Genius
Posts: 768 
January 2nd, 2007, 03:05 AM
Are you suggesting that being human is to be separated from God and therefore that desire for re-birth is a desire to be back to oneness with God ... as in physically dead? I hope you're not advocating suicide, because there are definitely better ways to be reborn. For example, join a religion (or educational philosophy) that rejects computers. That would be a type of rebirth into those sweet memories of childhood, where technology was just a telephone in the home's high traffic area.
We could be rejeuvenated by sports and those amazing endorphins, pheromones and other cool natural highs. That in itself makes us alive for evermore ... until our last breath.
I don't think people are missing anything, I think they are making different choices, choices that are not only about faith but more about the immediate and all that other existential stuff.
Quoting look3467
What exactly do you mean by "within the realm of flesh". If people get to the point of thinking they are wretched prior to seeking medical assistance, perhaps they should have an advocate speaking for them. Is a spirit like a soul? I'm pretty sure that I spoke with a brain tumour survivor who told me that one thing is for sure (given their abnormal behavior under the tumour), there is no soul that guides or governs when the body is ill. The ill body or mind are definitely in charge.
Spoken like a true gentleman.
Yes, pit falls in life can definitely become a hellish experience, and salvation from it would be welcomed. We could call it death to the old habit and or a re-birth to a new life.
All that is within the realm of the flesh. There must be a change in the heart before any changes can take place. A repentance if you will. A: "Oh what a wretched man I am"; how can I get out of this condition?
One's spirit exists for the continuance of the flesh, to control all body functions, even though it is alive, it is dead. An oxymoron? Alive physically, but spiritually separated from God.
To be reconciled back to God, our dead spirits must be re-born.
An external source, an intervention from the spirit of God in our lives that rejuvenates our spirits and makes them alive for ever more.
That is the understanding that is being missed and not seen.
Peace>>>AJ
Yes, pit falls in life can definitely become a hellish experience, and salvation from it would be welcomed. We could call it death to the old habit and or a re-birth to a new life.
All that is within the realm of the flesh. There must be a change in the heart before any changes can take place. A repentance if you will. A: "Oh what a wretched man I am"; how can I get out of this condition?
One's spirit exists for the continuance of the flesh, to control all body functions, even though it is alive, it is dead. An oxymoron? Alive physically, but spiritually separated from God.
To be reconciled back to God, our dead spirits must be re-born.
An external source, an intervention from the spirit of God in our lives that rejuvenates our spirits and makes them alive for ever more.
That is the understanding that is being missed and not seen.
Peace>>>AJ
Are you suggesting that being human is to be separated from God and therefore that desire for re-birth is a desire to be back to oneness with God ... as in physically dead? I hope you're not advocating suicide, because there are definitely better ways to be reborn. For example, join a religion (or educational philosophy) that rejects computers. That would be a type of rebirth into those sweet memories of childhood, where technology was just a telephone in the home's high traffic area.
We could be rejeuvenated by sports and those amazing endorphins, pheromones and other cool natural highs. That in itself makes us alive for evermore ... until our last breath.
I don't think people are missing anything, I think they are making different choices, choices that are not only about faith but more about the immediate and all that other existential stuff.
Council Member
Posts: 1,926
Location: Northern California
Location: Northern California
January 2nd, 2007, 11:31 AM
He had first hand experience as to who Jesus was upon that change and thereafter understood the mysteries hidden to all of us from the beginning.
Paul then became an Apostle to the Gentile world.
Going back to your question above, Yes, being human is a separation from God which brought death to the body and soul.
The gates of heaven were shut and the gates of eternal separation (Hell) were also locked shut.
There then was a great gulf span between the two of which no man could bridge.
In due time, at a time appointed, God sent His Son in the form of flesh, born of the flesh, with the same self trials of the flesh, to re-do that which was done in the first Adam, and that being: disobedience.
In that verse, as explained by Paul, he shows us that the first man Adam disobeyed God and brought death (separation) upon its entire offspring. (A fleshly thing)
But then he goes on to explain that also by the obedience of one man (a second Adam) many be made righteous (alive). (A spiritual thing)
So, in conclusion, and based upon the theme that is prevalent throughout the whole bible, is that God in His love created us to be like Him. (Ability to know good and evil)
Hence the devil saying to Eve:
Being as gods, is to be able to know good and evil, and or to practice free will.
