Original Sin

Post by Hermano Lobo
Few if any will sustain seriously nowadays that Adam and Eve did
really exist. Therefore, Adam's sin does not affect me since I am not
one of his descendents. Am I wrong?

It probably won't surprise you to get this answer. Yes, you are wrong.
Original sin is simply a description of an obvious fact; that although
mankind is called to strive for the perfection of God, we cannot achieve
it. The grace of God is necessary to transform us. We are not born
perfect. This is apparent not only in the writings of the patristic
period, the doctrines of the Church, and the words of Christ; but also
in our own observations of human nature. It's hard to imagine someone
so self-absorbed that they can't understand the truth of original sin.

This is the case regardless of any specific view on the Creation.

--
Chris Smith

Hermano Lobo

2007-08-09 02:08:44 UTC

Post by Chris Smith

Post by Hermano Lobo
Few if any will sustain seriously nowadays that Adam and Eve did
really exist. Therefore, Adam's sin does not affect me since I am not
one of his descendents. Am I wrong?

----------------------

The existence of mitocondrial Eve convinces me that I was wrong.
However, your answer far from solving the problem suggests a new one:
if we are not born perfect and we cannot achieve perfection -which is
an extremely confusing concept- without the grace of God, I just
cannot understand that God had no created us full of His grace from
the very beginning. Your argument seems to mean that the Lord is
playing tricks with us because there is no commandment of the type
thou shallst not be imperfect.

l***@hotmail.com

2007-08-14 02:43:30 UTC

Post by Hermano Lobo
if we are not born perfect and we cannot achieve perfection -which is
an extremely confusing concept- without the grace of God,

Not really. "Perfection" needs to be defined. "And having been made
perfect, He [Jesus] became to all those who obey Him the source of
eternal life."

How can it be said that Jesus, who was not only sinless, but no less
a Person than the 2nd Person of the Godhead, became perfect? The
verse before this one, states, "although He was a Son, He learned
obedience..." Heb 5:8

For the fallen race of man, Christ declared that he must first be
"born from above" before he can "see the kingdom of God." Because
the NT writers repeated note that man is dead in his sin (singular)
all being "by nature children of wrath," (Eph 2:3), it denotes an
incapacity to "please God." Rom 3:10ff, referring to Ps 14 & 53,
presupposes that by one man, Adam, sin (singular) came into
the world, ie, humanity.

Ps. 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are
corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who
does good.
Ps. 14:2 The Lord has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men, To
see if there are any who understand, Who seek after God.
Ps. 14:3 They have all turned aside; together they have become
corrupt; There is no one who does good, not even one.

Notice that "the fool" is singular. This is Adam. The Hebrew is
not correctly translated when it inserts, "There is" for it should
only read, "No God." It is not a denial of existence but a denial
of allegence. "They" which immediately follows alludes to Adam's
descendents. God's assessment in v. 2 concludes in v. 3 that
ALL have "turned aside," "become corrupt."

"Turning aside" denotes inclination. "In that day you shall surely
die" forecast that man, who had originally been inclined solely to
please God, to have Him alone as the final authority, the final
reference point, that when man, in his head, inclined to taking that
which was declared off limits, that at that point in time, his
original
inclination was annihilated and all that was left him was that newly
self determined inclination to make himself the final arbitrator as
to what is true and what isn't.

Thus, those who deny the literal reading of the Genesis record
place themselves as arbitrating what is real and what isn't. Does
it not stand to reason that Genesis is exactly that, the beginning
point? "God said." To literally translate "universe" it denotes
the reality of "single" (uni) "spoken sentence" (verse). If we can
not begin at the beginning to take God at His word, then what
does it say for anything that follows thereafter?

Man being finite and by nature dependent ("what have ye that
ye have not received?") is it then not reasonable to accept the
literal, the normative reading of the Genesis record? If not,
then how is He to be distinquished from the "God of confusion?"

The scriptures are a harmony of thought. You cannot dismiss
one point of revealation without deharmonizing the rest. Theology
IS systematic.

t***@acenet.net.au

2007-08-08 01:56:40 UTC

Post by Hermano Lobo
Few if any will sustain seriously nowadays that Adam and Eve did
really exist. Therefore, Adam's sin does not affect me since I am not
one of his descendents. Am I wrong?

You might find it helpful to read on "Mitochondrial Eve" on the
internet, and come to your own judgements as to whether we all have a
common ancestor or not, at least in the matrilineal line.

You are responsible for your own actions, thoughts and words.

Matthew 12:36-37 "I tell you, on the day of judgement you will have to
give an account of every careless word you utter; for by yoru words
you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."

In the light of that personal judgement, arguing about original sin is
rather academic. However we got our sinful nature, we're all going to
answer for our actions, words and even thoughts if Christ's comment
about a man lusting after a woman mentally is any guide.

Hermano Lobo

2007-08-16 01:15:19 UTC

Post by t***@acenet.net.au
You might find it helpful to read on "Mitochondrial Eve" on the
internet, and come to your own judgements as to whether we all have a
common ancestor or not, at least in the matrilineal line.

----------------

At first glance, the existence of a Mithocondrial Eve seemed to be a
confirmation of the Genesis Eve. But surfing during a couple of days
results in a surprising fact: all non-Africans descend from this Eve,
but american blacks, including Condolezza Rice and Duke Ellington do
not, and no African bears the same genes as we Europeans. A pity, but
your theory falls apart unless God was a racist.

t***@acenet.net.au

2007-08-17 01:39:17 UTC

----------------
At first glance, the existence of a Mithocondrial Eve seemed to be a
confirmation of the Genesis Eve. But surfing during a couple of days
results in a surprising fact: all non-Africans descend from this Eve,
but american blacks, including Condolezza Rice and Duke Ellington do
not, and no African bears the same genes as we Europeans. A pity, but
your theory falls apart unless God was a racist.

My understanding, without being an expert obviously, is that the
Mitochondrial DNA is somehow transmitted only through the matrilineal
line. Nuclear DNA is different in this respect.

Hermano Lobo

2007-08-21 02:56:44 UTC

Post by t***@acenet.net.au

Post by Hermano Lobo
At first glance, the existence of a Mithocondrial Eve seemed to be a
confirmation of the Genesis Eve. But surfing during a couple of days
results in a surprising fact: all non-Africans descend from this Eve,
but american blacks, including Condolezza Rice and Duke Ellington do
not, and no African bears the same genes as we Europeans. A pity, but
your theory falls apart unless God was a racist.

My understanding, without being an expert obviously, is that the
Mitochondrial DNA is somehow transmitted only through the matrilineal
line. Nuclear DNA is different in this respect.

-----------------
That's absolutely correct, but the mithocondrial ADN sequence we have
-Australian natives, Caucasians, American indians, etc.- comes from a
single woman who went out of Africa with her tribe 150,000 years ago.
At that time there were many other homo sapiens groups in Africa, but
none in Asia, Europe or America. Genetists have confirmed that while
all of us non Africans bear the mithocondrial ADN inherited from that
woman, most Africans -including Africans who went as slaves to the New
Continent- do not bear that specific ADN squence. The conclusion is
that while _we_ come from that woman, there are millions un Africa who
don't. There is a documental ("The Real Eve", Discovery Channel) which
explains how that particular tribe crossed the Gulf of Aden, from
Ethiopia to Yemen, taking advantage of the low levels of sea water
prevailing in the area during the peak of the glaciation thus starting
to colonize the rest of the planet. Tou may wish to check
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve which gives more
details and states that the name (Mithocondrial Eve) should not be
taken as proof that there was a first couple: that Eve coexisted with
a large human population.

Matthew Johnson

2007-08-08 01:56:42 UTC

Post by Hermano Lobo
Few if any will sustain seriously nowadays that Adam and Eve did
really exist. Therefore, Adam's sin does not affect me since I am not
one of his descendents. Am I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong.

--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

Dave

2007-08-09 02:08:44 UTC

Post by Hermano Lobo
Few if any will sustain seriously nowadays that Adam and Eve did
really exist. Therefore, Adam's sin does not affect me since I am not
one of his descendents. Am I wrong?

Which is the cause and which is the effect? Are people sinners because
they sin, or do they sin because they are sinners?

Dave

shegeek72

2007-08-10 02:16:47 UTC

Post by Dave

Post by Hermano Lobo
Few if any will sustain seriously nowadays that Adam and Eve did
really exist. Therefore, Adam's sin does not affect me since I am not
one of his descendents. Am I wrong?

Which is the cause and which is the effect? Are people sinners because
they sin, or do they sin because they are sinners?

The premise of original sin is we are all born degenerates and will
remain degenerates until we become Christians. This simplistic belief
can be easily countered by the fact that there are people of numerous
other religions, as well as atheists, who are good, decent people.

So, no, people don't sin because they are inherent sinners. Indeed,
'original sin' flies in the face of free will as it predisposes we are
under the 'influence of original sin' and will, therefore, sin until
we accept Christianity.
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org

Hermano Lobo

2007-08-10 02:16:48 UTC

Post by Dave
Which is the cause and which is the effect? Are people sinners because
they sin, or do they sin because they are sinners?

Sin can exist without a sinner exactly like fish can exist without
fishermen.

Dave

2007-08-13 14:17:58 UTC

Post by Hermano Lobo

Post by Dave
Which is the cause and which is the effect? Are people sinners because
they sin, or do they sin because they are sinners?

Sin can exist without a sinner exactly like fish can exist without
fishermen.

Please explain why this is a valid simile.

Dave

Dave

2007-08-13 14:17:58 UTC

Post by Dave
Which is the cause and which is the effect? Are people sinners because
they sin, or do they sin because they are sinners?

Sin is anything that is contrary to the law or will of God. Thus,
being "good, decent people" doesn't imply lack of sin. No one
perfectly lives up to his own personal standards, let alone God's
standards. Thus, we all violate our own definition of sin, in addition
to God's definition.

Post by shegeek72
So, no, people don't sin because they are inherent sinners. Indeed,
'original sin' flies in the face of free will as it predisposes we are
under the 'influence of original sin' and will, therefore, sin until
we accept Christianity.

Under your understanding of free will, is anyone able to completely
avoid sinning?

Dave

t***@acenet.net.au

2007-08-13 14:18:00 UTC

Post by Hermano Lobo

Post by Dave
Which is the cause and which is the effect? Are people sinners because
they sin, or do they sin because they are sinners?

Sin can exist without a sinner exactly like fish can exist without
fishermen.

Sin can't exist without free will, the ability to choose a course of
thought, word or deed.

Hence to have sin, one requires a certain degree of wilful
intelligence. If I tell my dog something and he disobeys me, he is in
a sense sinning. When he is caught, he knows h'es in trouble. But
the sort of "sin" a naughty dog might participate in will be so puny
as to be hardly worth the name. He has no concept of ethics.

But you do. And the devil certainly does.

The difference between us is that we're half hearted. Even the worst
human tyrant has some sort of twisted ideology he tries to follow eg.
Hitler with Nazism, Pol Pot with Marxism, Saddam Hussein and the
glories of ancient Babylon.

The spiritual world has no such delusions, and is whole heartedly
evil. It is also highly intelligent, hence the level of sin is
infinitely greater.

Sin then requires the deliberate, intelligent, misdirected application
of the will. How it originated in humanity is, from the point of view
of our individual judgement, irrelevant. When we face the Supreme
Judge, He might deign to satisfy our curiousity by showing us where it
originated. But that won't make much difference to our own sentence.

I'm Catholic. We have a prayer we recite at masses quite regularly
called the "Confiteor" viz. (and you can ignore the bit about Mary,
Angels, Saints etc. if you wish, but I do think they pray on our
behalf) ...

"I confess to Almighty God, and to you my brothers and sisters, that I
have sinned,

In my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and what I have
failed to do,

And I ask Blessed Mary, ever virgin, all the angels and saints,

And you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God."

As John wrote, if we say we have not sinned, we make God out to be a
liar.

Hermano Lobo

2007-08-13 14:18:01 UTC

Post by shegeek72
The premise of original sin is we are all born degenerates and will
remain degenerates until we become Christians. This simplistic belief
can be easily countered by the fact that there are people of numerous
other religions, as well as atheists, who are good, decent people.
So, no, people don't sin because they are inherent sinners. Indeed,
'original sin' flies in the face of free will as it predisposes we are
under the 'influence of original sin' and will, therefore, sin until
we accept Christianity.

-----------------------------

I cannot understand what you can see in a two months baby which
justifies the qualification of degenerate. Men are born innocent and
free of evil. There are millions who sin despite being christians and
millions who never sin despite being pagans, Was Abraham a sinner
before the Covenant? He was not a christian. Was Pope Borgia a
sinner?

DKleinecke

2007-08-14 02:43:29 UTC

Post by Hermano Lobo
I cannot understand what you can see in a two months baby which
justifies the qualification of degenerate. Men are born innocent and
free of evil. There are millions who sin despite being christians and
millions who never sin despite being pagans, Was Abraham a sinner
before the Covenant? He was not a christian. Was Pope Borgia a
sinner?

I think you are working with the wrong idea of what sin is. As I read
the old books where sin is first discussed it is not doing any
particular bad action (or failing to do any good one) rather it is
falling out of communion with God.

Whether a human being is born in communion with God is, in my opinion,
a good question and one I cannot answer. I assume a hardcore
Christian would argue that baptism is required and therefore infant
baptism is the only humane thing to do.

But I cannot see why baptism is assumed to be necessary. It is
utilized in the New Testament as a symbol, but don't see in the Bible
any statement that baptism is required before one can enter into
communion with God. There is, so far as I know, no record of baptism
before John. But surely there was communion with God before John (not
to mention - who baptized John?)

Dave

2007-08-14 02:43:29 UTC

Post by Hermano Lobo
I cannot understand what you can see in a two months baby which
justifies the qualification of degenerate.

I see someone who will not live up to his own standards, let alone
God's.

Post by Hermano Lobo
Men are born innocent and free of evil.

That is your opinion, which I happen to disagree with.

Post by Hermano Lobo
There are millions who sin despite being christians and
millions who never sin despite being pagans,
Was Abraham a sinner before the Covenant? He was not a Christian.

Yes.

Post by Hermano Lobo
Was Pope Borgia a sinner?

Yes.

Rom 3:23: "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

Rom 3:10-12: as it is written, "There is none righteous, not even one;
There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God; All
have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none
who does good, There is not even one."

Dave

l***@hotmail.com

2007-08-14 02:43:30 UTC

Post by Hermano Lobo
I cannot understand what you can see in a two months baby which
justifies the qualification of degenerate. Men are born innocent and
free of evil.

Scripture denies this accessment:

Job 14:1 Man, who is born of woman, Is short-lived and full of
turmoil.
Job 14:4 Who can make the clean out of the unclean? No one!

Job 17:14 If I call to the pit, 'You are my father'; To the worm, 'my
mother and my sister';

Ps. 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother
conceived me.

Is. 48:8 ....you have been called a rebel from birth.

Ps. 58:3, 4 The wicked are estranged from the womb; These who speak
lies go astray from birth. They have venom like the venom of a
serpent; Like a deaf cobra that stops up its ear,

This thought of a poisonous snake if picked up by Paul:

Rom. 3:13 " ....The poison of asps is under their lips"

If you have any biological knowledge, you would know that the venom of
a newly born asp, cobra, rattlesnake, etc, is more potent that its
parent.
But the point is, they are born already poisonous. So is man. Both
are
a product of the fall.

l***@hotmail.com

2007-08-14 02:43:30 UTC

Post by Hermano Lobo
Sin can exist without a sinner exactly like fish can exist without
fishermen.

