- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,778
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
I place ghost on a par with spirit. Both terms tend to connote immaterialism.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I place ghost on a par with spirit. Both terms tend to connote immaterialism.How do you like Holy Ghost (since that was the usual wording until recently)?
At some point after His awakening, Yahweh probably intuited several important realizations.
There is only one possible definition of merit: freely choosing to labor/suffer for a righteous cause over an extended period of time. For example if the cross were timeless, devoid of even one single instant of suffering, it would have no merit and merit no praise.The "I Am" is timeless and eternal. There is no "timeline" with Him.
Actually I think the opposite is true. I think that concepts such as immaterial spirit came from Platonic philosophy contrary to the bulk of evidence in scripture. As Augustine noted, every theophany in the Bible was God appearing as a physical substance. It takes quite a bit of philosophical ingenuity (read here Platonic philosophy) to impose immaterialism into the pages of Scripture.Jal, I've read through your responses here and all I can say is that the problem is that all of your responses / musings seem based on philosophical premises rather than theological ones.
In other words, you're just not quoting or engaging the Bible. Except in your word study for "Spirit", which as far as I'm concerned is nitpicking somewhat. Your notion of timelessness and time night also have Biblical merit too. But you'd need to be more explicit, IMO, with actual handling of texts.
As to the rest, you even seemed to imply that God "learned" over billions of years how to be holy. All this is philosophically possible and lots of it philosophically logical, perhaps, but simply not theological. There's nothing in the Bible that says that, anywhere, unless you've found something hidden somewhere like the Prayer of Jabez or something. (Please do let us know then)'
What gave the Reformation the power it had was it's "back to the Bible" stance. I'd say that any doctrines in need for reformation need to be reformed on the basis of the Bible, and not philosophy.
Philosophy has its part, sure, and I do love philosophy. But when it begins to be the driver for Christian doctrine and practice rather than one of several tools for life and study then you're simply creating a monster.
Seems to me you can't see the forest for the trees. Let's not lose sight of one important point, namely the law of non-contradiction. Meaning, I don't care if you've got a million verses that 'seem' to backup your position - it's STILL WRONG if it contains any logical inconsistencies.Jal, I've read through your responses here and all I can say is that the problem is that all of your responses / musings seem based on philosophical premises rather than theological ones.
In other words, you're just not quoting or engaging the Bible. Except in your word study for "Spirit", which as far as I'm concerned is nitpicking somewhat. Your notion of timelessness and time night also have Biblical merit too. But you'd need to be more explicit, IMO, with actual handling of texts.
As to the rest, you even seemed to imply that God "learned" over billions of years how to be holy. All this is philosophically possible and lots of it philosophically logical, perhaps, but simply not theological. There's nothing in the Bible that says that, anywhere, unless you've found something hidden somewhere like the Prayer of Jabez or something. (Please do let us know then)'
What gave the Reformation the power it had was it's "back to the Bible" stance. I'd say that any doctrines in need for reformation need to be reformed on the basis of the Bible, and not philosophy.
Philosophy has its part, sure, and I do love philosophy. But when it begins to be the driver for Christian doctrine and practice rather than one of several tools for life and study then you're simply creating a monster.
Are you certain that Jesus' learning wasn't just evidence of his human nature, and not anything as concerned his divine nature?That is to say, Jesus experienced ignorance as a babe and then LEARNED. This strongly suggests that it is in God's NATURE to LEARN. There is no potential discord here, no potential disharmony, no need to 'search for (humanly incomprehensible) solutions' such as the hypostatic union. My theology flows NATURALLY with the actual text.
You're speaking of the hypostatic union. The concept of two natures is postulated in no intellectual arena other than in mainstream christianity - and with the disclaimer that it is a humanly incomprehensible concept. In all other intellectual arenas, any notion of a reality having two conflicting natures is immediately dismissed as a contradiction in terms.Are you certain that Jesus' learning wasn't just evidence of his human nature, and not anything as concerned his divine nature?
Just accept anything I say as gospel, and you'll be fine.I'm confused with the new ideas this thread introduces.
Lol. I remember my Grade 1 teacher explaining to us why the term 'ghost' had to be dropped because it was potentially too scary for kids.How do you like Holy Ghost (since that was the usual wording until recently)?