But this came with a cost. (Suffering)
So, we are once born (Flesh) from the first Adam, and to by the second Adam, we must be born again, but with a different nature, and that nature being not as the first, (flesh and death) but as a second birth (Spirit to life everlasting)
This second Adam is Jesus by whose body our sins were placed on as a sacrifice of obedience for all mankind, thus breaking the gates of heaven open, and opening the gates of hell, liberating all who were in there, and bridging the great gulf span to heaven for us.
Bear in mind, that all this is a spiritual work done in the body of flesh.
That is why there are two births, one flesh and the other spirit. One: of Adam and the other: of God.
Jesus said, marvel not at this thing, just believe Jesus and trust Him, for He is the last word to us by which all mankind is to be saved.
1
Apart from that, we are as the first Adam.
Peace>>>AJ
Quote:
“Oh wretched man that I am” is a quote by the Apostle Paul:
Are you suggesting that being human is to be separated from God and therefore that desire for re-birth is a desire to be back to oneness with God ... as in physically dead? I hope you're not advocating suicide, because there are definitely better ways to be reborn. For example, join a religion (or educational philosophy) that rejects computers. That would be a type of rebirth into those sweet memories of childhood, where technology was just a telephone in the home's high traffic area.>>>Ariadne
Quote:
Paul’s name was Saul prior to seeing the spirit of Jesus, and his name changed because of that. Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
He had first hand experience as to who Jesus was upon that change and thereafter understood the mysteries hidden to all of us from the beginning.
Paul then became an Apostle to the Gentile world.
Going back to your question above, Yes, being human is a separation from God which brought death to the body and soul.
The gates of heaven were shut and the gates of eternal separation (Hell) were also locked shut.
There then was a great gulf span between the two of which no man could bridge.
In due time, at a time appointed, God sent His Son in the form of flesh, born of the flesh, with the same self trials of the flesh, to re-do that which was done in the first Adam, and that being: disobedience.
Quote:
Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
In that verse, as explained by Paul, he shows us that the first man Adam disobeyed God and brought death (separation) upon its entire offspring. (A fleshly thing)
But then he goes on to explain that also by the obedience of one man (a second Adam) many be made righteous (alive). (A spiritual thing)
So, in conclusion, and based upon the theme that is prevalent throughout the whole bible, is that God in His love created us to be like Him. (Ability to know good and evil)
Hence the devil saying to Eve:
Quote:
Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Being as gods, is to be able to know good and evil, and or to practice free will.
But this came with a cost. (Suffering)
So, we are once born (Flesh) from the first Adam, and to by the second Adam, we must be born again, but with a different nature, and that nature being not as the first, (flesh and death) but as a second birth (Spirit to life everlasting)
This second Adam is Jesus by whose body our sins were placed on as a sacrifice of obedience for all mankind, thus breaking the gates of heaven open, and opening the gates of hell, liberating all who were in there, and bridging the great gulf span to heaven for us.
Bear in mind, that all this is a spiritual work done in the body of flesh.
That is why there are two births, one flesh and the other spirit. One: of Adam and the other: of God.
Jesus said, marvel not at this thing, just believe Jesus and trust Him, for He is the last word to us by which all mankind is to be saved.
1
Quote:
Jo 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
Apart from that, we are as the first Adam.
Peace>>>AJ
Genius
Posts: 998
Location: Was Victoria, now Ottawa
Location: Was Victoria, now Ottawa
January 2nd, 2007, 01:50 PM
There is more fact in science then religion. Religion is based in faith. You have to believe without any proof. Evolution doesn't take anything away from spiritualism. Fundamentalists would have you believe so, but what has fundamentalism done other then burn witches and flown planes into buildings?
I think for some, not all, being born again is a way to start again. You've made mistakes that you wish were erased, or you have regrets. Boom! Born again. Clean slate. And if it helps people in there lives then where is the harm?
There is more fact in science then religion. Religion is based in faith. You have to believe without any proof. Evolution doesn't take anything away from spiritualism. Fundamentalists would have you believe so, but what has fundamentalism done other then burn witches and flown planes into buildings?
