How do I love my enemies?

[razzelflabben]

You have to appreciate, Razzle, that there are two different worlds involved here. There is the world of the laity, of which you are working, and there is the world of academia, out of which I am coming. The problem is that there is a town-gown riff here. Many laity naively assume that the academic world of theological and biblical scholarship is pretty much like what they learned in Sunday-school class. Far from it. The academic world is a completely different ballgame, with different goals, methods, and often comes to conclusions very different from the way the laity see matters. When some things do trickle down into the world of the laity, they are bound to be confused or feel threatened at times. That is only to be expected, Education alienates. Occupational hazard. I am well-aware I am presenting new material to the laity here and that this will cause some confusion, which I will work to straighten out.

now, I do not for one second think that this is intended as an insult to my character, however, by making assumptions about me and my education, you are doing just that. Which is one of the problems I have had with the "educated" for many many many years now. This idea of superiority is troubling especially if you know and understand what I do about the world. So, let me clarify something for you....not only am I educated, my husband is to, in fact, our kids joke with people that we have enough education to know everything. Much, but not all that education is about God, that is scripture, theology, etc. My problem is not in understanding what you are saying, it is in understanding why you would present heathenistic teaching as traditional understanding and then expect us to accept it because you are "educated"?

Christianity represents a wide spectrum of belief systems. It is not monolithic, just one way. It is a rich tapestry of highly divergent belief systems that often stand in tension with one another. Many find this frustrating and confusing. I understand that. However, what I like here is that there are choices, freedom. If you are unhappy in one church, you can up and move to another. I chose to work out of the liberal Christian tradition. I studied in a liberal Christian seminary and am affiliated with liberal Christian churches, where my theology is appreciated and respected as representing a major dimension of contemporary Christian thought.

lol...like I just said, no need to talk down to me as you are trying to do here.

Now, to task, from a religious standpoint, you are correct, there are a wide diversity of beliefs that are all classified under the heading of "christian"...that however does NOT make what you are proclaiming as traditional or mainstream beliefs to be such. In fact, from the standpoint of what is traditionally taught and of mainstream understanding, God is very much like man in the aspect of feelings and emotions and attachments to mankind. These ideas come straight out of scripture. Where I often find problems with "mainstream, traditional christian views" the vast majority are supported in scripture, which sadly, those you touted were not, these are the reasons you were called out on the matter. Just saying I believe in God isn't enough to enter into a discussion about the living God and think that you have a leg to stand on, especially when the only card you are holding is your boast of education which you use to put others down.

Since many laity have little education in church history, they lack a clear picture of how certain church teachings got there. This is especially with the traditional or Classical Christian model of God, the picture painted of what God is really like in his own nature. Many laity automatically assume this model came right out of the pages of Scripture and leave it go at that. Far from it. The classical model of God, the God of the church fathers and major creeds and confessions, came largely from certain schools of Hellenic philosophy, not Scripture, and often stood in tension with teh biblical model of God. That's the point many laity have trouble getting their heads around. So let me explain further. Inspired and important as the Bible may be, it is definitely not a book of metaphysics or systematic theology. It tells us very little about how God is actually built.

now, this is where you are letting your education confuse you. It's common among the "academia" world. You see, if you want to know about a deity, you don't go to men and ask, what is X like, whether that be the God of the Bible or Zeus or some other god. Rather you do to the source that claims to be the authority of that deity. In this case, the claim is that God authored the Bible, thus the Bible is the authority for who God is, not man. If you dismiss the bible as you are doing and look only to man, you are exploring the god of man not the God of the Bible. They are two completely different God's iow's. In this discussion we are suppose to be talking about the God of the Bible, not the god of man and as such, you are off topic.

I presents snapshots of God, which often conflict with one another. In some passages, God is said to be immutable, in others mutable, for example. It sis left for the reader to put these together into some organized picture. The Bible is a doorway opening the reader into further metaphysical study. To answer the many kinds of metaphysical questions, intelligent, thoughtful Christians will pose, the church fathers looked to certain schools of Hellenic philosophy. Now, the Greeks had all kinds of schools of philosophy. However, some did predominate over others, and these saw the material world of time and change as a big illusion, something evil. The immune and the immutable were enshrined as ultimate divine perfection. Incorporated in the fathers' doctrine of God, this meant God was traditionally described as without body, parts, passions, compassion, immutable. The traditional Christology of the major creeds and confessions centered on the notion that God is impassible, for example. The fathers did realize this cold Deity stands intension with the biblical model, as Scripture presents a highly anthropomorphic image of God as having enduring and charming humanlike characteristics and capable of deep emotion and also change. However, the fathers simply swept all this away, arguing these were mere figures of speech that had actually nothing to do with the actual nature of God. Many Christians today hold with the classical model. I was talking with one in this forum the other day.

for someone who is so learned, you seem to have huge gaps in your understanding of how to study. Unfortunately much of the academic world would have us ignorant of how to study because it is much harder to take someone who knows how to study and control their thinking, however, it is vital to truth that we ourselves learn to study not just learn to take the teachers at what they say and in that declare truth and wisdom and superiority over others. In fact, this lack of true education seems to be the core of our current social dilemmas. So, one important thing you are missing is common literary rules when reading scripture. IOWs if it looks like a poem, smells like a poem, tastes like a poem, most likely it is a poem. Reading scripture with this understanding is very eye opening but much to the dismay of the "intellectual" crowd, that makes scripture easy enough for the layman to understand without all the boastful theologians telling them they have it wrong. Another big gap in your knowledge is that of consistency of thought. In any literary work, there is a consistency of idea. Take for example the book I am currently writing, it is a murder mystery where the problem is lack of love. Throughout the entire book, the lack of love is the issue, it doesn't change midway through to the problem being lack of snow on the ground, then switch to lack of pets in the house and then back to lack of love so that we can once again change the issue to lack of Mc Donald's food. To change the theme so to speak that much would be confusing to the reader and would make the point being made mote. However, in literature, consistency not only clarifies for us, but it emphasises the point being made. Likewise in scripture, the "emotional" nature of God is a consistency that clarified for us that God, though He is very different from mankind, has emotions, feelings, thoughts, etc. just like mankind does. Gen. tells us this is because we were created in HIS image. Which is the total opposite from what you are trying to teach. You see, in order for you to come to the conclusions you do, you have to throw away common literary rules and exchange them for self righteous, boastful, self invented ideas that the academic world loves to throw around as wise and learned truths, but without the rules, all we have is more lies.

Since World War I, most fields have been in a state of upheaval, where everyone is reexamining and redefining basic concepts heretofore taken for granted. This is true in theology, where it is said that there is no orthodoxy, every thing is up for grabs. The emphasis in upon critically examining traditions and making needed updates, everything is up for redefinition. So the traditional picture of God is getting a major face lift. Scripture alone here is not nearly enough, for, as I said, Scripture is not a work in metaphysics.

As I said, the only way to know God and to know if God is truth, is to dismiss all the "knowledge" of man and go to the source that God claims to be the authority of who He is. IOW's by dismissing scripture you are inventing a different god and then trying to convince us it is the same God, which is deceptive, offensive, and otherwise disturbing. The only way to know and understand God is through the mechanism that He gives us which is the Bible. This same rule applies to every deity known to man, the only way to know that deity and test that deities claims is through the mechanism that deity gives us for knowing about him/her/them, otherwise, you are creating a new deity and stealing the name of another deity to apply to the new invented one.

