Origins: America
Began in: nineteenth century
Founder: Wiliiam Miller (That's the 'Millerites' done) and as the Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) variety by Ellen G. White.
Membership:c. 14,000,000
Bible: If the References in the Adventist's own site are anything to go by, They're both Bible-believing and use the NIV too!
Beliefs: The believe in a literal six days of creation. They're a bit interesting in the Second Coming, Jesus coming back stuff, after all Miller prophesied that Jesus would return in 1844 and when He didn't return here the baton, being taken up by Ellen White, moved on to state that Jesus had come again, but not to Earth but to the Temple to cleanse it and prepare it for the remnant of true believers (AKA the Adventists).Once this is done, He'll start cleaning up the earth.
They are sure that we should be worshipping on a Saturday, hence the 'Seventh Day' bit! I have to say that I'm not at all convinced about this, but hey ho, not a show-stopper (is it?).
With regard to the Trinity, although they weren't, I understand that many now occupy a fairly orthodox understanding. That said, some sources tell me that this is not the case and others stress that they do. This is an area of some concern for me. That said, one of the views (from an Adventist goes like this:
Nowhere in the Bible does it mention the trinity, neither does Jesus did Jesus teach about the trinity, neither does Jesus claim to be God (what about the Father and I are one?) and because He doesn't know when the end is, He can't be god, for only the father knows (and no man does) - ergo Jesus is a good and godly man. To counter this I have spoken to another Adventist who was pretty orthodox on the views. The former was much older than the latter.
It appears that SDA members consider themselves to be the 'only' true believers and that they form the 'remnant' that Jesus is coming for. Mind you, if the Pope is anything to go by, he believes the same, so just more of the same. Of course, this makes for a tough ecumenical relationship policy!
Death is a bit of a stumbling block (and not just for the dead!) for some with 'soul sleep' (when you die, you're dead until Jesus returns), a good remedy against spiritism! Another issue occurs with the concept of 'conditional mortality', which sees all humans die and those, and only those, who are true believers are woken up and resurrected to a new body and immortality with Christ, which is of course anhililationist theology.
The devil is a bit of an issue for me, only because a friend used to be an Adventist and held the view that there was a battle between satan and Jesus and at the end of time satan would bear the blame for everything. Haven't found this anywhere although the 'great controversy' does sit with this I guess.
They tend to work on the basis that what is good for the body is good for the soul (and vv)and avoid alcohol, drugs, smoking and are supposed to keep to a balanced (veggie preferred) diet.
They also dress in subtly conservative clothes without jewellery or make-up, do not approve of sexual activity outside of marriage, and even then both should be Adventists. Only 'innocent' divorcees may remarry. Like many of the other groups from the time and place, Adventists are pacifists.
Are they Christian?:For some people the jury is still out with this group! Both Evangelical Alliance and Churches together in Britain and Ireland both seem to think not, at least there's mention of them and that's not a good sign. Others seem to think that they are merely an oddity within the Church and are Christians. I tend towards the feeling that they're different perhaps, but probably to be regarded as Christian in places differents!
Postscript: Having done a trawl again recently I am led to believe that they fit where it touches but the areas of difference present a marked challenge such that I would struggle - but then again it is in the dialogue that things can be resolved or hardened. CBTI and EA still refrain from welcoming them in to their ranks and so my concerns continue. I have to point out that having met some 'churches together groups' who admit JWs I'm sure there are some, somewhere, who have admitted them into the fold - just saying that orthodoxy is in the ey of the beholder it seems!
Wednesday, 3 November 2010
Tuesday, 2 November 2010
Sermon Example Creates Bad Blood!
When a South African Pastor, Xola Skosana, got to his sermon last Sunday, his hearers got a bit of a shock for the the topic was "Jesus was HIV-positive!"
As much as I can go along with the concept that Jesus shares our joys and pains and did, as a man, experience the challenges, desires, trials and tribulations that we face, I think perhaps Xola has taken things a little too far. I can but identify with the man, for I too have come out with some extremely 'Over The Top' (OTT) illustrations and associations over the years. But, ignoring the furore for a moment, let's try to see what Xola was trying to say.
The Pastor (rightly in my opinion) told his listeners that "Jesus put himself in the position of the destitute, the sick and the marginalised. Wherever you open the scriptures Jesus puts himself in the shoes of people who experience brokenness. Isaiah 53 clearly paints a picture of Jesus who takes upon himself the infirmities and the brokenness of humanity."