I think for some, not all, being born again is a way to start again. You've made mistakes that you wish were erased, or you have regrets. Boom! Born again. Clean slate. And if it helps people in there lives then where is the harm?
Council Member
Posts: 1,926
Location: Northern California
Location: Northern California
January 2nd, 2007, 01:57 PM
Man kill man, not guns or God.
Peace>>>AJ
Quoting Gonzo
You are correct in your description of faith Gonzo, but what you described as fundamentalism in nothing but the wrath that is found in the human flesh. For truely if the love of God were in them, they would have never burned them. There is more fact in science then religion. Religion is based in faith. You have to believe without any proof. Evolution doesn't take anything away from spiritualism. Fundamentalists would have you believe so, but what has fundamentalism done other then burn witches and flown planes into buildings?
I think for some, not all, being born again is a way to start again. You've made mistakes that you wish were erased, or you have regrets. Boom! Born again. Clean slate. And if it helps people in there lives then where is the harm?
I think for some, not all, being born again is a way to start again. You've made mistakes that you wish were erased, or you have regrets. Boom! Born again. Clean slate. And if it helps people in there lives then where is the harm?
Man kill man, not guns or God.
Peace>>>AJ
Genius
Posts: 998
Location: Was Victoria, now Ottawa
Location: Was Victoria, now Ottawa
January 2nd, 2007, 04:08 PM
Fundamentalism, to me, is taking a religion to an extreme that is dangerous. They pick apart a religion, and then interpret in there own way to serve their needs. That’s fundamentalism to me. There are believers, then there’s the extreme.
Fundamentalism, to me, is taking a religion to an extreme that is dangerous. They pick apart a religion, and then interpret in there own way to serve their needs. That’s fundamentalism to me. There are believers, then there’s the extreme.
Council Member
Posts: 1,926
Location: Northern California
Location: Northern California
January 2nd, 2007, 09:57 PM
Since I have studied more on my own and ventured out of that arena, I have learned allot about what the real truth is.
As life progressed, I had questions that could not be answered by my Baptist background sources because they were all of the same view.
I found my answers outside the general belief and now I see things through different eyes.
I still hold that all of life's questions are found to have answers in the bible.
The learning of them are through trails, and seeking for them.
God never turns away any soul.
Peace>>>AJ
Quoting Gonzo
I come from a fundamentalist background and I can tell you that they are sincere in their thoughts, because they know no other view. Fundamentalism, to me, is taking a religion to an extreme that is dangerous. They pick apart a religion, and then interpret in there own way to serve their needs. That’s fundamentalism to me. There are believers, then there’s the extreme.
Since I have studied more on my own and ventured out of that arena, I have learned allot about what the real truth is.
As life progressed, I had questions that could not be answered by my Baptist background sources because they were all of the same view.
I found my answers outside the general belief and now I see things through different eyes.
I still hold that all of life's questions are found to have answers in the bible.
The learning of them are through trails, and seeking for them.
God never turns away any soul.
Peace>>>AJ
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,612 
January 3rd, 2007, 02:09 AM
Look3467
“One's spirit exists for the continuance of the flesh, to control all body functions, even though it is alive, it is dead.”
You know, you’re as free as anyone else to play at semantics regarding the concept of “born again” or “re-birth”, why not; it’s an idea…nothing more….
I will take umbrage with what I regard as a fundamental misrepresentation of fact however.
One’s “spirit” doesn’t control all bodily functions…far from it. It isn’t a spiritual epiphany that causes babies to fill their diapers with that incredible green stuff….it isn’t the spirit that motivates a child to cry…it’s discomfort and early angst in a hostile busy world as yet unknowable to the child and has much more to do with developing homeostasis and signalling hunger, nothing whatever to do with the “spirit”.
If you’re going to manage the way people think…and that’s of course what your beliefs are all about….if you provide a balanced perspective regarding what your belief system characterizes as the separateness of the spirit and the body….I wouldn’t have any difficulty entertaining your contributions, but you’re misrepresenting the human condition.
I’ve attempted to jot down an idea or two for contribution to this thread, but it all seems so pointless so I don’t bother.
