• Re: Born Again

    From Kendall K. Down@kendallkdown@googlemail.com to uk.religion.christian on Mon Mar 9 04:31:10 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

    On 08/03/2026 13:28, John wrote:

    I agree, but I think it goes deeper.-a If someone is wantonly sinning,
    with little regard for their faith, then does that person even belong to Christ?-a Someone who is in a struggle with sin and dies before they've
    been able to overcome it (and that's any sin, not just sexual), then I
    don't think their salvation is in danger.

    We agree.

    Maybe just me, I have never been one for tradition, so although if in a
    CofE church I would take part in communion, I was much happier having a piece of real bread and a drop of wine or fruit juice. 1 Corinthians 14
    sets a good example of church for me.-a I would also say 2 or more people sat in a kitchen at home could equally break bread and it be valid, it doesn't need to be performed by a Priest dressed in robes. However, I
    hasten to add that for some people that works and I'm not saying they're wrong.

    I agree with you over the bread and wine in a kitchen, but there are
    occasions when a more formal service is appropriate. One can think of
    the Coronation or Remembrance Sunday, or even a wedding. Slinging a loaf
    of Hovis on the table and saying, "Help yerself, chum" would be
    disrespectful to the occasion and - with a view to the occasion - to God
    as well.

    They would still have the voice of the Spirit convicting them of sin.

    Exactly, and that's my point.
    The inner voice of the Spirit is all too easy to ignore or
    misunderstand. Something in writing is clear and definite.

    God bless,
    Kendall K. Down
    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
    www.avg.com



    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Madhu@enometh@meer.net to uk.religion.christian on Mon Mar 9 15:52:05 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

    * "Kendall K. Down" <10oliee$306mn$1@dont-email.me> :
    Wrote on Mon, 9 Mar 2026 04:31:10 +0000:
    On 08/03/2026 13:28, John wrote:
    They would still have the voice of the Spirit convicting them of sin.
    Exactly, and that's my point.
    The inner voice of the Spirit is all too easy to ignore or
    misunderstand. Something in writing is clear and definite.

    oh if only this was always the case..

    (just being written down does not preclude the possibility of ambiguity
    or misunderstaning)



    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From John@megane.06@gmail.com to uk.religion.christian on Mon Mar 9 22:21:23 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

    On 09/03/2026 04:31, Kendall K. Down wrote:
    On 08/03/2026 13:28, John wrote:

    I agree, but I think it goes deeper.-a If someone is wantonly sinning,
    with little regard for their faith, then does that person even belong
    to Christ?-a Someone who is in a struggle with sin and dies before
    they've been able to overcome it (and that's any sin, not just
    sexual), then I don't think their salvation is in danger.

    We agree.

    Maybe just me, I have never been one for tradition, so although if in
    a CofE church I would take part in communion, I was much happier
    having a piece of real bread and a drop of wine or fruit juice. 1
    Corinthians 14 sets a good example of church for me.-a I would also say
    2 or more people sat in a kitchen at home could equally break bread
    and it be valid, it doesn't need to be performed by a Priest dressed
    in robes. However, I hasten to add that for some people that works and
    I'm not saying they're wrong.

    I agree with you over the bread and wine in a kitchen, but there are occasions when a more formal service is appropriate. One can think of
    the Coronation or Remembrance Sunday, or even a wedding. Slinging a loaf
    of Hovis on the table and saying, "Help yerself, chum" would be disrespectful to the occasion and - with a view to the occasion - to God
    as well.

    I wouldn't dream of slinging a loaf of Hovis on the table and saying
    Help yourself chum, even if the occasion was entirely informal. "Do
    this in remembrance of me" so the utmost respect would be given.


    They would still have the voice of the Spirit convicting them of sin.

    Exactly, and that's my point.

    The inner voice of the Spirit is all too easy to ignore or
    misunderstand. Something in writing is clear and definite.

    ROFL Given the many different interpretations of what the bible says,
    even on this newsgroup, I'd say the written word was equally unreliable, wouldn't you?



    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Kendall K. Down@kendallkdown@googlemail.com to uk.religion.christian on Tue Mar 10 05:29:08 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

    On 09/03/2026 22:21, John wrote:

    I wouldn't dream of slinging a loaf of Hovis on the table and saying
    Help yourself chum, even if the occasion was entirely informal.-a "Do
    this in remembrance of me" so the utmost respect would be given.