Before there was anything outside of God, when there was simply
God solitare, there was no vehicle for evil to exist. Good can
exist without evil but evil cannot exist without good. I would
refer you to an excellent work, the best I've ever read let alone
know of, titled, "The Christian Doctrine of Sin," by Muller.

Therein you will find that evil, let alone sin, requires a participant
to exist. You cannot even state philosophically that sin can
exist without a sinner. This is a very rash statement you have
made here.

l***@hotmail.com

2007-08-14 02:43:30 UTC

Post by Dave
Under your understanding of free will, is anyone able to completely
avoid sinning?

That is not what "free-will" is all about. The "free-will" argument
only addresses as to whether or not man can independent of God,
incline himself to please God in the way that God requires, after
the fall.

h***@rutgers.edu

2007-08-14 03:04:59 UTC

Post by DKleinecke
But I cannot see why baptism is assumed to be necessary. It is
utilized in the New Testament as a symbol, but don't see in the Bible
any statement that baptism is required before one can enter into
communion with God. There is, so far as I know, no record of baptism
before John. But surely there was communion with God before John (not
to mention - who baptized John?)

It's necessary in the sense that Jesus commanded it. Like communion,
baptism is intended as a "means of grace", one way that the Holy
Spirit works in us to regenerate us. But it's not the only way, so if
someone isn't baptized for no fault of their own, God has other ways
to reach them. If someone chooses not to be baptized, they get to
explain it to Christ when they meet. No doubt he'll be understanding,
but I'd still prefer to do what he asked.

B.G. Kent

2007-08-15 02:48:16 UTC

Post by Hermano Lobo
Sin can exist without a sinner exactly like fish can exist without
fishermen.

Before there was anything outside of God

B - How can anything exist outside of God when God is everywhere?
In my opinion God is...simply is ..and there is no being "without God".
The first mistake we ever made was this erroneous belief that God is a
contained limited being outside of ourselves.

your view may vary.

Bren

Dave

2007-08-15 02:48:16 UTC

Post by Dave
Under your understanding of free will, is anyone able to completely
avoid sinning?

The context of the question was shegeek72's statement that original
sin is incompatible with free will, essentially because original sin
forces people to sin. My question to shegeek72 was intended clarify
whether, under her concept of free will, and therefore not under
original sin (in her opinion), a person was not predisposed to sin. I
notice that shegeek72 has not yet answered the question.

Dave

shegeek72

2007-08-15 02:48:17 UTC

Post by Hermano Lobo
I cannot understand what you can see in a two months baby which
justifies the qualification of degenerate.

I think you misinterpreted me. I don't agree with the premise of
original sin.

Post by Hermano Lobo
There are millions who sin despite being christians and
millions who never sin despite being pagans,

<snip>

That was also my point - though no one never sins.
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org

Hermano Lobo

2007-08-15 02:48:17 UTC

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Before there was anything outside of God, when there was simply
God solitare, there was no vehicle for evil to exist. Good can
exist without evil but evil cannot exist without good. I would
refer you to an excellent work, the best I've ever read let alone
know of, titled, "The Christian Doctrine of Sin," by Muller.
Therein you will find that evil, let alone sin, requires a participant
to exist. You cannot even state philosophically that sin can
exist without a sinner. This is a very rash statement you have
made here.

-----------------------------
Don't mix "sin" with "the act of commiting a sin". Sin is a concept
which God had in his mind since the very beginning, eternities before
the Fallen Amngels commited the first sin. Or you mean that God coined
the concept immediately after Satan's non serviam?

shegeek72

2007-08-15 02:48:20 UTC

Post by DKleinecke
I think you are working with the wrong idea of what sin is. As I read
the old books where sin is first discussed it is not doing any
particular bad action (or failing to do any good one) rather it is
falling out of communion with God.

I tend to agree. Indeed, the 'original sin' of Adam & Eve was the
falling out as you described.
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org

shegeek72

2007-08-16 01:15:20 UTC

Post by Dave
The context of the question was shegeek72's statement that original
sin is incompatible with free will, essentially because original sin
forces people to sin. My question to shegeek72 was intended clarify
whether, under her concept of free will, and therefore not under
original sin (in her opinion), a person was not predisposed to sin. I
notice that shegeek72 has not yet answered the question.

I did answer the question, but for some reason it was not posted (this
has happened before).

Post by Dave
Sin is anything that is contrary to the law or will of God. Thus,
being "good, decent people" doesn't imply lack of sin. No one
perfectly lives up to his own personal standards, let alone God's
standards. Thus, we all violate our own definition of sin, in addition
to God's definition.

I never said no one ever sins. My point was the Christian view that
one is born a degenerate until they become Christian is flawed.

Post by Dave
Under your understanding of free will, is anyone able to completely
avoid sinning?

Highly unlikely.
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org

l***@hotmail.com

2007-08-16 01:15:21 UTC

Post by Hermano Lobo
Don't mix "sin" with "the act of commiting a sin".

I wasn't. Nor was I failing to distinquish between evil and sin
as you have.

Post by Hermano Lobo
Sin is a concept
which God had in his mind since the very beginning,

If it was in the mind of God, there is no "beginning!"

Post by Hermano Lobo
eternities before the Fallen Amngels commited the first sin.

There are no "eternities" from man's orientation before time
existed. In that God is not chronological in thought, the
antithesis of Good has ever existed but only in the mind of
God. It required existence outside of God before it could
become a reality, let alone a posibility.

Post by Hermano Lobo
Or you mean that God coined
the concept immediately after Satan's non serviam?

I do not think I was vague in the stating of my position.

l***@hotmail.com

2007-08-16 01:15:21 UTC

Post by Dave

Post by Dave
Under your understanding of free will, is anyone able to completely
avoid sinning?

The context of the question was shegeek72's statement that original
sin is incompatible with free will, essentially because original sin
forces people to sin.

No, neither of you are understanding. "Free-will" is commonly and
erroneously thought to involve choice. The error or naivette is that
choice operates independent of inclination, bias, orientation, however
you wish to term it. I've illustrated this many times and in many
ways. Need I do it again?

Choice: to smoke or not to smoke.
Reality: either proceeds out of a single orientation with but a
single
goal to achieve -self and selfishness.

The discussion is not about being able to sin or not but rather
whether any action is acceptable to God apart from regeneration
and operation under the influence and power of the Holy Spirit.
The scriptures declare a negative response. All is vanity and
all do evil continually apart from regeneration and dependence.

t***@acenet.net.au

2007-08-17 01:39:17 UTC

I did answer the question, but for some reason it was not posted (this
has happened before).

I never said no one ever sins. My point was the Christian view that
one is born a degenerate until they become Christian is flawed.

Post by Dave
Under your understanding of free will, is anyone able to completely
avoid sinning?

Highly unlikely.
--
Tara's Transgender Resourceshttp://tarasresources.net
Metropolitan Community Churcheshttp://www.mccchurch.org

Even if a baby is born innocent, which I believe they are, the fact is
that any child that lives for any length of time is going to do so
within a human society.

And regardless of which society it is, the influences on it to
disregard God and do it's own thing are considerable. The society
today which most insists its followers do "God's will" is Islamic
society. But within that society there is clearly violence, murder,
adultery, theft, drug use, lying, and all the rest.

In Western society, any newborn babe will soon be thrust into
hedonism, materialism, promiscuity, the abortion holocaust and excuses
for it, and denial of God. We recently had a "Democratic" Senator
(the Democrats in Australia are a quite different party to the
Democrats in the USA), state there were too many parliamentarians in
the Australian Government with religious convictions, when she really
means she thinks her opinion should hold sway, with all the hall marks
of personal omnipotence.

The chances that a newborn baby will remain aloof from all this
environmental pollution, constantly influencing the child away from
God, is remote in the extreme.

In short, sooner or later the newborn child is going to sin, by its
own free will. And as such, will come under judgement.

However even Christ qualified the debate on sin when he said about the
blind man he healed, that the man was not born blind either because of
his own sin, or his parents, but so that he could by healed by God as
a witness to God's power operating through Christ.

In other words, Christ came to heal; not add to the condemnation of
sin, or the argument about original sin.

Dave

2007-08-17 01:39:18 UTC

Post by Dave
Under your understanding of free will, is anyone able to completely
avoid sinning?

Highly unlikely.

It sounds like you are leaving open the possibility that someone might
never sin.

Why do you think that it is "highly unlikely" that someone will
completely avoid sinning?

Dave

l***@hotmail.com

2007-08-21 02:56:45 UTC

Post by shegeek72
I never said no one ever sins. My point was the Christian view that
one is born a degenerate until they become Christian is flawed.

Francis Bacon could not have been more prophetic when he said that
"people prefer to believe what they prefer to be true."

Dave

2007-08-21 02:56:46 UTC

Post by l***@hotmail.com
No, neither of you are understanding.

No, Loren. It is you who are not understanding. I asked shegeek72
about her understanding of free will, not about what free will
actually is about.

It seems to me that when someone asks another poster a specific
question, it is a matter of courtesy to let the person answer the
question before criticizing it. Of course, after the answer appears,
the question and/or the answer are up for discussion.

Dave

Paul

2007-08-21 02:56:47 UTC

"Hermano Lobo" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:tKZvi.6457$***@trnddc01...
<snip>

"Millions who never sin" -- MILLIONS???? NEVER????? This trips the
overstatement meter, even if one doesn't follow the doctrine of original
sin....

As for Abraham, he couldn't by definition be a "Christian" (little Christ)
since Jesus the Christ hadn't yet walked the earth. But, he could and did
have a covenant relationship with the only God -- which is what Christ came
to provide in a more direct and accessible way ("Way"). (This didn't keep
Abraham from committing sins, of course. It just meant that he almost
certainly had a relationship with God that included forgiveness, so he
wasn't condemned permanently for his individual acts of transgression.)

Personally, I conceive original sin a bit less dramatically than is typical
among evangelicals. To me, it's as simple as: nobody is born with a
relationship with God established -- without that relationship we are in sin
by definition. We have to make a conscious choice to enter into that
relationship by receiving Christ as our Savior. To do this, we have to be
able to have at least a general understanding of what that means, which
requires a certain mental age and some communication capability. (As a
Wesleyan, I also believe that those who die without reaching that mental
age, and/or hearing the gospel, are most likely covered by God's grace.
YMMV on that; Calvinists obviously draw the opposite conclusion in general.)

In Christ,
Paul

l***@hotmail.com

2007-08-21 02:56:47 UTC

Post by h***@rutgers.edu

I replied to this on Aug 14th but it was never posted nor was there a
rejection letter. I see that others have had similar experiences of
late. It
that Charles is USA Presbyterian, the liberal, perhaps even anti-
Reform
Presbyterian, arm of the Presbyterian denomination, it does not
surprise
me that he would write such a paragraph as the one quoted above. In
the last 20 years he has increasingly become more modernist in his
doctrine.

I found the following quotation in an old TIME article today. I think
it illustrates quite well how liberal many of the old Reformational
denominations have become.

"For Adlai Stevenson, the week before Christmas was anything but merry
and bright. It began with a somewhat embarrassing discussion of his
personal religious beliefs, prompted by the fact that Stevenson, a
Unitarian [one who denies the deity of Christ and therefore denies the
Trinity], had quietly joined a Presbyterian church. After some
Unitarians had accused Stevenson of deserting his church, four pastor's
-two Presbyterians and two Unitarians-made public a letter to him
asserting that he can belong to both churches without
'inconsistency'" (Time, 47:18, Jan. 2, 1956).

shegeek72

2007-08-21 02:56:48 UTC

Post by Dave
Why do you think that it is "highly unlikely" that someone will
completely avoid sinning?

Human nature.
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Matthew Johnson

2007-08-21 02:56:50 UTC

Post by Dave

Post by Dave
Under your understanding of free will, is anyone able to completely
avoid sinning?

No. None of this is right. See
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/ to see what "free-will" is
_really_ all about.

Post by Dave
The context of the question was shegeek72's statement that original
sin is incompatible with free will, essentially because original
sin forces people to sin.

No, neither of you are understanding.

Newsflash: neither are you.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
"Free-will" is commonly and erroneously thought to involve choice.

Nothing _erromeous_ about it, unless the wrong sense of 'involve' is
involved. Of _course_ it involves choice, as is clear from the very
definition used at theweb site referenced above, to wit:

"Free Will" is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of
capacity of rational agents to CHOOSE a course of action from among
various alternatives.
--------end quote, emphasis mine---------

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The error or naivette is that choice operates independent of
inclination, bias, orientation, however you wish to term it. I've
illustrated this many times and in many ways. Need I do it again?

If you would do it right, you would not need to do it over and over
again. But since you insist on following the broken volitional theory
of Jonathan Edwards, you never do get it right.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Choice: to smoke or not to smoke.

Talk about naive, your example is completely worthless. Because it too
is naive, even very naive.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Reality: either proceeds out of a single orientation with but a
single goal to achieve -self and selfishness.

Not true. The goal of the natural will of every man is union with
God. But that natural will is severely hampered by the circumstances
following the Fall, so that the goal is not achieved until those
circumstances are overcome by grace.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The discussion is not about being able to sin or not

But of course it is. Your attempt to shift the topic is a failure.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
but rather whether any action is acceptable to God apart from
regeneration and operation under the influence and power of the Holy
Spirit.

Is it? It is you, not Dave, not even 'shegeek72', who inists on this
"apart from". But without it, your argument is worthless.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The scriptures declare a negative response.

So you love to repeat. But there are others reading the same
scriptures who do NOT see this "negative response".

Post by l***@hotmail.com
All is vanity and all do evil continually apart from regeneration and
dependence.

Well, after seeing your posts, it is easy to believe that _you_ do
vanity and evil continually. But then your attempt to implicate
everyone else in this just sounds like an extreme case of "sour
grapes".

--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

l***@hotmail.com

2007-08-22 02:54:05 UTC

Post by l***@hotmail.com
"Free-will" is commonly and erroneously thought to involve choice.

Nothing _erromeous_ about it, unless the wrong sense of 'involve' is
involved. Of _course_ it involves choice, as is clear from the very
"Free Will" is a philosophical term

Yes and no. In that theological dogma determines one's philosophy,
it is paramount that one's theology be orthodox in order to have any
hope that one's philosophical presuppositions correspond to what is.
And this is your failure right alone with the Roman Catholic
theologian
in that you deny the reality of the Genesis record. This is a huge
error that plays out throughout all that follows. And like the RCT
you have no effective answer to the modern philosopher or the
modern theologian who reduce everything to rationalism wherein
the idea of chance is merely the recognition of the failure of man
to reduce all things to logical relations. In other words, the
irrationalism of modern thought is not radically opposed to the
rationalism of the ancient thinkings such as Aristotle. In point of
fact, modern irrationalism is its natural outgrowth.

In your dismissal of the literal reading of the Genesis record,
you admit to being something of a rationalist yourself even as
RCism is following Aquinas following the Aristotelian idea of
knowledge. Aquinas essentially agreed with Aristotle in the
field of philosophy. You agree with this in your reduction of
knowledge to be that of scientific knowledge which enables
man to reduce facts to logical relations. And, as far as
knowledge is concerned in regards to God's knowledge,
its that of negation.

