Friday, September 2, 2011
The New Dark Ages
This program is from RealCatholicTV.com
My mouth just dropped open when I watched this. My husband and I have been whispering this back and forth between us for a couple years, but I couldn't believe anyone had the courage to actually SAY it!
Friday, August 26, 2011
Candidly Speaking.....
I wrote this my other blog, but thought I would link to it instead of reposting it.
It's Okay NOT to be a Seventh-day Adventist: Candidly Speaking.....: Sometime in 14th-century England, a red-blooded Anglo Saxon must have been drinking beer at a pub, when he spotted a noble dabbing his nos...
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Shameless Popery: The Liturgy of St. James on the Eucharist
Shameless Popery: The Liturgy of St. James on the Eucharist: Yesterday, I talked about how helpful it is to learn from both the Early Church Fathers (the theologians of their day), and the early Liturg...
Adventist Baptism
Humm....
Several different blogs have been talking about this, so this is going to be a bit redundant.
I just spoke with a young girl converting from the Seventh-day Adventist faith to Roman Catholicism and she told me that her bishop would have to baptize her because the RCC doesn't recognize Adventist baptism. Which is what I was told when both my husband and I converted and were baptized into the Roman Catholic faith.
However, my two sons were not baptized when they converted. Anyone know anything about this? I have read that it was about the SDA view of the Trinity, but I would think then it would be a consistent baptism policy for all converts.
Several different blogs have been talking about this, so this is going to be a bit redundant.
I just spoke with a young girl converting from the Seventh-day Adventist faith to Roman Catholicism and she told me that her bishop would have to baptize her because the RCC doesn't recognize Adventist baptism. Which is what I was told when both my husband and I converted and were baptized into the Roman Catholic faith.
However, my two sons were not baptized when they converted. Anyone know anything about this? I have read that it was about the SDA view of the Trinity, but I would think then it would be a consistent baptism policy for all converts.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Intercessory Prayer
Do you pray for your loved ones or do you intercede for them? I have been mulling around the idea lately, that interceding is different from praying.
When you pray for those you love, or even your enemies, you are asking God to take care of them, their spiritual needs, physical needs, etc. In a regular prayer you are releasing the responsibility totally to Him, Christ.
Intercessory prayers seem to be something different. You are asking God if you can take responsibility of the person's sins. You are saying as did Moses on Mt. Sinai when he was grieving over the sins of Israel,
When you pray for those you love, or even your enemies, you are asking God to take care of them, their spiritual needs, physical needs, etc. In a regular prayer you are releasing the responsibility totally to Him, Christ.
Intercessory prayers seem to be something different. You are asking God if you can take responsibility of the person's sins. You are saying as did Moses on Mt. Sinai when he was grieving over the sins of Israel,
But now, if You will, forgive their sin-and if not, please blot me out from Your book which You have written ! Ex. 32: 32
Sounds like a threat at first glance. But God did not rebuke Moses but was pleased and forgave the people because of Moses. Scripture, numerous times, tells us God forgave Israel for the sake of David.
Perhaps intercessory pray is placing the guilt of the other persons sins upon yourself and absorbing the punch of sin into your own soul.
You are becoming a type of Christ for those you love.
Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. Gal. 6: 2
You are becoming a type of Christ for those you love.
Before you recoil in horror over that statement, as I do realize that Christ’s blood and atonement is fully sufficient to save us and that we cannot redeem anyone with our personal sacrifice, but as Catholics, don’t we believe that we are Christ’s body on earth and don’t we still believe in a royal priesthood in the order of Melchizedek? Intercession is not a symbolic act for Catholics.
Are we not, in a sense, taking on another's sins when we forgive them? We are allowing the punishment fall dead at our feet. We take the hit of the affects of someone's offense against us and let the ripple effect of the sin go no further.
As Catholics isn’t it our faith that intercedes for our children when we baptize them, and we, as parents, receive the guilt for our small children’s sins?
The idea that we may intercede for others does have support in scripture.
Are we not, in a sense, taking on another's sins when we forgive them? We are allowing the punishment fall dead at our feet. We take the hit of the affects of someone's offense against us and let the ripple effect of the sin go no further.
As Catholics isn’t it our faith that intercedes for our children when we baptize them, and we, as parents, receive the guilt for our small children’s sins?
The idea that we may intercede for others does have support in scripture.
Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed . The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. James 5: 16
Perhaps that is one of the main reasons we are supposed to become saints while on earth. Because the prayers of a righteous man availeth much. The holier we become, the more intercessory prayers we are able to handle, the more powerful our weapons are against the demonic forces trying to take our loved ones out.
When we become intercessors through prayer are we not coming against the powers of evil and aren’t we promised that even the gates of hell themselves cannot prevail against it? In the battle armaments of Ephesians six that God has given us, and in His power we are saying to the Devil, “you will get this person over my dead body!”
Maybe intercessory prayer is the one way we can storm the gates of hell and it cannot prevail against us.
Maybe intercessory prayer is the one way we can storm the gates of hell and it cannot prevail against us.
If I am way off on this, please let me know....
Sunday, August 7, 2011
My Dearest and Most Honored Mother asked me to post this:
The discussion began on Facebook when my mother posted that she wanted polygamist Warren Jeffs to be put away forever.
My mother is a liberal Seventh-day Adventist whose worldview is seeped in Christian relativism. She believes that there is no such thing as absolute truth (that we as humans can be sure of, anyway) and we all should just tolerate each other's views and be good. Sincerity of conscience is what she believes to be important in the long run. There is some merit to that way of thinking, indeed. Sincerity is a very good thing and God will be merciful to those who, by no fault of their own, sincerely believed a lie.
Oh boy, we have a HUGE problem here. What do we do with clashing religious values because this is what it comes down to? Islam allows for arranged marriages between girls as young as nine and grown men. This is a cultural tradition that has been going on for centuries. The Bible allowed for polygamy....
Some early American cultures allowed marriages to girls as young as 12. If you read early American laws, you will find a slow and steady stream of laws against marriage to very young girls creep across America in the 18th century.
We have to look at this problem with more than a microscope. We have to look at it with a historical perspective and ask ourselves some VERY difficult questions.
"Jeffs, the polygamist was found guilty. Punishment sentencing coming. There is no punishment that would be appropriate for what he has done. How did a man like this get away with what he did for so long? SHOCKING!"
My mother is a liberal Seventh-day Adventist whose worldview is seeped in Christian relativism. She believes that there is no such thing as absolute truth (that we as humans can be sure of, anyway) and we all should just tolerate each other's views and be good. Sincerity of conscience is what she believes to be important in the long run. There is some merit to that way of thinking, indeed. Sincerity is a very good thing and God will be merciful to those who, by no fault of their own, sincerely believed a lie.
However, in the course of my ongoing discussion with her about Christian relativism, the following ensued (this is edited as several people other than my mother made comments) after her post about Warren Jeffs.
I responded:
I responded:
Oh boy, we have a HUGE problem here. What do we do with clashing religious values because this is what it comes down to? Islam allows for arranged marriages between girls as young as nine and grown men. This is a cultural tradition that has been going on for centuries. The Bible allowed for polygamy....
Some early American cultures allowed marriages to girls as young as 12. If you read early American laws, you will find a slow and steady stream of laws against marriage to very young girls creep across America in the 18th century.
We have to look at this problem with more than a microscope. We have to look at it with a historical perspective and ask ourselves some VERY difficult questions.
America has always stood for religious freedom. But at the same time we have had our fixed "truth" upon the Judeo-Christian morals. Right now ALL of our values are being tested and when you remove the fixed "truth." All you have is unrestricted religious freedom that can claim polygamy, sodomy, pedophilia, bestiality, group marriages, incest ANYTHING as their religious freedom.
We must, as Americans, ask what is now our fixed mark of truth? For if it is not clearly the Judeo-Christian tradition, then we cannot impose one religious sexual preference over the other.
I totally agree with you. I was asking a broader, philosophical question about our culture and the extreme trouble we are in when facing such questions as Jeffs. Upon what are we basing our assessment.
I was actually attempting to sound the ALARM BELL--we have a much, much bigger problem than Jeffs as a person. Put him away forever and let's discuss the underlying problem of our culture and its future. THAT is where I was going....
Christian relativism as a position is untenable. Christian relativism is going to be the ultimate fall of our society because it does not have a fixed mark of truth and when you base a society's morals upon people's religious feelings--no matter HOW sincere--then in the end, the mark moves--Voila! Christian relativism.
Upon WHAT does my we base anger at Jeffs? It is upon the Christian worldview that pedophile and polygamy is SINFUL and wrong.
Our culture is in a mighty struggle over a Christian worldview and a secular worldview. What are we going to be? If we don't figure that out--as a society--and we don't stand up REALLY firmly and soon--we are about to default into the secular humanistic side.
