Post by Eric Bohnmark says...
<snip>
Post by Matthew JohnsonWhat is lacking is the ability of the Christian world to explain
why the Bible is the word of God, beyond the inane and
defenseless, "It says so" as well as the willingness to listen
to, and accept other's positions.
No, the picture is not _that_ bleak. In order for you to see it
as that bleak, you must deliberately be looking in all the wrong
places.
Should I just assume, Matthew, that you are not capable of discerning
that not all who are dead are wicked?
No, because I was _not_ talking about either the dead nor the
wicked. And if Mark was, he expressed himself so very badly that he
bears all the responsibility for any misunderstanding.
Except, of course, for that portion of the blame you must bear for
putting comments directed to me in a post that is a reply to Mark. But
that is a minor fault -- especially compared to the many other major
faults of your reply. See below.
Post by Eric BohnWell, certainly off to a good start to a pleasant exchange of
information..... :-)
One of the previous posters under this topic mentioned the parable
about the good shepard. I'll add that it's not too difficult to
'hear' the voice of Jesus.
You were not hearing the voice of Jesus when you posted this
slanderous post, Eric. Nor were you hearing it when you contradicted
your own Church's teaching concerning the Bible. So why should we
believe you when you say it is easy, since you are so _obviously_ not
doing it?
Post by Eric BohnThe good shepard leads his flock into green pastures, he keeps the
wolves away,
And by posting slander in this post, you make it clear that you are
one of the wolves.
Post by Eric Bohnand picks them up when they fall down.
Pleasant sounding words, but Jim Jones's followers will testify that
Jones did this for them. Yet we all know what a ravenous wolf _he_
turned out to be.
Post by Eric BohnThat is the 'voice' they follow. The bad shepard chases the sheep
from behind, swatting at their rear-ends with a cane, trying to force
them into a single file line so he can march them into the desert.
Another thing a "bad shepard[sic]" will do is post reams of
pseudo-pious gobbledygook, just as you have done.
[snip]
Post by Eric BohnNot one of the answers involved prayer......
That speaks volumes to me..........
There are different aspects to the faith and to learning it.
Chrisrians start out from the state of original sin,
What are you talking about? Are you _really_ unaware of how many
problems you create with this gross perversion of your own church's
doctrine? How can _Christians_ start out "from the state of original
sin"? Before they are baptized, they are not yet Christians (not in
modern practice, when they are so rarely enrolled in the
catechumenate). But after, the stain of original sin has been _washed
away_. So what "state of original sin" could we still be in?
Post by Eric Bohnone of the consequences of this is that initially they have to be
taught the faith by people.
This isn't true, either! It was not _people_ who taught the faith to
St. Mary of Egypt, or to St. Matronya of Moscow. And I am sure if you
look hard enough, you can find similar such histories in a Roman
Catholic "Lives of the Saints".
Post by Eric BohnDisciples plant the seeds and God brings
them to fruition inside the person.
You are generalizing recklessly from 1 Cor 3:6-11. The point of the
passage is NOT that it must start with a human minister planting, but
that the building is really being done by God _although_ a human
minister may be involved.
Post by Eric BohnThe realities of satan and of original sin dictate that the best
course of action for a Christian is to take an initially passive role
in their developmnent in the faith in order to develop discernment.
This is one of the reasons why the Church venerates Mary as a role
model.
In contemporary society there are many more people in the state of
sin than there are holy people. That is why many people commonly
believed that the Bible is confusing, because to most people, it is.
However, it really shouldn't be as the Holy Spirit is its ultimate
author. Much of the confusion arises from misunderstandings that
result from analyzing Scripture quotes stripped of context. Often
times there is more to it than that, but a lack of contextual
analysis is usually involved...
And you should have noticed how Mark fell into this "lack of
contextual analysis" when he claimed Genesis 1 teaches "many
Gods". But you have given no sign of such notice yet, and many signs
that you did _not_ notice.
Post by Eric Bohn<snip>
Actually, MOST mainstream christian churches teach that baptism is
not a requirement to enter into the kingdom of God. Not sure where
you get your perspective, but I am listening.
Not really, of all the sacraments most of the major denominations
accept Baptism and the Eucharist and that's it. The reason being that
those two are the most visible in the Scriptures, for example, John the
Baptist and the last supper meal; and of course, their old testament
parallels.
Why are you not even addressing the point? The point is NOT whether or
not denominations _accept_ baptism, it is whether or not they
_require_ it for salvation/entering the Kingdom or whatever.
You have to be ignorant of the doctrinal disputes of the last 500
years to miss this, Eric.