As a result of holding to what is really a rationalist view of
human reasoning, you, unintentially but nevertheless true,
allign yourself with the irrationalist in his view of revelation.
If it is said that man by reason can say nothing positive about
God, his view of revelation will be that of the irrational assert-
ion that can make no connection with the system of thought
that man knows by reason. Basically, you are a Romanist
in the area between reason and faith, holding that there is
no knowledge possible of an absolute God. And what is
true of the Romanist, of the Orthodox position that you have
repeatedly expressed is not less true for the Arminian as
well. For all of you assert a measure of ultimacy to man. ALL
have reduced the doctrine of the internal self-contained infinity
of the perfections of God. You have to an extent, in both your
theological and philosophic system enveloped your god with
yourself in a universe of logic and of fact that is above both.

However, taking the creation doctrine seriously involves
thinking of man in his whole constitutional make-up as himself
revelational of God. Man was MADE after the image of God
and is therefore like God being himself revelational. And in that
he is the creature, all his activities are dependent upon God and
His revelation. The constitution of man's mind therefore interposes
no obstruction to any form of revelation that might come to it.
Being itself revelation, the mind of man is made for the reception of
revelation. If human reason in all of its manipulations is itself
in the first place wholly dependent upon a prior revelational
activity of God and upon a constant maintaining revelational
activity of God, then a supernatural revelational activity will not
come to man as something strange. On the contrary, it is only
on the Reformed assumption that even from the outset of
history the human mind never operated except in conjunction
with a supernatural positive revelation of God that the original
creative revelational character of the human mind was maintained.

The Genesis narrative informs us that from the outset God walked
and talked with man in the garden, a complete denial of the
evolutionary model. The human reason therefore never functioned
properly and could not function properly except in self-conscious
relationship to this supernatural revelation. ALL things about
man and within him were creationally revelational of God. EVERY
cat was what it was by virtue of the place that it would occupy in
the Decree/Plan of God for the whole course of history.

So the human mind cannot presume to legislate by means of
logic about either the nature of reality or man's own constitution.
The human mind by its gift of logic was originally designed
merely to order the facts of reality with respect to God, with
respect to the universe and with respect to himself in self-
conscious subordination to supernatural positive word-revelation.

The only change that sin injected into this equation was the
fact that man made himself unwilling to be obedient to God as
manifested to him. This disobedient attitude is exhibited in
all of us. Only by the work of Christ in history and by the work
of the Spirit in regeneration can men regain the inclination
that Adam had in the beginning. "UNLESS a man be born
from above." It is a complete imposibility to know God
exhaustively but it is also impossible for man to know himself
or any objects of the universe exhaustively. For all men
MUST know himself or anything else in the universe in relation
to the self-contained God, not by rationalism. Unless man can
know God exhaustively he cannot know anything else
exhaustively.

So when God, in the Scriptures, anthropomorphic revelation, reveals
something of the fullness of His being, in God's mind any bit of
information that He grants to man is set in the fulness of His
one supreme act of self-affirmation. This is true with respect to
EVERY bit of revelation that God gives to man. God's thought
with respect to anything is a unity. He does not view sin as
merely an act as man does.Man can think of that unity as
involving a number of items only in the form of succession.

In that you error begins at "in the beginning", so you error in
your assessment not only of God, but of man as well. Thus
your denial of the totality of the depravity of man extends
forth not from God's revelation, but from your own measure
of ultimacy. It is ONLY after regeneration that man is given
the capacity of True Choice. For the natural man has but
one reference point, that being himself, no matter what
individual choices he makes. You system is not only
rationalistically based, it is humanistically based.

Hermano Lobo

2007-08-22 02:54:07 UTC

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 02:56:47 GMT, Paul

Post by shegeek72
<snip>

"Millions who never sin" -- MILLIONS???? NEVER????? This trips the
overstatement meter, even if one doesn't follow the doctrine of original
sin....

Yes, millions. There are and there have been in the history of mankind
millions and millions of babies aged between 1 and 3 days who have
never sinned and will never sin if they die within the following two
weeks. ;-)

Post by shegeek72
Personally, I conceive original sin a bit less dramatically than is typical
among evangelicals. To me, it's as simple as: nobody is born with a
relationship with God established -- without that relationship we are in sin
by definition.

Exactly. Without a relationship with God established, we are lost. All
babies of less than two weeks are sinners by definition and that's why
the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness:
there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Mat. 8.12)

Don't take me wrong, I was joking and my only aim is to say that your
interpretation is as valid as the Pope's, the pastor's, the atheist's,
Woody Allen's or mine. The interpretation of faith, scriptures and
tradition is somethig which involves only the individual, not the
hierarchy or the collectivity.

Caesar J. B. Squitti

2007-08-23 03:34:52 UTC

I tend to agree. Indeed, the 'original sin' of Adam & Eve was the
falling out as you described.
--
Tara's Transgender Resourceshttp://tarasresources.net
Metropolitan Community Churcheshttp://www.mccchurch.org

The 'origina sin' affects us today.

If you discover the new negative side to truth, you will realize that
truth can lie, and this fits into the story of Adam and Eve, where
'they' took of the tree and believed they would be LIKE GOD TO KNOW
THE TRUTH.

WRONG ! WRONG ! WRONG !

We may know truths, we know parts of the Truth, but we do not know The
Truth.

That is why one cannot judge people in the ultimate sense; we do not
know the whole truth.

Caesar J. B. Squitti

http://www.thejesuschristcode.com

Matthew Johnson

2007-08-23 03:34:53 UTC

Post by l***@hotmail.com
"Free-will" is commonly and erroneously thought to involve choice.

Nothing _erromeous_ about it, unless the wrong sense of 'involve' is
involved. Of _course_ it involves choice, as is clear from the very
"Free Will" is a philosophical term

Yes and no.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. No, "yes and no" is
not a valid answer. Besides: who do you think you can fool by cutting
so much and not marking where you cut? I did NOT say just "'Free will'
is a philosophical term". It wasn't even _my_ words. I was _quoting_ a
source you should not set aside so lightly.

The real truth, the truth you are hiding from is very simple: it _is_
a philosophical term. Yet it occurs frequently in the Summa
Theologiae. Why? Because Aquinas _did_ do the right thing in linking
philosophy and theology so closely, using philosophy as handmaiden to
theology.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
In that theological dogma determines one's philosophy, it is
paramount that one's theology be orthodox

And this is precisely what you never do, with your irresponsible
attack on the righteous worship of God through the holy icons. That is
extremely non-orthodox. So you fail to achieve what you yourself
insist is 'paramount'.

So again: you can fool no one by talking about being 'orthodox' when
there is nothing orthodox about your theology at all.

Besides: even those who share the same theological dogma often do not
share the same philosophy. So your claim is impossible: theological
dogma does NOT _determine_ one's philosophy.

Of course, it does not surprise me that you would get this SO
wrong. After all, your knowledge of both theology and philosophy is
obsessively narrow-minded, opinionated, and superficial.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
in order to have any hope that one's philosophical presuppositions
correspond to what is.

You have no such hope yourself, despite your loud claims. Especially
not when you turn to such dishonest snipping to 'support' your point.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
And this is your failure right alone with the Roman Catholic
theologian in that you deny the reality of the Genesis record.

By no means do I "deny the _reality_ of the Genesis record". On the
contrary: it is _you_ who deny it with your overly literalist
interpretation of it, even ignoring the author's original intent,
since he left _clear_ warnings against interpreting it too
literally. But you ignore the warning and plunge right ahead into
false intepretation, just like the fool of Pro 14:16.

That is why you have to rely on fanatically unrealistic denials of
reality to support your broken theology. I refer, of course, to the
mountains of pseudo-science you refer to in order to try to 'prove'
that the literal interpretation of Genesis is supported by science.

As if this wasn't bad enough, you then outdo the fool of Pro 14:16 by
accusing those who refuse to follow your error of being the guilty
ones.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
This is a huge error that plays out throughout all that follows.

As so often in this NG, it is the person who cries out "yours is a
huge error" that is himself guilty of the huge error. Your huge error
is believing that only the excessively-literal interpretation respects
the "reality of the Genesis record".

The truth is that it is exactly the other way around: you change what
the 'reality' is beyond recognition with your insistence on your
excessively-literal interpretation, which forces you to pin your hopes
not on Christ, but on the pseudo-science of the "Creation Research
Institute" and similar quacks.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
And like the RCT you have no effective answer to the modern
philosopher or the modern theologian who reduce everything to
rationalism

This isn't true. Not by a long shot. It is you who has no real
answer. For your 'answer' is so completely off-base, you draw mostly
jeers or stunned silence when you give it. But I really do have an
answer, one you have never paid enough attention to yet.

Besides: by following the so-called 'Reform' tradition, founded by
Calvin, who never acknowledged his own debt to the _Rationalist_
scholastics, it is you, not I, who errs in the direction of
'Rationalism'.

In fact, since you fling this accusation at others so lightly while
failing to see your own Rationalism, it occurs to me to doubt that you
even know what the word really _means_.

After all: as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains so
well, to be a Rationalist means to accept at least one of the
following: the Intuition/Deduction thesis, the Innate Knowledge
thesis, or the Innate Concept thesis. Which of these do you think I
accept, Loren? Which do you not accept? You must reject them all, or
you are yourself a Rationalist.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
wherein the idea of chance is merely the recognition of the failure
of man to reduce all things to logical relations. In other words,
the irrationalism of modern thought is not radically opposed to the
rationalism of the ancient thinkings such as Aristotle. In point of
fact, modern irrationalism is its natural outgrowth.

This is nonsensical pseudo-philosophy. What it _really_ is is just
gobbledygook.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
In your dismissal of the literal reading of the Genesis record,
you admit to being something of a rationalist yourself even as
RCism is following Aquinas following the Aristotelian idea of
knowledge.

I do nothing of the sort. And you do not even understand what 'RCism'
does with Aquinas and Aristotle.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Aquinas essentially agreed with Aristotle in the field of philosophy.

Not entirely nor 'essentially' How could he? Aquinas accepted that the
world has a Creator, Aristotle believed the world was eternal. Major
differences emerge just from this one difference.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You agree with this in your reduction of knowledge to be that of
scientific knowledge which enables man to reduce facts to logical
relations.

I make no such 'reduction'. You are misrepresenting what I wrote -- as
you do so often to so many in these NGs. On the contrary: how many
times have I written about "via negativa" or "apophatic theology"? Yet
you failed to understand any of these things, because you insist on
following that blind guide, Clendenin.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
And, as far as knowledge is concerned in regards to God's knowledge,
its that of negation.

When you are quite through telling me what I think, perhaps, just
perhaps, you will be ready to hear how wrong you got it. But I am not
going to hold my hopes too high.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
As a result of holding to what is really a rationalist view of
human reasoning, you, unintentially but nevertheless true,
allign yourself with the irrationalist in his view of revelation.

Dream on. It is you who is the irrationalist, not me.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
If it is said that man by reason can say nothing positive about
God, his view of revelation will be that of the irrational assert-
ion that can make no connection with the system of thought
that man knows by reason. Basically, you are a Romanist

Basically, you do not have a clue; you have no idea what you are
talking about. But that has never stopped you from prating on before,
so neither does it stop you now. 'Romanist' indeed!

Post by l***@hotmail.com
in the area between reason and faith, holding that there is
no knowledge possible of an absolute God.

Predictably, you completely mis-state our position. I say
'predictable' because you failure to understand stems directly from
your own deep theological/philosophical delusion. It was _never_ the
claim that knowledge of God is _impossible_; rather, it has always
been that knwoledge is possible _only_ via the apophatic method. Any
other 'knowledge' is only EPISTHMH, not SOFIA. But true theology must
be SOFIA, not EPISTHMH.

This was so well explained in the _first_ chapter of Lossky's
introduction to Orthodoxy. For _years_ I have been telling you to
throw away Clendenin and read Lossky. But for years you ignore the
advice of those who know what they are talking about, and cling to
your ignorance instead. So you _still_ get this wrong.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
And what is true of the Romanist, of the Orthodox position that you
have repeatedly expressed is not less true for the Arminian as well.

Nonsense. Neither the 'Romanist' nor Orthodox positions are
'Arminian'. This has been explained to you many times before, but you
ignore all the explanations and persist in your nonsense.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
For all of you assert a measure of ultimacy to man.

"Measure of ultimacy"? What kind of dishonest, cowardly hedge is
_this_? If it is _ultimacy_ then how can it be only a _measure_?

[snip]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
come to man as something strange. On the contrary, it is only on the
Reformed assumption that even from the outset of history the human
mind never operated except in conjunction with a supernatural
positive revelation of God that the original creative revelational
character of the human mind was maintained.

Once again, the so-called 'Reform' theologians steal credit for what
is NOT even their idea in the first place. All the more ironic, all
the more a pity, because you repeatedly show that you do not even
_understand_ the idea you steal.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The Genesis narrative informs us that from the outset God walked
and talked with man in the garden, a complete denial of the
evolutionary model. The human reason therefore never functioned
properly and could not function properly except in self-conscious
relationship to this supernatural revelation. ALL things about
man and within him were creationally revelational of God. EVERY
cat was what it was by virtue of the place that it would occupy in
the Decree/Plan of God for the whole course of history.

You really don't see what problems you have made for yourself with
this claim? If _all_ things within Man are "creationally revelational
of God", then what about the DNA timeline? That alone already argues
that Man's DNA has been evolving for millions of years, not just
thousands. What about the small number of genes that differ from the
animals? What does _that_ reveal?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
So the human mind cannot presume to legislate by means of
logic about either the nature of reality or man's own constitution.

Now you have fallen into irrationality.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The human mind by its gift of logic was originally designed merely to
order the facts of reality with respect to God,

This is preposterous. Of _course_ that is wrong. What has "ordering
the facts of reality" got to do with _worship_? But it was to offer
the most perfect noetic worship that was Adam's calling.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
with respect to the universe and with respect to himself in self-
conscious subordination to supernatural positive word-revelation.

Newsflash: you _deny_ all this with your stubborn clinging to an
impossibly overly literal interpretation of Genesis.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The only change that sin injected into this equation was the
fact that man made himself unwilling to be obedient to God as
manifested to him.

Newsflash: you are still disobedient to Him, especially in clinging to
an impossibly overly literal interpretation of Genesis, AND in denying
the orthodoxy of the use of icons.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
This disobedient attitude is exhibited in all of us. Only by the
work of Christ in history and by the work of the Spirit in
regeneration can men regain the inclination that Adam had in the
beginning. "UNLESS a man be born from above."

Interesting that you connect the two. Are you saying that to be "borm
from above" and to have this Adamic inclination are the same thing?

[more pseudo-philosophical gobbledygook snipped]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
In that you error begins at "in the beginning", so you error in your
assessment not only of God, but of man as well. Thus your denial of
the totality of the depravity of man extends forth not from God's
revelation, but from your own measure of ultimacy. It is ONLY after
regeneration that man is given the capacity of True Choice. For the
natural man has but one reference point, that being himself, no
matter what individual choices he makes. You system is not only
rationalistically based, it is humanistically based.

You may be able to fool yourself with that false accusation. But few
enough others will take false comfort in it as you do.

--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

Dave

2007-08-23 03:34:54 UTC

Post by Dave
Why do you think that it is "highly unlikely" that someone will
completely avoid sinning?

Human nature.

And what is it about human nature that makes it "highly unlikely?"

Dave

shegeek72

2007-08-28 01:09:51 UTC

Post by Dave
And what is it about human nature that makes it "highly unlikely?"

Humans make mistakes; can be thoughtless, do harm, lie, cheat, etc.
However, that's part of human nature and doesn't prove some form of
'original sin' or 'fall' (at least as interpreted by some) and that
all humans are born degenerates and will remain degenerates until they
become Christians. This premise can be easily disproved by Christians
who are dishonest (Falwell, etc), lie, cheat, are pedophiles
(particularly Catholic priests), etc.