So, I AM agreeing with you. I just want my mother to see that she cannot be a relativist AND claim Jeffs should be hung.
My Mother responded:
In the end, my mother did not understand what I was saying. So I wrote back:
Okay, I am going to try to get at this another way.
America CLAIMS to be a place of religious tolerance. It CLAIMS to be a place where anyone can come and practice their beliefs, follow their sincere conscience. America CLAIMS to be a place of separation of church and state.
Now, what do we do when someone comes here--into our Christian worldview and say, "Whew! Glad I am here in the good ol' US of A. I sincerely believe it is super okay with God that I am a polygamist and marry little girls." ?? (And they, with a proud patriotic glance at the flag sing God Bless America, wiping from the corner of their eyes a tear of gratitude for religious freedom.)
What do we do with non-christian world views that come here and claim religious freedom? This is surely NOT a hypothetical problem. We are being bombarded with this daily.
When we claim a separation of church and state-- what our Deist founding fathers of the Enlightenment era REALLY meant was that in Protestant America--OUR worldview will hold supreme. They were speaking from a Judeo-Christian worldview that saw certain things as OBVIOUS and intrinsically true and right. "Self-evident" is the words they used.
So we actually have come to a GREAT crisis of foundations. Now that different non-Christian world views are finding their way here en masse (or are locally grown)-- expecting religious freedom from a totally different perspective--where sodomy is not against their conscience, polygamy isn't against their conscience, abortion isn't against their conscience--WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE?
Do we revert back to the foundation of : All get an equal religious right to do whatever they wish. Every sincere person gets to follow their conscience.
OR
Do we revert back to the foundation of: There are self-evident truths based on Judeo-Christian values of justice, morality, marriage, murder, fidelity...
What I see are people burying their head, putting their fingers in their ears, and humming loudly. NO ONE (hardly) wants to face the crisis of foundations we are at.
IS AMERICA A SECULAR STATE WHERE ALL RELIGIOUS VIEWS--ALL sincere consciences are allowed to practice moral and religious freedom as they see fit?
OR
IS AMERICA A CHRISTIAN STATE WHERE Traditional Judeo-Christian values will remain and we live under a worldview that certain things are intrinsically evil and intrinsically good whether or not we personally agree and no matter how sincere the believer?
So, I have posted our discussion. My dearest Mother is the one who instilled in me immovable truths of honestly, justice, compassion. She is the human cornerstone of all my thoughts and analysis AND Christian worldview. The summation of it all is that you, oh brilliant and honorable mother, seared into each of your six children an unquenchable drive to discover what is true.
We must, as Americans, ask what is now our fixed mark of truth? For if it is not clearly the Judeo-Christian tradition, then we cannot impose one religious sexual preference over the other.
What do we do with all of Europe and even some parts of America where Sharia laws are being used? If we are now a pluralistic secular government, we have to take into consideration ALL religious beliefs--even when they severely clash with our own. That is the foundation of American religious freedom.
BUT, we are also a culture based upon the traditions of Christianity. Our worldview, or interpretation of the U.S. Constitution is Judeo-Christian.
If we don't figure out what our worldview is going to be in the future, it isn't going to be so easy as to say it is decided. Maybe in this one specific case--but I am speaking of a dramatic shift in our culture.
This is going to turn into a basic--who is America 101? Today we call it rape of a minor--tomorrow it is going to be called "right of sexual education of minors."
BUT, we are also a culture based upon the traditions of Christianity. Our worldview, or interpretation of the U.S. Constitution is Judeo-Christian.
If we don't figure out what our worldview is going to be in the future, it isn't going to be so easy as to say it is decided. Maybe in this one specific case--but I am speaking of a dramatic shift in our culture.
This is going to turn into a basic--who is America 101? Today we call it rape of a minor--tomorrow it is going to be called "right of sexual education of minors."
I am saying that we have as an American culture shifted our "truth" or cultural cornerstone of what used to be Jude-Christians beliefs based upon Western traditions to an Enlightened Relativism.
When you open up truth to "whatever" is the opinion of the person, basing it on their sincerity and their personal truth--then you LOOSE the ability to have ANY fixed marks to say what is authoritatively and authentically wrong. Each culture claims IT is the correct one and some are willing to fight to the death over it.