Seeing HIV+ as yet another infirmity, Xola has extrapolated the Isaiah passage and thus Jesus was HIV+ and if He was, those who are can see God as being one of them and if it's good enough for God to be HIV+ then there's no stigma or shame in being HIV+ either.
BUT - HIV+ is generally regarded as a sexually transmitted illness even those some have contracted the condition through blood transfusions, inherited from birth and other 'non-sexual' means.
I don't think Jesus ever had a blood transfusion (that will please the JWs).
If he inherited HIV+ from his mother, assuming her not to have had a blood transfusion either (more cheers from the JWs), this would perhaps suggest that she'd been sexually active and was not therefore a virgin. Then again, being the 'god bearer' (theotokos) she only carried Jesus and the genetic material and the like wasn't hers (a lively discussion point on many an occasion).
I don't think Jesus ever engaged in a sexual relationship and so that rules out another route by which He might have been infected.
What I think Xola should have said was:
"Within the body of Christ we find many who are HIV+. They are loved, valued, pardoned and forgiven and valid and valuable members of the Church and therefore the Church must be considered to be HIV+.
South Africa is a nation with around on fifth of the adult population is HIV+ and something approaching half a million die of the illness each year, leaving behind over 1,500,000 children as orphans, this attempt to remove the stigma and get people talking should be understood as a right motive, wrongly executed.
Food for thought, not an excuse to ignore the plight of a nation and engage in the riding of high horses - after all, He might not have been HIV+, but what would His take on this be?
As much as I can go along with the concept that Jesus shares our joys and pains and did, as a man, experience the challenges, desires, trials and tribulations that we face, I think perhaps Xola has taken things a little too far. I can but identify with the man, for I too have come out with some extremely 'Over The Top' (OTT) illustrations and associations over the years. But, ignoring the furore for a moment, let's try to see what Xola was trying to say.
The Pastor (rightly in my opinion) told his listeners that "Jesus put himself in the position of the destitute, the sick and the marginalised. Wherever you open the scriptures Jesus puts himself in the shoes of people who experience brokenness. Isaiah 53 clearly paints a picture of Jesus who takes upon himself the infirmities and the brokenness of humanity."
Seeing HIV+ as yet another infirmity, Xola has extrapolated the Isaiah passage and thus Jesus was HIV+ and if He was, those who are can see God as being one of them and if it's good enough for God to be HIV+ then there's no stigma or shame in being HIV+ either.
BUT - HIV+ is generally regarded as a sexually transmitted illness even those some have contracted the condition through blood transfusions, inherited from birth and other 'non-sexual' means.
I don't think Jesus ever had a blood transfusion (that will please the JWs).
If he inherited HIV+ from his mother, assuming her not to have had a blood transfusion either (more cheers from the JWs), this would perhaps suggest that she'd been sexually active and was not therefore a virgin. Then again, being the 'god bearer' (theotokos) she only carried Jesus and the genetic material and the like wasn't hers (a lively discussion point on many an occasion).
I don't think Jesus ever engaged in a sexual relationship and so that rules out another route by which He might have been infected.
What I think Xola should have said was:
"Within the body of Christ we find many who are HIV+. They are loved, valued, pardoned and forgiven and valid and valuable members of the Church and therefore the Church must be considered to be HIV+.
South Africa is a nation with around on fifth of the adult population is HIV+ and something approaching half a million die of the illness each year, leaving behind over 1,500,000 children as orphans, this attempt to remove the stigma and get people talking should be understood as a right motive, wrongly executed.
Food for thought, not an excuse to ignore the plight of a nation and engage in the riding of high horses - after all, He might not have been HIV+, but what would His take on this be?
Monday, 1 November 2010
How to be in three meetings in one evening!
Ten easy steps to three meetings, a free evening and a reputation for being the busiest person on earth!
1. Turn up at the first meeting.
2. Sit down and have someone ring your mobile a few minutes after you have arrived!
3, Answer telephone and then apologise (profusely) and tell those around you that you have to respond to a pastoral emergency, and as a result, you leave (looking concerned and a little hassled).