That humans are fallible means the Bible, written by fallible humans,
is not infallible; unless one holds the belief that everyone of the
writers, re-writers, authors, scribes, etc. of the Bible were somehow
guided by a supernatural force that prevented them from making any
mistakes, and the committees that interpreted the
remaining_copies_always made the right choices when deciding what the
proper interpretations were and what the missing portions said. They
will carry this unrealistic belief; yet will put down, or condemn, any
other reported paranormal or supernatural events, psychic abilities,
etc as the 'work of the devil' and other such nonsense.
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org

l***@hotmail.com

2007-08-28 01:09:52 UTC

Post by Matthew Johnson
who do you think you can fool by cutting
so much and not marking where you cut? I did NOT say just "'Free will'
is a philosophical term". It wasn't even _my_ words. I was _quoting_ a
source you should not set aside so lightly.

You illustrate admireably the fact that presuppositions underlie all
propositions. I did not make reference to any work because I didn't
copy from or quote any work. You brought in the philosophic aspect
of this doctrine and I merely responded in philosophical fashion. It
was my major after leaving MBI.

Post by Matthew Johnson
The real truth, the truth you are hiding from is very simple: it _is_
a philosophical term. Yet it occurs frequently in the Summa
Theologiae. Why? Because Aquinas _did_ do the right thing in linking
philosophy and theology so closely, using philosophy as handmaiden to
theology.

I don't discount philosophy. Another false presupposition on your
part. However, my point was that Aquinas/RC theology (and I now
come to see EO theology as well) by means of syncretism, married
themselves to Greek non-Christian philosophy. This is particularly
true in your treatment of the opening chapters of Genesis because
of your non-Biblical presuppositions.

You're the one who brough philosophical reasoning into this but it
appears from your reply that you are not greatly versed in it. In
particular is the idea that all things are related in the area of
know-
ledge. And in this one does not have to speak philosophically
but can address this theologically via the doctrine of the incompre-
hensibility of God. You, like the RC theologian, refuse to forsake
your autonomy and permit all things to be defined or interpreted
by God. The Genesis record in just one instance of this but it
really is the break point of your whole theological system. The
presuppositions which you maintain are the self same which
have you refusing sola scriptura and the depravity of man. It
also is the basis for you false notion of deification. The idea
of the analogy of being compromises the biblical doctrine of
creation. It in turn reduces the distinction of God as the
Creator and man as the creature to that of the Greek notion of
man's participation in being as such. (This is further evidenced
in your unbiblical teaching concerning salvation including the
confusion of justification vs sanctification.) According to the
Greek view of reality, especially as set forth in the philosophy
of Aristotle and adapted by Aquinas, all being is ultimately
one, hence your man made traditions of deification. All
individual beings are beings to the extent that they particip-
ate in this one ultimate being. According to Aristotle, God
has the fulness of being. As such his is pure Act. At the
lower end of being, not found in any actually existing thing
that man can know, is pure potentiality of being. Man exists
between pure actuality and pure potentiality of being. Man
may increase in his participation of God as a pure act. There
is also discontinuity of being between man and God. Man is
near the realm of pure non-being. He participates, as it were,
in non-being as well as being.

However, only if the doctrine of the self-contained God and
of creation is maintained ( as held in the Reformed theology),
as the presupposition of all that is said on any doctrine is it
then posible to maintain the full Christian position. Like the
RC theologian, you are unwilling to make this doctrine of God
basic to all your thinking. It is a seeking for a synthesis
between the Aristotelian idea of analogy of being and the
biblical idea of God as Creator and man as creature. And
equal to the RC theologian, this is the reasoning behind
your conception of the autonomy of man. As you repeatedly
declare, man is free. Much more could be noted concerning
this but the natural does not accept it.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
In that theological dogma determines one's philosophy, it is
paramount that one's theology be orthodox

Your defense of icons only reveals your refusal to either understand
or accept the incomprehensibility of God and that doctrine entails.

Post by Matthew Johnson
So again: you can fool no one by talking about being 'orthodox' when
there is nothing orthodox about your theology at all.

The Reformed position is the most biblical consistent system. Though
I could write at length why this is, for the time being, already
noting
your refusal to allow the sovereignty and the providential care of God
to say and mean exactly what is written in Gen 1-3, it is you who
illustrates an immediate failure to remain orthodox to the revelation
of God. Your answer exhibits the typical resorting to a non-literal
interpretation when the literal interpretation does not fit into your
predetermined anthropological, non-christian system.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Besides: even those who share the same theological dogma often do not
share the same philosophy. So your claim is impossible: theological
dogma does NOT _determine_ one's philosophy.

It does if one remains consistent in his theological presuppositions.
This only the Reformed position does. But again, if one remains
truly consistent to the biblical ideas, then one's philosophical
system will be one with for ALL knowledge is relational.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Of course, it does not surprise me that you would get this SO
wrong. After all, your knowledge of both theology and philosophy is
obsessively narrow-minded, opinionated, and superficial.

And your repeated bravado and repeated brow beating is why SRC
and SRCBS are but a shadow of what they once were. This is why
I rarely give reply to your posts. They evidence no fruit of the
Spirit.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
in order to have any hope that one's philosophical presuppositions
correspond to what is.

You have no such hope yourself, despite your loud claims. Especially
not when you turn to such dishonest snipping to 'support' your point.

If you are going to make such accusations, perhaps you should then
back them up with the evidence. The hope of your accusations,
however, is transparent. For in them you hope that it will not be
noticed that you are unable to respond to the analysis because the
anaylsis correctly reveals your presuppositional error.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
And this is your failure right alone with the Roman Catholic
theologian in that you deny the reality of the Genesis record.

More bravado. More brass trumpheting. Again, you
response reveals that you deny God's incomprehensibility and
all that corresponds to it. It is you, not God nor His written
revelation of reality, which makes himself the final authority.
This certainly isn't out of character with the EO ecclesiatical
elitism either. Only it can determine, like the papist, what
the actual rendering/meaning of scripture is. You deny the
the indwelling ministry of the Spirit by doing so.

Post by Matthew Johnson
You really don't see what problems you have made for yourself with
this claim? If _all_ things within Man are "creationally revelational
of God", then what about the DNA timeline? That alone already argues
that Man's DNA has been evolving for millions of ...

More evidence that you make man autonomous.
More evidence that you refues to allow God to be God.
More evidence that you simply don't understand that every
effort of man to find one spot that he can exhaustvely under-
stand either in the world of fact about him or in the world of
experience within him, is doomed to failure. If man is
made as the final reference point, as you system necessarily
must do to remain consistent with itself, in predication,
knowledge cannot get under way and even if it could it
could not move forward. As true of all non-Christian forms
of epistemology there is first the idea that to be under-
stood a fact must be understood exhaustively. It must
be a reducible to a part of a system of timeless logic.
But the evidence is plain that man himself and the "facts"
of his experience are in a flux of mutability. How is he
ever to find within himself a priori resting point? Your
uniformitarianism stands opposed to the normal reading
of the revealed Word of God.

Dave

2007-08-29 04:19:59 UTC

Post by shegeek72
Humans make mistakes; can be thoughtless, do harm, lie, cheat, etc.
However, that's part of human nature and doesn't prove some form of
'original sin' or 'fall' (at least as interpreted by some) and that
all humans are born degenerates and will remain degenerates until they
become Christians.
From Moody's Handbook of Theology: Definition. Original sin may be

defined as "the sinful state and condition in which men are born." It
is so designated because: (1) it is derived from the original root of
the human race (Adam), (2) it is present in the life of every
individual from the time of his birth, and (3) it is the inward root
of all the actual sins that defile the life of man. Simply stated it
refers to "the corruption of our whole nature."

Seeing that we are born with our human nature, it seems fair to call
what you describe above "original sin."

Post by shegeek72
This premise can be easily disproved by Christians
who are dishonest (Falwell, etc), lie, cheat, are pedophiles
(particularly Catholic priests), etc.

The fact that Christians sin does not disprove that "all humans are
born degenerates and will remain degenerates until they become
Christians." See Romans 7:14-25, in which the Apostle Paul describes
his own bondage to sin. Luther said that people are simultaneously
saint and sinner. John, writing to Christians in 1 John 1:8-10,
reminds them that "If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving
ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is
faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from
all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a
liar and His word is not in us."

Post by shegeek72
That humans are fallible means the Bible, written by fallible humans,
is not infallible; unless one holds the belief that everyone of the
writers, re-writers, authors, scribes, etc. of the Bible were somehow
guided by a supernatural force that prevented them from making any
mistakes, and the committees that interpreted the
remaining_copies_always made the right choices when deciding what the
proper interpretations were and what the missing portions said.

That supernatural force is the Holy Spirit, who not only inspired the
writers to convey the exact message that God wanted, but also guides
all believers in understanding that message.

Post by shegeek72
They will carry this unrealistic belief;

It is actually quite logical.

Post by shegeek72
yet will put down, or condemn, any
other reported paranormal or supernatural events, psychic abilities,
etc as the 'work of the devil' and other such nonsense.

Yes, because the Bible also condemns such things.

Dave

shegeek72

2007-08-30 02:10:16 UTC

Post by Dave
Seeing that we are born with our human nature, it seems fair to call
what you describe above "original sin."

If that's how you want to interpret it.

Post by Dave
That supernatural force is the Holy Spirit, who not only inspired the
writers to convey the exact message that God wanted,

There is no proof of this and there are numerous contradictions in the
Bible.

Post by Dave
but also guides
all believers in understanding that message.

Then how do you account for differing understandings of the Bible, and
who is 'right' and who's 'wrong?' Why is your understanding more right
than mine, or anyone else who reads the Bible?

Post by Dave
Yes, because the Bible also condemns such things.

It also condemns eating shell fish, wearing clothes made of mixed
fabrics, men shaving their beards, etc.
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org

l***@hotmail.com

2007-08-31 01:37:39 UTC

Post by shegeek72
There is no proof of this and there are numerous contradictions in the
Bible.

No, there are numerous misunderstandings and even more numerous
non-understandings. Because Scripture is nothing less than the LIVING
Word of God, it requires the reader to be spiritual because God is
spirit. The natural man simply doesn't have the capacity to receive
it, let alone understand it. Paul declares the obvious that it is
"foolish-
ness" to the unregenerate man. As for those who have been
regenerated by the Spirit and made capable to receive the Word of
Truth, there is yet a requisite of heart to have the deeper things of
God made known. God is antithetical to sin and therefore cannot
have any fellowship with it. If you are living a sinful lifestyle,
say having an affair or active in your homosexual perversion, you
remove yourself from having the Spirit enlighten you to the Truth.
It is simple cause and effect that is both declared and demonstrated
over and over again in Scripture.

Post by Dave
but also guides
all believers in understanding that message.

Then how do you account for differing understandings of the Bible, and
who is 'right' and who's 'wrong?' Why is your understanding more right
than mine, or anyone else who reads the Bible?

There are different understanding for two major reasons. The first
is obvious as I've already mentioned it -sin. The second is more
logical in that God is incomprehensible. Like diamonds, you may
find a few laying on to of the ground but for a fuller harvest, you
must dig.

Also, whether one likes it or not, revelation is progressive. The
last chapter of Daniel twice makes mention that the understanding
of his prophecy was not to be understood until the later days [of
Israel]. In that the fullness of the Gentiles is coming to an end,
those days are here today and thus we have seen an increasing
emphasis on eschatological truth.

And other easy illustration is the formulation of the doctrine of
the Trinity. Though the entire Bible declares the uni-plural nature
of God, it wasn't until the Incarnation and then the supplemental
parousia of the Spirit that the destinctive nature of that relation-
ship was revealed. Only when heresy sought to reinterpret it
was the Church led to formalize and finalize its teaching on
that doctrine. During the Reformation, the doctrine of Justification
was developed, again as a reaction against the heretical
teachings of the Roman system of commingling grace and
merit.

Post by Dave
Yes, because the Bible also condemns such things.

It also condemns eating shell fish, wearing clothes made of mixed
fabrics, men shaving their beards, etc.

But ONLY to those who were made subject to the Law. The
Ten Commandments only have specific direction in regard to
Israel. It wasn't until Israel whored herself and was led away
into captivity that the "times of the Gentiles" began. This is
well illustrated in the very first chapter of Daniel where the
dietary restrictions of the Jews were placed against those of
the Gentile king. The Law was given as a tutor to the Nation
inorder to establish antithetical thought forms contrary to the
polythiestic thought forms of the Cannanites.

Your protests are easily answered.

B.G. Kent

2007-09-04 01:21:17 UTC

Post by shegeek72
It also condemns eating shell fish, wearing clothes made of mixed
fabrics, men shaving their beards, etc.

B - and says to "give to those that ask of you" and to date no one who
calls himself Christian has given to me when I ask. Strange that.
Kinda pick and choose Christianity themselves eh?

Bren
ps. c'mon Christians...please send me five dollars each.

Hermano Lobo

2007-09-04 01:21:22 UTC

Post by l***@hotmail.com
No, there are numerous misunderstandings and even more numerous
non-understandings. Because Scripture is nothing less than the LIVING
Word of God...

--------------------
By Scripture and Living Word of God we have to understand obviously
only those books considered as saint by your own confession. The
Apocalypse of Peter or the Gospel of Judas fall probably out of the
list of your acceptable books; but the Ethiopian Church accepts over
eighty books, many of them probably rejected by you, and there are
books accepted by Roman Catholics but no accepted by other Christian
confessions. No, my friend: the true Word of God is in your heart, not
in the Bible. The Bible is a human invention.

shegeek72

2007-09-05 02:12:39 UTC

Post by l***@hotmail.com
No, there are numerous misunderstandings and even more numerous
non-understandings.

<snip>

In your opinion. You (and many others) have misinterpreted sections of
the Bible and firmly believe a lie. Need I remind you that Jesus
railed against all manner of wrong-doing, yet said nothing about
homosexuality? Certainly, if it was the horrible sin, that you
maintain, then he would have at least said something in all his
sermons, parables, etc. Secondly, not one person has presented an
inherent harm in being gay. Not one. There are peripheral harms, such
as diseases, but heterosexuals are just as susceptible. Children
raised by gay parents turn out just as well, or better, than those
raised by heteros. Gays tend to be more successful, creative and
articulate.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
There are different understanding for two major reasons. The first
is obvious as I've already mentioned it -sin. The second is more
logical in that God is incomprehensible. Like diamonds, you may
find a few laying on to of the ground but for a fuller harvest, you
must dig.

Then everyone misunderstands the Bible, because everyone sins. As for
your second reason, I agree and substantiates that there are different
understandings and interpretations of the Bible. No one has lock,
stock and barrel on what exactly the Bibles says throughout.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Also, whether one likes it or not, revelation is progressive.

I also agree here. I'm finding the more I progress in my Christian
spiritual journey the more I learn and richer my life.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
And other easy illustration is the formulation of the doctrine of
the Trinity.

I think the trinity refers to body. mind and spirit. A good companion
to the Bible is 'Conversations with God' by Walsch.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
But ONLY to those who were made subject to the Law.

Right! Therefore, Leviticus' prohibition on homosexuality does not
apply to us.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Your protests are easily answered.

They are not protests, rather rebuttals to your false ideas.
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org

Matthew Johnson

2007-09-06 02:19:05 UTC

Post by l***@hotmail.com
No, there are numerous misunderstandings and even more numerous
non-understandings.

<snip>
In your opinion.

