Is God the "first cause of everything" (including sin) as the Westminster Confession says?

[Butch5]

And we have yet to see one shred of evidence to support this. The way the passage reads, those who received Him did not do so by their own blood, by their own flesh or by their own will, but by God's Will.

It's not talking about how they received Him. It's talking about being born of God. The earliest manuscripts read in the singular. It's not until around 200 AD, that we see the plural reading. In addition early the manuscripts that have the plural reading come from the region of Alexandria which was a hot bed for Gnosticism.

The Latin Codex Veronensis contains the singular reading. Below is a quote from Irenaeus.

Irenaeus knows of a singular reading in 180 AD.

Matthew might certainly have said, “Now the birth of Jesus was on this wise;” but the Holy Ghost, foreseeing the corrupters [of the truth], and guarding by anticipation against their deceit, says by Matthew, “But the birth of Christ was on this wise;” and that He is Emmanuel, lest perchance we might consider Him as a mere man: for “not by the will of the flesh nor by the will of man, but by the will of God was the Word made flesh;” and that we should not imagine that Jesus was one, and Christ another, but should know them to be one and the same.
Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

We have these quotes from the second century of the singular reading which are before most of the manuscripts that are available.

 

[nobdysfool]

So you are saying that the Canon is corrupted.

 

[OzSpen]

Not at all.

I am agreeing with what you so simply and correctly point out.

We and our choices are but "secondary causes".

Secondary causes require (by their very definition) the existence of first causes.

In the case we are discussing that first cause was the creation of creatures to whom He gave free will - knowing full well what they would do with that free will. What they did with it (as God knew full well they would) was to make ill advised choices which result in sin or missing the mark of God's holiness.

In so doing, they birth events which lead to calamity (evil).

Sin (again, by it's very definition) cannot be done by God. He is the standard from which sinners stray. He cannot deny Himself, as the scripture puts it.

Seems to me that you are confusing, by way of example, the Boeing 777 aeronautic engineer's ability to create a 777 that flies and the pilot's ability to make sinful errors that lead to the crashing of 777s.

(courtesy Wikipedia)​

Ever heard of Malaysia Airlines MH 370?

The engineers who design a plane to fly are NOT the ones who design it to crash and kill 239 people. It would be totally out of place and obnoxious to blame the deaths of these 239 people on the aeronautic engineers who designed the plane. There have been many other successful flights of the Boeing 777. People have not given up flying on 777s, but Malaysia Airlines passenger numbers are suffering because of the MH370 tragedy.

So to blame the sovereign God for creating all of the obnoxious evil in the world when it is the secondary cause (evil people) who do it, would be a travesty of justice.

I strongly affirm the sovereignty of God, but secondary causes are not the function of the primary cause. They function under the providence of God. We have examples (e.g. story of Joseph, story of exodus from Egypt, life of Job) where God placed boundaries around evil committed against people. However, God's sovereignty does not mean his creating all of the evil in our world.

Oz

 

[nobdysfool]

Joh 1:12-13 LITV But as many as received Him, to them He gave authority to become children of God, to the ones believing into His name, (13) who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but were born of God.

Joh 1:12-13 YLT but as many as did receive him to them he gave authority to become sons of God--to those believing in his name, (13) who (the previously referenced ones, the ones who received Him, he ones who believed in His Name)--not of blood nor of a will of flesh, nor of a will of man but--of God were begotten.

The "who" referred to in verse 13 are the ones in verse 12, the ones who received Him, the ones believing in His Name. They are the ones who are born of God which is a reference to the New Birth, specifically a birth not of blood (lineage), or the will of flesh or of the (free) will of man. Believers are born of God. That's what this passage teaches.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You are disagreeing with my view by saying that it is the same as pantheism which it is not.

I believe my comment was that it was like pantheism or reminded me of pantheism. I provided the definition of omnipresence, and none of the sources included anything about existing withIN things, as does your view and pantheism's view.

In so far as I am persistent about this - if you would simply acknowledge that my position on omnipresence is not related to pantheism we could leave this alone as I would gladly do.

I've given on line definitions of omnipresence and none of them supported your view.

But you do realize don't you that almost everything in the universe in general and in an atom in particular is space (where you say God does exist)?

