Christians only: Repentence

[doppelganger]

What is the team spirit among Neb. football fans? Jack, or Jim, or Johnny?

It could be All Three.

Here's an example. When one "becomes a Christian" they "receive the Holy Spirit" - i.e. that way of thinking about who they are now that defines "being a Christian." This is why there's so much divergence among self-identified "Christians" about what it means to be "be a Christian." Each person's "Holy Spirit" is going to be a little different. Some think of "being a Christian" as being someone who thinks of themselves as a repulsive sinner who cannot cope without the the Grace of God to give his or her life meaning, and under an obligation to get others to think the same. Someone else might consider "being a Christian" to involve no dogmatic beliefs but a dedication to service to others in love. Others may think that "being a Christian" and having the "Holy Spirit" means understanding and believing in the specific dogmas, ritual practices and doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church or the Watchtower Society or those of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Each has the "Holy Spirit" because each considers their identity altered by the addition of "being Christian." But the idea of what they have become may and apparently does vary considerably from person to person.

In other words, what the "Holy Spirit" does to you is a function of the context into which it is received and the specific form in which it is received. The two together make up "being a Christian." One's memories, psychological hangups (fears, guilt, etc.), habits, needs and desires, and, of course, enculturation all play a role.

Comedian Doug Stanhope explains it well here: YouTube - Doug Stanhope "You make your own christianity" (WARNING: "Explicit" language)

 

[madhatter85]

There's a fundamental disagreement here with regard to what it is that constitutes "spirit." Even if the spiritual is "physical" in some way, that "spiritual" physicality that we cannot understand does not translate into a physical, human form that we do know and understand. It's something completely foreign to the human experience.

Have you ever had the opportunity to examine the particles of a spirit?

You're hedging your bets. What you're saying is that God has a physical body, and that that body is in a spiritual form. Yet, you also say that God was "just like us" at some point in time. There is nothing in either the Biblical record, or the theological record of God's people that support this theory. Your statement completely undermines the need for the Incarnation of Jesus, according to the most ancient and orthodox understanding of the Incarnation.

Wrong, in our holy scriptures of the Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph smith and Oliver Cowdry recieved revelation regarding the matter. God's people are all over the earth, God's people are people in general. Placing youself as "God's people" like an exclusive club and is pompous. God remembers one nation like unto another. And no, It does nto undermine the neccesity of Jesus, In fact it affirms the neccesity. it affirms the neccesity of taking up our physical body after death for glorification, just like Christ did. Without a perfected physcial body we could not operate in a higher capacity than just a single spirit. Just like Christ, he was more powerful after the resurrection, than when he was mortal.

The Bible states that God is Spirit -- not that God is Body. That fundamental understanding of difference between the human and the Divine is extant from Genesis 1. All attempts of human to blur the distinction are thwarted. In orthodox Christian understanding, it is God's Incarnation -- becoming fully human -- that reconciles us, not our becoming "like God."

please provide a Biblical refrence that states that God is only a spirit. God is both body and spirit. he is all powerful because of his knowledge and glory.

So according to you, If God existed and came down to get a Body, then he has a body still, otherwise he would contradict his own law of the resurrection .

Many Saints were resurrected after Christ’s resurrection (Matt. 27: 52).

Those peopel also have thier physical bodies still. otherwise what is the point of a resurrection?

 

[sojourner]

Have you ever had the opportunity to examine the particles of a spirit?

I don't know that spirits are comprised of particles. But if they are, they are configured completely differently from mortal human beings, or they would act in the same way. They clearly do not.
One does not need to examine "particles" to perceive a fundamental difference between body and spirit.

Wrong, in our holy scriptures of the Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph smith and Oliver Cowdry recieved revelation regarding the matter.

Again, I said, "in the Biblical record."

God's people are people in general.

You're twising meaning. "God's people," in the sense of those people who believe in and worship God: Jews, Christians. LDS stands outside the Tradition of this particular set of God's people, since it is relatively very late, and represents a theological POV that runs counter to the Tradition as it has been handed down through orthodoxy.

