Btw I just read Mr Pgp's column, have to read it again to "really get it" - in which case I usually focus on minor details, like spelling - but just a question as to the column title:

The Churchs' Soft-core Paganism

It was my perception that there are two possibilities:

1) Church's ...

or 2) Churches' ...

And I too was wondering if paganism really does come in many flavors, and if it does, does it deserve to be labeled, as in "soft, hard, underground, pure, middle of the road"... heh

But I also thought he meant that such extreme accomodation of Pagan practice into Christian Church worship would "soften the core" of the church and turn it into an apple with a mushy core.

No doubt he meant something else though, I'm sure he will elucidate.

<achieve> I normally type "church" or "churches" lower-case when I'm referring to an indefinite number of churches, or to one particular church, and type "Church" upper-case to denote the Body of Christ on earth--the true Church that belongs to Christ and against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail.

So if the phrase appeared in the text instead of the headline, it would be "the churches' soft-core paganism," and much confusion would have been avoided. I make a distinction between the Church and the institutional churches that may or may not serve Christ's Kingdom.

There is also Genesis 3:15, in which God says to the Serpent, "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed..." Here the important detail is the use of the pronoun "her." Jewish writers would have said "his seed," as they always do elsewhere in the Bible. So if the "seed" is descended from the woman, with no mortal father indicated, there is an implication that the father of the seed can be no other than God Himself.

Back to Isaiah 7:14. There have been many attempts made to prove that this verse does not refer to Jesus; but certainly St. Matthew thought it did, and he was the gospel writer most concerned with the fulfillment of OT prophecies.

Doubters have tried to translate the Hebrew word "almah" as "young woman," not "virgin." But when Jewish scholars first translated the Bible into Greek, around 200 B.C., they rendered "almah" into "parthenos," which in Greek has only one possible meaning--"virgin."

I see on <Ohio Chess Fan's> page that the Calvinism to which I hold is "apostate" and leading to damnation, not to mention being totally wrong. The sticking point seems to be predestination/election. But I must leave that to abler apologists than I. See D. James Kennedy, R.J. Rushdoony, R.C. Sproul, and Calvin himself.

Elsewhere, someone expressed concern for my salvation because I said C.S. Lewis was a good Christian. He also darkly suspected that I celebrated Christmas and Easter instead of the Jewish holidays celebrated by his denomination.

And hoo-boy, is there a lot of anti-Catholic bigotry out there! According to this school of thought, Roman Catholics simply aren't Christians, but rather some strange pagan cult, and so on.

Obviously I spend a lot of time criticizing--some would say lambasting--various churches and versions of Christianity. I'm willing to be judged on the totality of my writings. If you can show me, by the Scriptures, that I'm wrong for inveighing against goddess worship, dancing around in animal costumes, or chopping out slabs of the Bible so that the ministerette can perform a lesbian "marriage," then I would have no alternative but to change my opinion.

As you know, I don't believe any of that four point list I posted in here about the bare minimum for calling oneself a Christian.

I'm not a Christian. I do know the Bible passably well, however, and I was raised in a Christian culture. And by that I don't mean "I enjoyed the Peanuts Christmas special" (although I certainly did). I spent years involved in a Church and such, as you already know.

I don't think the Calvinist doctrine on predestination is accurate- but there's three things I mixed together over there at Ohio's, some of it unspoken, so I'd like to disambiguate:

1. I don't believe any Christian doctrines are "accurate" at the end of the day. This only because I don't believe any of the foundational truth claims of the religion itself. This isn't a choice on my part- it's just a fact, a state of existence or thinking. But this is not my main point.

2. That said, I do read the Bible and I think some doctrines have more textual support than others- I don't think the Calvinist version of predestination has a lot of support in Scripture. That's a separate point.

3. My main point- was meant to ask <Ohio's> opinion on who, exactly, does the judging and the damning? God, as I was taught, and as I learned in Bible study at a Baptist Church. There's a lot of Baptist doctrine I don't think has much support from the Bible either, but that's another topic.