 

[Hoghead1]

Look, Razzle, I was not then nor now trying to insult you. However, truth is, you have had very little education in theology and therefore some serious misunderstandings about academia, theology, and what I have said. I am willing to help you out here, but that is hard for me to do if you are going to sit in judgment on me or the world of theology, something which you have absolutely no authority or education to do in the first place. It makes no sense to sit in judgment on a subject you know little about. All that amounts to is you trying to demonize what you don't understand. The criticisms of academia you brought up are quite common among the laity. They are generally based on the assumption that the world of theological scholarship should live up to the expectations of the laity. That is a misplaced criticism because the world of scholarship is a wholly different world with very different standards and goals and a huge information pool well beyond the scope of most laity. It is not about to live up to your standards and it is not intended to.
For example, you brought up about some "heathen God" and how I am wrongfully attributing this to traditional Christianity. I assume you are referring to are the remarks I made abut the high God of classical theism, the traditional Christian doctrine of God. This is purely based on you going on your own standards for what is Christian and your own expectations for what the Christian doctrine of God historically should have claimed. Only problem is, it in no way reflects the actual facts of the case. Maybe I didn't make this as clear as I thought I did earlier, but my analysis is referring directly to the description of God as provided by the traditional church fathers and also the major creeds and confessions. And yes, that did describe God as a passionless, indifferent, Unmoved Mover. And, yes, the fact is many Christians today hold with this model. As I said, I was just talking with a member here who holds with the classical model. Going into some history here, The Westminster Confession say that God is without body, parts, passions, wholly immutable. The Second Helvetic insists on God's impassibility in its doctrine of Christ. A point also central in traditional Christologies as well, ever since the Council of Chalcedon in 451. St. Anselm argued that since God was passionless, God was also without compassion. I can go on with many other examples as well. St. Thomas Aquinas echoed this point in his concept of God's love, where he argues God's love is unlike human live, as God's love is without empathy. Right down the line, teh church fathers clearly stated that God was an actus purus, a statically complete perfection and therefore wholly immutable. I also pointed out the classical model came largely from the import of Hellenic philosophy into Christendom, not Scripture. I also pointed out the classical model does stand in great tension with the highly anthropomorphic God of Scripture, who does change and experience deep emotion. I explained that the classical theists explained all this away on the basis such metaphors were best understood as mere figurer of speech that had nothing whatsoever to do with the actual nature of God. So if you think I am referring to some "heathen" God here, this is solely because you have a large gap in your knowledge of teh doctrine of God in Christianity. You maybe should thank me for taking the time to clue you in here, instead of trying to sit in judgment and condemn me.

When you bring in Scripture, you should carefully bear in mind that it is not a book in metaphysics. That is why the early fathers borrowed heavily from philosophy. Had they not done that, the church would not have survived, as it would have been headless, lacking any major intellectual component. Questioning thoughtful minds are bound to bring up many metaphysical questions. By metaphysical questions, I mean questions about the basic structure of reality. For example, Is it all mind, matter, a combination of the two, or something else? How is God built? Is God material or immaterial, complex or simple? Does God have emotion? Why did God create the world? Does or does not God need the world? Why? Where exactly is God? Outside creation, working in, or inside creation, omnipresent? These are some of the many important metaphysical questions that have cropped up down the line. If you think you can simply open the Bible and easily grab an answer to these kinds of questions, you are in for a rude awakening. If you think it is enough to convince others simply because you believe there is some biblical warrant for your position, you are again in for a rude awakening. The Bible is subject to more than one interpretation. Both the early Trinitarians and the anti-Trinitarians battled it out, each side using Scripture. Based on Scripture, the Trinitarians have produced more than one theory of the Trinity: the social theory, the immanent theory, the economic theory, the modal theory, etc. Which one, if any, are you going to follow? Why? Working out of Scripture, Christianity has produced more than one theory of the Atonement. Which do you hold with and why? The prefect-pattern man, the penal-substitutionary theory, the classical theory? Nobody comes to Scripture, wit a blank mind. You get out of Scripture what you put into it. Scripture is always being viewed through one kind of a lens or another. You may well think you are getting you directly from Scripture. However, as laity, you are viewing Scripture through the lens provided by your church's doctrines, the church fathers, major religious leaders, etc. You are viewing Scripture through someone else's eyes. So you need to carefully examine what lenses you are using and y you consider them valid. If you look at Scripture through the lens of classical theism, you will reach one conclusion about the anthropomorphic imagery of God in Scripture. If you look at Scripture though the lens of neo-classical theism, you will reach a wholly different understanding of this imagery. I could go on, but have no time left. If you have any questions, let me know.

 

[The Mystical Way]

Well, we are even. Your attitude and posted remarks to me break the rules of theological dialogue, so I'm done with you, too.

You really aren't one for reading between the lines, are you? Playful smilies and stuff directed at you and you still get on your high horse! Well here's a newsflash: I got converted directly by the Holy Spirit back in early August 1998 around the time that I was turning 21; I was the only person in the room (my bedroom) and the only other person present who was awake was my atheist friend who was playing Tekken 2 downstairs. See, before that time I used to make fun of Jesus with my own cartoons I'd draw and stuff in my free time, like a hobby. In them, I'd depict Him with googly eyes (kinda like in The Simpsons or Garfield comics) and a dorky smile and lank hair, smoking and shooting up heroin and driving a convertible and stuff. And I used to sometimes tell people I was Jesus Christ and basically act like a complete tool. I'd been doing this for years 'cause I had a grudge against Christianity 'cause my father had tried to raised us with this "Christian Brethren"/"Plymouth Brethren" ("Open Brethren") but it was this double life where he'd sometimes help out at church with sermons and stuff but then at home he'd call me and my mother and brother (older than me by two years) expletives and say bad things about our intelligence and he'd give me a hard time for bedwetting and push my nose in the wet sheets sometimes and get stuck into "punishing" me with his belt and stuff like that. And I even remember he once whacked my brother on top of the head with a leather-bound KJV so hard in a single blow that it made his nose bleed. He was around 10 - 11 at the time so I would've been like 8 - 9.... And there were issues with me needing mental health treatment too because of problems that originated with me getting severely physically ill and almost dying from a sudden breathing obstruction when I was 4.... But the small backwater town I was from was just so lacking in services like that, so I was kind of at the mercy of that effing bullshnitzel.... So I just ignored most of the teachings, phoned it in when it came to making an effort at Sunday school, and ignored the main church services completely by pretending to fall asleep and snore loudly through them. And then when I was about 14 my parents split up (and later divorced) and my mum ended up with another guy who was a lot nicer than my dad but was nevertheless a drunkard, problem gambler, yadda yadda yadda. So things happen and life happens and several years later in early August 1998 I'm in my room as high as a kite on weed and I'd just been messing with the I Ching and I was gonna draw one of my "zany" Jesus pictures for my friend and this VERY AUDIBLE male voice told me: "You mock things you do not understand!" I thought it was the weed at first but I asked who it was and it said that it was "the God of the true Christians and Jews". And then it told me that Jesus Christ is God! And I was like "Whoa!" 'cause I just thought Jesus was probably not God, but just some weird historical dude. So to hear that He actually is God, plain as day.... I went downstairs and asked my friend if he'd heard the voice and he said no. I couldn't believe it. Because to me, it was so loud it was like their were speakers hidden in my room! But it's like it was kind of somewhere in the top and back of my skull but also 1 - 3 feet above me and also in a tunnel in the back of my head! It was surreal! Anyway, He told me to go and get my mother's Bible (which she hardly read anyway), and so I got it from her bedside table.... He told me to close my eyes, and then He said something, and He told me to open the Bible randomly with my eyes closed and then look! And it was like the thing He said! Like Psalm 18:33! And then a bunch of other stuff, about six times which I don't really remember because it was all really mind-blowing.... He told me things in the Bible and showed me where they were and explained their meanings to me and this went on for nine years and during those same nine years He also got rid of a spirit in our home that was sneakily moving small objects around and that would sometimes turn the TV or radio up or down or change the channel or station.... And He cured me of reflux I'd had for three years, and of really bad flexibility in my legs where I couldn't kick any higher than my own waist (he made it so I could kick near head-high!) and He taught me some self-defence stuff which impressed a martial arts instructor guy I knew so much that I was given a complimentary gi with a black belt even though I had no formal training at all.... And eventually He cured the bedwetting problem around October 2007 by telling me that He'd cure it if I slept for just one night with my windows shut — so I did, and it really worked!!! And that was great because I'd got sick of peeing the bed severely an average of 3 - 4 nights a week for so many damn years 'cause it was just demoralising. So yeah.