I will tell you though that I’m getting more than a little tired at the arrogance of your delivery and the unspoken caveat that everyone owes you something more than a civil response, couched in terms that invite an assumption that your perspective/presentation is just fine with everyone and you have the “blessing” of all participants to support you!
For me personally that’s not the case and although I appreciate that this is an area of Canadian Content dedicated to the expression of these kinds of ideas, has it ever occurred to you that some folk may take offence at the “I know everything there is to know about god, spirituality, the after-life etc. etc. etc….
As an atheist I find your presentation disrespectful, prejudiced and denigrating to people like me who choose to think for myself.
Perhaps the intent here at Canadian Content is to provide the believer with a pulpit or a soapbox, I don’t know and don’t really care, but I’d be willing to bet that if I took a more aggressive stance and attacked your belief-system with the same energy you seem to feel is required to bludgeon other folk into thinking the way you think, after your persecution complex reached its peak level of outrage you’d undoubtedly cry unfair and “personal-attack”….
The quick and dirty response might be… “Well no one’s got a gun to your head Mikey and if you don’t like the thread…then don’t read the contributions…!”
I don’t believe that a Jew has the right to not be offended by a Christmas tree in an airport or a courthouse and I don’t believe that a Moslem has the right to inflict pain and suffering on people because they’re offended by some idiot cartoons….
Similarly I don’t have a “right” not to be offended by a believer pontificating at great length about concepts constructs and morality, the foundations of which are founded in faith not fact.
Just understand that the fervent evangelical proselytism that you and some others promulgate here is offensive and disrespectful to me and perhaps to others. You think it’s your duty or responsibility to manifest your beliefs and convert the woefully ignorant around you to the particular path of enlightenment you champion.
And like most fanatic breast-beating and wailing there’s rarely if ever any consideration that your rhetoric might be in many respects counter- productive and fundamentally insulting.
It may be just a question of style but my impression is that you’re talking “down” to recalcitrant children….
Your beliefs and convictions are your own and in the party of your peers this attitude of “better than”…because you’re a Christian or a “believer” might be acceptable but in the broader world where millions don’t buy this song and dance, your efforts come across in a way that’s very similar to the arrogance and fanaticism of believers of different faiths upon whom the good Christian is more than prepared to heap scorn and ridicule…
It’s not really important in the greater scheme of things I understand but you might consider that you’re not impressing many and in fact you may very well be defeating your own purpose….
Look3467
“One's spirit exists for the continuance of the flesh, to control all body functions, even though it is alive, it is dead.”
You know, you’re as free as anyone else to play at semantics regarding the concept of “born again” or “re-birth”, why not; it’s an idea…nothing more….
I will take umbrage with what I regard as a fundamental misrepresentation of fact however.
One’s “spirit” doesn’t control all bodily functions…far from it. It isn’t a spiritual epiphany that causes babies to fill their diapers with that incredible green stuff….it isn’t the spirit that motivates a child to cry…it’s discomfort and early angst in a hostile busy world as yet unknowable to the child and has much more to do with developing homeostasis and signalling hunger, nothing whatever to do with the “spirit”.
If you’re going to manage the way people think…and that’s of course what your beliefs are all about….if you provide a balanced perspective regarding what your belief system characterizes as the separateness of the spirit and the body….I wouldn’t have any difficulty entertaining your contributions, but you’re misrepresenting the human condition.
I’ve attempted to jot down an idea or two for contribution to this thread, but it all seems so pointless so I don’t bother.
I will tell you though that I’m getting more than a little tired at the arrogance of your delivery and the unspoken caveat that everyone owes you something more than a civil response, couched in terms that invite an assumption that your perspective/presentation is just fine with everyone and you have the “blessing” of all participants to support you!
For me personally that’s not the case and although I appreciate that this is an area of Canadian Content dedicated to the expression of these kinds of ideas, has it ever occurred to you that some folk may take offence at the “I know everything there is to know about god, spirituality, the after-life etc. etc. etc….
As an atheist I find your presentation disrespectful, prejudiced and denigrating to people like me who choose to think for myself.