I would never say that God exists withIN things. And there is no Scripture to support such a claim. God exists where all things exist, and even where things don't exist.

The structure of our body is constantly being penetrated by neutrinos. Most physicists simply say that neutrinos don't have any mass. Others say that they are at most about a billionth of the mass of a proton.

Like yourself, I don't have a background in quantum physics, so none of this matters to me.

If we just consider the basic atom as simply a nucleus and many electrons, it is said to be made up of an estimated 99.999999999314% empty space.

Proving nothing of your view.

If we go farther into it, the nucleus is made up of protons and neutrons. The same space principle applies to their makeup.

Then we come to quarks and leptons and the like.

But didn't you say that you didn't have a background in quantum physics??!

Physicists call these subatomic particles point-like particles to indicate that no size or mass has so far been detected.

Many physicists insist that there probably isn't any "real" matter (as we think of these things) in the universe at all.

All interesting, but all irrelevant to the issue.

Many "theologians" (myself included) think that the only "real" thing that exists is God.

So, then, God's creation doesn't exist? Hm. Doesn't make sense. The Bible says that God created the heavens and earth and called all of it good. So then, we can extrapolate that into saying that non-existence is good, huh?

When it comes to this universe things simply appear and act as the Word of God commands them to.

Getting a mite contradictory here. If God commands "them", then they must exist. Otherwise, God is commanding non-existence to do things, which it can't. The ONLY reason things do what God commands is because they EXIST. I can't believe I'm having to explain this.

It just seems silly and arbitrary for someone to say that the Spirit of God is somehow excluded from certain parts of space and not from others.

What seems silly to me is the claim that God exists withIN things. The only place that the Bible says that God indwells is believers.

That kind of thinking and teaching just seems to be a contrivance to stay away from thinking about the omnipresence of God and it's implications.

There are no Biblical implications of God existing withIN things. None at all.

Anyway - I do not believe in pantheism.

Your view shares something with it though.

I'm going out on a limb here and insist that you really do know the difference and that you are just playing one of your silly games.

Wrong. I'm dead serious about God and where He exists. And you've given no Biblical indication that He exists withIN anything. I was the one to point out that the Holy Spirit indwells believers.

"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
And he is before all things, and in him all things consist." Colossians 1:16-17

Again, there is nothing withIN these verses that says that God exist withIN things.

What it clearly says is that God has created ALL THINGS and in Him ALL THINGS consist.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Butch5 said: ↑
Hi Hank,

My point is that verse 13 is descibing Jesus not "as many as received Him."

And we have yet to see one shred of evidence to support this. The way the passage reads, those who received Him did not do so by their own blood, by their own flesh or by their own will, but by God's Will.

Does not. v.12 is quite clear about HOW one "receives Him". "Even though who believe on His Name".

iow, one receives when one believes. Period. v.13 tells us who does the new birthing; God. Not man.

 

[Marvin Knox]

So to blame the sovereign God for creating all of the obnoxious evil in the world when it is the secondary cause (evil people) who do it, would be a travesty of justice.

I strongly affirm the sovereignty of God, but secondary causes are not the function of the primary cause. They function under the providence of God. We have examples (e.g. story of Joseph, story of exodus from Egypt, life of Job) where God placed boundaries around evil committed against people. However, God's sovereignty does not mean his creating all of the evil in our world.Oz

Oz,

I appreciate your concern for all of the horrible evil in the world. But the examples you use fall short as examples in that we are dealing with men who can only do so much and comparing them to God who can do anything He desires.

I also appreciate the objection to the unfortunate choice of words used in the WCF as to "cause". I'm not sure what word they could have used in it's place though.

They made it very clear from the jump that they were not using the word cause to teach that God was in any way the source of sin and it's resultant evil. They made it a point, as I have also, to stress that God holds only these "secondary" sources responsible for the actual sins.

Which of course could only be - since by it's very definition sin can not be done by the creator only by the creation.

All that they and I are saying is that God knew exactly and in the most thorough detail all of the evil things that would result from His choice to give free will to men. He did it anyway.

He could have done anything He wanted in the beginning. He also could have done and be doing anything He wants to in the situations leading up to these modern instances of evil. He is active in deciding, limiting, and even orchestrating these modern occurrences.