And you know, my relationship with Him has its own terms and agreements and sometimes I've been upbraided by Him for not holding up my end of deals properly but I'm getting better at it and He's always fairly gentle with me anyway but when other people trash-talk me or try to antagonise me or whatever, oh ho ho ho — LOOK OUT! I've seen it where people have insulted me cruelly or tried to flip things around to make me look like a bad guy and He's told me that He would take care of the problem and then struck them with sudden and inexplicable sharp pain in the head or in a leg, or made them suddenly become really clumsy so that they keep bumping into things and opening the fridge door into their own face and things like that.... He actually told me He's been doing this for me since before I knew about Him, like when I was in 8th grade and this kid in 10th or 11th grade spat at me and called me a rude word for a homosexual even though I'm not gay, and the next day in an unrelated incident that same guy was kicked in the balls by some other dude so hard that it permanently sterilised him! And when I was about 19 or 20, my dad returned some old photos to my mother and I, but the photos had been cut with scissors — and a week or two later he crashed his minivan and got put in a neck brace! In fact, God has been so blatantly protective of me in over the years in that kind of round-about way that I actually had to ask Him to tone it down because it was making me feel a bit uncomfortable because of how we're supposed to be forgiving and stuff — but I still occasionally leave people to Him when they cross certain lines with me.... He's like that with me because when it comes to the concept of being "a child of God", He literally sees me as more "childlike" in heart and in character than He sees most other Christians. He told me so.

He also told me other stuff, mostly just about me personally, but I'm not allowed to share it.

So anyway, when you be all like "Blah blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda, etc.", with all your clever stuff, whoop-de-do! It means so little to me.... Hahahaha.... You really have no idea. But God bless you anyway, mister! But what is all this talk about theological academic stuff on a sub-forum called "Struggles by Non-Christians", in a thread about loving one's enemies? Are you sure you're in the right place? Now me, my main posts here, they have dealt with the topic at hand in some way or another. Maybe my approach has been really weird and stuff for the most part and you don't "get" my style but that's your loss. When you can honestly come out and say that you got directly hand-picked and set aside by Him without having to fear retribution for lying or deluding yourself or anything like that, then you can preside in judgement over me and my theological worldview and stuff. 'cause you know, those pictures I posted and stuff: they're not things that I believed after I saw them! They're things where the message came to me before I saw them, in a way that inspired me to search to find pictures and comics that expressed them! So all I did is use them to relay the principles and stuff I've been taught directly by Him. So have fun with your stance.

Anyway I wasn't originally gonna come back here and had even unsubscribed from this thread a couple of days ago but I'm glad I decided to check out what was going on because it turns out that putting you in your place was overdue because talking down to me isn't something wise....

And no, I don't have anything to gain from giving my testimony like I've done, by the way. I'm not interested in making friends or having people "follow" me because I'm mostly a loner.... I don't want other people's approval or money or any crap like that.... I'm not planning to be a pastor or minister or any of that stuff. I know for a fact that most people reading all of this won't really believe it. That's fine. Good for them. All I know is that I'm a part of something bigger. I'm just telling it like it is. I'm not into guile and ruses. There are others like me who were directly hand-picked by God, with no human intervention at all, and without any stereotypically dramatic stories of "hitting rock bottom and deciding to pick up a Bible". I don't know what our purpose is in detail because I haven't been told yet. I only know that we are not core members of your churches, if we are even in your churches at all; we don't get our theological "training" from stuff written by people; we are a ragtag, motley bunch who are seen by both many in the secular world and many in the Christian world as annoying, uncooperative, stupid and rude, and we are going to turn things upside-down — and you will know where we have been by what we leave in our wake. So I don't have to justify myself to you or to anyone like you. My "accountability" doesn't extend that far. It starts and ends with my contract with God. I know my place. Know yours.

I am done with you — I wipe my hands of any association with you, in every way, shape, and form. But have a nice day anyway.

 

[razzelflabben]

Look, Razzle, I was not then nor now trying to insult you. However, truth is, you have had very little education in theology and therefore some serious misunderstandings about academia, theology, and what I have said. I am willing to help you out here, but that is hard for me to do if you are going to sit in judgment on me or the world of theology, something which you have absolutely no authority or education to do in the first place. It makes no sense to sit in judgment on a subject you know little about. All that amounts to is you trying to demonize what you don't understand. The criticisms of academia you brought up are quite common among the laity. They are generally based on the assumption that the world of theological scholarship should live up to the expectations of the laity. That is a misplaced criticism because the world of scholarship is a wholly different world with very different standards and goals and a huge information pool well beyond the scope of most laity. It is not about to live up to your standards and it is not intended to.

I was unaware that you knew me well enough to know what education I have had and where I got it from and when I use the bathroom, how did you get such knowledge? As to laity and academia, I am a firm believer that they can and should learn from one another, and if you had any understanding at all of who you were talking to, you would refrain from making the judgment calls you are based on your perceptions of things you couldn't possibly know.

For example, you brought up about some "heathen God" and how I am wrongfully attributing this to traditional Christianity. I assume you are referring to are the remarks I made abut the high God of classical theism, the traditional Christian doctrine of God. This is purely based on you going on your own standards for what is Christian and your own expectations for what the Christian doctrine of God historically should have claimed.

my comments are based solely on the criteria I already presented to you, that of going to the authority of a given deity to know and understand that deity. When we step outside that authority, all we are doing is allowing man to create his own god which is very disturbing for those of us who know the living God. But alas, the topic of this thread is how to love one's enemy and so unless you can bring us back onto topic, I fear we are finished with our discussion unless you want to start another thread and invite me to that discussion.

Only problem is, it in no way reflects the actual facts of the case. Maybe I didn't make this as clear as I thought I did earlier, but my analysis is referring directly to the description of God as provided by the traditional church fathers and also the major creeds and confessions.

that was clear and is exactly why your position can and should be dismissed as heresy. See, the church fathers, major creeds, confessions, ect. are NOT the authority on who God is, scripture is the authority as interpreted by NOT the church fathers, but by the HS. Anything else is just a man made god and has no power or authority and lacks truth.