NOT just "in his opinion": rather, in the opinion of anyone who at
least partialy understands the passages in question. You do not. So
your opinion carries far less weight than Loren's.

Post by shegeek72
You (and many others) have misinterpreted sections of
the Bible and firmly believe a lie.

Well, that may be true, but not in the passages relevant to _this_
discussion: it is you who has believed in the lie.

Post by shegeek72
Need I remind you that Jesus railed against all manner of
wrong-doing, yet said nothing about homosexuality?

Need we remind you that this is not true? Need we remind you that you
repeat this falsehood all the time and pay no attention when
corrected?

Again: it is NOT true that He said _nothing_ about
homosexuality. Rather, He condemned ALL sexual immorality, of which
homosexuality is only one example, one He chose never to mention by
name.

Post by shegeek72
Certainly, if it was the horrible sin, that you
maintain, then he would have at least said something in all his
sermons, parables, etc.

Certainly NOT. The reason has been explained to you before.

Post by shegeek72
Secondly, not one person has presented an
inherent harm in being gay. Not one.

Not true. The "inherent harm" has been presented. You just continue to
ignore the presentation, pretending that it never happened.

[snip]

--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

shegeek72

2007-09-10 00:03:34 UTC

Post by Matthew Johnson
Again: it is NOT true that He said _nothing_ about
homosexuality. Rather, He condemned ALL sexual immorality, of which
homosexuality is only one example, one He chose never to mention by
name.

Sorry, no. You're making the assumption that the homosexuality in the
Bible refers to the loving, longterm, monogamous relationships of
today. Anyone who believes this is on shaky ground, since they don't
give context a chance when interpreting it; that it's referring to
homosexual rape and prostitution prevalent back then. That the sin of
Sodom was homosexuality was recently debunked by the moderator. To
include homosexuality into what Jesus preached about morality is
assumption, at best, and not well supported.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Not true. The "inherent harm" has been presented. You just continue to
ignore the presentation, pretending that it never happened.

The 'harm' I've read here is the 'AIDS connection,' that I debunked.
For one thing, the highest incidences of HIV is among heterosexual
males in south Africa. The 'fetal incontinence' issue was never
supported by anything but hearsay. Gays make just as good as, or
better, parents and their children are well-adjusted. Gays tend to be
highly creative, articulate and compassionate. Indeed, the harm is far
more fostered on GLBT, who face daily discrimination, taunting,
ostracizing, bashings and murder by bigots, nutjobs and religious
zealots. So-called 'Christian ideas' that the homosexuality in the
Bible refers to the relationships of today only feeds the fire.
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org

l***@hotmail.com

2007-09-10 00:03:34 UTC

Post by l***@hotmail.com
No, there are numerous misunderstandings and even more numerous
non-understandings. Because Scripture is nothing less than the LIVING
Word of God...

--------------------
By Scripture and Living Word of God we have to understand obviously
only those books considered as saint by your own confession.

Do you give God NO credit? Is His providential are so short
that He can't even move men to recognize the Canon? The
problem is that your God is too small.

Post by Matthew Johnson
The
Apocalypse of Peter or the Gospel of Judas fall probably out of the
list of your acceptable books; but the Ethiopian Church accepts over
eighty books, many of them probably rejected by you, and there are
books accepted by Roman Catholics but no accepted by other Christian
confessions. No, my friend: the true Word of God is in your heart, not
in the Bible. The Bible is a human invention.

And all those books even an unbeliver in the local
junior college literary class recognizes as distinctively
inferior to the Protestant Canon.

And as I have already explained today, there is a reason why
the Word is written. You're claim that it is "in your heart" does
not take into account the fact that even you have to admit to,
that the revelation:

Jer. 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately
wicked: who can know it?

One of the primary reasons that we have a written word
is purity, especially over millennia.

l***@hotmail.com

2007-09-10 00:03:35 UTC

Post by shegeek72
Need I remind you that Jesus
railed against all manner of wrong-doing, yet said nothing about
homosexuality?

Sigh! How many times must God declare something an
abomination before it is granted acceptable? Only once
is the correct answer. This so easily illustrated in daily
living. A parent exhorts their child to clean their room.
It is grace and grace alone that longsuffers and waits
patiently or again reiterates the command. But not
always.

This also begs the point that Christ sometime, as
did Paul in Rom 1, argued from the lesser to the
greater. IF looking at a woman with lust was
subject to wrath, how much more looking at
another man, especially if you're wearing panties!

Post by shegeek72
Certainly, if it was the horrible sin, that you
maintain, then he would have at least said something in all his
sermons, parables, etc.

Who do you think it was that gave the Law to
Moses? Christ is the Exegete of God. He is
the Logos. Don't you understand the import
of this revelation?

Post by shegeek72
Secondly, not one person has presented an
inherent harm in being gay.

Could it be that you simply have ignored all the
responses? No? Very simply, one inherent
harm is that it does not comply with the form
of the uinverse as amply illustrated by the fact
that held consistent, it cannot attain to the Divine
command to "multiply." Now you can give
a smart ass answer to this but if you are
honest with yourself and this forum, you will
admit it is an aboration even on the low level
or self replication.

Post by shegeek72
Not one. There are peripheral harms, such
as diseases, but heterosexuals are just as susceptible.

But ONLY when equally denying the Divine
design of one man, one woman.

Post by shegeek72
Children
raised by gay parents turn out just as well, or better, than those
raised by heteros.

But if those "gay parents" remained consistent
to their own paradigm, they would have children.
And truthfully, as if you didn't have enough wrath
abiding on you, you place a millstone around your
own neck by parading your homosexuality to
these children as if it were natural and acceptable
to God.

Matt. 18:6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in
Me to stumble, it is better for him that a heavy millstone be hung
around his neck, and that he be drowned in the depth of the sea.

It really pains me when I think about you
standing before the Lord and have to give
an account for yourself. You have come here
and you have had the Truth revealed to you
time and time again, each and everytime
acrewing for yourself greater and greater
accountability. You're like the abused spouse
who can't get enough abuse.

Post by shegeek72
Gays tend to be more successful, creative and
articulate.

"Laugh, laugh, I thought I'd cry...." Even if this
were true, so what? "More successful!" By who's
standards? Certainly not God's. Material wealth?
Materialism always marginalizes true spirituality.
More "creative and articulate?" Again, by who's
standard and to what worth?

"Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the World?"

Post by shegeek72
Then everyone misunderstands the Bible,

True as that it is, it is equally true that there are
those who understand it much better and much
more accurately than others, especially those
who have not the Spirit. And those who pursue
having the fulness of the Spirit have much
greater insight and understanding than those
who simply read the Bible as they would any
other book.

Post by shegeek72
because everyone sins.

No, you have got the cart before the horse. It
is because of Sin. This is why there has to be
written revelation to begin with. This admittion
argues against you, not for you.

Post by shegeek72
As for
your second reason, I agree and substantiates that there are different
understandings and interpretations of the Bible. No one has lock,
stock and barrel on what exactly the Bibles says throughout.

But that does not equal to say that doctrines can not be
rightfully dogmatic. The whole point was that because we cannot
know exhaustively we have to depend on God to give us the
wisdom of understanding. On on the fundamentals, that all
true born again Christian do agree. On essentials -unity.
On uncertainties -freedom. On everything -love.

You again, without recognizing the fact, provide the very
reason why Scripture must be read literally, or by using the
grammatic/historic methodology.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Also, whether one likes it or not, revelation is progressive.

I also agree here. I'm finding the more I progress in my Christian
spiritual journey the more I learn and richer my life.

Well that is a good thing. But progression might be into
further darkness rather than greater light. This is why Paul
exhorts that each everyone test themselves to make sure
that it is confession and not mere profession. This was
Christ's point to the religious leaders of His day. They too
had great progress in their knowledge of the Scriptures. Can
you imagine having the first five books, the books of Moses
memorized forwards and backwards? And that would only
qualify you as a "teacher of the Law." But Rabbi's new
the entire Jewish Scriptures that way. But what was the
analysis? "Pursuing a law of righteousness, [they] did
not attain it. Why? Because they did not pursue it by
faith."

Faith? Yes, openly accepting God at His word without
look for loop holes or reinterpreting the meaning of words
in the same vein as "I guess it all depends on the your
meaning of "is" is."

Post by l***@hotmail.com
And other easy illustration is the formulation of the doctrine of
the Trinity.

I think the trinity refers to body. mind and spirit. A good companion
to the Bible is 'Conversations with God' by Walsch.

There is no equal companion to the Bible. Nor can there be
because as soon as you place something equal to it you in
fact place it over it for you make its precepts the standard
for interpretation. Scripture and scripture alone interprets
scripture therefore there are no "companions."

And again, even if one acqueses to such a triad, what does
it illustrate? It is no different that our universe being a
composite of space/mass/time. It is trinitarian for one
cannot exist without the other while yet remain distinct.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
But ONLY to those who were made subject to the Law.

Right! Therefore, Leviticus' prohibition on homosexuality does not
apply to us.

The principles ALWAYS apply. That is because what is
reflected in all the laws but the very nature of God. To
rebellion against God's revealed principles for living is to
rebel against His very nature.

Rom. 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible
attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly
seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are
without excuse.

There is simply left to all men no excuse for not understanding
God and His demands. But as Paul further teaches:

Rom. 1:21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as
God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and
their foolish heart was darkened.

Every man, woman and child that has ever lived had
within themselves the witness that God exists. And
the evidence of what kind of God He is is all about
us. But that evidence has no power to create with
men the original inclination of Adam. Only God can
do that. Only He can "cause the growth." Men,
left to themselves, only become further and further
depraved, again as Paul clearly demarks in Rom 1.

You're excuses are only that, excuses. But Paul
concludes his exposition on condemnation by stating:

Rom. 3:19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those
who are under the Law, that every mouth may be closed, and all the
world may become accountable to God;

When the sinner stands before God, he will not
utter a single word because the evidence against
him will unsurmountable. Have you never been
silenced? If not in this life, you will be in the
next.

Matthew Johnson

2007-09-10 00:03:36 UTC

who do you think you can fool by cutting so much and not marking
where you cut? I did NOT say just "'Free will' is a philosophical
term". It wasn't even _my_ words. I was _quoting_ a source you
should not set aside so lightly.

You illustrate admireably the fact that presuppositions underlie all
propositions.

No, rather, by making this ludicrous assertion, you illustrate that
even though it was your major, you have some serious difficulties
understanding philosophy: what "presuppositions" underlie the
proposition that "every statement is equavalent to its
contrapositive"?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I did not make reference to any work because I didn't
copy from or quote any work.

You miss the point. I never said that you _should_ "make reference to
any work". I said that you should not set aside the work _I_
referenced so lightly. Nor should you confuse my words with those of a
reference work. The fact that you still think you can do these things
not only shows how badly you understand philosophy, but also how badly
you understand any serious discussion.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You brought in the philosophic aspect of this doctrine and I merely
responded in philosophical fashion.

No, the philosophic aspect was already there; for "free will" IS a
philosophical term. I only made it explicit, as it needs to be. You
are resisting doing what needs to be done, because then your whole
argument would be exposed as the house of cards it really is.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
It was my major after leaving MBI.

I am afraid that the expertise to be expected from someone who majored
in philosophy simply does not show up in your posts. Have you
forgotten everything you ever learned in that major, or were you just
one of the poorer students?

The real truth, the truth you are hiding from is very simple: it _is_
a philosophical term.

And I see you are still hiding from this truth. How philosophical of
you, Loren!

Yet it occurs frequently in the Summa Theologiae. Why? Because
Aquinas _did_ do the right thing in linking philosophy and theology
so closely, using philosophy as handmaiden to theology.

I don't discount philosophy.

Yes, you do. You discount it everytime you ignore the wide range of
meanings of "free will", substituting your own straw-man meaning
instead. Nor is this the only instance: you also ignore it when you
bleat irresponsible nonsense about 'syncretism' below. You yet again
ignore it with such bizarre statements as "knowlege is relational".

And this is the _short_ list of your many ways of discounting it;)
Your general ignorance of epistemology as displayed over and over in
this thread is yet another.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Another false presupposition on your part.

It is not a "presupposition", it is a conclusion reached after years
of reading your logically disordered, philosophically incoherent and
irresponsible posts.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
However, my point was that Aquinas/RC theology (and I now come to see
EO theology as well) by means of syncretism, married themselves to
Greek non-Christian philosophy.

And this point is wrong on several counts. The biggest is confusing
"Aquinas/RC theology" with "EO theology".

Post by l***@hotmail.com
This is particularly true in your treatment of the opening chapters
of Genesis because of your non-Biblical presuppositions.

Now it is you who is resorting to "false presuppositions".

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You're the one who brough philosophical reasoning into this but it
appears from your reply that you are not greatly versed in it.

Appearance is in the eye of the beholder: _this_ appearance is only in
_your_ eye.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
In particular is the idea that all things are related in the area of
knowledge.

This is not even a coherent sentence. It looks like you left a word out.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
And in this one does not have to speak philosophically but can
address this theologically via the doctrine of the incompre-
hensibility of God.

Well, you could do so, if you understood the doctrine yourself. But
you do not, so...

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You, like the RC theologian, refuse to forsake your autonomy and
permit all things to be defined or interpreted by God.

You, like you always do, refuse to forsake your straw-man arguments
and repeat the same tired old fallacy over and over. Neither I nor the
"RC theologian" do this thing you accuse us of.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The Genesis record in just one instance of this but it
really is the break point of your whole theological system.

Another malformed sentence. Perhaps you really meant "breaking point"?
In that case, it is simply wrong, too. We _have_ no "breaking point",
except in your fevered imagination.

Your theology, on the other hand, has many breaking points, which is
why you try to hide them behind mountains of pseudo-science, such as
that of your funny friends at the "Institute for Creation Research".

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The presuppositions which you maintain are the self same which have
you refusing sola scriptura and the depravity of man.

You keep bandying this word about, but you still have _no_ idea what
those 'presuppositions' even are.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
It also is the basis for you false notion of deification.

It is not 'false' and no, you do not know what it even means. For if
you did know, you would realize you are contradicting Scripture itself
when you make this claim, as was so well explained at
http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/Russell_partakers.html.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The idea of the analogy of being compromises the biblical doctrine of
creation.

What on _earth_ are you talking about? What "analogy of being"? WHICH
"idea of the anology of being"? There are more than one, you know.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
It in turn reduces the distinction of God as the Creator and man as
the creature to that of the Greek notion of man's participation in
being as such.

Even without the answer to my previous question, I know this is simply
wrong. It does no such 'reduction'. But perhaps you cannot escape
thinking that it does, since you still deny what it means for Man to
be created in the Image of God. It is NOT the same as any "analogy of
being".

Post by l***@hotmail.com
(This is further evidenced in your unbiblical teaching concerning
salvation including the confusion of justification vs
sanctification.)

You love tossing 'unbiblical' about, don't you? It is you, not I, who
is 'unbiblical' in pretending that the _Calvinist_ description of
justification and sanctification is biblical. It most certainly is
not.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
According to the Greek view of reality, especially as set forth in
the philosophy of Aristotle and adapted by Aquinas, all being is
ultimately one, hence your man made traditions of deification.

So many errors in one small sentence! First of all, there is no one
"THE Greek view of reality". What you describe here is Aristotelian
only. Not likely to be shared by the Greek Fathers for that reason
alone. Platonists and Neo-Platonists had a somewhat different idea.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
All individual beings are beings to the extent that they particip-
ate in this one ultimate being.

Now that is not the same as what you said before, nor is it
Aristotelian, nor Thomistic. For Aristotle eventually _abandoned_ the
use of the term 'participation'.