4. Telephone next meeting and tell them you've been held up over a pastoral emergency and are on your way.
5. Arrive and repeat step 2.
6. Now repeat step 3.
7. Now repeat step 4.
8. Arrive at next meeting.
9. Repeat step 2.
10. Repeat step 3. and,if final meeting, celebrate a good evening's work! (If not then return to step 7. until penultimate meeting is reached and then continue until step 10 and enjoy your well earned applause!).
Once you have reached the end of the meetings for the night (this also works during the day), the rest of the evening is yours and you will find yourself heralded as one of the most industrious, caring and busy people on the planet and better still, you can still make it home in time to watch . . . . .
(or get to your pint before it's got warm!).
I am sure that I know some people who use this!
1. Turn up at the first meeting.
2. Sit down and have someone ring your mobile a few minutes after you have arrived!
3, Answer telephone and then apologise (profusely) and tell those around you that you have to respond to a pastoral emergency, and as a result, you leave (looking concerned and a little hassled).
4. Telephone next meeting and tell them you've been held up over a pastoral emergency and are on your way.
5. Arrive and repeat step 2.
6. Now repeat step 3.
7. Now repeat step 4.
8. Arrive at next meeting.
9. Repeat step 2.
10. Repeat step 3. and,if final meeting, celebrate a good evening's work! (If not then return to step 7. until penultimate meeting is reached and then continue until step 10 and enjoy your well earned applause!).
Once you have reached the end of the meetings for the night (this also works during the day), the rest of the evening is yours and you will find yourself heralded as one of the most industrious, caring and busy people on the planet and better still, you can still make it home in time to watch . . . . .
(or get to your pint before it's got warm!).
I am sure that I know some people who use this!
Christian Brands - Quakers
Origins: England
Began in: Mid-Seventeenth Century
Founder: George Fox (UK), William Penn (USA)
Membership:c. 200,000 worldwide
Bible: It's a good read and can yield some interesting and quite motivational stuff, but it's no more special than any other book out there. It most certainly isn't the inspired Word of God and although it might be found within a Quaker setting, it would still be one of many other books that might inspire or motivate and would be equal to the rest.
Beliefs: To use their own words, "Quakers do not share a fixed set of beliefs." They are essentially another brand of (universalist) Unitarians who meet together and have a 'shared understanding' but no common or unifying creed, concept of God and like the Unitarians find Pagans (of which there seems to be a lot of) rubbing shoulders with atheists and other philosophical and religious thinking. Everyone has something (the light) of God within them and that all are equal regardless of belief, behaviour or practices. This is one of the reasons they are pacifistic (another Unitarian characteristic), because all are right there is no need to defend or push one's views, just a need to protect those of others.
So, God is Love and the light of God shines through us all such that we need no person, creeds or books to guide us for we experience our own redemption from within and live it externally (think I've understood this correctly).
Like other groups, the key is on the outworking and so Quakers seek to make the world a better place (not a bad goal) and engage in human rights (because all choices are valid and all people are equally valid too), social justice, environmental issues, the peace movement and above all, the freedom to act and believe as one feels is right. Conscience is all!
They don't have the Bible, they don't have the Trinity and they don't do anything that would otherwise be considered 'sacramental'. As a bit of a parting shot, I understand that the name 'Friends'derives from John 15:14: where Jesus says,:
"You are smy friends if you do what I command you."
A bit of an enigma doing what someone commands and yet not believing in Him, the One who sent Him, or the third member of the Trinity!
Are they Christian?: Obviously the answer is 'No'.
I would be amazed at the number of people who assume that the Quakers (AKA Religious Society of Friends) are Christians if it were not for the fact that I also (a long time ago) used to assume the same thing!
Listening to a couple of Quakers on the Radio a while back, it appears that they were canvassing the general public regarding what opinions might be popular for the Quakers to have and were commenting on how popular being a Quaker had been last time they updated their attitudes. All very egalitarian and as damning as it might be applause-worthy (I fear)!
Began in: Mid-Seventeenth Century
Founder: George Fox (UK), William Penn (USA)
Membership:c. 200,000 worldwide
Bible: It's a good read and can yield some interesting and quite motivational stuff, but it's no more special than any other book out there. It most certainly isn't the inspired Word of God and although it might be found within a Quaker setting, it would still be one of many other books that might inspire or motivate and would be equal to the rest.
