession of faith would nullify Lord's Day 30. In my Baptist days I have talked with people who said they had five year old children who should receive believer's baptism because they "invited Jesus into their hearts." You want 5 year olds taking communion?
Posted in: Theology in Song: The Rapture