William Ramier wrote
at 7:16pm on August 14th, 2010
I don't get the whole the neighbor of my enemy must be my neighbors enemy thing, and I never did. But, I've seen it lots.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Hamilton
I female dog a lot about bad stuff, so here's something good: I just wanted to say what a good job of witnessing Hamilton did at the MLB All Star break a few year ago. Was it right that he used his fame to praise the Lord? Did it feel out of place to you? Should faith comments be banned?
Eucharist for dogs?
William Ramier wrote
at 9:23pm
By now, you've probably heard about the Anglican Priest in Toronto who gave communion to a dog. At first I was pissed off, really pissed off. Now I don't know for sure how I feel about it. It seems to me to be another sign of the Canadian branch of the Anglican Church becoming increasingly more irreverent...liberal, watered down, and compromising--throwing out Anglican traditions to fill pews and turning every Bible account into a metaphor. It worries me. So, I guess I'm worried then. I'm not arguing for transubstantiation here, but if Jesus is present in the elements of bread and wine, how can you feed it to a dog? That's extremely sacrilegious. Cast not your pearls before swine? I understand that people love their pets, but come on. What about the warning in the New Testament about taking communion without understanding. Do you think a dog understands? Or is it an empty warning because none of it is real anyway? I'm sick and tired of it not being real. How do atheists get into positions of authority in Christian Churches? I guess the Devil is good at what he does. It reminds me of another New Testament warning about the Devil being able to mascaraed as an Angel of Light...and his servants as servants of God.
at 9:23pm
By now, you've probably heard about the Anglican Priest in Toronto who gave communion to a dog. At first I was pissed off, really pissed off. Now I don't know for sure how I feel about it. It seems to me to be another sign of the Canadian branch of the Anglican Church becoming increasingly more irreverent...liberal, watered down, and compromising--throwing out Anglican traditions to fill pews and turning every Bible account into a metaphor. It worries me. So, I guess I'm worried then. I'm not arguing for transubstantiation here, but if Jesus is present in the elements of bread and wine, how can you feed it to a dog? That's extremely sacrilegious. Cast not your pearls before swine? I understand that people love their pets, but come on. What about the warning in the New Testament about taking communion without understanding. Do you think a dog understands? Or is it an empty warning because none of it is real anyway? I'm sick and tired of it not being real. How do atheists get into positions of authority in Christian Churches? I guess the Devil is good at what he does. It reminds me of another New Testament warning about the Devil being able to mascaraed as an Angel of Light...and his servants as servants of God.
Baptism Issues
William Ramier wrote
at 9:01pm
Baptism: It can be a very controversial topic for Christians, full immersion or not, infant baptism or not, even water baptism or not. The last one is new to me. The argument against, as I understand it, is that the baptism rite done by mainline Christian Churches is a ritual of vain repetition with the Spirit not present in the rite. And, that, true baptism of the Spirit happens when you surrender yourself to/accept the Lord.
What do I think? Well, I think that in my Church baptism is more than just an empty rite. It's not just a water baptism; it's not John's baptism, which was a symbolic baptism with water. It's the baptism Jesus ordained, done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as He instructed. It IS baptism with water AND the Spirit. If a sacrament is the outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, then the Spirit is present in the rite. The Holy Spirit is present and working.
Infant baptism? Sure, why not? I understand the argument that one should be old enough to decide for themselves. I get it. They should understand to be able to accept the Lord. But, in the first century Church, whole families were converted and baptized. And, Jesus said to let the little children come to Him. Who are we to say that the Holy Spirit CAN'T work in the the person being baptized as an infant. I don't think it's wrong to do it or not to do it, and the parents can decide. The only thing wrong here is to say that somebody else's baptism is wrong/invalid.
Full immersion is the least controversial of the above for me. I know that in the first century, they did full immersion. But, Jesus' instructions don't say that full immersion is the way to do it. So, again, make up your own mind. Just make sure to USE water, and to do it in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
at 9:01pm
Baptism: It can be a very controversial topic for Christians, full immersion or not, infant baptism or not, even water baptism or not. The last one is new to me. The argument against, as I understand it, is that the baptism rite done by mainline Christian Churches is a ritual of vain repetition with the Spirit not present in the rite. And, that, true baptism of the Spirit happens when you surrender yourself to/accept the Lord.
What do I think? Well, I think that in my Church baptism is more than just an empty rite. It's not just a water baptism; it's not John's baptism, which was a symbolic baptism with water. It's the baptism Jesus ordained, done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as He instructed. It IS baptism with water AND the Spirit. If a sacrament is the outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, then the Spirit is present in the rite. The Holy Spirit is present and working.
Infant baptism? Sure, why not? I understand the argument that one should be old enough to decide for themselves. I get it. They should understand to be able to accept the Lord. But, in the first century Church, whole families were converted and baptized. And, Jesus said to let the little children come to Him. Who are we to say that the Holy Spirit CAN'T work in the the person being baptized as an infant. I don't think it's wrong to do it or not to do it, and the parents can decide. The only thing wrong here is to say that somebody else's baptism is wrong/invalid.