Beliefs: To use their own words, "Quakers do not share a fixed set of beliefs." They are essentially another brand of (universalist) Unitarians who meet together and have a 'shared understanding' but no common or unifying creed, concept of God and like the Unitarians find Pagans (of which there seems to be a lot of) rubbing shoulders with atheists and other philosophical and religious thinking. Everyone has something (the light) of God within them and that all are equal regardless of belief, behaviour or practices. This is one of the reasons they are pacifistic (another Unitarian characteristic), because all are right there is no need to defend or push one's views, just a need to protect those of others.
So, God is Love and the light of God shines through us all such that we need no person, creeds or books to guide us for we experience our own redemption from within and live it externally (think I've understood this correctly).
Like other groups, the key is on the outworking and so Quakers seek to make the world a better place (not a bad goal) and engage in human rights (because all choices are valid and all people are equally valid too), social justice, environmental issues, the peace movement and above all, the freedom to act and believe as one feels is right. Conscience is all!
They don't have the Bible, they don't have the Trinity and they don't do anything that would otherwise be considered 'sacramental'. As a bit of a parting shot, I understand that the name 'Friends'derives from John 15:14: where Jesus says,:
"You are smy friends if you do what I command you."
A bit of an enigma doing what someone commands and yet not believing in Him, the One who sent Him, or the third member of the Trinity!
Are they Christian?: Obviously the answer is 'No'.
I would be amazed at the number of people who assume that the Quakers (AKA Religious Society of Friends) are Christians if it were not for the fact that I also (a long time ago) used to assume the same thing!
Listening to a couple of Quakers on the Radio a while back, it appears that they were canvassing the general public regarding what opinions might be popular for the Quakers to have and were commenting on how popular being a Quaker had been last time they updated their attitudes. All very egalitarian and as damning as it might be applause-worthy (I fear)!
Tricked or Treated?
Last night as we were in the middle of a Taizé service, I happened to look up and saw through two of the windows a George Romero-like Zombie and that lovely Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley's mate, Frankenstein. I gave a cheery wave and returned to the prayer we were engaged in.
As I prayed, I recalled some of Shelley's words which go something like:
"No man chooses evil because it is evil; he only mistakes it for happiness, for the good that he seeks”
I am amazed at the way that Halloween is becoming more gruesome and gore-laden. Walking to the church for the evening service I saw a Mum with a pack of what looked like Snow White's dwarves. A couple of kids (who obviously didn't read the 'We don't do Halloween' poster) rang the doorbell. One had an eyeball swinging from the socket and shrunken skin revealing a wonderfully constructed teeth and maggot dental scheme. The other was dripping blood from the neck wound that the rusty meat cleaver (still embedded) had made.
Unfazed, I told them we didn't do Halloween and told them to have fun and 'be careful'. Something that some I know will tell me was a wrong response. But you see, I don't think I was (but am as ever, open to correction) for a number of reasons.
First and foremost, the kids hadn't chosen evil, they were out for a few free sweets and the dressing up bit made their quest even more exciting. They were not advocating evil, merely engaging in the culture that we have imported from the US. I went into ASDA on Saturday and the shop was heaving as people bought up the Halloween costumes and accessories (at half-price!). Just like Argostide (the festival formerly known as Christmas), this was an opportunity to shop and to show your child how much they were loved by spending money and sending them away from home for an evening!
Secondly, for most Christians, the war is not with children or halloween parties; not even with the costumes, but is against the spiritual things such as we are told in Ephesians 6:
"For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.
Therefore take up the whole armour of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm.
Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and shaving put on the breastplate of righteousness, and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; and take sthe helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end beep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints . . "
We need to be addressing the real issues and targeting the real issues, dealing with the cause and not the effects. Those who are falling into error are only looking for happiness and things that look or feel good. So those who have happiness and real good should surely be sharing it!
Being portrayed as miserable killjoys is exactly the ammunition that those who oppose Christ and thea Cross are looking for. So let's use prayer, reason and a bit of grey matter, eh? Let's put on the armour and engage the real enemy.
As I prayed, I recalled some of Shelley's words which go something like:
"No man chooses evil because it is evil; he only mistakes it for happiness, for the good that he seeks”
I am amazed at the way that Halloween is becoming more gruesome and gore-laden. Walking to the church for the evening service I saw a Mum with a pack of what looked like Snow White's dwarves. A couple of kids (who obviously didn't read the 'We don't do Halloween' poster) rang the doorbell. One had an eyeball swinging from the socket and shrunken skin revealing a wonderfully constructed teeth and maggot dental scheme. The other was dripping blood from the neck wound that the rusty meat cleaver (still embedded) had made.