Perhaps the intent here at Canadian Content is to provide the believer with a pulpit or a soapbox, I don’t know and don’t really care, but I’d be willing to bet that if I took a more aggressive stance and attacked your belief-system with the same energy you seem to feel is required to bludgeon other folk into thinking the way you think, after your persecution complex reached its peak level of outrage you’d undoubtedly cry unfair and “personal-attack”….
The quick and dirty response might be… “Well no one’s got a gun to your head Mikey and if you don’t like the thread…then don’t read the contributions…!”
I don’t believe that a Jew has the right to not be offended by a Christmas tree in an airport or a courthouse and I don’t believe that a Moslem has the right to inflict pain and suffering on people because they’re offended by some idiot cartoons….
Similarly I don’t have a “right” not to be offended by a believer pontificating at great length about concepts constructs and morality, the foundations of which are founded in faith not fact.
Just understand that the fervent evangelical proselytism that you and some others promulgate here is offensive and disrespectful to me and perhaps to others. You think it’s your duty or responsibility to manifest your beliefs and convert the woefully ignorant around you to the particular path of enlightenment you champion.
And like most fanatic breast-beating and wailing there’s rarely if ever any consideration that your rhetoric might be in many respects counter- productive and fundamentally insulting.
It may be just a question of style but my impression is that you’re talking “down” to recalcitrant children….
Your beliefs and convictions are your own and in the party of your peers this attitude of “better than”…because you’re a Christian or a “believer” might be acceptable but in the broader world where millions don’t buy this song and dance, your efforts come across in a way that’s very similar to the arrogance and fanaticism of believers of different faiths upon whom the good Christian is more than prepared to heap scorn and ridicule…
It’s not really important in the greater scheme of things I understand but you might consider that you’re not impressing many and in fact you may very well be defeating your own purpose….
Council Member
Posts: 1,926
Location: Northern California
Location: Northern California
January 3rd, 2007, 03:36 AM
One's spirit exists for the continuance of the flesh, to control all body functions, even though it is alive, it is dead.”>>>AJ
Two: the discussion question is whether a condition called “re-born” is a must.
In order to do that, there must be made a distinction between the two births.
Each is separate from the other as the word “re-born” designates.
The common sense question to the natural mind is to ask why?
The answer of course cannot be a physical birth because we are already born.
So, it must mean something else. Not physical,………… maybe?
If I were intolerant, I wouldn’t entertain any views at all.
If one’s spirit is vexed by some of the responses on this thread, then that is an indication of a need for self analysis of oneself.
Peace>>>AJ
One's spirit exists for the continuance of the flesh, to control all body functions, even though it is alive, it is dead.”>>>AJ
Quote:
Thank you Mikey for a very well thought out response. I’ve considered all you said and respond in like manner.
You know, you’re as free as anyone else to play at semantics regarding the concept of “born again” or “re-birth”, why not; it’s an idea…nothing more….Mikey
Quote:
The only thing I can say to the above response by you is that once the spirit leaves the body, life ceases.
I will take umbrage with what I regard as a fundamental misrepresentation of fact however.>>>Mikey
Quote:
Without the spirit in the body, the body wouldn’t need to fill diapers.
One’s “spirit” doesn’t control all bodily functions…far from it. It isn’t a spiritual epiphany that causes babies to fill their diapers with that incredible green stuff….it isn’t the spirit that motivates a child to cry…it’s discomfort and early angst in a hostile busy world as yet unknowable to the child and has much more to do with developing homeostasis and signalling hunger, nothing whatever to do with the “spirit”.>>>Mikey
Quote:
One: people have a free will to think for themselves and make decisions based on the information given to them.
If you’re going to manage the way people think…and that’s of course what your beliefs are all about….if you provide a balanced perspective regarding what your belief system characterizes as the separateness of the spirit and the body….I wouldn’t have any difficulty entertaining your contributions, but you’re misrepresenting the human condition.>>>Mikey
Two: the discussion question is whether a condition called “re-born” is a must.
In order to do that, there must be made a distinction between the two births.
Each is separate from the other as the word “re-born” designates.
The common sense question to the natural mind is to ask why?
The answer of course cannot be a physical birth because we are already born.
So, it must mean something else. Not physical,………… maybe?
Quote:
I have no objections to your doing so. But understand what my point of reference is to.