    Quite so - which is all that is intended by the various rituals and ceremonies.

    ROFL Given the many different interpretations of what the bible says,
    even on this newsgroup, I'd say the written word was equally unreliable, wouldn't you?

    No, the written word is reliable; it is humans interpreting the word
    which is dodgy.

    For example, the 2nd commandment against worshipping or even revering
    images, is absolutely clear. Orthodox and Catholics get round it by
    splitting hairs over the exact meaning of "worship", but that is their problem. The written word is clear.

    My girl-friend, formerly a Catholic, wrote to me the other day with this comment, which I found intensely interesting.

    "By taking the Sacred Heart picture off my bedroom wall I had to look up
    and not at the picture. It is a discipline that seems to work and I can
    feel more reassured that God or the Holy Spirit have heard me. Does that
    sound odd?"

    In other words, in her experience, such a picture was a hindrance to
    true devotion, not an aid to devotion.

    God bless,
    Kendall K. Down
    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
    www.avg.com



    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Kendall K. Down@kendallkdown@googlemail.com to uk.religion.christian on Tue Mar 10 05:23:20 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

    On 09/03/2026 10:22, Madhu wrote:

    (just being written down does not preclude the possibility of ambiguity
    or misunderstaning)
    No, but it makes it much more unlikely. More importantly, something
    written is far more difficult to change, whereas something that relies
    on the feelings of some spiritual leader are very liable to change.

    God bless,
    Kendall K. Down
    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
    www.avg.com



    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From John@megane.06@gmail.com to uk.religion.christian on Tue Mar 10 12:57:29 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

    On 10/03/2026 05:29, Kendall K. Down wrote:
    On 09/03/2026 22:21, John wrote:

    I wouldn't dream of slinging a loaf of Hovis on the table and saying
    Help yourself chum, even if the occasion was entirely informal.-a "Do
    this in remembrance of me" so the utmost respect would be given.

    Quite so - which is all that is intended by the various rituals and ceremonies.

    Like I said, it may be me.

    ROFL Given the many different interpretations of what the bible says,
    even on this newsgroup, I'd say the written word was equally
    unreliable, wouldn't you?

    No, the written word is reliable; it is humans interpreting the word
    which is dodgy.

    And every denomination interprets it differently. Your beliefs will be
    shaped by the denomination you're a part of. Surely, if the bible is
    intended as God's word to His people, it would have been written in such
    a way that it couldn't be open to interpretation?

    For example, the 2nd commandment against worshipping or even revering images, is absolutely clear. Orthodox and Catholics get round it by splitting hairs over the exact meaning of "worship", but that is their problem. The written word is clear.

    My girl-friend, formerly a Catholic, wrote to me the other day with this comment, which I found intensely interesting.

    "By taking the Sacred Heart picture off my bedroom wall I had to look up
    and not at the picture. It is a discipline that seems to work and I can
    feel more reassured that God or the Holy Spirit have heard me. Does that sound odd?"

    In other words, in her experience, such a picture was a hindrance to
    true devotion, not an aid to devotion.

    Maybe now you've taught her that an image isn't necessary, but as a
    Catholic, surely that was her connection to God? I'm not saying she was
    right to have the image btw, but if it brought her a connection is that
    a good or a bad thing? If she was revering the sacred heart image, I
    may agree, if it was the image that connected her to Christ, then maybe
    not a bad thing (for a Catholic)

    It does however, bring me to a different topic which I'll start soon.

    As an aside, does that apply to all Icony the churches display, for
    eaxample most churches will display a cross, is hat right, or even an
    image of Jesus displayed on the wall?






    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Kendall K. Down@kendallkdown@googlemail.com to uk.religion.christian on Wed Mar 11 06:47:40 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

    On 10/03/2026 12:57, John wrote:

    And every denomination interprets it differently. Your beliefs will be shaped by the denomination you're a part of.-a Surely, if the bible is intended as God's word to His people, it would have been written in such
    a way that it couldn't be open to interpretation?

    And then we would end up with something as out-of-date and inflexible as Muslim sharia.