Unfazed, I told them we didn't do Halloween and told them to have fun and 'be careful'. Something that some I know will tell me was a wrong response. But you see, I don't think I was (but am as ever, open to correction) for a number of reasons.
First and foremost, the kids hadn't chosen evil, they were out for a few free sweets and the dressing up bit made their quest even more exciting. They were not advocating evil, merely engaging in the culture that we have imported from the US. I went into ASDA on Saturday and the shop was heaving as people bought up the Halloween costumes and accessories (at half-price!). Just like Argostide (the festival formerly known as Christmas), this was an opportunity to shop and to show your child how much they were loved by spending money and sending them away from home for an evening!
Secondly, for most Christians, the war is not with children or halloween parties; not even with the costumes, but is against the spiritual things such as we are told in Ephesians 6:
"For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.
Therefore take up the whole armour of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm.
Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and shaving put on the breastplate of righteousness, and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; and take sthe helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end beep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints . . "
We need to be addressing the real issues and targeting the real issues, dealing with the cause and not the effects. Those who are falling into error are only looking for happiness and things that look or feel good. So those who have happiness and real good should surely be sharing it!
Being portrayed as miserable killjoys is exactly the ammunition that those who oppose Christ and thea Cross are looking for. So let's use prayer, reason and a bit of grey matter, eh? Let's put on the armour and engage the real enemy.
Science and health - Some thoughts
As I begin to delve into 'Science and Health' A few initial thoughts strike me. I'll let the author(ess) speak for herself with her own words from the preface:
"Since the author's discovery of the might of Truth in the treatment of disease as well as of sin, her system has been fully tested and has not been found wanting; but to reach the heights of Christian Science, man must live in obedience to its divine Principle. To develop the full might of this Science, the discords of corporeal sense must yield to the harmony of spiritual sense, even as the science of music corrects false tones and gives sweet concord to sound.
Theology and physics teach that both Spirit and matter are real and good, whereas the fact is that Spirit is good and real, and matter is Spirit's opposite. The question, What is Truth, is answered by demonstration, by healing both disease and sin; and this demonstration shows that Christian healing confers the most health and makes the best men. On this basis Christian Science will have a fair fight. Sickness has been combated for centuries by doctors using material remedies; but the question arises, Is there less sickness because of these practitioners? A vigorous "No" is the response deducible from two connate facts, — the reputed longevity of the Antediluvians, and the rapid multiplication and increased violence of diseases since the flood. "
I'm left feeling like I'm about to be visited by a snake oil salesmen with the very first sentence above in that (I'm assuming) the 'truth' spoken of here appears to be a subjective rather than universal 'truth'. I have to ask who tested the system and found it to be 'not wanting' and what the parameters that led to this conclusion were. I assume that this is a direct comparison between those using the system and those not using it and have to say that were the results good enough toi support this system, why on earth don't the faith-healers and other 'faith' types employing it one hundred years on from the book I'm reading?
Embracing her system and putting off the 'discords' of bodily existence and taking up the harmony that being spiritual brings strikes the right chord with me. It is obvious that words were her forte (sic!) and here as I understand it is a reference to putting off the old man and becoming a new creation in Christ, but I don't get the feeling that she means this (hindsight is a great aid and sometimes hindrance isn't it?) and have to say that music is sweet when the rules are applies and discordant when they are not. As a Christian I know this to be true. We call this book of rules, the Bible.
The only place I know where science teaches that matter is good is in the field of pharmacology, and I'll bet drugs don't feature greatly for CS members, and matter doesn't need to be spoken of as real, because it is! After all, if it wasn't how could we measure, see, feel or otherwise experience its presence, effect or reality?
Theology teaches that the Holy Spirit is real and good and that matter is also real and good (and He saw that it was good, referring to the orb we inhabit). If 'Spirit' is the Holy Spirit then I would agree on the real and good, BUT, theology also teaches us that when it comes to 'spirit', what we have before us is not at all good, but is still real.
I love the concept of matter and Spirit as opposites. Hot - cold, darkness - light, physical - abstract, body - Spirit. Mmmm.
MBE speaks much of physical healing and I have put down my book for a few minutes to see what evidence there is of this, after all, I have a long list of cancer sufferers that I might need to see joining up if this is even a little true.
postscript.