And yes, that did describe God as a passionless, indifferent, Unmoved Mover. And, yes, the fact is many Christians today hold with this model. As I said, I was just talking with a member here who holds with the classical model. Going into some history here, The Westminster Confession say that God is without body, parts, passions, wholly immutable. The Second Helvetic insists on God's impassibility in its doctrine of Christ. A point also central in traditional Christologies as well, ever since the Council of Chalcedon in 451. St. Anselm argued that since God was passionless, God was also without compassion. I can go on with many other examples as well. St. Thomas Aquinas echoed this point in his concept of God's love, where he argues God's love is unlike human live, as God's love is without empathy. Right down the line, teh church fathers clearly stated that God was an actus purus, a statically complete perfection and therefore wholly immutable. I also pointed out the classical model came largely from the import of Hellenic philosophy into Christendom, not Scripture. I also pointed out the classical model does stand in great tension with the highly anthropomorphic God of Scripture, who does change and experience deep emotion. I explained that the classical theists explained all this away on the basis such metaphors were best understood as mere figurer of speech that had nothing whatsoever to do with the actual nature of God. So if you think I am referring to some "heathen" God here, this is solely because you have a large gap in your knowledge of teh doctrine of God in Christianity. You maybe should thank me for taking the time to clue you in here, instead of trying to sit in judgment and condemn me.

yawning....you see, it is quite boring and pretentious for you to repeat yourself instead of addressing the arguments I made against what your claim was in the beginning. As I said, I am educated and thus I understand your point well, it is however a flawed point for all the reasons I previously presented and instead of addressing those points, you post this condescending, repeat of your position as if no rebuttal was given, making this a post of pretentious, prideful boasting instead of courteous, polite, godly, communication and discussion. To that end, I will assume that if you repeat yourself in this way again, you are purposing to be inflammatory, otherwise, you will either end the discussion here or address the rebuttals I presented that you don't seem to want to address. Not sure why you would be so determined to avoid the discussion from someone who is learned, but that is your business.

When you bring in Scripture, you should carefully bear in mind that it is not a book in metaphysics. That is why the early fathers borrowed heavily from philosophy. Had they not done that, the church would not have survived, as it would have been headless, lacking any major intellectual component. Questioning thoughtful minds are bound to bring up many metaphysical questions. By metaphysical questions, I mean questions about the basic structure of reality. For example, Is it all mind, matter, a combination of the two, or something else? How is God built? Is God material or immaterial, complex or simple? Does God have emotion? Why did God create the world? Does or does not God need the world? Why? Where exactly is God? Outside creation, working in, or inside creation, omnipresent? These are some of the many important metaphysical questions that have cropped up down the line.

most of these questions are answered in scripture. to find the answer one needs only to study the scriptures over taking mans wisdom.

If you think you can simply open the Bible and easily grab an answer to these kinds of questions, you are in for a rude awakening. If you think it is enough to convince others simply because you believe there is some biblical warrant for your position, you are again in for a rude awakening. The Bible is subject to more than one interpretation.

not this is something we haven't yet mentioned and deserves to be addressed. There is only one correct interpretation of scripture according to scripture. In order to know what that interpretation is, there are several "checks and balances" that we are taught in scripture to hold to. The most important one is the teaching or interpretation given by the HS Himself. Another vital one was already talked about, that of consistency of thought, iow's does this interpretation line up with the totality of scripture. Context is also vital to our understanding as is unity. Well, since again, this is off topic, we will leave it there. I am surprised that for someone who claims sure a great education that you do not even know the basics of comprehension skills.

Both the early Trinitarians and the anti-Trinitarians battled it out, each side using Scripture. Based on Scripture, the Trinitarians have produced more than one theory of the Trinity: the social theory, the immanent theory, the economic theory, the modal theory, etc. Which one, if any, are you going to follow? Why? Working out of Scripture, Christianity has produced more than one theory of the Atonement. Which do you hold with and why? The prefect-pattern man, the penal-substitutionary theory, the classical theory?

the only one that we dare accept is the one that comes from a godly study of scripture not a man's wisdom of manipulating into scripture what he wants god to be.

One thing that I will share about myself personally that might help you understand, though given the nature of your posts I'm not sure you will even hear what I am saying. Some almost 50 years ago, I began a quest to know and understand all I could about the God of the bible, not the God I was told He was, not the God I wanted Him to be, but the God that He really is. That quest has demanded that I change a lot of what I thought into a much more consistent understanding of what scripture tells us. I threw away the so called "teachers and theologians" and replaced them with study of scripture. The end result has put me at odds with the traditions of the church on multiple occasions but in the end, it has opened my life to HS power and changes in who I am in Christ that boggle the minds of people who know me. You see, scripture tells us to seek God, not man's wisdom of God, but God Himself. When we do that, He promises to be found. You my friend, need to find God by seeking after Him, not the wisdom of man.

Nobody comes to Scripture, wit a blank mind. You get out of Scripture what you put into it.

which is exactly why one should study it in the power of the HS as I suggest above.

Scripture is always being viewed through one kind of a lens or another. You may well think you are getting you directly from Scripture.

see again, just more statements that attempt to belittle by totally ignoring what I said. Which is quite disheartening from someone who could add so much to a discussion but rather than adding to it, insists on taking away from it and trying to take us off topic.

However, as laity, you are viewing Scripture through the lens provided by your church's doctrines, the church fathers, major religious leaders, etc. You are viewing Scripture through someone else's eyes. So you need to carefully examine what lenses you are using and y you consider them valid. If you look at Scripture through the lens of classical theism, you will reach one conclusion about the anthropomorphic imagery of God in Scripture. If you look at Scripture though the lens of neo-classical theism, you will reach a wholly different understanding of this imagery. I could go on, but have no time left. If you have any questions, let me know.

see above...the only lens I am using is the HS through a study of the word as God intended it to be. IOW's I set aside the lens of man and sought only to know the God of the Bible and as He promised, in that seeking, I found Him. You would be well advised to do the same.

 

[Hoghead1]

It is always important to share personal experiences, The Mystical Way. To share a bit about mine, I was raised in the Presbyterian Church. As I got older, however, I found church boring, the High God of conservative Christianity a total drag, at best a grump, at world indifferent, and the whole thing a massive guilt trip. I would have lost all faith, had I not taken college classes in theology, philosophy, biblical studies. Once, I entered into the Christian intellectual tradition, wow, I was caught up and blown away by the Spirit. I became so inspired, that I decided to pursue my studies and become a theologian. The Holy Spirit works in different ways for different people. For me, it definitely was academia; for you or others, it may have been something different.
In the real world of serious theological discussion, there have to be rules, and one is that you do not cast dispersion on the character of your "opponents." That is one of the reasons I was moved to enter the academic world. It delivered me from all this name-calling and denouncing that often happens in churches because many believers irrationally assume that if someone deviates even slightly form what they consider appropriate faith, then, fellow Christian or not, you are automatically taken to be a lost soul, lacking Spirit, etc. In academia, I am free of that nonsense. We don't put up with it. The rule is tat you can disagree or criticize all you want and the way to go about it is to present a solid counter-argument to your opponents, and definitely not cast dispersion on the character. Unfortunately, that is far too much of the latter on this site. I don't have the time of day for that and so I just ignore that kind of arrogant ignorance.