He is not limited now just as was true in the beginning. His choices were and are literally infinite.

He is the source of all things that exist. He is the one who decides what will be allowed to happen through the free choices of men and angels.

It seems obvious from scripture that He is not just reacting to the sins of men but that he is working from a detailed plan to do His ultimate will for this age. He decreed that plan before He ever started the process as the "first cause".

Those concepts seem abundantly clear from scripture IMO.

If you or anyone else objects to the word "cause" being used in the WCF - or if I do myself - we can use whatever words we want to use. Just so we do not throw out the word "cause" and then not teach the entire council of God.

The entire council teaches that He is in complete charge of every result of sin even a dead sparrow.

The problem is that men use the objecting to the word "cause" to get around the fact that everything that happens was predestined by God to happen.

And - the free will of men doesn't negate predestination nor does predestination negate free will. Rather - as the WCF spells out so well - they compliment each other in bringing His ultimate plan for this age to pass.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Joh 1:12-13 LITV But as many as received Him, to them He gave authority to become children of God, to the ones believing into His name, (13) who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but were born of God.

Joh 1:12-13 YLT but as many as did receive him to them he gave authority to become sons of God--to those believing in his name, (13) who (the previously referenced ones, the ones who received Him, he ones who believed in His Name)--not of blood nor of a will of flesh, nor of a will of man but--of God were begotten.

The "who" referred to in verse 13 are the ones in verse 12, the ones who received Him, the ones believing in His Name. They are the ones who are born of God which is a reference to the New Birth, specifically a birth not of blood (lineage), or the will of flesh or of the (free) will of man. Believers are born of God. That's what this passage teaches.

I do understand what Butch is saying. I disagree that his interpretation of the intent of the verses is correct.

I also understand that there have been some in the early church controversies who saw things the way he does.

But I also see the way that the concept is interpreted by pretty much every reputable Bible translation project member. And they are far and away more expert in these things than any of us are likely to ever become.

I am of the opinion that the reason for seeing things the way Butch does has to do with people's theology concerning the source of our salvation. That seems to me to be far and away the better way to look at their insistence than does the idea that they simply studied Greek in a neutral vein and just happen to see things that way.

I wouldn't insist that these verses are the ultimate "proof text" to use. But it does tend to help the cause of Reformed theology and that is the "rub" for some folks as I see it.

 

[Marvin Knox]

So, then, God's creation doesn't exist? Hm. Doesn't make sense. The Bible says that God created the heavens and earth and called all of it good. So then, we can extrapolate that into saying that non-existence is good, huh?

Getting a mite contradictory here. If God commands "them", then they must exist. Otherwise, God is commanding non-existence to do things, which it can't. The ONLY reason things do what God commands is because they EXIST. I can't believe I'm having to explain this.

You can see clearly that I put "real" in quotes.

And you know full well why I did it that way.

I can believe I'm having to explain this because I've seen your word games played for some time now.

The bottom line is that Pantheism teaches that the creation is God. Christianity teaches that God is omnipresent in the creation. That's a huge difference and one that you know full well.

Pantheism denies the transcendence of God.

Christianity teaches both the transcendence of God and His immanence as well.

I have stressed His immanence in this case because of it's implication concerning God's direct providential control of His creation - which we have been discussing here.

As you know full well, I have never denied and never would deny God's transcendence .

Pantheism is a heresy and I do not believe or teach pantheism.

You are saying that my belief is pantheism and I want you to stop.

You are accusing a brother of heresy when you know full well that he is not a heretic and I want you to repent.

And copping out by saying that you are only saying that my belief in omnipresence is "like" pantheism is no excuse.

 

[EmSw]

Oz,

I appreciate your concern for all of the horrible evil in the world. But the examples you use fall short as examples in that we are dealing with men who can only do so much and comparing them to God who can do anything He desires.

I also appreciate the objection to the unfortunate choice of words used in the WCF as to "cause". I'm not sure what word they could have used in it's place though.

They made it very clear from the jump that they were not using the word cause to teach that God was in any way the source of sin and it's resultant evil. They made it a point, as I have also, to stress that God holds only these "secondary" sources responsible for the actual sins.

Which of course could only be - since by it's very definition sin can not be done by the creator only by the creation.