There are several alternatives, though perhaps you're including omnipotence as a premise and these don't include that premise.I only see two possibilities here - feel free to chime in if you think I'm missing something.
(1) God made this (potentially) dark world out of a perceived NEED for it. He felt that His back was against the wall. Caught between a rock and a hard place, He saw no choice in the matter. In this case, His act of creation is a perfectly understandable move on His part.
(2) He created this world just for the FUN OF IT. He WANTED a world where it's possible for man to fall to the extent that even infants and adolescents suffer rape, murder, starvation, and disease. He WANTED a world where men have enough freedom to condemn themselves to punishment and hellfire. This is His form of ENTERTAINMENT.
There are several alternatives, though perhaps you're including omnipotence as a premise and these don't include that premise.
The simplest is to say that God can't have a world of responsible beings that is also free of suffering, either because it's logically impossible or because he isn't omnipotent. There are at least three reasonable alternatives:
(3) He created the world because he thought having men who are saved was worth the cost of having some people suffer. This is most plausible when coupled with annihilationism or universalism, but might be justifiable without it.
(4) The best he can do is make it better, which he has done.
(5) He can make it perfect, but it takes time, either because it really does or because he has chosen to do much of his work through us. This is most plausible when coupled with annihilationism or universalism, but might be justifiable without it.
I think some versions of 3 and 5 can be made orthodox, though perhaps they are most attractive when combined with universalism. I suspect there are alternatives I haven't thought of.
I believe most people hold something like (3).
He wanted us.So if you REALLY want to propose a third alternative, please demonstrate that the two are NOT exhaustive. Fill in option 3 below:
(1) God NEEDED us.
(2) He did NOT need us.
(3) ????? What's the third possibility?
I doubt that a third possibility exists.
Ok so He wanted us for his pleasure (just for the fun of it). But He is infinitely self-sufficient, right? Isn't that the mainstream view? As such, isn't He capable of affording Himself the same level of pleasure without us?He wanted us.
Was there a specific question you wanted to ask?I'm confused with the new ideas this thread introduces.
Ok so He wanted us for his pleasure (just for the fun of it). But He is infinitely self-sufficient, right? Isn't that the mainstream view? As such, isn't He capable of affording Himself the same level of pleasure without us?
So you mean to tell me - just for the fun of it - He created the kind of world potentially culminating in the nailing of His own Son to the cross?
In your view, is God a sadist? A [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]? Or both?
I'll engage with you on some of your other points when I have a little extra time, as they're interesting and it seems like it'll be a lively discussion.Let's not lose sight of one important point, namely the law of non-contradiction. Meaning, I don't care if you've got a million verses that 'seem' to backup your position - it's STILL WRONG if it contains any logical inconsistencies.
"You foolish Galatians!" (Gal 3:1). As human beings of very limited knowledge, all of us are potentially susceptible to doctrinal error.
The mainstream teachings in question here are problematical for various reasons. Seemingly, at least:
- They do not appear to always cast Yahweh in the best possible light, potentially leaving an uninformed reader with doubts about the supreme excellency of His character and His unqualified desert of praise.
- They seem unaware of Yahweh's most costly, unselfish, altruistic sacrifice, mistaking it for the cross. Sadly, Yahweh doesn't seem to be getting any credit/praise for His most self-sacrificial work.
- They seem unaware of why Yahweh created us.
- They seem unaware of the Third Person's true name and nature. Surprisingly, after 2,000 years the church still refers to Him as "The Holy Spirit" or "The Holy Ghost". As a result of such apparent mistakes, mainstream theologians are still mystified even by a verse as lucid as John 3:5.
- They seem unaware of what an intimate relationship with the Father entails and thereby potentially steer our prayer lives in inappropriate directions.
The most important point of all, however, is that church leaders should abstain from any pretense of infallibility in their teachings. When a pastor preaches a sermon with the aura or disposition of, "I've studied my Bible and therefore KNOW exactly what I'm talking about", he's actually hindering revival by building on a platform of intellectual dishonesty. The truth is that he merely has OPINIONS (see my signature), just like the rest of us.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?