Choose a hand ...

[Avonia]

The "universe itself" is not a "who", it is a "what".

That's humorous. You just ascribed "itself" to the universe and then said it's not a "who."


.

 

[StormyOne]

A son cannot be adopted by his own father.

a son could "legally" be adopted by his father IF the father gave up his parental rights..... However no where do we get the idea that The Creator gave up any rights to humanity.... as such we remain what we have always been..... His children....

 

[JonMiller]

There is a theme in the Bible of Christ winning us back, of retaking us for Christ.

I know that it is an interpretation by Christians (at times).

Oh, and Sentipenti's definitions are sometimes a very different then those commonly used. I found that discovering what his definitions were were important parts of any discussion with him. Discussions with him are interesting once you get past the mixed up definitions.

JM

 

[JonMiller]

I judge a post by its content, not by its author, unless authorship is the issue. No one is always correct or always wrong.

In understanding some ting of writing it is general practice in academia to study and learn about the writer, who he was and what he meant. I actually feel at times people are too limited and only look at the writer... but that doesn't mean that the writer can be completely ignored.

I think that reading something written is an interplay between both writer and reader, to leave one or the other out (or to minimize their contribution) is wrong.

This is even more of the case when you are outside of what is traditionally thought of as narrative.

JM

 

[StormyOne]

There is a theme in the Bible of Christ winning us back, of retaking us for Christ.

I know that it is an interpretation by Christians (at times).

Oh, and Sentipenti's definitions are sometimes a very different then those commonly used. I found that discovering what his definitions were were important parts of any discussion with him. Discussions with him are interesting once you get past the mixed up definitions.

JM

just because that was the interpretation at that time does not make it correct......

 

[Avonia]

just because that was the interpretation at that time does not make it correct......

And . . . just because one interpretation is correct, does not mean that others are not. Or will not become so.

 

[sentipente]

a son could "legally" be adopted by his father IF the father gave up his parental rights..... However no where do we get the idea that The Creator gave up any rights to humanity.... as such we remain what we have always been..... His children....

Of course, by surrendering his parental rights he is no longer the boy's legal father.

 

[sentipente]

The "universe itself" is not a "who", it is a "what".

The question was "Who would you trust as a reliable authority on the state of the universe?"

Gilbert Jorgensen

But you and I and everybody else is a part of the universe. The Who has been satisfied.

 

[Avonia]

Of course, by surrendering his parental rights he is no longer the boy's legal father.

If a cosmic emancipation was possible, we would have a problem of origin. After, where would you have come from?

 

[AzA]

Identity politics are always interesting.
I am more than where I come from. Those who have stayed with me through the course of my life will know me best if "best" is about range. Those who have experienced this year with me will know me best if "best" is about depth. And anyOne who has seen both my course and this year will have a huge advantage over everybody else.

Is there One? I believe so.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Of course, by surrendering his parental rights he is no longer the boy's legal father.

And yet you claim that the boy cannot be adopted by his father. Clearly, this is not an accurate claim.

We are discussing "the spirit of an adoption as sons." This is clearly an analogy. And it is not the only analogy given. The analogy of marriage is also offered. Per Romans 7, Jews were married to the law and had to die to the law so that they could be joined to another. In the very next chapter (Romans 8), the analogy shifts to that of adoption. After being set free from the law of sin and death, the child is adopted as a son. The same principle is also found in Galatians 4, where we are told that we are no longer a child of the slave woman (represented by the that was from Sinai) but rather a child of the free woman.

These are analogies and "the universe" precludes none of them.

BFA

 

[Joe67]

The Most High God financed and designed the heaven and the earth.
Then He rested from the financing and designing, and is still resting.

Then his creation was generated through His agents. First the work of His fingers then the work of His mouth.

The work of the fingers of God will perish but that which comes from the mouth of the Lord will rise again, just like grass after it is cut.

Creator is all the family, even that part which will be cut off.

Joe