All that they and I are saying is that God knew exactly and in the most thorough detail all of the evil things that would result from His choice to give free will to men. He did it anyway.

He could have done anything He wanted in the beginning. He also could have done and be doing anything He wants to in the situations leading up to these modern instances of evil. He is active in deciding, limiting, and even orchestrating these modern occurrences.

He is not limited now just as was true in the beginning. His choices were and are literally infinite.

He is the source of all things that exist. He is the one who decides what will be allowed to happen through the free choices of men and angels.

It seems obvious from scripture that He is not just reacting to the sins of men but that he is working from a detailed plan to do His ultimate will for this age. He decreed that plan before He ever started the process as the "first cause".

Those concepts seem abundantly clear from scripture IMO.

If you or anyone else objects to the word "cause" being used in the WCF - or if I do myself - we can use whatever words we want to use. Just so we do not throw out the word "cause" and then not teach the entire council of God.

The entire council teaches that He is in complete charge of every result of sin even a dead sparrow.

The problem is that men use the objecting to the word "cause" to get around the fact that everything that happens was predestined by God to happen.

And - the free will of men doesn't negate predestination nor does predestination negate free will. Rather - as the WCF spells out so well - they compliment each other in bring His ultimate plan for this age to pass.

Marvin, I see you have avoided post #142 so far. You say to teach entire counsel of God (except that you do not want to teach).

You accuse FG2 of playing word games, but so far, you are not sure how to handle how WCF uses the word 'cause'. If they didn't mean to use cause, them I am sure they would have come up with another word. Either they meant 'cause' or they didn't. Even you said we can use whatever word we want to use. How convenient. Use whatever word you want to make it mean whatever you want.

You keep stating everything that happens was predestined by to happen. Let me give this counsel from God again -

Jeremiah 32:35
And they build the high places of Baal, that are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come up on my heart to do this abomination, SO AS TO CAUSE JUDAH TO SIN.

Judah 'caused' their sons and daughters to pass through to Molech. God did not command this, nor did it come up on His heart to do this abomination. He did not 'cause' Judah to sin. How someone can make the statement you did about predestination when reading this passage is beyond me.

 

[Hank77]

But it does tend to help the cause of Reformed theology and that is the "rub" for some folks as I see it.

Would you please explain how this verse supports Reformed theology?
Joh 1:12 but as many as did receive Him to them He gave authority to become sons of God--to those believing in his name,

This sounds more like God is saying that He has given man a choice, He gave them the authority to become His sons, if they believe.
Or to those that believe His gave them the authority to become His sons.

Para. OT scripture...I put before you life and death, choose life.

 

[Job8]

They made it very clear from the jump that they were not using the word cause to teach that God was in any way the source of sin and it's resultant evil. They made it a point, as I have also, to stress that God holds only these "secondary" sources responsible for the actual sins.

Marvin, you can't have it both ways. The plain, ordinary dictionary meaning of "cause" has to be taken at face value, not with semantic and theological games (in which most people have no interest).

Here is what Merriam-Webster says (as do all the others): Cause (noun): something or someone that produces an effect, result, or condition : something or someone that makes something happen or exist.

So if the Westminster Confession is wrong about this matter, it is also wrong about many other issues. That should be honestly and frankly acknowledged by those who would put it on the same (or almost same) level as Scripture. We could go into many other fallacies within the Westminster Confession, but those would be off-topic.

The problem is that once people commit themselves to fallacies and theological errors, they simply will not repent when shown the truth. Hence the existence of false Christianity and cults. You can show them Scripture after Scripture to contradict their fallacies, but they will simply resist the Word of God. "GOD IS LIGHT, AND IN HIM IS NO DARKNESS AT ALL" (1 Jn 1:5) adequately smashes and destroys this fallacy.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You can see clearly that I put "real" in quotes.

And you know full well why I did it that way.

I can believe I'm having to explain this because I've seen your word games played for some time now.

The bottom line is that Pantheism teaches that the creation is God. Christianity teaches that God is omnipresent in the creation. That's a huge difference and one that you know full well.

Pantheism denies the transcendence of God.

Christianity teaches both the transcendence of God and His immanence as well.

I have stressed His immanence in this case because of it's implication concerning God's direct providential control of His creation - which we have been discussing here.