Full immersion is the least controversial of the above for me. I know that in the first century, they did full immersion. But, Jesus' instructions don't say that full immersion is the way to do it. So, again, make up your own mind. Just make sure to USE water, and to do it in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Jesus will repay the wicked.
William Ramier wrote
at 1:28am
Today's Psalm was Psalm 41. Now, I've seen Jesus in this Psalm before with the bread part, but today when I read on to "raise me up, that I may repay them", it got me thinking; Jesus was raised from the dead, and when He comes back he will repay the wicked.
at 1:28am
Today's Psalm was Psalm 41. Now, I've seen Jesus in this Psalm before with the bread part, but today when I read on to "raise me up, that I may repay them", it got me thinking; Jesus was raised from the dead, and when He comes back he will repay the wicked.
Sometimes I think we have to stop telling God how to work.
William Ramier wrote
at 4:08am
Last weekend, I was watching the Gospel of John. Probably, as much as anything, it was to help me with the anxiety of going back to work. Anyway, as it often does, something "jumped out at me". When Jesus is speaking with the official, in the fourth chapter of the Gospel of John, he says that none of you will believe unless you see miracles. It got me thinking about my evangelical friends. They believe very strongly in, not only the existence of miracles, but the need for them. They seem to feel that my faith isn't "real" because I haven't "experienced" a miracle. Plus, they question whether I can be an effective tool for God; they don't believe that the Gospel alone can bring people to God. It would seem that for somebody to have more than a shallow relationship with a God they can't "experience", they need to have a road to Damascus type of encounter. So, if I just use words (bring the Gospel to people), it will be like the seed falling on the rocky ground. It won't sink in. Because, I guess, the Spirit never works like that. They have to "experience" God to really believe. I always thought that when Jesus said some of you won't believe unless you see a miracle that it was a bad thing, that He was complaining about their lack of faith. However, if He did indeed mean that one must see a miracle to believe, why did He use the word "some" of you? I have, maybe always, believed that there were different gifts of the Spirit, and that not everybody will have every gift of the Spirit. I find it very discouraging to constantly be told that my faith is not real because I haven't had any "supernatural" experience. Maybe I actually have, and call it by a different name, or experience it differently. There have been times in the past, at worship, when I'm sure I've felt the presence of God. Maybe it's just that I can't articulate that experience to their satisfaction. Or, maybe I've never had a "supernatural" experience, or at least on a grand scale. I've seen the hand of God in my life. That doesn't count? Because it wasn't in a flash of light? Because there was no booming voice? Because I didn't fall to the floor? Part of me would love, love, to have an experience like St. Francis did; and, part of me is afraid to come physically face to face with my God. And, I know it would change my faith; my belief in God would no longer be a choice I make. Maybe God wants me to choose? Do I need to have a road to Damascus experience to be a Christian?
And, sometimes I think we have to stop telling God how to work.
at 4:08am
Last weekend, I was watching the Gospel of John. Probably, as much as anything, it was to help me with the anxiety of going back to work. Anyway, as it often does, something "jumped out at me". When Jesus is speaking with the official, in the fourth chapter of the Gospel of John, he says that none of you will believe unless you see miracles. It got me thinking about my evangelical friends. They believe very strongly in, not only the existence of miracles, but the need for them. They seem to feel that my faith isn't "real" because I haven't "experienced" a miracle. Plus, they question whether I can be an effective tool for God; they don't believe that the Gospel alone can bring people to God. It would seem that for somebody to have more than a shallow relationship with a God they can't "experience", they need to have a road to Damascus type of encounter. So, if I just use words (bring the Gospel to people), it will be like the seed falling on the rocky ground. It won't sink in. Because, I guess, the Spirit never works like that. They have to "experience" God to really believe. I always thought that when Jesus said some of you won't believe unless you see a miracle that it was a bad thing, that He was complaining about their lack of faith. However, if He did indeed mean that one must see a miracle to believe, why did He use the word "some" of you? I have, maybe always, believed that there were different gifts of the Spirit, and that not everybody will have every gift of the Spirit. I find it very discouraging to constantly be told that my faith is not real because I haven't had any "supernatural" experience. Maybe I actually have, and call it by a different name, or experience it differently. There have been times in the past, at worship, when I'm sure I've felt the presence of God. Maybe it's just that I can't articulate that experience to their satisfaction. Or, maybe I've never had a "supernatural" experience, or at least on a grand scale. I've seen the hand of God in my life. That doesn't count? Because it wasn't in a flash of light? Because there was no booming voice? Because I didn't fall to the floor? Part of me would love, love, to have an experience like St. Francis did; and, part of me is afraid to come physically face to face with my God. And, I know it would change my faith; my belief in God would no longer be a choice I make. Maybe God wants me to choose? Do I need to have a road to Damascus experience to be a Christian?
And, sometimes I think we have to stop telling God how to work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