 

[Hoghead1]

Contrary to what you might think, Razzle, the creeds and fathers are taken as major authorities by many Christians, who would not at all agree in any way that the are heretics. Probably, they would denounce you as being a heretic. In fact, you appeal to Sola Scripture comes from the fact you are examine matters from the standpoint of the Reformation. You are adopting the lens of the Reformers as your authority. And if you read the literature, you would know the Reformers were branded as heretics. Anyway, all thi8s heresy talk is pure bunk that belongs back in the Inquisition. Being considered a heretic says nothing about the validity of your ideas, just that some church disagrees with you. You, too, are not at all going directly on Scripture, but human-made concepts and interpretations of Scripture. It is important for each to share their interpretation in any theological discussion. But that is the problem. All y9ou have presented here is your own homespun interpretation of Scripture, etc., nothing more. Well, who says you are right? Seeing as how you have no scholarly education in Scripture, no sane, rational person would even begin to take you at your word. I am certainly not going to accept something solely on the authority of your own say-so, especially when you homespun views in no way agree with the historical facts of the matter. One of the reasons I entered into serious academic study is to be liberated from this irrational nonsense where some believer puffs himself up, gives his interpretation of Scripture, and then insists everyone else believe it solely on his own say-so. In academic, we can say anything we want, provided we provide a solid rational argument to back it. If I had a nickel for every kook and crackpot that argues he is purely motivated by the Holy Spirit, I'd be a rich man. It is one thing for you to claim you are purely motivated by the Holy Spirit, it is quite another for you to assume anyone of us should believe you. The Bible says to test one another, beware of false prophets. That's why we have theology. And about every false prophet in the book claims he is truly moved by the Spirit. How do we know you aren't one? Again, that's why I entered into academia, where we remain skeptical and so demand a solid supporting argument to be made.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed reading your post and responding to some important issues you raised. However, you post impressed me overally as little more than a common-stock anti-intellectual rant and therefore of little value in a serious theology discussion forum.

 

[razzelflabben]

In the real world of serious theological discussion, there have to be rules, and one is that you do not cast dispersion on the character of your "opponents." That is one of the reasons I was moved to enter the academic world. It delivered me from all this name-calling and denouncing that often happens in churches because many believers irrationally assume that if someone deviates even slightly form what they consider appropriate faith, then, fellow Christian or not, you are automatically taken to be a lost soul, lacking Spirit, etc. In academia, I am free of that nonsense. We don't put up with it. The rule is tat you can disagree or criticize all you want and the way to go about it is to present a solid counter-argument to your opponents, and definitely not cast dispersion on the character. Unfortunately, that is far too much of the latter on this site. I don't have the time of day for that and so I just ignore that kind of arrogant ignorance.

too bad your posts don't reflect this teaching here on the forums...in fact, you won't even respond to my counter arguments at all, in exchange for talking down to me because you think I am not as well educated as you even though I have told you otherwise.

 

[razzelflabben]

Contrary to what you might think, Razzle, the creeds and fathers are taken as major authorities by many Christians, who would not at all agree in any way that the are heretics. Probably, they would denounce you as being a heretic. In fact, you appeal to Sola Scripture comes from the fact you are examine matters from the standpoint of the Reformation. You are adopting the lens of the Reformers as your authority. And if you read the literature, you would know the Reformers were branded as heretics. Anyway, all thi8s heresy talk is pure bunk that belongs back in the Inquisition. Being considered a heretic says nothing about the validity of your ideas, just that some church disagrees with you.

let's get one thing straight right now....I said that your ideas were heretical because they are contrary to scripture, the very scripture that God claims to the HIs word given to His people. No need for reformation theology to know what scripture says about God and scripture and how that should inform our ideas of God. It would be nice if you would address those ideas that are contrary of yours rather than just attack my character.

You, too, are not at all going directly on Scripture, but human-made concepts and interpretations of Scripture. It is important for each to share their interpretation in any theological discussion. But that is the problem. All y9ou have presented here is your own homespun interpretation of Scripture, etc., nothing more.

really?! I presented scripture as tested by scripture and that involves at least 5 different tests to make sure that the interpretation is indeed the intent of the passage. How many tests do you do to determine your interpretation? See, one of the arguments I presented was that if we follow scripture as to how to know what God intends, there is only one viable interpretation and I presented several of the "tests" for the interpretation, all you offer in rebuttal is an accusation that I am only bringing my interpretation of scripture when I told you that it involved checks and balances, nothing about the checks and balances, nothing about where scripture says there are multiple interpretations that are viable, etc. just a character assisnation that you claim isn't part of your learning.

Well, who says you are right? Seeing as how you have no scholarly education in Scripture,

and yet I told you that I did have training....

no sane, rational person would even begin to take you at your word.

unfortunately you have not shown any reason to dismiss me other than to ignore what I said.

I am certainly not going to accept something solely on the authority of your own say-so, especially when you homespun views in no way agree with the historical facts of the matter. One of the reasons I entered into serious academic study is to be liberated from this irrational nonsense where some believer puffs himself up, gives his interpretation of Scripture, and then insists everyone else believe it solely on his own say-so.

lol this is what you are doing but accusing me of it....how rude.

In academic, we can say anything we want, provided we provide a solid rational argument to back it.

I presented a solid rational argument and you refused to address it.

If I had a nickel for every kook and crackpot that argues he is purely motivated by the Holy Spirit, I'd be a rich man.

amen...but since that was not my argument it begs the question of why you would try to pin it on me?

It is one thing for you to claim you are purely motivated by the Holy Spirit, it is quite another for you to assume anyone of us should believe you. The Bible says to test one another, beware of false prophets. That's why we have theology. And about every false prophet in the book claims he is truly moved by the Spirit. How do we know you aren't one? Again, that's why I entered into academia, where we remain skeptical and so demand a solid supporting argument to be made.

again, not even close to my claim, you must be confusing me with another poster again...shame on you for flaming me this way.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed reading your post and responding to some important issues you raised. However, you post impressed me overally as little more than a common-stock anti-intellectual rant and therefore of little value in a serious theology discussion forum.

more flaming without responding to any of the points I made....I will take into advisement how to proceed with your flaming.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Can you guys start a new thread please.

This is struggles by non-Christians asking about How to love enemies.

 

[razzelflabben]

Can you guys start a new thread please.

This is struggles by non-Christians asking about How to love enemies.

which is why I keep trying to take us back to the issue of Love...in fact, I think it is very telling that according to scripture, the non believer is our enemy just like they are the enemy of Christ. Now, that being said, I don't believe that means that all non believers are out to get us, but what it does mean is that we have a living example of how to treat our enemies if we just use it instead of trying to throw scripture out the window in exchange for man's wisdom.