Placing youself as "God's people" like an exclusive club and is pompous.

First of all, with regard to authority, this is nothing more than the pot (you) calling the kettle (me) black -- except for the fact that the kettle is more than willing to share the toys in God's toy box equally.

Second, the only exclusivity I'm applying to the group of people is the fundamental theological map. I do that, because your map is so very different from ours, not because ours is "better."

And no, It does nto undermine the neccesity of Jesus, In fact it affirms the neccesity. it affirms the neccesity of taking up our physical body after death for glorification, just like Christ did.

The orthodox jury is still out on just what kind of a body Christ had after the Resurrection. But whatever the state of existence Christ had after the Resurrection isn't the argument, is it? I thought we were discussing how God once had a physical body, like we do now. The one really has nothing to do with the other, from an orthodox POV.

Without a perfected physcial body we could not operate in a higher capacity than just a single spirit.

Oh? Really! Who says?

 

[sojourner]

So according to you, If God existed and came down to get a Body, then he has a body still, otherwise he would contradict his own law of the resurrection .

God didn't "come down to get a body." God became human. That included receiving a physical, human body. When Jesus (God Incarnate) was resurrected, we do not know exactly what the nature of his body was. Any attempt to state knowledge about that is wasted, because it just ain't Biblical.

 

[madhatter85]

God didn't "come down to get a body." God became human. That included receiving a physical, human body. When Jesus (God Incarnate) was resurrected, we do not know exactly what the nature of his body was. Any attempt to state knowledge about that is wasted, because it just ain't Biblical.

(according to you)He..... existed before coming down... became human (exactly thwe same "taking up a human body")

p'rdon me see here in da bible it says that they touched his feet and hands and saw that he was real, they felt the nail prints in his hands and feet. he ate fish and honey....

which means a resurrected being is a physical being...... not a spiritual being. this is all biblical.

 

[madhatter85]

I don't know that spirits are comprised of particles. But if they are, they are configured completely differently from mortal human beings, or they would act in the same way. They clearly do not.
One does not need to examine "particles" to perceive a fundamental difference between body and spirit.

That's right, you have absolutely no idea as to what spirits are made of or how they even work. so how can you say either way what they are as if it is fact?

Again, I said, "in the Biblical record."

but see, the bible is incomplete and false in areas as well, just as you have said. so how can the bible have the final say on anything that it does not express?

You're twising meaning. "God's people," in the sense of those people who believe in and worship God: Jews, Christians. LDS stands outside the Tradition of this particular set of God's people, since it is relatively very late, and represents a theological POV that runs counter to the Tradition as it has been handed down through orthodoxy.

Man's traditions, Not God's.... and technically the LDS faith has been around longer than the Catholic church. dating back to Adam and Eve.

First of all, with regard to authority, this is nothing more than the pot (you) calling the kettle (me) black -- except for the fact that the kettle is more than willing to share the toys in God's toy box equally.

except for the fact that you don't have God's "Toys" and those that do have his "Toys" give of themselves every day to everyone in the world regardless of faith, posterity, age, sex, race, or sexual orientation.

Second, the only exclusivity I'm applying to the group of people is the fundamental theological map. I do that, because your map is so very different from ours, not because ours is "better."

So Muslim's are not God's people? buddhists are not God's people? i assure you. all are remembered equally by the Lord.

The orthodox jury is still out on just what kind of a body Christ had after the Resurrection. But whatever the state of existence Christ had after the Resurrection isn't the argument, is it? I thought we were discussing how God once had a physical body, like we do now. The one really has nothing to do with the other, from an orthodox POV.

Oh but it does state biblically what kind of body Christ had when he was resurrected. he had a physical body that was able to consume food, that was able to be felt. And peope spoke to him face-to-face.... so it was capable of speaking and uttering sounds liek a mortal....