Again, you are showing off your ignorance of philosophy, you who brag
of majoring in it. You have confused Aristotelianism and
Neo-Platonism!

Post by l***@hotmail.com
According to Aristotle, God has the fulness of being. As such his is
pure Act.

And what is so wrong with this? Why, it is your favorite, Jonathan
Edwards, who used this term "pure act" of God in his "Miscellany
94". And he uses it in much the way Aquinas did.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
At the lower end of being, not found in any actually existing thing
that man can know, is pure potentiality of being. Man exists between
pure actuality and pure potentiality of being. Man may increase in
his participation of God as a pure act. There is also discontinuity
of being between man and God. Man is near the realm of pure
non-being. He participates, as it were, in non-being as well as
being.

The expression "participates in non-being" is completely _alien_ to
Greek and to Thomistic philosophy. Another example showing that you do
not know what you are talking about. Some "philosophy major" you are!

Post by l***@hotmail.com
However, only if the doctrine of the self-contained God and of
creation is maintained ( as held in the Reformed theology), as the
presupposition of all that is said on any doctrine is it then posible
to maintain the full Christian position.

You say something like this, yet you still wonder how every thread you
touch is reduced to snarling?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Like the RC theologian, you are unwilling to make this doctrine of
God basic to all your thinking.

No; both RCs and I prefer the _true_ "doctrine of God";) Yours is
false because you deny the simultaneous immanence and transcendence
of God -- among many other reasons.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
It is a seeking for a synthesis between the Aristotelian idea of
analogy of being

What you describe as "Aristotelian idea of analogy of being" is not
even Aristotelian.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
and the biblical idea of God as Creator and man as creature.

How 'biblical' of you, Loren, to resort to such slander. You know full
well that both I and RC theologians are very strict about maintaining
the divide between Creator and created. So do I; by no means do we
"discard the biblical idea".

Rather, it is _you_ who discard the biblical idea of Man as Image of
God, therefore having free-will, the imperfect image of divine
freedom.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
And equal to the RC theologian, this is the reasoning behind your
conception of the autonomy of man. As you repeatedly declare, man is
free. Much more could be noted concerning this but the natural does
not accept it.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
In that theological dogma determines one's philosophy, it is
paramount that one's theology be orthodox

Your defense of icons only reveals your refusal to either understand
or accept the incomprehensibility of God and that doctrine entails.

It does no such thing. Again: you would know why if you read Lossky
instead of Clendenin, who really did not know what he was talking
about. There is NO contradiction between the pious use of icons and
the incomprehensibility of God.

Why, just the fact that you think there _is_ a contradiction shows you
grotesque failure to understand a most fundamental facet of the
Christian faith: He who from before the beginning of time has been
incomprehenisible in His transcendence has now become Incarnate, and
can be touched and seen! And He who can be seen can have an icon made
of Him.

So again: you can fool no one by talking about being 'orthodox' when
there is nothing orthodox about your theology at all.

The Reformed position is the most biblical consistent system.

It is not consistent at all. The doctrine of the limited atonement is
one of the more glaring inconsistencies. The Gospels are clear: Christ
died for ALL MEN, not just for the elect, not just for the
predestined.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Though I could write at length why this is, for the time being,
already noting your refusal to allow the sovereignty and the
providential care of God to say and mean exactly what is written in
Gen 1-3,

Another of _your_ "false presuppositions". Where _do_ you get these
ideas? It isn't from anything I wrote. Must be that fevered
imagination of yours again.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
it is you who illustrates an immediate failure to remain orthodox to
the revelation of God. Your answer exhibits the typical resorting to
a non-literal interpretation when the literal interpretation does not
fit into your predetermined anthropological, non-christian system.

Besides: even those who share the same theological dogma often do not
share the same philosophy. So your claim is impossible: theological
dogma does NOT _determine_ one's philosophy.

It does if one remains consistent in his theological presuppositions.

This is yet another example of your ignorance of basic philosophical
reasoning. By NO MEANS does your conclusion follow from your
premise. It is all too easy, for example, to have a small, incorrect
set of "theological presuppositions", a set that is _too_ small, in
which case, no, the philosophy will most certainly NOT determine one's
philosophy.

For that matter, the legions of philosopher-theologians throughout
these last two millenia disprove you by counter-example. For Augustine
and Aquinas, to give you just one example, shared the same
"theological presuppositions", yet their philosophies were notably
different: Augustine inclined much more heavily to Platonism than
Aquinas did.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
This only the Reformed position does.

It most certainly does not. Gary has already pointed out one of the
more glaring inconsistencies of the "reformed position" and its
"theological presuppositions": a God supposedly of love, who denies
salvation to the overwhelming majority of His intelligent creation.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
But again, if one remains truly consistent to the biblical ideas,
then one's philosophical system will be one with for ALL knowledge is
relational.

So you love to repeat (sometimes without your grammatical mistake):
but you do not remain "truly consistent to the biblical ideas"
yourself. I have pointed out numerous examples of this in the past,
here I will point out only one, your blind insistence on an even more
blind literal hermeneutic, an insistence Scripture never makes.

Not to mention: you yet again show your ignorance of philosophy, since
no serious epistemologist ever said "all knowledge is relational": in
one sense (of 'relational') it is too banal to be worth mentioning, in
the other senses, it is not even true.

Thus yes, you show your ignorance yet again.

Of course, it does not surprise me that you would get this SO
wrong. After all, your knowledge of both theology and philosophy is
obsessively narrow-minded, opinionated, and superficial.

And your repeated bravado and repeated brow beating is why SRC
and SRCBS are but a shadow of what they once were. This is why
I rarely give reply to your posts. They evidence no fruit of the
Spirit.

So you love to repeat. But others have already pointed out why you are
wrong. Besides: only the truly deranged could claim to see the "fruit
of the Spirit" in _your_ posts, Loren.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
in order to have any hope that one's philosophical presuppositions
correspond to what is.

You have no such hope yourself, despite your loud claims. Especially
not when you turn to such dishonest snipping to 'support' your point.

If you are going to make such accusations, perhaps you should then
back them up with the evidence.

What are you talking about? The evidence was right in front of
you. You ignored it -- again. And now you whine that I didn't present
it. Who do you think you can fool with such a whine?

It is such behavior on your part, Loren, that has been by far the
larger contributor to this newsgroups decline. Many have got tired of
you playing this game. You thought you defeated them in argument, but
they just got sick of you and left.

[snip]

But you ignore the warning and plunge right ahead into false
intepretation, just like the fool of Pro 14:16.

More bravado. More brass trumpheting.

It is neither. It is a reference to a line of argumentation I already
gave you long ago, for which you have no rebuttal. Instead, you
yourself had only 'bravado' of your own.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Again, you response reveals that you deny God's incomprehensibility
and all that corresponds to it.

Again, it does no such thing.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
It is you, not God nor His written revelation of reality, which makes
himself the final authority. This certainly isn't out of character
with the EO ecclesiatical elitism either. Only it can determine,
like the papist, what the actual rendering/meaning of scripture is.
You deny the the indwelling ministry of the Spirit by doing so.

We do no such thing. Again: you would know this is you read Lossky
instead of Clendenin. But since you like your darkness, you insist of
following a very blind guide.

More evidence that you make man autonomous.

It is no such thing. Rather, it is more evidence that you have no
ideaa what problems you make for yourelf with your claims.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
More evidence that you refues to allow God to be God.

Again, it is no such thing. Rather, it is more evidence that you have
no ideaa what problems you make for yourelf with your claims.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
More evidence that you simply don't understand that every
effort of man to find one spot that he can exhaustvely under-
stand either in the world of fact about him or in the world of
experience within him, is doomed to failure.

YOU may think it is "doomed to failure", but every time you resort to
such glaring pseudo-science to brace up your irresponsible
interpretation of Genesis, you show that you have yet to -begin- to
understand these efforts.

Even worse, you show you have no clue why bracing with pseudo-science
is what is _really_ doomed to failure.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
If man is made as the final reference point, as you system
necessarily must do to remain consistent with itself,

Your premise is false, so your argument worthless. It proves nothing
-- except that it is you, not I, who is infatuated with 'bravado'.

[snip]

--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

h***@geneva.rutgers.edu

2007-09-10 00:19:30 UTC

Post by shegeek72
Need I remind you that Jesus
railed against all manner of wrong-doing, yet said nothing about
homosexuality?

Sigh! How many times must God declare something an
abomination before it is granted acceptable? Only once
is the correct answer. This so easily illustrated in daily

Oh, come now. The OT laws are not all applicable to Gentile
Christians. Both Lutheran and Reformed tradition are clear on that,
not to mention Acts 10 and 15. It would be convenient if "abomination"
could be used to find which parts still apply. Unfortunately it is
sometimes used of eating unclean animals, a distinction which does not
apply to Christians.

Paul seems to be the essential connection on this issue. As I see it
the real argument turns on Paul's authority and his intention in the
three or so passages that refer to homosexuality in some way.

While Rom 1 isn't about homosexuality per se, it seems to assume the
OT attitudes, as do the other two references. So if we accept Paul's
writings to be inspired, we can accept the condemnations of
homosexuality as being part of the moral law, and not temporary. I
don't think you can cite the OT, or Christ's words about sexual
immorality, without that connection.

Hermano Lobo

2007-09-11 02:44:20 UTC

Post by Hermano Lobo
By Scripture and Living Word of God we have to understand obviously
only those books considered as saint by your own confession.

Do you give God NO credit? Is His providential are so short
that He can't even move men to recognize the Canon? The
problem is that your God is too small.

Don't take the word of Isaiah or the word of Luke for the Word of God.
If this makes you feel better, wonderful; that's your method for
seeking happiness. But why don't you accept also the word of the
Shepherd of Hermas as the Word of God? Its literary quality is
unanimously accepted by any reader.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
And all those books even an unbeliver in the local
junior college literary class recognizes as distinctively
inferior to the Protestant Canon.

Of course, but many unbelievers also recognize a distinctive
superiority in the Gospel of Judas. It is a matter of literary taste.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
And as I have already explained today, there is a reason why
the Word is written. You're claim that it is "in your heart" does
not take into account the fact that even you have to admit to,
Jer. 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately
wicked: who can know it?

Your heart never lies to you. My Church does not admit revelation at
all. God's only message is written in our heart: be happy. There is no
need of cryptic prophecies or obscure interpreters of God.

l***@hotmail.com

2007-09-11 02:44:21 UTC

Post by Matthew Johnson
The fact that you still think you can do these things
not only shows how badly you understand philosophy, but also how badly
you understand any serious discussion.

you know what, I'll let my GPA be the judge of that. As
for whatever else you wrote, I for one don't care because
of your caustic attitude in all your replies. The more
you have written over the years the more you illustrate
that you do not have a living, vital relationship with God.
Christianity isn't about intellectualism. It is that but
it is principly about God expressing Himself through His
children. And what you continually exhibit is that painted
sepulchre. You have a zeal, you even have a knowledge
of theological systems but you do not exhibit the first
fruit of the Spirit let alone any of the others. And your
reply will surely further illustrate my point no doubt.

l***@hotmail.com

2007-09-11 02:44:21 UTC

Post by shegeek72
Need I remind you that Jesus
railed against all manner of wrong-doing, yet said nothing about
homosexuality?

Sigh! How many times must God declare something an
abomination before it is granted acceptable? Only once
is the correct answer. This so easily illustrated in daily

Oh, come now. I still don't think this is CHL. He never replied like this.
The OT laws are not all applicable to Gentile
Christians.

And CHL would not have missed not only my point but
what I actually stated -that the principles yet apply.

Both Lutheran and Reformed tradition are clear on that,
not to mention Acts 10 and 15. It would be convenient if "abomination"
could be used to find which parts still apply. Unfortunately it is
sometimes used of eating unclean animals, a distinction which does not
apply to Christians.

There are enough NT reiterations concerning the depravity
of homosexuality that this is really a moot point. However,
it still stands that if God declares a moral act wrong in one
section of scripture, then it applies throughout. The eating
laws are still principly valid. Daniel's refusal to eat the kings
food was an exhibition of not some supernatural episode,
but just simple cause and effect. "Thou shall not commit
adultery" is not now rescinded is it?

It would be convenient if "abomination"
could be used to find which parts still apply. Unfortunately it is
sometimes used of eating unclean animals, a distinction which does not
apply to Christians.

Admittedly, and CHL would know my position in that there
is a significant economic difference between Law and Grace.
But Christ came to fulfill the Law. The Law is good. The
principles therein are given for our benefit. Adultery leads to
all sorts of unintended consequences, not to mention being
atypical of the Godhead itself. Homosexuality is even more
atypical of God's design for the universe. So even general
revelation (Rom 1:18-1:32) argues against it. Special
revelation only adds further condemnation and accountability.

Paul seems to be the essential connection on this issue.

No. As Pharisee he remains true to the OT but from the
view of Grace.

As I see it
the real argument turns on Paul's authority and his intention in the
three or so passages that refer to homosexuality in some way.

Not just Pauline authority, but apostolic authority and even more
to the point, Scriptural authority. But here there is really no
argument
to be made for all are clearly attested to as having unquestioned
Divine authority. If this is really CLH, I would not have to list all
the relevant passages that prove this point. Jude grants Peter's
authority who in turn grants Paul's authority and all of the Gospel
writers grant Christ His impeccible authority all being based upon
the authority of Scripture as being absolute.

While Rom 1 isn't about homosexuality per se, it seems to assume the
OT attitudes, as do the other two references.

Attitudes? That's a bit of a slur. It displays as do all NT
references and allussions to OT passages, that the OT principles
are still applicable because they proceed out of the nature
of God. This IS the basis of the Pauline argument in Rom 1:18ff.

So if we accept Paul's writings to be inspired,

Who is this really? I mean to say, USAPC has slid down
the liberal slide really far in the last two decades but to the
extent that it even discards its sola scriptura dogma?

we can accept the condemnations of
homosexuality as being part of the moral law, and not temporary. I
don't think you can cite the OT, or Christ's words about sexual
immorality, without that connection.

Without what connection, Paul's condemnation or the OT
condemnation? Truthfully I feel that if John 8 had been
over two men or two women, one, it never would have been
an issue because they would have been stoned long before
anyone would have thought of using it against Christ's
teaching, but even if it had gone so far, I don't things
would have transpired any differently. Wrong is still wrong.

I don't see the point of this entire reply.

h***@geneva.rutgers.edu

2007-09-11 02:44:22 UTC

***@hotmail.com writes

...

Post by l***@hotmail.com
There are enough NT reiterations concerning the depravity
of homosexuality that this is really a moot point. However,
it still stands that if God declares a moral act wrong in one
section of scripture, then it applies throughout. The eating
laws are still principly valid. Daniel's refusal to eat the kings
food was an exhibition of not some supernatural episode,
but just simple cause and effect. "Thou shall not commit
adultery" is not now rescinded is it?

...

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Admittedly, and CHL would know my position in that there
is a significant economic difference between Law and Grace.
But Christ came to fulfill the Law. The Law is good. The
principles therein are given for our benefit. Adultery leads to
all sorts of unintended consequences, not to mention being
atypical of the Godhead itself. Homosexuality is even more
atypical of God's design for the universe. So even general
revelation (Rom 1:18-1:32) argues against it. Special
revelation only adds further condemnation and accountability.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
As I see it
the real argument turns on Paul's authority and his intention in the
three or so passages that refer to homosexuality in some way.