 

[Hoghead1]

Look, Razzle, this whole discussion got started because you stated you didn't understand how I could be a theologian, how my views would ever be received by the public, etc. In response, I simply explained the situation here. In so doing, I explained abut the town-gown riff. You became unduly defensive and began attacking academia. You couldn't accept the reality of the situation, which is that while you may be intelligent, that does not at all mean your level of knowledge is anywhere near what has been achieved by the academic world. I was formerly a member of a large urban church where the average member had a master's degree or a highly technical education. However, a series of regular lectures was presented on Sunday evenings by seminary professors in order to better educate the congregation. In contrast, you went on the defensive here and became hellbent to prove you know it just as well, if not better, than the scholars.
Next, when I presented material o n the classical Christian model of God, you became highly argumentative and said I was all wrong, that I was talking about some "heathen God." I simply pointed out to you that you were sadly mistaken and presented solid evidence why I said what I said. You then became belligerent and accused all the church fathers of being heretics. I tried to explain to some 0f the historical and metaphysical reasons why they went the direction they did. You again became belligerent and argumentative, claiming they has absolutely no knowledge of the Bible or how to interpret it, whereas you do and so are closer to God than all these church fathers or anyone else who disagrees with you. That is way too close to the kind of thinking produced by he ego-support system and defense mechanisms kicking of a highly neurotic personality kicking on. Therefore, it is not at all a legitimate exegetical method.

As your defense, you dwelled on the point that the Bible attributes emotion and change to God. Big deal, so what? Anyone who has read Scripture has seen those passages. The problem is that anyone who has carefully read Scripture is also aware many passages contradict these former ones, describing God as wholly immutable and by logical implication passionless. You failed to recognize that the classical theists used these to give a biblical warrant for their model of God as static and passionless. WE are presented here with the fact that Scripture is not a book of metaphysics and so presents us only with snapshots of God than often conflict. The problem is then for us to put these together into a coherent picture, which means bringing in considerable metaphysical equipment. You again became argumentative, claiming that this was all wrong about Scripture, that if you really understood it, you would see it provides simple, direct answers to a number of metaphysical questions I pointed to. The problem is that you have provided absolutely no supporting argument here. The burden is now on your shoulders to go though the list of questions, one by one, and show where and how you found a clear answer in Scripture, why your interpretation of these passages is superior to all others, and how you can easily reconcile the contradictory passages.

 

[The Mystical Way]

It is always important to share personal experiences, The Mystical Way. To share a bit about mine, I was raised in the Presbyterian Church. As I got older, however, I found church boring, the High God of conservative Christianity a total drag, at best a grump, at world indifferent, and the whole thing a massive guilt trip. I would have lost all faith, had I not taken college classes in theology, philosophy, biblical studies. Once, I entered into the Christian intellectual tradition, wow, I was caught up and blown away by the Spirit. I became so inspired, that I decided to pursue my studies and become a theologian. The Holy Spirit works in different ways for different people. For me, it definitely was academia; for you or others, it may have been something different.
In the real world of serious theological discussion, there have to be rules, and one is that you do not cast dispersion on the character of your "opponents." That is one of the reasons I was moved to enter the academic world. It delivered me from all this name-calling and denouncing that often happens in churches because many believers irrationally assume that if someone deviates even slightly form what they consider appropriate faith, then, fellow Christian or not, you are automatically taken to be a lost soul, lacking Spirit, etc. In academia, I am free of that nonsense. We don't put up with it. The rule is tat you can disagree or criticize all you want and the way to go about it is to present a solid counter-argument to your opponents, and definitely not cast dispersion on the character. Unfortunately, that is far too much of the latter on this site. I don't have the time of day for that and so I just ignore that kind of arrogant ignorance.

I had actually quit this site and scrambled my password and stuff but then I realised I'd forgot to tie up some loose ends so I reset my password again just so I can sort all of that out.

I think you mean "cast aspersions" (trust me on this one) but I get where you're coming from now.

Anyway, I'm not that big a fan of "the High God of conservative Christianity" myself. I was raised for several years of my childhood, from about the age of 6 until the age of 11, in the "Christian Brethren" — well in my little home town that's what it was called but technically they're Plymouth Brethren, although they consider themselves "non-denominational". And they were the "Open" kind too. Well, there's "Open" Brethren and "Closed" Brethren: "Open" Brethren are mostly nice folks in their own way but "Closed" Brethren is like a weird cult that broke away from the main movement and have received some bad media coverage over the years.... I believed in it in a sense very early on, as impressionable little kids often do, then I drifted away from it and stopped believing in it and became anti-Christianity for about a decade and actually kind of got interested in Satan at one point, which makes me wonder 'cause Crowley was raised Plymouth Brethren too.... The Christianity that I follow now is nothing like the Plymouth Brethren 'cause their thing is Cessationist but after experiencing what I experienced I couldn't be a Cessationist if you paid me to. And there are other things I believe now that are far from what they and similar churches are all about....

Because of the way I'd encountered Christianity throughout my life, including the kinds of Christians I'd met, when I had the sudden "shock conversion" experience I wrote about previously, I initially interpreted it through a "Protestant" lens, because it just made sense to me, because that was the only frame of reference I had, and I'd been indoctrinated into thinking that the whole thing of images and Saints and perpetual virginity of Mary and priests with fancy robes and all that was "evil". But for whatever reason, I ended up kind of switching sides. At some point the opposite side just began to resonate with me more and make more sense to me. So now, umm.... I'm not really anything. Because non-denominational churches are technically Protestant, right? But if there was such a thing as a "non-denominational" church that fit into the same spectrum as the Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox and "High Church Anglican", I'd be something like that. Only with a bit of a "Charismatic" element. It's weird because when I was little my dad tried to raise me to believe that that kind of stuff was "garbage" but then he'd often do "Christlike" things like yell and stomp and slam doors and kick the dog and call me and my mother and my older (by two years) brother rude names and get kind of abusive, on a few occasions backhanding my mother really hard across the face and shoving my face in my wet bedsheets and other things like that. But the funny thing is, he could then sit with the Bible and study it very intensely with his concordance, and he could go to the Ebenezer Gospel Hall and preach some sh**.... My parent's marriage ended when I was 14. Anyway, many years later — late last year, in fact — I heard from my mother that my brother had told her in a phone call that the only reason my dad had become anti-Catholic was because even though he'd been raised Catholic, he'd been molested by a member of the clergy as a kid. But he also admitted to me some years later that he's not really anti-Catholic per se, and in fact his second wife was Catholic when they met (two years after he split up with my mum) and still practices some basic Catholic things. So it's interesting in that way.... There are many people who've been unlucky enough to suffer sexual abuse at the hands of unscrupulous adults who join the Catholic Church just so that they can get power over children and exploit them. But even after suffering like that, many of those people remain Catholic, because they know that the Faith itself is greater than whatever sh** some individuals within the institution can do to them to keep them from God and His Family and Communion and all of that stuff. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater isn't a solution in my mind, and it definitely isn't worth it if you're only going to turn around and become an abusive person who makes Jesus Christ look bad anyway. So I ended up switching sides in a way....

Actually, I'd probably join an Eastern Orthodox church or even a local Catholic church if I actually had the means to but I have some problems with my mind and brain to do with becoming disoriented easily and stuff which triggers agoraphobia-type panic attacks sometimes so I'm on a disability pension and mostly housebound.... But yeah, if I could be a part of something it would probably be that kind of thing — although another part of me is inclined to separate myself from the whole idea of being part of a "body of believers" completely and go off into the wilderness.... Well I've kind of been in the wilderness since my conversion anyway and it seems to have worked out okay for me. I don't believe that I'm bound by an obligation to engage in any overt forms of fellowshipping.

You and razzelflabben should try to get along more because you both make important points: he shouldn't be so quick to dismiss what you have to say about the Church Fathers because those guys were integral to the Faith and have a lot to do with why the different canonical versions of the Bible even exist (and you can bet that most of them were Spirit-filled guys); you should take his belief in interpreting Scripture through the direct guidance of Holy Spirit more seriously because there can be things in the Bible that God wants to say to YOU as an INDIVIDUAL if you read between the lines.... Spirit-guided interpretation with reference to long-standing principles of Tradition based in Scripture is the way to go 'cause it provides a good balance.