    Maybe now you've taught her that an image isn't necessary, but as a Catholic, surely that was her connection to God?-a I'm not saying she was right to have the image btw, but if it brought her a connection is that
    a good or a bad thing?-a If she was revering the sacred heart image, I
    may agree, if it was the image that connected her to Christ, then maybe
    not a bad thing (for a Catholic)

    Her statement indicates that it was, in fact, a block on her connection
    with God. Of course, she didn't realise that until she had removed the picture.

    As an aside, does that apply to all Icony the churches display, for
    eaxample most churches will display a cross, is hat right, or even an
    image of Jesus displayed on the wall?
    I see no problem with a cross or even a church-ful of religious art *so
    long* as that art does not become an object of reverence or devotion. As
    soon as you start crossing yourself before the object or kissing it or - horrors - praying to it, it has become an idol.

    I deplore the destruction of images and pictures under the Puritans, but
    I recognise that at the time, *some* images and pictures had become
    idols and the only solution was to destroy them. The idiots went too far
    and destroyed any art, that's my complaint.

    I was painting the interior of an SDA church once and rested my
    paintbrush and tin of paint on the table at the front and was promptly
    told off by the elder's wife because that was "the communion table". I apologised and removed the offending articles, but I deplored the
    attitude which, in my opinion, turned the table into an idol.

    I once rested a bag on a bench in the local Salvation Army place and the captain asked me to remove it as that was their "mercy seat". Again, I apologised and removed the bag, but I suspect the bench had become an idol.

    God bless,
    Kendall K. Down
    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
    www.avg.com



    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From John@megane.06@gmail.com to uk.religion.christian on Thu Mar 12 16:23:12 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

    On 11/03/2026 06:47, Kendall K. Down wrote:
    On 10/03/2026 12:57, John wrote:

    And every denomination interprets it differently. Your beliefs will be
    shaped by the denomination you're a part of.-a Surely, if the bible is
    intended as God's word to His people, it would have been written in
    such a way that it couldn't be open to interpretation?

    And then we would end up with something as out-of-date and inflexible as Muslim sharia.

    I'm speaking more of the NT, The Jewish law set specific commands, with punishments meted out to those who disobeyed. Are some of them really
    any different from Shariah law?


    I was painting the interior of an SDA church once and rested my
    paintbrush and tin of paint on the table at the front and was promptly
    told off by the elder's wife because that was "the communion table". I apologised and removed the offending articles, but I deplored the
    attitude which, in my opinion, turned the table into an idol.

    I once rested a bag on a bench in the local Salvation Army place and the captain asked me to remove it as that was their "mercy seat". Again, I apologised and removed the bag, but I suspect the bench had become an idol.

    I agree with your point of view in regards to those two incidents. Out
    of interest whats your view on genuflecting? It's not something I
    practiced but CofE churches do (maybe not so much now)



    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Kendall K. Down@kendallkdown@googlemail.com to uk.religion.christian on Fri Mar 13 05:05:10 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

    On 12/03/2026 16:23, John wrote:

    I'm speaking more of the NT, The Jewish law set specific commands, with punishments meted out to those who disobeyed. Are some of them really
    any different from Shariah law?

    Any nation must have laws - and sanctions against those who disobey the
    laws. In that respect the laws of Moses and sharia laws are very similar.

    The big difference is that Moses was not regarded as the final prophet
    and subsequent prophets could inveigh against sacrifices (for example)
    in a manner which is unthinkable for sharia.

    I agree with your point of view in regards to those two incidents.-a Out
    of interest whats your view on genuflecting? It's not something I
    practiced but CofE churches do (maybe not so much now)

    Genuflect is a sort of bob or bow. As such it is an entirely neutral
    action. I've seen women genuflect when their high heels twisted their
    ankles!

    However showing reverence towards anything other than God - an icon or a statue - would constitute idolatry. Genuflecting towards the consecrated
    host is more nuanced, because it is not regarded as an image of God but
    as God Himself - the actual flesh of Christ. I do not share that belief
    and would reject showing any reverence to a bit of flour and water, but
    there are those who genuinely believe it to be divine. God is their judge.

    God bless,
    Kendall K. Down
    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
    www.avg.com



    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2