I’ve attempted to jot down an idea or two for contribution to this thread, but it all seems so pointless so I don’t bother.>>>Mikey
Quote:
You owe me nothing Mikey, response as you wish. I will not deny you the right to do so.
I will tell you though that I’m getting more than a little tired at the arrogance of your delivery and the unspoken caveat that everyone owes you something more than a civil response, couched in terms that invite an assumption that your perspective/presentation is just fine with everyone and you have the “blessing” of all participants to support you!>>>Mikey
Quote:
Yes, I know that some may take offense to what I may say and likewise, I may take offense to what they say, but I won't.
For me personally that’s not the case and although I appreciate that this is an area of Canadian Content dedicated to the expression of these kinds of ideas, has it ever occurred to you that some folk may take offence at the “I know everything there is to know about god, spirituality, the after-life etc. etc. etc….>>>Mikey
Quote:
I’m sorry you feel that way, but you have a right to think as you wish.
As an atheist I find your presentation disrespectful, prejudiced and denigrating to people like me who choose to think for myself.>>>Mikey
Quote:
Perhaps this is an indication of your tolerance without God in the mix, verses my tolerance with God in the mix?
Perhaps the intent here at Canadian Content is to provide the believer with a pulpit or a soapbox, I don’t know and don’t really care, but I’d be willing to bet that if I took a more aggressive stance and attacked your belief-system with the same energy you seem to feel is required to bludgeon other folk into thinking the way you think, after your persecution complex reached its peak level of outrage you’d undoubtedly cry unfair and “personal-attack”….>>>Mikey
Quote:
My point on that Mikey was that if this thread offense you, don’t read it. That’s all, no ill will intended.
The quick and dirty response might be… “Well no one’s got a gun to your head Mikey and if you don’t like the thread…then don’t read the contributions…!”>>>Mikey
Quote:
I don’t believe that a Jew has the right to not be offended by a Christmas tree in an airport or a courthouse and I don’t believe that a Moslem has the right to inflict pain and suffering on people because they’re offended by some idiot cartoons….>>>Mikey
Quote:
Offense is taken: when a person has no tolerance based on a belief system that limits ones views and no room for entertaining another view.
Similarly I don’t have a “right” not to be offended by a believer pontificating at great length about concepts constructs and morality, the foundations of which are founded in faith not fact.>>>Mikey
Quote:
I convert no one, if they exercise free will.
Just understand that the fervent evangelical proselytism that you and some others promulgate here is offensive and disrespectful to me and perhaps to others. You think it’s your duty or responsibility to manifest your beliefs and convert the woefully ignorant around you to the particular path of enlightenment you champion.>>>Mikey
Quote:
I take full responsibility for this thread, and no one has to respond to it.
And like most fanatic breast-beating and wailing there’s rarely if ever any consideration that your rhetoric might be in many respects counter- productive and fundamentally insulting.>>>Mikey
If I were intolerant, I wouldn’t entertain any views at all.
Quote:
To you it may seem that way Mikey, but I have not debased you in any way.
It may be just a question of style but my impression is that you’re talking “down” to recalcitrant children….>>>Mikey
Quote:
Because of my understanding, I hold you in the best regard, therefore have no problem conversing with you.
Your beliefs and convictions are your own and in the party of your peers this attitude of “better than”…because you’re a Christian or a “believer” might be acceptable but in the broader world where millions don’t buy this song and dance, your efforts come across in a way that’s very similar to the arrogance and fanaticism of believers of different faiths upon whom the good Christian is more than prepared to heap scorn and ridicule…>>>Mikey
Quote:
I am but a pebble in a sea of sand, but if I can contribute a bit of cheer to my next door pebble, then I would have accomplished much.
It’s not really important in the greater scheme of things I understand but you might consider that you’re not impressing many and in fact you may very well be defeating your own purpose….>>>Mikey
If one’s spirit is vexed by some of the responses on this thread, then that is an indication of a need for self analysis of oneself.
Peace>>>AJ
Bright Spark
Posts: 327
Location: Ont
Location: Ont
January 15th, 2007, 09:49 AM
Not even our munchkins can make it if not baptised,
although by the mercy of God they exist in a natural state of contentment and happiness. So it behooves every parent or guardian who is the child's rep to ensure they are baptised.
