Oh No Melon

Not to sound simple-minded, but I believe that this is a moot discussion. If you should feel convicted to wear a suit and tie on the Sabbath, then by all means do so. Otherwise, go ahead and wear what you like and feel comfortable. Judging people superficially is wrong; I don't think anyone here would disagree with this. No one should have to answer to you (speaking generally) or any other member of your church congregation for showing up in grass-stained jeans and a wrinkled tank top. The only One they'll have to answer to is God Himself. IMHO, we should let Him take care of it and not worry about such trivial matters. There are other, more important, areas on which we should focus our attention. Personally, if a woman showed up to my church in black leather and chains, I'd be thankful. It's THE best place she could be on Sunday morning.

I agree -- if not out of reverence, for the purpose of clarification. I find it interesting how many Jewish people show their respect for God's name. They will often leave the "o" out of the word God. I suspect this is why the term Adonai often appears in Scripture in place of YWVH. In Hebrew, names are very important and not to be taken lightly. Anyway, I completely understand where you're coming from.

JustinM: Although it may be listed a work of fiction, the Da Vinci Code has stirred up such a huge controversy because the material is portrayed as factual and accurate. You can understand why Christians (and Roman Catholics in particular) would find Dan Brown's novel offensive and even sacrilegious. Other fiction writers have denounced Brown's work as unethical, including the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, the nonfiction book from which he essentially stole the idea for the Da Vinci Code. In my opinion, Dan Brown is a very talented writer, however I think it's clear the man has an agenda.

Calvinism holds that we are not saved by works or faith, that no person has any influence whatsoever on their own salvation, that God predestined some to salvation (heaven) but most to reprobation (hell). In this case, loss of salvation is impossible.

Hmm. I don't believe the Wiccan religion specifically differentiates between magic(k)s, but many Wiccans I know do claim to practice white witchcraft. I'm pretty sure (though I may be confusing pagan religions) that Wiccans believe in benevolent and harmful spirits, and it's at the discretion of the practitioner which class he/she chooses to consort. Is it Wicca that holds there is a god of the North, the South, the East, and the West? I'm pretty sure I heard that in a documentary on European witchcraft. I'm acquainted with Wiccans that refer to themselves as "white witches". Because they profess to practice witchcraft, ignorant believers often accuse them of being Satanists. This unfortunately has driven them to abhor Christianity. *sigh*

I attend a small, Full Gospel church (Pentecostal) that emphasizes our Jewish roots.

There were countless times the Jews rebelled against God. God temporarily blinded the Jews as to the identity of their Messiah so that the Gentiles might have the opportunity to enter a covenant with Him. The Apostle Paul makes it clear the Jews have NOT been cast away -- God has NOT abandoned His chosen people. Israel's elective status in the New Covenant era is an age-old topic of heated debate, and both sides make legitimate points. However, one cannot biblically assert that God has disowned them.

I do believe it is possible to lose your salvation, though some might disagree with this line of reasoning (Calvinists in particular). But not the way you might think. We are saved, not by our good works, but by our faith in Jesus Christ. So what makes people think that we can be "unsaved" by bad works? It seems to me the only way we can backslide is to cease believing, right? This is just an observation, but I shall get back to you ASAP with some scriptures that IMHO back the position that a Christian is able to lose his/her salvation.

I empathize with both positions. We believers must not, under any circumstance, recognize other "methods" of accessing the Father. Jesus Christ the Son is the only Way of salvation; there is no other means by which men are justified in the eyes of God. Those who do not acknowledge Him as their Savior are lost. Period. However, quoting Bible passages stating so are (for the most part) ineffective in evangelism. As a matter of fact, they can drive sinners away from God. Most scriptures will have no effect on the nonbeliever. He that wins souls is wise, and tact is ESSENTIAL for winning souls to Christ. We must be as wise as serpents yet as gentle as doves when sharing the Truth of God's Gospel. Compromise is not an option. We can't force anyone to accept Christ (Insert "horse to water" adage here), but it is our obligation to spread the good news to the lost. Nothing more -- and nothing less -- is expected of us. Silent_cry, when you said withcraft was a recognized religion in Canada, were you alluding to Wicca? Yes, Wicca is a neopagan "religion" that has its roots in ancient druidism. It has its own doctrines, practices, and holidays. The majority practice white magic, but I do believe there is a small minority, mostly European, that involve themselves with black magic. I think believers should take the time to educate themselves about the cults and false religions, including those of occultic nature. But baby Christians should stay away from this kind of stuff. It's simply too dangerous for those who haven't walked with God for very long. It is necessary, however, that we learn about witchcraft, as it's unfortunately becoming so prevalent in our society.

Speaking as a long-time believer, I am open to any doctrine or tradition as long as it's rooted in holy Scripture. So far I haven't heard ANY verses that indicates infants (i.e. those too young to come to the Lord of their own free will) should experience baptism. I'd like to study up on Luther (or any other theologian for that matter) if indeed he provides biblical support for his views, however I'd prefer to read it free of charge. If I remember correctly, the baptism of the jailor's "household" was given as support for this practice. I'm sorry, but I can't accept this as biblical evidence: too much speculation. You assume the jailor had children, then you assume at least one of his children must have been an "infant." I also believe it's unfair for some people to compare the Bible not directly addressing infant baptism to not directly addressing topics like abortion. Baptism is biblically mandated by God; it's not a political issue. Look, I'm open-minded about this kind of thing. But I haven't heard one bit of scriptural support for infant baptism. I don't believe it's "bad" thing necessarily, but I'd like to hear something -- anything -- from the Bible that backs it. All I've read up to this point is fruitless bickering (on both sides of the debate). Could somebody please list a few verses that actually address the baptism of infants? No wild speculation, no eisegesis.