[snip]
Post by Eric BohnThe Bible contains the word of God. It is not the complete word,
and it is filled with errors and misleading information.
Indeed the bible is in pretty sad shape.
Here you recklessly contradict the teaching of your own church. Your
church has waffled a lot on the authority of Scripture over the last
70 years, but one thing remains constant: the Scriptures are
infallible in matters of faith and morals, despite the ragged history
of textual transmission.
As Dei Verbum says:
Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred
writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows
that THE BOOKS OF SCRIPTURE MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED AS TEACHING SOLIDLY,
FAITHFULLY AND WITHOUT ERROR THAT TRUTH WHICH GOD WANTED put into
sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all
Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth
and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right
living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and
equipped for good work of every kind" (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).
[fm
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html]
Post by Eric BohnHowever, those errors and misleading information are the product of
sinful men.
This is not consistent with the teaching of your church (as expressed
in Dei verbum) either.
Post by Eric BohnThe Bible understood by holy people is neither full of errors, nor
misleading.
That sounds all sweet and pious, until we realize how boldly you
_contradict_ those holy people with, say for example, your gross
perversion of the Trinity, where you prate about "separate
persons/entities".
Post by Eric BohnThere-in is the problem,
Which problem you have only _compounded_, not alleviated.
Post by Eric Bohnunderstanding what the Bible truely says requires a lot of prayer and
the aid of it's author.
Evidently you do not have this aid. Otherwise, you would not have
contradicted the Magisterium so recklessly and boldly. Yet you have
done this on the Trinity, the authority of Scripture, and even on
original sin and Baptism.
Post by Eric Bohn<snip>
No, it teaches that there are many Gods.
You stance has no basis right from the start, as the first handful
of words in the hebrew Bible speak of the plural, Eloheim. One
picks up the Bible, and the first thing it declares is that there
is more than one God, and yet by the time one gets to the end, they
are convinced there is only one, ><snip>
In what sense is God a being of plurality?
Look at the context. The Bible is relating the beginning of
Creation, there is a mighty wind that separates the waters and causes
dry land to appear, ring any bells?
Don't be too surrpised if his answer is, 'no', Or if in his ears, it
rings a very _different_ bell than in yours.
In fact, this will probably prove a pretty good test of which one us us
understood Mike best: you, who dream it rings the same bell for you as
for him, or me, who saw how he was confused by the plural ending of
the word for 'God', ELOHIM.
Post by Eric BohnBelieve it or not,
You already know he does not believe it. Or didn't you read to the end
of the post? In any case, since he does not believe it, your appeal to
"believe it or not" accomplishes nothing -- except the
'accomplishment' of sounding very hollow.
[snip]
Post by Eric BohnThis is why we say that Scripture when taken as a whole can be
properly understood, but verses without context are subject to
misinterpretation and conflicting understandings.
He already _knows_ this. Weren't you paying attention? His complaint
is that (his opinion, not mine), even taken WITH context, it is
subject to "misinterpretation and conflicting understandings". And
that even worse, such "misinterpretation and conflicting
understandings" are _unavoidable_.
Once again, you reveal to the whole NG that you have failed to
understand his point. You are not even addressing his point at
all. Instead you are filling the empty air with vain babbling, all
off-point, like someone very much in love with the sound of his own
voice.
If _you_ understood Scripture, you would not spill forth all this vain
verbage like this; you would stick to the point, and express yourself
with an appropriate _economy_ of words, just as Pro 10:19 commands us.
[snip]
Post by Eric Bohnall the references to other scriptures that appear to refute this,
will only strengthen the argument that the Bible is not
sufficiently clear to be relied upon as the total correct word of
God.
The bible alone is just a book, but there are many that have gone
before us to whom understanding has been given. Persons by
themselves usually can't say for certain that they have the Spirit,
and thus good understanding.
And how does that differ from what Mark just described, that it is
"not sufficiently clear to be relied upon as the total correct word of
God"?
You really just don't get it at all. But you never let that stop you
from droning on. Oh, no.
Post by Eric BohnThat is why people trust in the Church for guidance in recognizing
the Word of God in Scripture.
So you say, but you evidently do not do this yourself, since you dare
to speak of "separate person" in the Trinity, no matter HOW many times
the Church has warned against this for the last 1500 years!
Post by Eric Bohn<snip>
Jesus
never, ever said, I and my Father are one and the same being. He
said they are 'one' The Catholic church decided to proclaim that
meant "one person" but there is nothing in the Bible that says
those words.
You've been fed bad information. The Catholic church believes that
that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate persons where
"person" is a conceptual entity.