AndyF
Quoting look3467
Jesus is speaking of rebirth through the actual process of baptism. It also includes by desire where it is not possible to obtain baptism. (ie: point of death,etc.)
For believers in Jesus:
in.
For non-believers:
The first is spiritually discerned, and incomprehensible to the human mind.
Whats your say?
Peace>>>AJ
in.
For non-believers:
The first is spiritually discerned, and incomprehensible to the human mind.
Whats your say?
Peace>>>AJ
Not even our munchkins can make it if not baptised,
although by the mercy of God they exist in a natural state of contentment and happiness. So it behooves every parent or guardian who is the child's rep to ensure they are baptised. AndyF
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Posts: 6,652
Videos: 5
Location: Newfoundland!
Videos: 5
Location: Newfoundland!
January 15th, 2007, 10:11 AM
even non-christians should baptise their kids?
is the service even valid if when the parents say their bits they don't believe it?
even non-christians should baptise their kids?
is the service even valid if when the parents say their bits they don't believe it?
Council Member
Posts: 1,926
Location: Northern California
Location: Northern California
January 15th, 2007, 02:12 PM
,
I will refer you to the book of Romans: Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
Circumcision is a fleshly thing, but spiritually, it is of the heart.
The human heart, (not the muscle) but the spirit that is in us to live by, has a veil or foreskin over it blinding it from God. That veil or foreskin has to be spiritually circumcised in order for that spirit heart to have a re-birth.
That is what re-birth means. Now, baptism is simply identifying oneself with the death and burial of our Lord Jesus as a believer and nothing else.
Baptism does not save, Jesus saves.
The young-uns, are innocent, as Adam and Eve, until they grow and start to partake of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil. Or better understood, age of accountability.
When that happens, sin is exposed, and they find themselves naked. Therefore, they are expelled, and find that they need a Savior.
That’s where they need a second birth from a second Adam. Jesus.
Hope that helps.
Peace>>>AJ
,
Quoting AndyF
Re-birth is in the heart. Has nothing to do with baptism. Here’s why.
Jesus is speaking of rebirth through the actual process of baptism. It also includes by desire where it is not possible to obtain baptism. (ie: point of death,etc.)
Not even our munchkins can make it if not baptized,although by the mercy of God they exist in a natural state of contentment and happiness. So it behooves every parent or guardian who is the child's rep to ensure they are baptized.
AndyF
Not even our munchkins can make it if not baptized,
although by the mercy of God they exist in a natural state of contentment and happiness. So it behooves every parent or guardian who is the child's rep to ensure they are baptized. AndyF
I will refer you to the book of Romans: Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
Circumcision is a fleshly thing, but spiritually, it is of the heart.
The human heart, (not the muscle) but the spirit that is in us to live by, has a veil or foreskin over it blinding it from God. That veil or foreskin has to be spiritually circumcised in order for that spirit heart to have a re-birth.
That is what re-birth means. Now, baptism is simply identifying oneself with the death and burial of our Lord Jesus as a believer and nothing else.
Baptism does not save, Jesus saves.
The young-uns, are innocent, as Adam and Eve, until they grow and start to partake of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil. Or better understood, age of accountability.
When that happens, sin is exposed, and they find themselves naked. Therefore, they are expelled, and find that they need a Savior.
That’s where they need a second birth from a second Adam. Jesus.
Hope that helps.
Peace>>>AJ
Council Member
Posts: 1,926
Location: Northern California
Location: Northern California
January 15th, 2007, 02:14 PM
Peace>>>AJ
Quoting hermanntrude
Not unless the kids have knowledge of good and evil. They first have to know that they are naked (Sinners) and in need of a Savior. Then upon acceptance of the Savior, they can signify it by Baptism.
even non-christians should baptise their kids?
is the service even valid if when the parents say their bits they don't believe it?
is the service even valid if when the parents say their bits they don't believe it?