Oh and intellectual stuff is great but you should consider asking God to give more of it to you directly, like as an actual spiritual gift. Because it's much more rewarding when you know stuff before you've read it or been told about it.

Anyway, see ya!

 

[razzelflabben]

Look, Razzle, this whole discussion got started because you stated you didn't understand how I could be a theologian, how my views would ever be received by the public, etc. In response, I simply explained the situation here.

not what I said, are you confusing me with someone else again? I asked how you could claim that a non mainstream teaching to be a mainstream teaching. IOW's how could you as a theologian claim that a peripheral non mainstream teaching as the commonly held view in the church. Notice the difference between what I asked and what you claim I asked?

In so doing, I explained abut the town-gown riff. You became unduly defensive and began attacking academia.

again, the truth is that I never attacked academia, why would I when I am not only educated but push for education, not to mention that my accusation was against the academia that put down those that don't have education as your posts have continually done.

You couldn't accept the reality of the situation, which is that while you may be intelligent, that does not at all mean your level of knowledge is anywhere near what has been achieved by the academic world.

wow, just wow, how much more inflammatory could you be? Answer: not much.

I was formerly a member of a large urban church where the average member had a master's degree or a highly technical education. However, a series of regular lectures was presented on Sunday evenings by seminary professors in order to better educate the congregation. In contrast, you went on the defensive here and became hellbent to prove you know it just as well, if not better, than the scholars.

wow, this is the third time in one paragraph that you totally misrepresent what I said and that doesn't include the 4th part about academia.

Next, when I presented material o n the classical Christian model of God, you became highly argumentative and said I was all wrong, that I was talking about some "heathen God." I simply pointed out to you that you were sadly mistaken and presented solid evidence why I said what I said. You then became belligerent and accused all the church fathers of being heretics.

only in your imagination.

I tried to explain to some 0f the historical and metaphysical reasons why they went the direction they did. You again became belligerent and argumentative, claiming they has absolutely no knowledge of the Bible or how to interpret it, whereas you do and so are closer to God than all these church fathers or anyone else who disagrees with you.

more things that you have made up to claim I said....

That is way too close to the kind of thinking produced by he ego-support system and defense mechanisms kicking of a highly neurotic personality kicking on. Therefore, it is not at all a legitimate exegetical method.

wow, you really don't seem to know how to read for comprehension based on any of this post, cause here you are again, misrepresenting what I said. What I said is that according to the scriptures, scripture is the authority on the God of the Bible. As such, we need to take the scriptures and determine how that scripture tells us to know the intent of the passage. When we do this, we come up with several things that very few people and especially the group of academia that you seem to fit into, even look at. 1. context, that is context of the passage in question. 2. consistency with the totality of scripture, which is a form of context, but a bit different. 3. Holy Spirit teaching, which is subjective, but important none the less from a scriptural standpoint. 4. word study...this is vital to our understanding not because it is "scriptural" but because it is part of the translational issues we run into. 5. study, this is actual study not just reading or listening to a teacher. That means that there are at least 5 different tests we are suppose to do in order to know the intent of a passage. Of those 5 and keep in mind, this is a biblical understanding of how to know the intent of any given passage as per the claim that scripture is the authority on who the God of the Bible is, you only addressed the HS on any level at all and that was a mocking of all those that dismiss the other 4 ways to only claim HS power. IOW's you didn't address a single thing that I said, so that you can come here now and try to claim that I am the problem, that you addressed what I said with a well thought out rebuttal, a rebuttal that consists of, 'people can lie about being led by the HS'....well duh, that is why there are two things in place in my argument, two things you refuse to address. 1. that it isn't just a claim of HS teaching, but an actual HS teaching using the checks and balances that apply and 2. there are no less than 5 checks and balances put into place so that we can be sure of the interpretation that we receive from the HS.....now, are you ready to dismiss all the non sense and return to the discussion at hand? Or do we need to keep going round and round with you misrepresenting what I am saying, ignoring what I say as rebuttal and in those inflammatory remarks, continue to boast and brag about yourself as if you are not the one that is misrepresenting and ignoring and taking us off topic?

As your defense, you dwelled on the point that the Bible attributes emotion and change to God. Big deal, so what? Anyone who has read Scripture has seen those passages. The problem is that anyone who has carefully read Scripture is also aware many passages contradict these former ones, describing God as wholly immutable and by logical implication passionless.

now, how many times now, have I pointed out that you seem to be confusing me with another poster? Here is more evidence of the same. Not only is nothing above an accurate account of what I said, but this isn't either. In fact, my only issue with your claim is that this idea of an emotionless, passionateless God is somehow mainstream, which is is NOT, in fact, one of the problems in todays mainstream church is the notion that everything about God is about emotion.

You failed to recognize that the classical theists used these to give a biblical warrant for their model of God as static and passionless.

I keep reading, expecting something you say to accurately represent what I have said, and nothing....I never once argued classical theists don't take this approach, I argued that it is not mainstream belief like you claimed it was.

WE are presented here with the fact that Scripture is not a book of metaphysics and so presents us only with snapshots of God than often conflict.

to which I responded that scripture does answer all of or at least most of the metaphysical questions you presented if we actually rely on a careful study of that scripture as described above rather than on man's reinterpretation of that scripture.

The problem is then for us to put these together into a coherent picture, which means bringing in considerable metaphysical equipment. You again became argumentative, claiming that this was all wrong about Scripture, that if you really understood it, you would see it provides simple, direct answers to a number of metaphysical questions I pointed to. The problem is that you have provided absolutely no supporting argument here. The burden is now on your shoulders to go though the list of questions, one by one, and show where and how you found a clear answer in Scripture, why your interpretation of these passages is superior to all others, and how you can easily reconcile the contradictory passages.

Now, what did I respond? 1. I said that was off topic and thus you could start another thread and invite me if you want to look deeper into my claims. 2. I provided a snapshot view of how scripture tells us to study scripture as well as show the common literary rules apply. 3. I repeated myself on all of this multiple times and tried repeatedly to take it back to topic of Love. oh, and lot's not forget 4. where I never claimed my interpretation was superior to any interpretation, I claimed that with only one HS, there is only one viable or correct interpretation, which btw, is scriptural. And according to that same scripture, we know the correct interpretation through a kind of checks and balances system that tests the conclusion of our interpretation.

Now, we either return to the discussion at hand, or, I will consider you as being beyond just accidently confusing me with another poster.

 

[Blondepudding]

Man was given free will...Adam and Eve were instructed not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, not prevented from doing so altogether. God saw fit to place the tree within their reach with a simple instruction not to touch. God granted free will, but He also foreknew how it would be exercised.

Was it newborn innocence? Rather than consciousness that expresses sovereign will due to self knowledge?
How could the first newborn's consent to obey a decree of what not to do when they had no knowledge/gnosis of right and wrong?