Not just Pauline authority, but apostolic authority and even more
to the point, Scriptural authority. But here there is really no
argument
to be made for all are clearly attested to as having unquestioned
Divine authority. If this is really CLH, I would not have to list all
the relevant passages that prove this point. Jude grants Peter's
authority who in turn grants Paul's authority and all of the Gospel
riters grant Christ His impeccible authority all being based upon
the authority of Scripture as being absolute.

...

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Who is this really? I mean to say, USAPC has slid down
the liberal slide really far in the last two decades but to the
extent that it even discards its sola scriptura dogma?

The PCUSA is still nominally opposed to homosexuality. I wasn't speaking about
its position. (I say nominally because although this is the official position,
it's not enforced. Attempts to take action against bodies that ordain homosexuals
have typically not gone very well. There's always some legalistic excuse.)

I said "if we accept Paul's writings to be inspired" not because the
PCUSA reject them. However as you well know a number of folks, not
limited to any particular denomination, think Paul's positions aren't
entirely consistent with Jesus as we meet him in the Synoptics. While
I don't know of any scientific survey on the subject, I would bet that
there's a reasonable overlap between people who think this way and
those who accept homosexuality. Do you disagree?

I agree that the principles of the OT still apply. The problem is to
determine which are principles and which are details. That not
everything applies is clear from Acts 10 and Acts 15. Not to mention
Mark 7:19. It is very clear that the food laws do not apply to Gentile
Christians. Neither do the details of holidays and ceremonies.

Adultery is clearly condemned by Jesus, so it's not at issue.

Absent some specific evidence, it's not clear to me that the ban
against homosexuality is any less arbitrary than the ban against
mixing fibers. Yes, we're told to be fruitful and multiply. But
Christians have always accepted a role for celibacy (supported by
Paul). As far as I can see homosexuality is less contrary to nature
than life-long celibacy (and I say that as a life-long celibate).

I do believe there is a Scriptural argument against homosexuality.
Paul's letters are, after all, a part of the canon. However the
arguments I hear from you and others sound to me like they are not
entirely based on Scripture. There's some additional bias against
homosexuality. If it were just scripture, we'd see the same degree of
emotion about divorce, where condemnation is much more widespread in
the NT. But we don't. Homosexuality strikes some nerve with people.
The bias is so clear that it make me wary about the prevailing
exegesis of passages involving homosexuality.

shegeek72

2007-09-11 02:44:23 UTC

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Sigh! How many times must God declare something an
abomination before it is granted acceptable?

Do you shave your beard? Eat shellfish? Wear clothes made from mixed
fabrics? Those are also abominations.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Who do you think it was that gave the Law to
Moses? Christ is the Exegete of God. He is
the Logos. Don't you understand the import
of this revelation?

Where in any of this does it address homosexuality?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Could it be that you simply have ignored all the
responses? No? Very simply, one inherent
harm is that it does not comply with the form
of the uinverse as amply illustrated by the fact
that held consistent, it cannot attain to the Divine
command to "multiply."

<snip>

I've addressed this several times already. Simply, gays only comprise
2-4% of any population, therefore there will never be a threat to
procreation. Indeed, it's claimed by scholars that the planet is over-
populated and the burgeoning population growth will stress food,
living conditions, health, etc. Heteros are responsible for over-
population.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
But ONLY when equally denying the Divine
design of one man, one woman.

Huh? What part of 'heterosexuals are just as susceptible to STDs'
didn't you understand?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
But if those "gay parents" remained consistent
to their own paradigm, they would have children.
And truthfully, as if you didn't have enough wrath
abiding on you, you place a millstone around your
own neck by parading your homosexuality to
these children as if it were natural and acceptable
to God.

Is is natural and acceptable. It's misguided Christians who think
otherwise

Post by l***@hotmail.com
"Laugh, laugh, I thought I'd cry...." Even if this
were true, so what? "More successful!" By who's
standards? Certainly not God's. Material wealth?
Materialism always marginalizes true spirituality.
More "creative and articulate?" Again, by who's
standard and to what worth?

Try attending a GLBT-friendly church. You might feel differently,
though only if you're open-minded and don't go in with unmovable,
dogmatic beliefs.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
But that does not equal to say that doctrines can not be
rightfully dogmatic. The whole point was that because we cannot
know exhaustively we have to depend on God to give us the
wisdom of understanding. On on the fundamentals, that all
true born again Christian do agree. On essentials -unity.
On uncertainties -freedom. On everything -love.

Born-again Christians are in the minority. However, the born-again
Christians at my church proudly proclaim, "Born again and still
gay!" :)

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Well that is a good thing. But progression might be into
further darkness rather than greater light.

I find that highly unlikely, considering I'm a communion server and on
the finance committee at my church and my work is praised by both the
senior, and assistant, pastors. But, of course, they're working for
the devil also.

Post by shegeek72
I think the trinity refers to body. mind and spirit. A good companion
to the Bible is 'Conversations with God' by Walsch.

There is no equal companion to the Bible.

In your opinion (which everyone is entitled to). Did you even pick up
the book before you made a judgment?
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org

Matthew Johnson

2007-09-12 02:02:04 UTC

Post by l***@hotmail.com
No, there are numerous misunderstandings and even more numerous
non-understandings. Because Scripture is nothing less than the LIVING
Word of God...

--------------------
By Scripture and Living Word of God we have to understand obviously
only those books considered as saint by your own confession.

Do you give God NO credit?

Do _you_ give your interlocutor no credit?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Is His providential are so short
that He can't even move men to recognize the Canon?

'Providential' what?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The problem is that your God is too small.

But not as small as _your_ 'God'.

Post by Matthew Johnson
The Apocalypse of Peter or the Gospel of Judas fall probably out of
the list of your acceptable books; but the Ethiopian Church accepts
over eighty books, many of them probably rejected by you, and there
are books accepted by Roman Catholics but no accepted by other
Christian confessions. No, my friend: the true Word of God is in
your heart, not in the Bible. The Bible is a human invention.

And all those books even an unbeliver in the local
junior college literary class recognizes as distinctively
inferior to the Protestant Canon.

What kind of standard is this? Are you going to allow the Canon to be set by JC
students now?

For that matter, so _what_ if you can find one JC student who thinks
they are inferior? I can find many more who realize how wrong your and
yours are.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
And as I have already explained today, there is a reason why
the Word is written.

And you weaken your own explanation with your very artificial set of
standards for deciding what is and what is not canonical.

[snip]

--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

Matthew Johnson

2007-09-12 02:02:04 UTC

Post by Matthew Johnson
The fact that you still think you can do these things
not only shows how badly you understand philosophy, but also how badly
you understand any serious discussion.

you know what, I'll let my GPA be the judge of that.

That may convince you, but don't expect it to convince anyone else, especially
when you don't even tell us what it is, or at what institute of higher learning.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
As
for whatever else you wrote, I for one don't care because
of your caustic attitude in all your replies.

Oh, that is really philosophical, Loren. Really Christian, too.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
The more
you have written over the years the more you illustrate
that you do not have a living, vital relationship with God.

If you had such a relationship yourself, you would refrain from such
accusations.

[snip]

--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

Matthew Johnson

2007-09-12 02:02:04 UTC

Sorry, no.

Sorry, yes.

Post by shegeek72
You're making the assumption that the homosexuality in the Bible
refers to the loving, longterm, monogamous relationships of today.

It is not an 'assumption'. It is a _conclusion_. But of course, since
you hate the conclusion, you pretend you can fool the whole NG by
calling it an 'assumption'.

Post by shegeek72
Anyone who believes this is on shaky ground,

Not true. I am not on 'shaky ground' at all. You are.

Post by shegeek72
since they don't give context a chance when interpreting it;

Again, not true, as has been proved to you many times in this NG
already. It is you who does not "give context a chance". You ignore
the _cultural_ context. ALL forms of homosexuality were very much
hated in that culture, even the 'modern' form.

Post by shegeek72
that it's referring to homosexual rape and prostitution prevalent
back then.

This, of course, is absolute nonsense. They were _not_ "prevalent back
then". You are confusing the practices of different peoples from very
different stages of their history.

Post by shegeek72
That the sin of Sodom was homosexuality was recently debunked by the
moderator.

No, it was not. On the contrary: it was the claim that the sin was
inhospitality that was recently debunked here.

Post by shegeek72
To include homosexuality into what Jesus preached about morality is
assumption, at best, and not well supported.

You really don't know what this word means, do you? Just because _you_
don't see how it follows, does _not_ mean it is an 'assumption'. It
really is included, since, as you have already been told MANY times,
the word Christ used includes ALL forms of sexual immorality. And it
is all too well known, except by you, that homosexuality was then
included as sexual immorality.

Post by Matthew Johnson
Not true. The "inherent harm" has been presented. You just continue to
ignore the presentation, pretending that it never happened.

The 'harm' I've read here is the 'AIDS connection,' that I debunked.

Then you have not been reading enough.

Post by shegeek72
For one thing, the highest incidences of HIV is among heterosexual
males in south Africa.

You missed the point. Why, this shows that not only have you not been
reading enough, you did not even understand what you claim to refute!
The claim was never that HIV was exclusively a homosexual disease, it
was more rather that the disease became a world-wide public health
problem _specifically_ because of its early, unchecked growth among
the homosexual population.

Post by shegeek72
The 'fetal incontinence' issue was never supported by anything but
hearsay.

And it was always the minority view among those attacking your
endorsement of depravity.

Post by shegeek72
Gays make just as good as, or better, parents and their children are
well-adjusted.

Who do you think you can fool with claims like these? You most
certainly do not know this for a fact.

Post by shegeek72
Gays tend to be highly creative, articulate and compassionate.

Oh, really? If you made this claim about race, you would be spotted
right away as a racist. But you think you can make such a claim about
gays, yet not be spotted as a bigot? Dream on.

Post by shegeek72
Indeed, the harm is far more fostered on GLBT, who face daily
discrimination, taunting, ostracizing, bashings and murder by bigots,
nutjobs and religious zealots.

Ah, but that harm is so small compared to what you inflict on
yourselves. But you refuse to see it, because you refuse to believe
that the soul is much more important than the body.

Post by shegeek72
So-called 'Christian ideas' that the homosexuality in the
Bible refers to the relationships of today only feeds the fire.

And you are one of those who if you are ever saved, will only be saved
by passing through the fire. That is _why_ God allows such things to
happen to you.

--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

l***@hotmail.com

2007-09-12 02:02:05 UTC

Post by Hermano Lobo
Don't take the word of Isaiah or the word of Luke for the Word of God.
If this makes you feel better, wonderful; that's your method for
seeking happiness. But why don't you accept also the word of the
Shepherd of Hermas as the Word of God? Its literary quality is
unanimously accepted by any reader.

And what would you say is actually is the final determinative in
the matter of Canonization? What, in the final reality, actually
determines what is Scripture and what is not?

Paul

2007-09-12 02:02:05 UTC

"Hermano Lobo" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:8inFi.5725$***@trnddc08...
<snip>

Literary quality isn't the issue. Nobody (seriously) claims Shakespeare to
be God's Word, after all. There are lots of well-written documents in the
history of the church that were never considered as candidates for the
canon. The criteria for what got canonized were primarily spiritual, not
literary -- read a decent church history, or specifically a book about the
history of Scripture (Metzger for example).

<snip>

Post by Hermano Lobo

Your heart never lies to you. My Church does not admit revelation at
all. God's only message is written in our heart: be happy. There is no
need of cryptic prophecies or obscure interpreters of God.

"Be happy"??? Wow, the Church of Jimmy Buffett..... :-) Seriously, don't
know what church you are part of, but that's way way way outside the bounds
of Christian orthodoxy -- even the most "liberal" denominations pay SOME
attention to the Bible, and accept the concept of revelation (however much
they may disagree about what its boundaries are).

In any case "your heart never lies to you" is patently false to real life
experience -- even stepping outside the church, secular psychologists could
cite chapter and verse (pardon the pun) of situations where peoples' heart
lies to them.... This is not to say that our hearts are not also capable of
being right about things; with the aid of the Holy Spirit, they are where
spiritual discernment comes to us. But there's a vast gulf between that and
"never lies to you"....

In Christ,
Paul

l***@hotmail.com

2007-09-12 02:02:06 UTC

Post by Hermano Lobo
Your heart never lies to you. My Church does not admit revelation at
all.

Then you have a "designer" religion. It's whatever you determine
it to be. Quite contrary to the Pauline thought that Israel's history
was an example for the Church.

Post by Hermano Lobo
God's only message is written in our heart: be happy. There is no
need of cryptic prophecies or obscure interpreters of God.

Then you have no sure word of Truth.
You also have no means of verification of Truth
and no safeguard against error. By God's very nature,
there is that which conforms and that which does not
conform to His revealed will.

l***@hotmail.com

2007-09-12 02:02:07 UTC

Post by shegeek72
Do you shave your beard? Eat shellfish? Wear clothes made from mixed
fabrics? Those are also abominations.

1 Cor. 6:18 Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is
outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body.
1 Cor. 6:19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy
Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not
your own?
1 Cor. 6:20 For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify
God in your body.

God here notes a distinction. You should too.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Who do you think it was that gave the Law to
Moses? Christ is the Exegete of God. He is
the Logos. Don't you understand the import
of this revelation?

Where in any of this does it address homosexuality?

Mt. 19:4. Now I've already written on this to day in
a reply to Charles. If you don't understand how this
applies, read that post.

<snip>
I've addressed this several times already. Simply, gays only comprise
2-4% of any population, therefore there will never be a threat to
procreation.

Sigh again. You are blind. You point is completely irrelevant.
The point wasn't in regards to populating the surface of the
planet. The point was that the homosexual paradigm cannot
populate at all and is therefore contrary to the laws of mother
nature, let alone to the command of God. ANd the laws of
nature are conformed to and revelation of God's nature.

Post by shegeek72
Indeed, it's claimed by scholars that the planet is over-
populated and the burgeoning population growth will stress food,
living conditions, health, etc. Heteros are responsible for over-
population.

If you took every person alive today and placed them shoulder
to shoulder, you would not fill the land mass of Jacksonville
County, Florida. Besides your whole presupposition is deistic
in nature.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
But ONLY when equally denying the Divine
design of one man, one woman.

Huh? What part of 'heterosexuals are just as susceptible to STDs'
didn't you understand?

If the one man, one woman, rule had been followed, there
would be NO STD's. And if there were, how would they
be transmitted? You were arguing?

Is is natural and acceptable. It's misguided Christians who think
otherwise

It is certainly not "natural" because two women cannot
produce a child nor can two men. If you remain consistent
to your paradigm it dies in one generation. It cannot
maintain itself apart from reverting to hetersexual
transference of sperm and egg. How can you then say
it is "natural?"

Try attending a GLBT-friendly church.

You mean something akin to a Universalist Unitarian
"church"? Remember, love without holiness is just
lust run amuk. God's attributes are not governed by
love but by holiness. "Holy, Holy, Holy," do the
angels never cease declaring. Not, "Love, love, love."
Again, yours is a designer mentality. You design
what conforms to your own self interest.

Post by shegeek72
You might feel differently,
though only if you're open-minded and don't go in with unmovable,
dogmatic beliefs.

Biblical Christianity is about true Truth. It is not about
my likes or dislikes. It is about God's revealed will. Was
it love or holiness that brought judgment on the prediluvian
world? Life is antithetical, not inclussive. Christianity is
exclusive not pantheistic.

Born-again Christians are in the minority.

One with God is a majority! And yes, the believing remnant
has always been small.