Peace>>>AJ
Bright Spark
Posts: 327
Location: Ont
Location: Ont
January 15th, 2007, 05:49 PM
NewAdvent.org/Baptism
"(2) Extraordinary Minister
In case of necessity, baptism can be administered lawfully and validly by any person whatsoever who observes the essential conditions, whether this person be a Catholic layman or any other man or woman, heretic or schismatic, infedel or Jew. The essential conditions are that the person pour water upon the one to be baptized, at the same time pronouncing the words: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" Moreover, he must thereby intend really to baptize the person, or technically, he must intend to perform what the Church performs when administering this sacrament"
AndyF
Quoting hermanntrude
Yes. Jesus means that everyone is to be baptised.
even non-christians should baptise their kids?
is the service even valid if when the parents say their bits they don't believe it?
is the service even valid if when the parents say their bits they don't believe it?
NewAdvent.org/Baptism
"(2) Extraordinary Minister
In case of necessity, baptism can be administered lawfully and validly by any person whatsoever who observes the essential conditions, whether this person be a Catholic layman or any other man or woman, heretic or schismatic, infedel or Jew. The essential conditions are that the person pour water upon the one to be baptized, at the same time pronouncing the words: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" Moreover, he must thereby intend really to baptize the person, or technically, he must intend to perform what the Church performs when administering this sacrament"
AndyF
Newbie
Posts: 4
January 15th, 2007, 06:56 PM
See, the first time you're born, your soul, while being of the divine and freshly separated from it, is woefully ignorant due to shock. It's also ticked off, not being used to stupid. After this driving will has learned through temporal experience (don't stick your hand in the ferret cage) that nothing can be known which is not rational to the senses it then seeks to fill in the unknown elements with irrationalities. The brain is tangible yet the mind is not. It cannot know itself. That's frustration for ya.
Being reborn, whether you prefer to call a spiritual re-awakening, an epiphany of conscience or just a great new idea it's still the same thing: a complete commitment to compartmentalized beliefs predicated on doctrine. All of your former thoughts must now be viewed in critical fashion through the newly accepted doctrine. Seeing the world through eyes that had not seen before.
That the mind is capable of this leap still astounds and fascinates me. I enjoy it so much that I do it all the time. I change my mind daily just to keep it fresh!
See, the first time you're born, your soul, while being of the divine and freshly separated from it, is woefully ignorant due to shock. It's also ticked off, not being used to stupid. After this driving will has learned through temporal experience (don't stick your hand in the ferret cage) that nothing can be known which is not rational to the senses it then seeks to fill in the unknown elements with irrationalities. The brain is tangible yet the mind is not. It cannot know itself. That's frustration for ya.
Being reborn, whether you prefer to call a spiritual re-awakening, an epiphany of conscience or just a great new idea it's still the same thing: a complete commitment to compartmentalized beliefs predicated on doctrine. All of your former thoughts must now be viewed in critical fashion through the newly accepted doctrine. Seeing the world through eyes that had not seen before.
That the mind is capable of this leap still astounds and fascinates me. I enjoy it so much that I do it all the time. I change my mind daily just to keep it fresh!
Super Genius
Posts: 1,384
Location: London, Ont. Canada
Location: London, Ont. Canada
January 15th, 2007, 07:45 PM
I can't make out heads or tails what look3467 is trying to say. Without quoting scripture and in plain modern english, what is your point?
I personally do not believe that "God" sent his son to us to die for our sins. I believe Jesus of Nazareth was a wise and good man with the belief we are all the son/daughter of God and that god is all around us.
I hold that the bible was written many, many years after Jesus was crucified by unlearned men with human failings and biases. A literal translation of the bible is plain wrong. As a good book with some lessons on ethics, morality and as a way to live a good and humble life, it has it's merits. Then so does the Koran and various oriental spiritual paths.
I can't make out heads or tails what look3467 is trying to say. Without quoting scripture and in plain modern english, what is your point?
I personally do not believe that "God" sent his son to us to die for our sins. I believe Jesus of Nazareth was a wise and good man with the belief we are all the son/daughter of God and that god is all around us.
I hold that the bible was written many, many years after Jesus was crucified by unlearned men with human failings and biases. A literal translation of the bible is plain wrong. As a good book with some lessons on ethics, morality and as a way to live a good and humble life, it has it's merits. Then so does the Koran and various oriental spiritual paths.