Oh? Really! Who says?[/quote]

 

[Captain Civic]

and yet He could control the elements by merely speaking, He could turn a few fish and a couple of loaves of bread into a feast for thousands, and He could raise the dead. I think that more than offsets the fact that He experienced the same things that we as mortals do. I would agree that He could only physically be in one place at a time, but if His power and knowledge extended everywhere in the universe at once, I don't see the fact that He was not physically present in more than one place at the same time as a very big deal at all.

I don't argue that fact. I just think that althoug He still had all of those strengths, He also had to deal with human frailty.

 

[Todd]

Given the fact that no two people will state a belief in exactly the same way, please choose the option that best represents your belief concerning repentance. Then explain your response.

Vote "I agree" if you believe, as tomspug does, that if you "treat repentance as something that you must do over and over again, then Christ died FOR NO GOOD REASON AT ALL!"

Vote "I disagree" if you believe that you must continue to repent whenever you have sinned, even if you have already "been saved."

Repent means to turn away, or reverse. I guess those are my own definitions as I'm too lazy tonight to look up the actual definition (I will look up the definition if needed). So, even though I'm saved, and Christ died for my sins (past, present, and future), I am human, and I will sin again even if I try not to (even Peter tried not to sin when he eventually rejected knowing Christ; Christ even told him he was going to say that Peter didn't know him 3 times). So, at some point, I will want to repent and turn from my current sins. Salvation remains the same regardless, it's just that I decide that I am going to turn away from sin altogether, or a specific sin.

 

[sojourner]

(according to you)He..... existed before coming down... became human (exactly thwe same "taking up a human body")

p'rdon me see here in da bible it says that they touched his feet and hands and saw that he was real, they felt the nail prints in his hands and feet. he ate fish and honey....

which means a resurrected being is a physical being...... not a spiritual being. this is all biblical.

And then, he walked through a locked door. And then, he disappeared suddenly. These are not the actions of a corporeal, physical body. That's why the jury is out.

 

[tomspug]

Well, before Christ's death Jesus walked on water. Is the jury still out on whether or not Jesus had a corporeal, physical body BEFORE his death?

 

[sojourner]

That's right, you have absolutely no idea as to what spirits are made of or how they even work. so how can you say either way what they are as if it is fact?

Nor do you. I'm speculating on what the Bible has to say about it. The Biblical writers state through out that God is fundamentally Other than human.

but see, the bible is incomplete and false in areas as well, just as you have said. so how can the bible have the final say on anything that it does not express?

What I said was that the Bible is not factual in some of its historical facts surrounding anthropological data of the people involved. But the Bible is reliable in that it presents a theology of those who wrote it and espouse it.

Man's traditions, Not God's.... and technically the LDS faith has been around longer than the Catholic church. dating back to Adam and Eve.

Hubris is not a spiritual virtue. Your opinion is not cogent to this argument.

except for the fact that you don't have God's "Toys" and those that do have his "Toys" give of themselves every day to everyone in the world regardless of faith, posterity, age, sex, race, or sexual orientation.

And you say I'm making exclusive statements! Get lucid. The toys are God's toys. They belong to all God's children -- not just a "deserving few." (Just who are God's children, anyhow?) You might want to review your post:

So Muslim's are not God's people? buddhists are not God's people? i assure you. all are remembered equally by the Lord.

On every playground, when some kids hoard all the toys and control who plays with them, it's called...bullying.

So Muslim's are not God's people? buddhists are not God's people? i assure you. all are remembered equally by the Lord.

They are not, for purposes of this argument, only because they do not share the theology of those who wrote and espouse the Bible. The term "children of God" is used narrowly here, specifically to designate the people who espouse Biblical theology.

Oh but it does state biblically what kind of body Christ had when he was resurrected. he had a physical body that was able to consume food, that was able to be felt. And peope spoke to him face-to-face.... so it was capable of speaking and uttering sounds liek a mortal....

It also could walk through solid objects and disappear at will. That doesn't sound much like a physical body to me. I wonder (along with the rest of sane Christianity) just what kind of a body it might have been!