Quoting from page 139 of S&H:
"The decisions by vote of Church Councils as to what should and should not be considered Holy Writ; the manifest mistakes in the ancient versions; the thirty thousand different readings in the Old Testament, and the three hundred thousand in the New, these facts show how a mortal and material sense stole into the divine record, with its own hue darkening to some extent the inspired pages."
This isn't really getting any better! Mind you, there's now only three hundred and thirty-thousand errors in the Bible and these are (to quote a recent email from a CS believer), "All corrected and brought into a unity through the revealed and scholarly writings of MBE!" It is fast becoming obvious that we are looking at Gnosticism - Man (Corporeal) = Evil, God (Spirit) = Good. Oh that there was someone between man and God who can intercede for us.
Gosh, there is!
"Since the author's discovery of the might of Truth in the treatment of disease as well as of sin, her system has been fully tested and has not been found wanting; but to reach the heights of Christian Science, man must live in obedience to its divine Principle. To develop the full might of this Science, the discords of corporeal sense must yield to the harmony of spiritual sense, even as the science of music corrects false tones and gives sweet concord to sound.
Theology and physics teach that both Spirit and matter are real and good, whereas the fact is that Spirit is good and real, and matter is Spirit's opposite. The question, What is Truth, is answered by demonstration, by healing both disease and sin; and this demonstration shows that Christian healing confers the most health and makes the best men. On this basis Christian Science will have a fair fight. Sickness has been combated for centuries by doctors using material remedies; but the question arises, Is there less sickness because of these practitioners? A vigorous "No" is the response deducible from two connate facts, — the reputed longevity of the Antediluvians, and the rapid multiplication and increased violence of diseases since the flood. "
I'm left feeling like I'm about to be visited by a snake oil salesmen with the very first sentence above in that (I'm assuming) the 'truth' spoken of here appears to be a subjective rather than universal 'truth'. I have to ask who tested the system and found it to be 'not wanting' and what the parameters that led to this conclusion were. I assume that this is a direct comparison between those using the system and those not using it and have to say that were the results good enough toi support this system, why on earth don't the faith-healers and other 'faith' types employing it one hundred years on from the book I'm reading?
Embracing her system and putting off the 'discords' of bodily existence and taking up the harmony that being spiritual brings strikes the right chord with me. It is obvious that words were her forte (sic!) and here as I understand it is a reference to putting off the old man and becoming a new creation in Christ, but I don't get the feeling that she means this (hindsight is a great aid and sometimes hindrance isn't it?) and have to say that music is sweet when the rules are applies and discordant when they are not. As a Christian I know this to be true. We call this book of rules, the Bible.
The only place I know where science teaches that matter is good is in the field of pharmacology, and I'll bet drugs don't feature greatly for CS members, and matter doesn't need to be spoken of as real, because it is! After all, if it wasn't how could we measure, see, feel or otherwise experience its presence, effect or reality?
Theology teaches that the Holy Spirit is real and good and that matter is also real and good (and He saw that it was good, referring to the orb we inhabit). If 'Spirit' is the Holy Spirit then I would agree on the real and good, BUT, theology also teaches us that when it comes to 'spirit', what we have before us is not at all good, but is still real.
I love the concept of matter and Spirit as opposites. Hot - cold, darkness - light, physical - abstract, body - Spirit. Mmmm.
MBE speaks much of physical healing and I have put down my book for a few minutes to see what evidence there is of this, after all, I have a long list of cancer sufferers that I might need to see joining up if this is even a little true.
postscript.
Quoting from page 139 of S&H:
"The decisions by vote of Church Councils as to what should and should not be considered Holy Writ; the manifest mistakes in the ancient versions; the thirty thousand different readings in the Old Testament, and the three hundred thousand in the New, these facts show how a mortal and material sense stole into the divine record, with its own hue darkening to some extent the inspired pages."
This isn't really getting any better! Mind you, there's now only three hundred and thirty-thousand errors in the Bible and these are (to quote a recent email from a CS believer), "All corrected and brought into a unity through the revealed and scholarly writings of MBE!" It is fast becoming obvious that we are looking at Gnosticism - Man (Corporeal) = Evil, God (Spirit) = Good. Oh that there was someone between man and God who can intercede for us.
Gosh, there is!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)