As you know full well, I have never denied and never would deny God's transcendence .

Pantheism is a heresy and I do not believe or teach pantheism.

You are saying that my belief is pantheism and I want you to stop.

I never said that. I said they were similar.

You are accusing a brother of heresy when you know full well that he is not a heretic and I want you to repent.

The idea that God exists withIN things makes me think of pantheism. I've never said your views were heretical.

And copping out by saying that you are only saying that my belief in omnipresence is "like" pantheism is no excuse.

I call it like I see it.

I will repeat; omnipresence means that God is everywhere, but that doesn't mean that God is withIN everything.

Being everywhere does not automatically mean being withIN everything. And no verse says so.

 

[nobdysfool]

Butch5 said: ↑
Hi Hank,

My point is that verse 13 is descibing Jesus not "as many as received Him."

Does not. v.12 is quite clear about HOW one "receives Him". "Even though who believe on His Name".

iow, one receives when one believes. Period. v.13 tells us who does the new birthing; God. Not man.

Thank you for agreeing with me. That is precisely my point. Butch was saying that the passage was about Christ, and His own Birth as a human. Clearly the passage does not lend itself to that interpretation. The whole point is that those who received Him and believe on Him do so by God's will, not their own. Their lineage, their flesh, and their will are not the source of God's birthing of them.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Would you please explain how this verse supports Reformed theology?
Joh 1:12 but as many as did receive Him to them He gave authority to become sons of God--to those believing in his name,

This sounds more like God is saying that He has given man a choice, He gave them the authority to become His sons, if they believe.
Or to those that believe His gave them the authority to become His sons.

Para. OT scripture...I put before you life and death, choose life.

We have been disputing the section of the passage that says that those who believe are "born" of the will of God and not of the will of men.

The "implication" is, at least to some, that regeneration primarily takes place because of God's choice of the individual and not the choice of the individual of God.

You obviously are one who would disagree. I'm just pointing out that verse 12 is not the focus of the controversy here. Verse 13 is.

But - returning to vs. 12 - no Reformed theologian that I know of would dispute that there is choice involved in the saving faith of any individual who truly becomes born again.

They would say that that faith is the result of a secret work of God - Who is the author of our faith - which is a gift from God.

Regarding the O.T. passage - we all know that God has given us that choice since before the fall when He gave the choice to Adam.

However there is controversy concerning what choice fallen men will make on their own when it comes to the gospel response. This - because of the passages that say that natural men cannot understand the things of God and do not even seek after God in their natural state and things of that nature.

We see passages like the one with God acting upon the heart of Lydia as showing how this all works itself out in personal faith. We also see the words of the Lord to Nicodemus about the wind as concerning the fact that being born again is only the result of a secret work of God and not the beginning.

You - I suppose - see things from a non Reformed viewpoint. You are in a very large group.

But how one deals with these and a great many more passages is what makes the controversy between Reformed and non Reformed. I believe that the more comprehensive dealing with the Word of God yields a belief that leans more strongly toward the Reformed side than toward the other side of things theological.

That doesn't mean that the truth will be expressed in the form of 5-point Calvinism however.

 

[nobdysfool]

I never said that. I said they were similar.


The idea that God exists withIN things makes me think of pantheism. I've never said your views were heretical.


I call it like I see it.

I will repeat; omnipresence means that God is everywhere, but that doesn't mean that God is withIN everything.

Being everywhere does not automatically mean being withIN everything. And no verse says so.

The real question is this: Is there any place where God is not?

 

[Marvin Knox]

Marvin, you can't have it both ways. The plain, ordinary dictionary meaning of "cause" has to be taken at face value, not with semantic and theological games (in which most people have no interest).

Here is what Merriam-Webster says (as do all the others): Cause (noun): something or someone that produces an effect, result, or condition : something or someone that makes something happen or exist.

Even if we agree that the choice of the word "cause" is unfortunate - the definition of the word cause by Webster doesn't in any way deny the truth of the idea that God's choice to give man free choice was the original or "first cause" of all that followed.

God knew full well every single sin and act of evil in the history of this age that would assuredly occur if He gave free choice to men. He purposefully did it anyway.