I wanted to know what <Ohio> thought about man judging man based on Scripture, in the context of his conversation with <Helloween>.

I was relieved to hear the answers to his questions, in fact, since that's the way I always understood it- and still do.

I don't like Christians damning other Christians either, and I really doubt <Ohio> does, though I can't speak for him.

I don't like Christians damning other religions. I don't like Christians damning atheists, or any other group.

I don't like humans damning other humans.

When I was a Christian, I understood the "damning" was up to God.

His call- not ours.

That's really what I wanted to find out from <Ohio> and what I believed myself, and continue to believe.

At any rate I didn't even know you were a Calvinist- so if I played any part in offending you, my sincere apologies.

In my book, you're aces. A fine man and a fine example of a man living his faith through his behavior towards other people.

Suppose I said "I am a Christian, though I don't believe Jesus rose from the dead." Regardless of whether you'd affirm it in public, would you think such a position would leave me in danger of hell?

<I see on <Ohio Chess Fan's> page that the Calvinism to which I hold is "apostate" and leading to damnation, not to mention being totally wrong.>

Yes.

<The sticking point seems to be predestination/election. >

The sticking point is all 5 of the TULIP petals.

<But I must leave that to abler apologists than I. See D. James Kennedy, R.J. Rushdoony, R.C. Sproul, and Calvin himself.>

I believe the parameters of Christianity are defined first by Scripture, and then by the formally adopted creeds of the Church--Apostles' Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed. If you think relying on the creeds is passing the buck, I'm sorry: I can't promote myself over the doctors of the Church, whose work has stood for many centuries.

You reject Calvinism. Fine. I don't believe you have to be a Calvinist to be a Christian. Personally, I don't believe in transubstantiation, or Marianism, or placing the traditional teachings of the church fathers on a par with the Bible: therefore I am not a Roman Catholic. I don't believe in the Rapture: therefore I am not a Dispensationalist. And so on. But who am I to say Catholics or Dispensationalists are not Christians? Besides which, I know that they are.

Why should I not defer to great theologians, rather than butcher their thoughts by trying to pass them on in my own words?

Crikey, in a little thing like chess (!) we defer to Grandmasters. In matters of chess, who would value your opinion, or mine, over Garry Kasparov's? And yet somehow the realm of theology is supposed to be a pure democracy in which one individual's opinion is as good as any other's.

I hold with Calvinism because I was raised in its tradition and it suits me. I would never choose it over Scripture: but I've never been called upon to make that choice. I don't have a problem with Calvinist theology. You do. That's life.

I'm sure there are any number of Catholic apologists out there who could make you or me look like fools and heretics for not being Roman Catholics. In this I believe they do wrong.

I agree. But suppose a like minded person to the resurrection denier accused you of being a Christian thrusting other Christians into hell. You'd be in the same boat as I am in now. We just draw our lines in a different place.

<I believe the parameters of Christianity are defined first by Scripture, and then by the formally adopted creeds of the Church--Apostles' Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed. If you think relying on the creeds is passing the buck, I'm sorry: I can't promote myself over the doctors of the Church, whose work has stood for many centuries.>

Yes, I think that's passing the buck. I don't care a whit about the doctors of the church.

<You reject Calvinism. Fine. I don't believe you have to be a Calvinist to be a Christian. Personally, I don't believe in transubstantiation, or Marianism, or placing the traditional teachings of the church fathers on a par with the Bible: therefore I am not a Roman Catholic.>

I don't believe in those things either and am consequently a former Catholic.

<I don't believe in the Rapture: therefore I am not a Dispensationalist.>

Same page there.

<And so on. But who am I to say Catholics or Dispensationalists are not Christians?>

The same person who can decide someone who denies the resurrection denier isn't a Christian. It all comes back to where you draw that line. To get back to the starting gate, I suggest that what you consider thrusting other Christians into hell might simply be someone else not agreeing with you on who the Christians are.