We need to clearly stand up as Christians and say WHY Jeffs is wrong and needs to be put away forever. We need to clearly express WHY pedophilia is wrong. We can't go around anymore saying truth is in the eye of the beholder. Its not because it seems icky or wrong in our eyes... it is because IT IS wrong... we have a fixed mark as Christians and we can't rely on people's opinions or sincerity of belief. THAT Is my point.
Relativism is KILLING our culture.
When you open up truth to "whatever" is the opinion of the person, basing it on their sincerity and their personal truth--then you LOOSE the ability to have ANY fixed marks to say what is authoritatively and authentically wrong. Each culture claims IT is the correct one and some are willing to fight to the death over it.
We need to clearly stand up as Christians and say WHY Jeffs is wrong and needs to be put away forever. We need to clearly express WHY pedophilia is wrong. We can't go around anymore saying truth is in the eye of the beholder. Its not because it seems icky or wrong in our eyes... it is because IT IS wrong... we have a fixed mark as Christians and we can't rely on people's opinions or sincerity of belief. THAT Is my point.
Relativism is KILLING our culture.
I was actually attempting to sound the ALARM BELL--we have a much, much bigger problem than Jeffs as a person. Put him away forever and let's discuss the underlying problem of our culture and its future. THAT is where I was going....
Christian relativism as a position is untenable. Christian relativism is going to be the ultimate fall of our society because it does not have a fixed mark of truth and when you base a society's morals upon people's religious feelings--no matter HOW sincere--then in the end, the mark moves--Voila! Christian relativism.
Upon WHAT does my we base anger at Jeffs? It is upon the Christian worldview that pedophile and polygamy is SINFUL and wrong.
Our culture is in a mighty struggle over a Christian worldview and a secular worldview. What are we going to be? If we don't figure that out--as a society--and we don't stand up REALLY firmly and soon--we are about to default into the secular humanistic side.
So, I AM agreeing with you. I just want my mother to see that she cannot be a relativist AND claim Jeffs should be hung.
My Mother responded:
"I really appreciate your comments on the pedophile Jeffs. I found them well-organized and very analytical. Thank you for your insights. I think you should copy them and put them on your blog."
In the end, my mother did not understand what I was saying. So I wrote back:
Okay, I am going to try to get at this another way.
America CLAIMS to be a place of religious tolerance. It CLAIMS to be a place where anyone can come and practice their beliefs, follow their sincere conscience. America CLAIMS to be a place of separation of church and state.
Now, what do we do when someone comes here--into our Christian worldview and say, "Whew! Glad I am here in the good ol' US of A. I sincerely believe it is super okay with God that I am a polygamist and marry little girls." ?? (And they, with a proud patriotic glance at the flag sing God Bless America, wiping from the corner of their eyes a tear of gratitude for religious freedom.)
What do we do with non-christian world views that come here and claim religious freedom? This is surely NOT a hypothetical problem. We are being bombarded with this daily.
When we claim a separation of church and state-- what our Deist founding fathers of the Enlightenment era REALLY meant was that in Protestant America--OUR worldview will hold supreme. They were speaking from a Judeo-Christian worldview that saw certain things as OBVIOUS and intrinsically true and right. "Self-evident" is the words they used.
So we actually have come to a GREAT crisis of foundations. Now that different non-Christian world views are finding their way here en masse (or are locally grown)-- expecting religious freedom from a totally different perspective--where sodomy is not against their conscience, polygamy isn't against their conscience, abortion isn't against their conscience--WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE?
Do we revert back to the foundation of : All get an equal religious right to do whatever they wish. Every sincere person gets to follow their conscience.
OR
Do we revert back to the foundation of: There are self-evident truths based on Judeo-Christian values of justice, morality, marriage, murder, fidelity...
What I see are people burying their head, putting their fingers in their ears, and humming loudly. NO ONE (hardly) wants to face the crisis of foundations we are at.
IS AMERICA A SECULAR STATE WHERE ALL RELIGIOUS VIEWS--ALL sincere consciences are allowed to practice moral and religious freedom as they see fit?
OR
IS AMERICA A CHRISTIAN STATE WHERE Traditional Judeo-Christian values will remain and we live under a worldview that certain things are intrinsically evil and intrinsically good whether or not we personally agree and no matter how sincere the believer?
So, I have posted our discussion. My dearest Mother is the one who instilled in me immovable truths of honestly, justice, compassion. She is the human cornerstone of all my thoughts and analysis AND Christian worldview. The summation of it all is that you, oh brilliant and honorable mother, seared into each of your six children an unquenchable drive to discover what is true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)