My contention, and that of the WCF as well, is that it was and is all part of a finely tuned plan for this age. Every thing in this age both evil and good is working toward a plan that has been ordained by God just as the WCF says.

Whether you like the exact wording or not is not the point. It is the overall teaching that is the point.

The WCF made it very clear that God is not the sinner but that the creation (the second causes) are.

So if the Westminster Confession is wrong about this matter, it is also wrong about many other issues. That should be honestly and frankly acknowledged by those who would put it on the same (or almost same) level as Scripture. We could go into many other fallacies within the Westminster Confession, but those would be off-topic.

The problem is that once people commit themselves to fallacies and theological errors, they simply will not repent when shown the truth. Hence the existence of false Christianity and cults. You can show them Scripture after Scripture to contradict their fallacies, but they will simply resist the Word of God. "GOD IS LIGHT, AND IN HIM IS NO DARKNESS AT ALL" (1 Jn 1:5) adequately smashes and destroys this fallacy.

The WCF got it right in this matter even if we acknowledge together that the exact word "cause" is unfortunate. They made it a point to make sure that the term could not be seen as meaning anything sinful about God. I don't know how more clear they could have been.

I don't know of anyone who puts the WCF anywhere near the same level as the Scripture. For sure I don't.

I do not believe that the WCF is infallible now and never have said anything along those lines. I disagree with them in several areas. I have never committed myself to those areas of disagreement.

I agree with your statement about cults and the difficulty of reaching them with the truth.

But Reformed theology is not false Christianity nor is it a cult.

 

[nobdysfool]

I do understand what Butch is saying. I disagree that his interpretation of the intent of the verses is correct.

I also understand that there have been some in the early church controversies who saw things the way he does.

But I also see the way that the concept is interpreted by pretty much every reputable Bible translation project member. And they are far and away more expert in these things than any of us are likely to ever become.

I am of the opinion that the reason for seeing things the way Butch does has to do with people's theology concerning the source of our salvation. That seems to me to be far and away the better way to look at their insistence than does the idea that they simply studied Greek in a neutral vein and just happen to see things that way.

I wouldn't insist that these verses are the ultimate "proof text" to use. But it does tend to help the cause of Reformed theology and that is the "rub" for some folks as I see it.

If you were of the impression that I was making reference to anything you were saying, then I did not make it clear that i was only addressing Butch. He is wrong, and continues to be wrong, and in so doing, he implied that the Canon of scripture was corrupted in this passage. In essence, he painted himself into a corner.

I was not implying that this passage any sort of a proof text for anything. I was just correcting error in the interpretation of this passage, made by someone who is decidedly anti-Reformed, and was trying to use this passage as a "proof" against Reformed Theology. It just so happens that it weighs more heavily in favor of Reformed Theology, than it does against it.

 

[nobdysfool]

Marvin, you can't have it both ways. The plain, ordinary dictionary meaning of "cause" has to be taken at face value, not with semantic and theological games (in which most people have no interest).

Here is what Merriam-Webster says (as do all the others): Cause (noun): something or someone that produces an effect, result, or condition : something or someone that makes something happen or exist.

So if the Westminster Confession is wrong about this matter, it is also wrong about many other issues. That should be honestly and frankly acknowledged by those who would put it on the same (or almost same) level as Scripture. We could go into many other fallacies within the Westminster Confession, but those would be off-topic.

The problem is that once people commit themselves to fallacies and theological errors, they simply will not repent when shown the truth. Hence the existence of false Christianity and cults. You can show them Scripture after Scripture to contradict their fallacies, but they will simply resist the Word of God. "GOD IS LIGHT, AND IN HIM IS NO DARKNESS AT ALL" (1 Jn 1:5) adequately smashes and destroys this fallacy.

the problem is this false accusation that the WCF or Reformed theology in general teaches that God causes sin, or causes anyone to commit any particular sin.

That is misrepresentation, and in essence, a lie.

If anyone uses that as the starting point of any sort of rant against Reformed Theology, none of their rant can be true, if it's base is a lie.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread has undergone a clean up.

1. The goading and complaints need to stop.

2. No one is teaching pantheism so that discussion needs to stop now.

3. Also, if you have a complaint about the moderation, start a thread in the Member Services center or send a pm to a staff member. ​