Post by shegeek72
However, the born-again
Christians at my church proudly proclaim, "Born again and still
gay!" :)

"Born from above" entails a new orientation from that of living
after the flesh. In that you disregard Scripture, you do not
express the witness of the Spirit and to that degree are not
truly "born again."

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Well that is a good thing. But progression might be into
further darkness rather than greater light.

Rom. 2:29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is
that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his
praise is not from men, but from God.

Post by shegeek72
I think the trinity refers to body. mind and spirit. A good companion
to the Bible is 'Conversations with God' by Walsch.

There is no equal companion to the Bible.

In your opinion (which everyone is entitled to). Did you even pick up
the book before you made a judgment?

I have studied the bible daily now for over 30 yrs. I know not only
the words, I have not only intellectual understanding, but I also now
know its doctrines and the development of each.

Answer me this, what is the central theme of the Scripture. Not the
central character or hope, the central theme? The Bible is a listing
of Divine doctrines. You say you believe in God, well that is a
doctrinal
stance, though not a biblical one because the bible never seeks to
prove His existence. Biblical doctrines are revelations from God
and by nature are definitive. To transgress a biblical doctrine is to
stand opposed to God Himself. Apart from the Scriptures you have
no knowledge of who God is exactly and what He commands of
us let alone have any perception of the central theme of Scripture:
redemption. All doctrine relates to the grand story of redemption.
And His plan of redemption has no buffet type take as you please
options. It is His way or it is the broadway leading to eternal
alienation. You must accept Him as He has revealed HImself to
be or you stand opposed to Him. There is not third way.

Hermano Lobo

2007-09-13 00:49:08 UTC

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 02:02:05 GMT, Paul

Post by Paul
Literary quality isn't the issue. Nobody (seriously) claims Shakespeare to
be God's Word, after all. There are lots of well-written documents in the
history of the church that were never considered as candidates for the
canon. The criteria for what got canonized were primarily spiritual, not
literary -- read a decent church history, or specifically a book about the
history of Scripture (Metzger for example).

Provided, of course, that the text and interpretation of the Scripture
confirms my thoughts and beliefs. Anything which is contrary to those
beliefs is false, corrupt and mischievous. In other words: there is
only one true religion: mine.

Post by Paul

Post by Hermano Lobo
Your heart never lies to you. My Church does not admit revelation at
all. God's only message is written in our heart: be happy. There is no
need of cryptic prophecies or obscure interpreters of God.

Some confessions -the Jesusite Convocation for instance- give to their
followers the possibility of interpreting the Scripture by themseves
judging which parts of the Scripture are the word of God and which
were rather the idea of man. If you feel for instance that God's word
is the chapter of Genesis which reads that God created the Earth,
including plants, before He created the Sun or that the dead
ressucitate then you have certainly a problem. God does not lie.

Post by Paul
In any case "your heart never lies to you" is patently false to real life
experience -- even stepping outside the church, secular psychologists could
cite chapter and verse (pardon the pun) of situations where peoples' heart
lies to them.... This is not to say that our hearts are not also capable of
being right about things; with the aid of the Holy Spirit, they are where
spiritual discernment comes to us. But there's a vast gulf between that and
"never lies to you"....
In Christ,
Paul

Anything we do is aimed at arriving at something which is good. The
object of every action and choice of action is some good. If you
decide to kill your neighbor because his radio is too noisy. The
objective is to achieve something which is good and to stop that noisy
radio is good in itself. Your heart does not lie to you because "good"
is anything that makes you happy -that makes _you_ happy, not others-
becaise, for you, the supreme good is your own happiness, not mine.
Now, the second part: does killing your neighbor, being prosecuted and
probably sent to the electric chair makes you happy?

l***@hotmail.com

2007-09-14 02:55:52 UTC

Post by Hermano Lobo
Provided, of course, that the text and interpretation of the Scripture
confirms my thoughts and beliefs. Anything which is contrary to those
beliefs is false, corrupt and mischievous. In other words: there is
only one true religion: mine.

You didn't put a smilie at the end of your paragraph so I am going to
gamble and think you were not being sarcastic. The problem that is
left to those who follow such reasoning is that they are left with
only
relative truth. Also, they deny the reason for Scripture to begin
with.
There are two reasons why Scripture is required of man. One is
because of the nature of God, being incomprehensible by both His
infinitude and by His being Spirit. We being physically bound have
no innate sensitivity to spiritual reality. The bible illustrates
this
by Jacob's ladder or by Elisha's prayer that his telmeed would be
granted the vision of the angelic host that surrounded them. It
is called "revelation" for a purpose.

Also, there are two reasons why man cannot discover true knowledge
of God on his own. Again, that of his own limitation, being finite
and
therefore dependent on revelation and secondly, his fallen nature.

Therefore not only does God have to reveal Himself, His nature,
His plans and works, His will and purpose but He also has to enable
reception of this condescention. 1 Cor 1:21 states that the world by
its own wisdom could not attain the wisdom of God. It must be by
His enlightenment.

Post by Hermano Lobo
Anything we do is aimed at arriving at something which is good. The
object of every action and choice of action is some good.

No, you have incorrectly assessed man. Man is inclined at only one
goal -to please self. Every choice that man makes only serves self.
You've already illustrated that in your previous paragraph. It is
only
after man has been "born from above" that he has the new capacity
to incline himself to please God, and that only by the enablement of
the Spirit.

Post by Hermano Lobo
If you
decide to kill your neighbor because his radio is too noisy. The
objective is to achieve something which is good and to stop that noisy
radio is good in itself. Your heart does not lie to you because "good"
is anything that makes you happy -that makes _you_ happy, not others-
becaise, for you, the supreme good is your own happiness, not mine.
Now, the second part: does killing your neighbor, being prosecuted and
probably sent to the electric chair makes you happy?

Perhaps you do agree with choice being the means of the inclination.

shegeek72

2007-09-14 02:55:52 UTC

On Sep 11, 7:02 pm, the suspect Matthew Johnson

Post by shegeek72
Gays make just as good as, or better, parents and their children are
well-adjusted.

Who do you think you can fool with claims like these? You most
certainly do not know this for a fact.

It is fact well-supported by any legit study out there.

Post by shegeek72
Gays tend to be highly creative, articulate and compassionate.

Oh, really? If you made this claim about race, you would be spotted
right away as a racist. But you think you can make such a claim about
gays, yet not be spotted as a bigot? Dream on.

It's a claim based on frequent (several times a week) association with
gays and lesbians. Gays also have higher than average incomes.

Post by shegeek72
Indeed, the harm is far more fostered on GLBT, who face daily
discrimination, taunting, ostracizing, bashings and murder by bigots,
nutjobs and religious zealots.

Ah, but that harm is so small compared to what you inflict on
yourselves. But you refuse to see it, because you refuse to believe
that the soul is much more important than the body.

Ah, so murder is not as bad as transitioning? IOW, if you had the
choice (fortunately you never will) to put a trans person to death or
allow him or her to transition, you would put him/her to death. Not
very Christian behavior, is it? You would fit much better in Iran
where gays ARE put to death.
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org

shegeek72

2007-09-14 02:55:53 UTC

On Sep 11, 7:02 pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:

<snip Bible thumping>

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I have studied the bible daily now for over 30 yrs. I know not only
the words, I have not only intellectual understanding, but I also now
know its doctrines and the development of each.

Then you haven't read any of the 4 books. Don't have much basis for
your judgment, do you?

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Answer me this, what is the central theme of the Scripture.

There really is no central 'theme, 'except love your neighbor as
yourself.' A trait I find woefully lacking in many so-called
Christians.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Apart from the Scriptures you have
no knowledge of who God is exactly and what He commands of
redemption.

Gosh! Another person telling me how to be Christian! Looks like we
have a Christian agenda.

<snip>
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org

Anonymouse

2007-09-14 02:55:53 UTC

Post by shegeek72
Anyone who believes this is on shaky ground,

Not true. I am not on 'shaky ground' at all. You are.

This is the "I know you are but what am I" defense making a comeback.

You'll have to do better than that....refuting someone without addressing
anything...just returning the criticism?

Paul

2007-09-14 02:55:54 UTC

Post by Hermano Lobo
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 02:02:05 GMT, Paul

Post by Paul
Literary quality isn't the issue. Nobody (seriously) claims Shakespeare
to
be God's Word, after all. There are lots of well-written documents in the
history of the church that were never considered as candidates for the
canon. The criteria for what got canonized were primarily spiritual, not
literary -- read a decent church history, or specifically a book about the
history of Scripture (Metzger for example).

Ah, no. Again, read Metzger -- "me" isn't the issue either. In fact the
process rather took pains to ensure that the canonized books were those with
widespread agreement.

Besides, on a tactical level, this paragraph argues directly against your
last one below -- where you claim that "my" happiness is the ultimate
measure. If that's the case, then why NOT "my" true religion....?
<snip>>>

Post by Hermano Lobo
Anything we do is aimed at arriving at something which is good. The
object of every action and choice of action is some good. If you
decide to kill your neighbor because his radio is too noisy. The
objective is to achieve something which is good and to stop that noisy
radio is good in itself. Your heart does not lie to you because "good"
is anything that makes you happy -that makes _you_ happy, not others-
becaise, for you, the supreme good is your own happiness, not mine.
Now, the second part: does killing your neighbor, being prosecuted and
probably sent to the electric chair makes you happy?

You know, I think you have arrived at a reasonable working definition of the
term "original sin". Total self-centeredness. Feh!

In Christ,
Paul

><(((((@>

2007-09-14 02:55:54 UTC

Post by shegeek72
It also condemns eating shell fish, wearing clothes made of mixed
fabrics, men shaving their beards, etc.

That is for the covenant of the Law

Are you a Jew?

o are you in the covenant of the Grace of JesusCrist.
tex.

l***@hotmail.com

2007-09-17 01:58:31 UTC

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Answer me this, what is the central theme of the Scripture.

There really is no central 'theme,

Redemption. Saddly, something you have hardened yourself
against.

Post by shegeek72
'except love your neighbor as
yourself.' A trait I find woefully lacking in many so-called
Christians.

God is immutable, don't you know. He is the God of love
one minute and then 15 minutes later, the God wrath. You
have designed your own god after your own desires. Rather
foolish but then we're all fools until He grants us the grace
to see our own short comings and need for redemption.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Apart from the Scriptures you have
no knowledge of who God is exactly and what He commands of
redemption.

Gosh! Another person telling me how to be Christian! Looks like we
have a Christian agenda.

In case you hadn't noticed, its SRC, the "C" standing for Christian.
THis
isn't SRP, "P" standing for Pantheism. One doesn't sin because he is
hardened. One is hardened because he sins. Your sin has hardened
your heart to the True Reality.

Matthew Johnson

2007-09-17 01:58:34 UTC

Post by shegeek72
On Sep 11, 7:02 pm, the suspect Matthew Johnson

Post by shegeek72
Gays make just as good as, or better, parents and their children
are well-adjusted.

Who do you think you can fool with claims like these? You most
certainly do not know this for a fact.

It is fact well-supported by any legit study out there.

Is that why you have not even named one? No, you cannot fool anyone
with claims like these. You really do not "know this for a fact", just
as I said.

Post by shegeek72
Gays tend to be highly creative, articulate and compassionate.

Oh, really? If you made this claim about race, you would be spotted
right away as a racist. But you think you can make such a claim about
gays, yet not be spotted as a bigot? Dream on.

It's a claim based on frequent (several times a week) association with
gays and lesbians. Gays also have higher than average incomes.

This is beginning to remind me of those people who believe that Jews
instinctively know how to handle money better than Gentiles. Your
reasoning is just as fallacious as theirs.

Post by shegeek72
Indeed, the harm is far more fostered on GLBT, who face daily
discrimination, taunting, ostracizing, bashings and murder by bigots,
nutjobs and religious zealots.

Ah, but that harm is so small compared to what you inflict on
yourselves. But you refuse to see it, because you refuse to believe
that the soul is much more important than the body.

Ah, so murder is not as bad as transitioning? IOW, if you had the
choice (fortunately you never will) to put a trans person to death or
allow him or her to transition, you would put him/her to death.

This is a classic example of how deep you will sink into irrational
fallacy in order to slander your interlocutor. What is even worse, it
is an example of how you fail to understand even the most _elementary_
Christian ideas, resorting instead to heartless parodies of them to
use as excuses for slander.

I neither said nor implied that I would put "him/her" to death. That
is in your evil imagination only.

Post by shegeek72
Not very Christian behavior, is it?

Slandering your interlocutor as you have just done is not Christian at
all, that is right. Neither is your implicit denial of the Providence
of God, which denial you use as your poor excuse for slander.

Those who _do_ understand these basic, _basic_ Christian ideas realize
that whatever happens (even murder), happens because God allowed it to
happen in order to produce some greater good in His Providence. But
you deny this frequently and habitually, showing how _alien_ you are
to Christianity.

I wish I could say I was surprised. But the truth is that ever since
your very first post in this NG, you have made it crystal clear how
alien you are to Christianity, despite your brandishing the name of a
pseudo-church in your sigfile.

--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

Matthew Johnson

2007-09-17 01:58:35 UTC

Post by Anonymouse

Post by shegeek72
Anyone who believes this is on shaky ground,

Not true. I am not on 'shaky ground' at all. You are.

This is the "I know you are but what am I" defense making a comeback.
You'll have to do better than that....refuting someone without addressing
anything...just returning the criticism?

Ah, but if you had not snipped the rest of the post w/o even marking where you
snipped, it would have been obvious: much _was_ addressed. Your accusation of
"refuting without addressing anything" is a barefaced lie.

--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

Matthew Johnson

2007-09-17 01:58:35 UTC

Post by shegeek72
<snip Bible thumping>

Then you haven't read any of the 4 books. Don't have much basis for
your judgment, do you?

"4 books"? Loren was talking about Scripture. Scripture has many more than 4
books. Either you are seriously confused, or you are talking about some other,
irrelevant, "4 books".

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Answer me this, what is the central theme of the Scripture.

There really is no central 'theme',

Wrong.

Post by shegeek72
'except love your neighbor as
yourself.'

Even more wrong. Why, this sounds like you cannot even read a whole -verse-
without getting distracted.

Post by shegeek72
A trait I find woefully lacking in many so-called
Christians.

That you can make this accusation without recoiling in shame shows that you
really have missed the central theme of Scripture.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Apart from the Scriptures you have
no knowledge of who God is exactly and what He commands of
redemption.

Gosh! Another person telling me how to be Christian! Looks like we
have a Christian agenda.

Such childish sarcasm proves nothing except your own intellecual immaturity. But
we already had abundant evidence of that, we did not need this additional proof.

--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

shegeek72

2007-09-18 04:25:44 UTC

On Sep 16, 6:58 pm, the suspect Matthew Johnson

Post by Matthew Johnson
Slandering your interlocutor as you have just done is not Christian at
all, that is right.

Speaking of slander - how's the slander charges against me you said
you were working on going? :)
--
Tara's Transgender Resources
http://tarasresources.net

Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.mccchurch.org

Matthew Johnson

2007-09-19 02:42:54 UTC

Post by shegeek72
On Sep 16, 6:58 pm, the suspect Matthew Johnson

Post by Matthew Johnson
Slandering your interlocutor as you have just done is not Christian at
all, that is right.

Speaking of slander - how's the slander charges against me you said
you were working on going? :)

If you were Christian, you would be more concerned about how you will be judged
by God. That judgment will be harsh enough.

As for the judgment of men, don't count your chickens before they hatch. You
will know soon enough.

--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

l***@hotmail.com

2007-08-14 02:43:30 UTC