And you too are feeding him VERY BAD information! No, they are not
_separate_; they are _distinct_. The difference is very
important. That is why the RCCC is so clear saying:
267 Inseparable in what they are, the divine persons are also
inseparable in what they do. But within the single divine operation
each shows forth what is proper to him in the Trinity, especially in
the divine missions of the Son's Incarnation and the gift of the Holy
Spirit.
[I.2.1.1.2.IV 267]
Now pay attention this time! The RCCC said 'INseparable'. It said it
TWICE. But if they are inseparable, then they cannot be
'separate'. Not ever. Believe it or not, that is what John 1:1-14,
10:30 and a few other less clear verses are all about.
You are being VERY irresponsible by ignoring this difference. Yet
you, the irresponsible one, would cast the blame on me for the
argumentative character of these threads?
No, Eric, such irresponsibility on your part makes it clear that it is
you who is guilty here, not me. Yet you were so generous with yet more
evidence of your guilt! Why, you made the same class of reprehensible
error immediately below!
Post by Eric BohnPeople typically recognize the Father and Son as being singular
persons, but in the case of the Holy Spirit at least it should be
more easily recognizable that a "person" doesn't have to be a
singular entity.
This too is highly irresponsible. There was a time when your church
would burn people at the stake for saying things like this. Now that
you have slandered me so rashly and peevishly, you leave me wishing
for the good old days!
If "singular entity" were a correct term for describing either the
Father or the Son (and it is not correct), then it would have to be
equally correct for the Spirit. This is because as St. Gregory the
Theologian explained, the Persons have _everything_ in common except
for that the Father is the begetter, the Son the begotten, and Spirit
the one who proceeds _from the Father_.
If a distinction cannot be shown to follow from this, then it _cannot_
be a genuine distinction between the Persons. And BTW, this is a good
example of why those who _do_ believe the right faith _reject_ the
Filioque.
And don't try to wriggle out of this by criticizing the authority of
St. Gregory. He is a saint in your church, too. You can even find him
listed in the Doctores Ecclesiae
(http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Ecclesiae#IV_Doctores_Graeci).
Post by Eric BohnGod is spirit, and it is in that sense that the RCC believes that God
is one, and that each of the three persons of the Trinity are
consubstantially one.
With this delusion, you reveal to the whole NG that you do not know
what the word 'consubstantial' MEANS. Look it up in the RCCC: it means
that each person not only is a person, but has the _entirety_ of the
divine essence. Therefore it is _quite_ impossible that one be a
'singular entity' and another not.
Post by Eric Bohn<snip>
Given one whole post, I think it rather offensive that you choose
to decide all that I know, and all that I have learned and been
given. Its a good idea to know a bit about someone, before you
judge them as inferior, and it can and will prevent embarassment in
the future <g>
As so often, your 'correction' is incorrect. Wildly incorrect.
Post by Eric Bohnit can and it won't. You're not the first person to call this out,
and you won't be the last. Look back through his posting history and
you'll find an almost algorithmic pattern. In each post it usually
This is slander, Eric. Be sure to mention what you really did here to
your confessor the next time you go to church. Don't forget to mention
your sinful perversion of your own Church's trinitarian dogma,
too. Don't forget to mention your willful contempt of the Magisterium
either.
Post by Eric Bohn1. Presume something wrongly.
I dare you to name (by message id) even ONE post where I have done
this. You, OTOH, have done it in this very post, where you fail to
respond to Mark's point, digressing about 'accepting baptism'
instead. And you have done it many other times.
Post by Eric Bohn2. Develop a false accusation from that presumption.
Even if you do manage to find a post meeting the description of 1. you
cannot find one that meets 2, unless you are simply confusing a
challenge with an accusation, or misunderstanding the post
yourself. But somehow, I find it easy to believe that you would do
either one.
Post by Eric Bohn3. Commit the the same sin you falsely accused someone else of.
You are only deeperning your own sin of slander by saying this. How
ironic that it is you who did this in this very post yourself,
accusing me of the sin while you misudnerstoo Mark so badly as to post
all that irrelevant babble.
Post by Eric BohnWith posters new to the forum, it's almost like clock work.
No it is not "almost like clock work". How can it be, when it is a
rare as hen's teeth?
And what posters new to the forum need to know is that almost always,
whenever someone makes as sweeping an accusation as you just did, he
is not only dead wrong, but he is usually motivated by bitterness,
because his raving lunacy was already soundly refuted in this newgroup.
What posters new _and_ old need to know is the importance of reading
the Charter (at http://geneva.rutgers.edu/src/charter.html) _before_
they post. If they ignore the guidelines as badly as you do, Eric,
then they _will_ find themselves caught in flame-wars and worse.
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)