< Besides which, I know that they are.>

I have some major salvational issues with the RCC. I don't think end times theology is very important.

<Why should I not defer to great theologians, rather than butcher their thoughts by trying to pass them on in my own words? >

Don't pass them on. Pass on the word of God.

<Crikey, in a little thing like chess (!) we defer to Grandmasters. In matters of chess, who would value your opinion, or mine, over Garry Kasparov's? >

Jesus is Kasparov times 10. That's the GM I refer to, along with his chosen spokesmen.

<And yet somehow the realm of theology is supposed to be a pure democracy in which one individual's opinion is as good as any other's.>

It's not.

<I hold with Calvinism because I was raised in its tradition and it suits me. I would never choose it over Scripture: but I've never been called upon to make that choice. I don't have a problem with Calvinist theology. You do. That's life.>

The difference between us is I understand a person must choose Calvinism over Scripture.

<I'm sure there are any number of Catholic apologists out there who could make you or me look like fools and heretics for not being Roman Catholics. >

I'll have more to say tomorrow, but meanwhile, let me leave you with this thought.

You say, <I don't care a whit for the doctors of the church.> You have always taken a stand for "Bible only." There's nothing wrong with that... But have you considered that the Bible in its final form is very much the work of "church doctors"? Many centuries ago they decided what to include and what to leave out of Christian Scripture. (The Old Testament, the Jewish Scripture, was out of their reach.) I'm sure you know there are dozens (at least) of Gnostic Gospels and Acts of various apostles that were rejected, and so do not appear in our Bible today.

Were those church doctors right in their finalization of the canon? I think they were, and I expect you do, too. If not, is there anything they should have admitted into the canon, that they left out; or allowed to stay in, that should have been rejected? And on what basis could you begin to answer such a question?

The Catholic Bible, for example, features a unique combination of books.

In addition, other mainstream Christian churches may even feature an additional book- The Mormons, for example.

Are the Mormons Christian?

What about the future?

The "Gospel of Mary" and the "Gospel of Judas" are currently in question- the first appears to be genuine but not the second.

In these cases, science is a boon in terms of the tools it can bring to the table vis a vis detecting forgery.

Finally- what if a bona fide series of Books is dug up in the future that are unquestionably bona fide- agreed so by both Church leaders and scientists alike- and these Books are directly connected to the story of the Jews in the Old Testament, and/or the story of Jesus and His apostles in the New Testament?

What if an earlier translation of the existing four Gospels is found, and then it's found that the existing translation has serious errors in it?

Bible-based Christians are forced to be ready for such possibilities.

Even if we grant that God directed the people who wrote what we call the Bible today, it should be remembered that men are fallible- the men who wrote the texts and then the men who argued over which texts to make canonical.

The only exception to this, unless I've got it wrong, is the "10 commandments."

They were directly "written by God" correct?

It's an incredibly dramatic moment in the story of Moses if you ask me.

Although no one did.

Is there any other kind? "non"-Bible based Christians sounds a bit off, heh, but I get your point loud and clear. There were times when, to put it overly simplified, the "plebs" wasn't even allowed to read the bible, a right reserved for the "Doctors" only...

Very tough subject, though, the Canonicity of the Bible. Some 15+ years ago I investigated this in/to quite some depth, but at some point simply pushed my doubts about the assembly process of the "current" biblical Canon to the back-ground, and "trusted" that if the one true God exists, of which i was 100% sure, he would have guarded the selection and collection of the by him inspired scriptures.

Perhaps naively to an extent? Dunno. Possibly. Possibly not. Re the Hebrew scriptures, the Tetra-grammaton, YHWH, was replaced in many translations, falsely. Actually I have forgotten quite a bit about "our" (family's) Catholic bible, I think it was the 'Willibrord Translation'...