Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by mandym, Apr 19, 2012.
Oh - it is VERY harmful!! It teaches right from wrong and we know that there is no "wrong" so it will scar our children for life!! :BangHead:
I'm glad that the decision was overturned.
It didn't make the news in Washington State.
So when is the last time your congregation discussed Onan?
Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Is everything either good or evil? <G>
Although it can be a matter of degree.
46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.
47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.
>Adiaphora in Christianity refer to matters not regarded as essential to faith, but nevertheless as permissible for Christians or allowed in church. What is specifically considered adiaphora depends on the specific theology in view.
Adiaphora in Christianity
See also: Biblical law in Christianity and Paul of Tarsus and Judaism
New Testament examples of adiaphora are often cited from Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians. Some of this epistle was written in response to a question from the Corinthian Christians regarding whether it was permissible for a Christian to eat food offered to idols. In response, Paul replied:
... food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do. Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. (1 Corinthians 8:8-9 New International Version)
However, upon study of several other Pauline passages ones sees that Paul is not necessarily saying that there are such things as adiaphora. Elsewhere he says:
And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. (Colossians 3:17 NIV)
The adiaphora are morally acceptable or unacceptable by God based upon the motive and end of the doer. In this sense there are no indifferent things.
Adiaphoristic Controversy in Lutheranism
See also: Law and Gospel
The issue of what constituted adiaphora became a major dispute during the Protestant Reformation. In 1548, two years after the death of Martin Luther, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V tried to unite Catholics and Protestants in his realm with a law called the Augsburg Interim. This law was rejected by Philipp Melanchthon, on the account that it did not ensure justification by faith as a fundamental doctrine. Later he was persuaded to accept a compromise known as the Leipzig Interim, deciding that doctrinal differences not related to justification by faith were adiaphora or matters of indifference. Melanchthon's compromise was vehemently opposed by Matthias Flacius and his followers in Magdeburg, who went to the opposite extreme by claiming that adiaphora cease to be adiaphora in a case of scandal and confession. By 1576 both extremes were rejected by the majority of Lutherans led by Martin Chemnitz and the formulators of the Formula of Concord.
In 1577, the Formula of Concord was crafted to settle the question of the nature of genuine adiaphora, which it defined as church rites that are "...neither commanded nor forbidden in the Word of God." However, the Concord added believers should not yield even in matters of adiaphora when these are being forced upon them by the "enemies of God's Word".
The Lutheran Augsburg Confession states that
the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike.
Adiaphora in Puritan worship
The Westminster Confession of Faith, a confession of faith written by the Puritans, and after the English Civil War rejected by the Anglicans, distinguishes between elements or acts of worship (worship proper) and the circumstances of worship. The elements of worship must be limited to what has positive warrant in Scripture, a doctrine known as the regulative principle of worship. In this framework, the elements of worship have included praise (the words and manner of music), prayer, preaching and teaching from the Bible, the taking of vows, and the two sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper, while the circumstances of worship have included the building and its necessary furniture and the time of day for worship.
The circumstances of worship are considered adiaphora, although they must be done for edification and to promote peace and order (compare 1 Cor. 14:26-33; Rom. 14:19). According to the Westminster Confession 20.2, the conscience is left free in general belief and behavior within the realm of whatever is not "contrary to the Word." However, specifically concerning worship and religious faith, the conscience is free from whatever is "besides" Scripture; that is, it is free to worship and believe only according to whatever has positive warrant in Scripture.
Presbyterians who have subscribed to the Westminster Confession, for instance, sometimes considered the questions of musical instruments and of the singing of hymns not drawn directly from the Bible as related to the elements of worship, not optional circumstances, and for this reason they rejected musical instruments and hymns because they believed they were neither commanded by scripture nor deduced by good and necessary consequence from it. Adherence to such a position is rare among modern Presbyterians, however.
The Puritan position on worship is thus in line with the common saying regarding adiaphora: "In necessary things, unity; in doubtful things, liberty; in all things, charity".
Latitudinarianism in Anglicanism
Latitudinarianism was initially a pejorative term applied to a group of 17th-century English theologians who believed in conforming to official Church of England practices but who felt that matters of doctrine, liturgical practice, and ecclesiastical organization were of relatively little importance. Good examples of the latitudinarian philosophy were found among the Cambridge Platonists. The latitudinarian Anglicans of the seventeenth century built on Richard Hooker's position, in Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, that God cares about the moral state of the individual soul and that such things as church leadership are "things indifferent". However, they took the position far beyond Hooker's own and extended it to doctrinal matters.
...whatsoever is not of faith is sin...
...They fail to heed its call to repent!
Is the bible harmful to children?
Only if it is ignored.
Wouldn't it be great if the state would keep its nose out of private, not for profit organizations?
Why should the government ignore non-profits?
Consider the names of the big contributors to public TV that most of you hate. Most of the money comes from 501c3 corps that no one ever heard of. You all want political commercials on public TV?
Because its part of limiting the size of and blocking intrusions of the government where they don't belong, are not wanted and would once more prove their incompetence if they did intrude besides presenting them another irresistable temptation to regulate the intruded upon entity out-of-business.
I had a question about Onan in a high school youth group Bible study about a year ago. I have told the students that I would answer their questions directly and honestly (if I know how to answer them), and that I would treat them as responsible adults if they acted like responsible adults.
When asked about Onan, we turned to the passage and I provided the background content. Then we discussed it.
The teenagers were a lot less squeamish about it than most adults, although no one much liked the idea of having sexual relations with one's in-law in order to provide an heir. Onan's sin was using his sister-in-law sexually, by trying to prevent her from getting pregnant, so he could continue to have relations with her.
So billwald, when was the last time people in your congregation discussed Onan?
>So billwald, when was the last time people in your congregation discussed Onan?
Far as I know, never.
The implications can't be discussed on BB because of the sexual nature of the topic.
>>Why should the government ignore non-profits??
>Because its part of limiting the size of and blocking intrusions of the government where they don't belong, are not wanted and would once more prove their incompetence if they did intrude besides presenting them another irresistable temptation to regulate the intruded upon entity out-of-business.
I'm pleased that you don't object to editorial content of NPR and public TV which is mostly sponsored by 501c3 corps.
Did not here in Kentucky either. We do discuss the price of tea in China every Sunday.