According to e-sword's, Strong's Greek and Hebrew Dictionairies; sorceress, sorcerers, witch and witchcraft was translated from kashaph, meaning to whisper a spell, that is, to inchant or practise magic. I'm pretty sure that in the New Testament, is the Greek word pharmakaia is translated sorcery, possibly referring to drug abuse as some form of psionic "spiritual awakening."

I haven't, but I wouldn't mind reading it whenever I get the chance. Could you please post a link? I'm open-minded to any doctrine providing it has biblical support. Actually, I've heard this subject debated before, and to be perfectly honest, I wasn't very impressed with some of the "pro" arguments. But I am willing to give it another shot.

Why have infant baptism? What is it's purpose? I have always understood baptism to be an outward sign of repentance, but infants are not able to repent. They are blameless before God. I believe we must first be sealed with the blood of Christ before we are baptized with water, that salvation and baptism go hand-in-hand (John 19:34), and both are personal decisions we each must make.

I have a sincere question for Calvinists: Was God the ultimate cause of Man's Fall? If we are to accept predestination as a sound biblical doctrine, we need to understand the implications it has on our understanding of biblical events. Did Adam choose to disobey God's commandment not to eat from the forbidden tree, or did God actually author Man's rebellion? If God drove Adam to sin, thereby forcing the world into a state of "total depravity", how could God justly curse him? What about Satan? Was Lucifer willfully defiant, or did God force him and one-third of the angels to rebel? I have oft heard Calvinists accuse Arminians of reducing God's influence. However, I get the impression that Calvinism exonerates Man of his responsibility. Just my opinion. Don't jump all over me.

This is a very bold statement. Do you believe that C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien were "influenced by demons" while composing their works of fantasy?

It's a fair question. And both sides of the debate present valid arguments. Here is a website I found useful. Hopefully it can help you in your search for the Truth. Bede's Library Oh, Biscuit, I'm not sure why you posted links to creationist websites. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the existence of a Deity.

Perhaps, but "losing" could cost the atheist so much. And many are not "enjoying life." Some (mostly antitheists) are bitter and full of contempt for those who don't see things their way. They go out of their way to convert people to a life of hopelessness. Even agnostics find these people obnoxious. You say you are not an atheist. Might I ask your theological persuasion? I'm not discussing the odds of being right; I'm discussing the penalty for being wrong. What do Christians lose if they happen to be wrong? Nothing. What do atheists lose if they happen to be wrong? Everything. True, it is certainly possible for atheists to lead moral lives. But what reason do they have (other than self-preservation) for doing so? None. You originally said, "so they wouldn't end up in jail." So fear of government is one reason. Can you give another? I disagree. That's why moral relativism is such a popular philosophy today. You can't have absolute moral law without acknowledging an absolute moral Authority. Relativists hold that right and wrong are "relative" to the practitioner. Blah.

Good question. First of all, the Bible explicitly states that the practice of witchcraft is sinful and ungodly. In the Torah, it is listed as a capital offense (i.e. punishable by death). What is witchcraft? Most people would say casting spells or consorting with spirits. This is certainly true, but a witch could also be defined as any person who seeks to dominate or manipulate others. Some witches claim they practice only "good" witchcraft (often called white magic) as opposed to destructive witchcraft (black magic), although "goodness" is in the eye of the practitioner. They typically don't think in terms of good and evil, rather positive and negative. Judeo-Christianity hold that all forms of witchcraft -- New Age and astrology, Wicca and Ouija, Voodoo and necromancy -- are evil. Why? Because those who dabble in the occult, whether they're aware of it or not, are invoking demonic spirits. They are allowing the Enemy to get a foothold in their life. The Bible warns that we should steer clear of this stuff for our own good. Witchcraft is VERY real, and it's not something we should be getting involved with.

As I told you before, there are many conditions I purposely left out (e.g. justification by faith vs. justification by works, classical monotheism vs. polytheism/pantheism, etc.). They are irrelevant to my argument. And I'm afraid you're missing the point. The truth is -- no matter which philosophy happens to be correct, atheists lose out. How does an atheist benefit if he's right? How could he ever even know if he's right? Not all atheists subscribe to hedonism (fortunately). But in that case, I'm surprised more of them aren't anarchists... if government is the only thing that could give the atheist a sense of "right" and "wrong". He cannot believe in absolute morality without acknowledging a transcendent Author of morality, as all law requires a Lawgiver. Immanuel Kant did considerable work in this subject. So the atheist "behaves himself" out of self-preservation, not moral obligation.

Let's look at this rationally. Possibility #1: There is no God. When they pass away, both atheists and theists enter a state of "nothingness." We all simply cease to exist. Not only does nobody win, but atheists won't even have the benefit of learning they were right. Possibility #2 There is a God. The spirit is eternal. When atheists die they suffer for their disbelief. When theists die they are rewarded for their faith. Again atheists lose. Furthermore, they will be forced to live with that decision for the rest of eternity. This is a very sketchy version of Pascal's Wager. Granted there are many conditions I left out, but the fact remains that atheists lose no matter what the outcome. I know a "few" nice atheists. But they are not encouraged to lead a moral life as we theists are. Can they be moral? Of course. Do they necessarily have reason to be? Ideologically, no.