 

[razzelflabben]

Was it newborn innocence? Rather than consciousness that expresses sovereign will due to self knowledge?
How could the first newborn's consent to obey a decree of what not to do when they had no knowledge/gnosis of right and wrong?

a couple of questions, 1. who said they were newborns? I hear this argument a lot and yet scripture says that they were used to walking and talking with God, this would make then more than just newborn wouldn't it? 2. the knowledge of right and wrong entered the world once they ate of the tee according to scripture, so, why was it necessary to know right from wrong in order to obey the command to not eat. For example, throughout everyone's life, there are times where they are told to do something that they do not understand the reason for, but understanding the reason is not necessary for obedience. Knowing that something is right to do or wrong to do, isn't necessary for one to say, hey, I was told not to do it, so I am not going to do it. How do you think the two are necessarily linked?

 

[Blondepudding]

I'll take your questions in order.

a couple of questions, 1. who said they were newborns? I hear this argument a lot and yet scripture says that they were used to walking and talking with God, this would make then more than just newborn wouldn't it?

Doesn't scripture say god created them man and woman in the beginning? Isn't that written in the second book of Genesis?
First created as male and female and put in the garden as adults with no knowledge of good and bad, right and wrong. That's why when they were naked after having been created they weren't ashamed. Only later did it come to be the couple felt ashamed for their naked state. And that because they now had self awareness. Which is what knowing right from wrong, behavior that glorifies or diminishes self, is.

2. the knowledge of right and wrong entered the world once they ate of the tee according to scripture, so, why was it necessary to know right from wrong in order to obey the command to not eat. For example, throughout everyone's life, there are times where they are told to do something that they do not understand the reason for, but understanding the reason is not necessary for obedience. Knowing that something is right to do or wrong to do, isn't necessary for one to say, hey, I was told not to do it, so I am not going to do it. How do you think the two are necessarily linked?

It's the process of understanding what is right and what is wrong in order to comport one's behavior to comply with the prohibitions to behaviors.
Right and wrong is not universal. It is a learned behavior. Adam and Eve didn't have this knowledge of what is good or evil in their beginning. They couldn't possibly know to obey when they didn't know that obedience, complying with god's edict not to do something, meant. Because they were not aware of the polarity or the balance between right to wrong.

For instance, if I tell a newborn not to chew their foot or else, is that reasonable? A day old baby.

Why not? That baby looked at me as I gave that command about their own foot.

 

[razzelflabben]

I'll take your questions in order. Doesn't scripture say god created them man and woman in the beginning? Isn't that written in the second book of Genesis?
First created as male and female and put in the garden as adults with no knowledge of good and bad, right and wrong. That's why when they were naked after having been created they weren't ashamed. Only later did it come to be the couple felt ashamed for their naked state. And that because they now had self awareness. Which is what knowing right from wrong, behavior that glorifies or diminishes self, is.

doesn't that address the second question, not the one you quote here? Many people get the idea that Adam and Eve were like newborns, but that simply isn't what scripture describes. Scripture describes them as fully functioning people who were able to think, feel, reason, talk, communicate, not like babies that can only cry for what they want. IOW's they understood words, that is all that is required for one to obey a command, which is the point of this question. If they understood the question, they didn't have to know what was right or wrong to know what "don't eat" means.

It's the process of understanding what is right and what is wrong in order to comport one's behavior to comply with the prohibitions to behaviors.
Right and wrong is not universal. It is a learned behavior. Adam and Eve didn't have this knowledge of what is good or evil in their beginning. They couldn't possibly know to obey when they didn't know that obedience, complying with god's edict not to do something, meant. Because they were not aware of the polarity or the balance between right to wrong.

as previously stated, one only needs to know what the word, "don't" means in order to obey the command, it is not necessary to know if the act or the obedience is right or wrong to follow a command as long as you understand what the words mean. IOW's by Adam and Eve (btw, we have no idea how long they were in the garden before they ate of the fruit) understanding enough to communicate with God on an adult type level, all they had to do was obey, they didn't need to know if obedience was right or wrong.

Here is an example of what I am talking about. We have two dogs, they have enough knowledge to know what the command to sit means, they don't have to understand that it is right to obey or if sitting itself is a good or bad thing in order for them to "say" this is my master and she wants me to sit so I sit. Likewise, Adam and Even didn't need to know if it was right or wrong to obey, nor if eating the fruit was right or wrong to say, this is our God that is telling us not to eat and so we won't eat it.

For instance, if I tell a newborn not to chew their foot or else, is that reasonable? A day old baby.

Why not? That baby looked at me as I gave that command about their own foot.

Like I said, Adam and Eve were able to understand communication with God therefore it is a much closer analogy to take a toddler that has learned some of the language or a dog that knows commands than it is to say a newborn that has no understanding of the lang. IOW's don't compare apples to oranges, Adam and Eve understood the command, they just didn't understand the right and wrong of it.

 

[Hoghead1]

Thank you for sharing, The Mystic Way. I always find it interesting to hear about personal experiences of others. Most of the theological scholars I know, including myself, do pray for inspiration from the Spirit. MY old NT professor, for example, always opened the class with a prayer. However, you have to remember that inspiration is no simple matter by which God just pops answers into your head. That is about as ridiculous as assuming that if you pray to God, during your math test, he will tell you all the answers. You have to work at it. Also, it can be very difficult to tell if the inspiration is truly coming from the Spirit or form a zillion other influences that we absorb subconsciously. Was it really God or maybe just your grandmother and upbringing. Every kook and fanatic in the book will claim he is inspirited by the Spirit who told him to do such-and-such. So you do need to put some real effort into checking things out, providing a rational supportive argument for yourself.
I have always been fascinated with mystical experiences. I did my dissertation, eventually published as a book, basically on how to go about understanding mystical experiences of God. It's a bit more complicated than that. I was examining mystical experiences via contemporary process metaphysics. So there is a very complicated metaphysic I was dealing with. But that is another story. My argument is that God is omnipresent and therefore subconsciously experienced by all creatures. Since the experience is beneath the threshold of consciousness, we are often unaware of it. God wants it that way because God's aim is for us to creature more beauty in the world, focus on that, not on him or her. However, there may well be occasions in which God lure us to consciously experience him or her, as God's goal is aesthetic, crate beauty, great depth and breath of experience, and experiencing God certainly would be such a deepening experience.

 

[drr1531]

"...How can I make myself feel any differently? How can I stop stoking my positive hatred for the damaging people I've encountered, much less develop a positive love for them?..."

Jesus. When you begin to feel the anger, just say his name. Jesus. Simply saying his name begins to bring me peace. Jesus. Think of what he endured. Betrayal, injustice, humiliation, and excruciating physical torture. And what did he say? "Forgive them..." As Christians we are commanded to do our best to live as he did. In the grand scheme of things, forgiving the Anthony types of the world is one of the easier things to do in an attempt to obey His teaching.

 

[TheJust]

To forgive and love others is to heal yourself you are your own enemy. Loving an enemy has nothing to do with caring about the individual in question, it pertains to following the law, God's law. You do it because it is correct, it is reality. In the end you are only forgiving phantoms that were never there to begin with because love is reality and anything else doesn't actually exist but as delusion. Love is fragile (to a godless human) the smallest amount of hate or fear in any form will erase it completely from your sight, hence the importance of mastering forgiveness. It is a real struggle, it is difficult the question becomes, whose side are you on? Do you want to be a true follower of God or just pretend to be while satan is firmly at the wheel?

Also for clarity's sake 'love' between two or more humans is not real love that is attachment, you more than likely have not the faintest clue what real love is because all must be forgiven before it becomes a possibility.

For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins. Mathew 6:14-15