All trust is rooted in self trust
atypican
Brock Organ
> All trust is rooted in self trust
I consider godly trust is rooted not in self, but in the marvelous
person of Christ:
"Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in
Me. ... I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and
receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also. ... I
am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father
but through Me."
http://nasb.scripturetext.com/john/14.htm
Regards,
Brock
e_space
david koresh ring a bell?
have you ever met the "marvelous person of Christ"? ... or are you
reveling in the glow of a story that in reality you have no factual
evidence of, and certainly no personal experience of? do you have a
hard time sleeping on christmas eve in the rabid anticipation of
someone dropping presents down your chimney?
the post that you quote seems quite self centered ... lets see, the
words Me, Myself and I take up about 10% of the quote ... sounds like
a typical egoist on steroids to me ... whats your take on it?
On Apr 26, 7:54 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
atypican
> person of Christ:
trust your own judgments about who he is, and how worthy he is of that
trust.
>" I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father
> but through Me."
don't trust the Bible as much as you do.
On Apr 26, 4:54 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
Brock Organ
>> I consider godly trust is rooted not in self, but in the marvelous
>> person of Christ:
>
> If you claim to place trust in Jesus, I assert that you must first
> trust your own judgments about who he is, and how worthy he is of that
> trust.
I disagree. Christ is not trustworthy simply because I trusted my own
judgments about who He is, rather, He is trustworthy regardless of my
internal dialectic.
>>" I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father
>> but through Me."
>
> I think that statement originates from someone other than Jesus.
Statement of disbelief noted, but not supported by the text, which is
specific in attribution:
"Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life"
> But I
> don't trust the Bible as much as you do.
Some would make a virtue of their disbelief, the perils of which I
consider significant:
"How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked,
Nor stand in the path of sinners,
Nor sit in the seat of scoffers!
But his delight is in the law of the LORD,
And in His law he meditates day and night.
He will be like a tree firmly planted by streams of water,
Which yields its fruit in its season
And its leaf does not wither;
And in whatever he does, he prospers.
The wicked are not so,
But they are like chaff which the wind drives away.
Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment,
Nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous.
For the LORD knows the way of the righteous,
But the way of the wicked will perish."
http://nasb.scripturetext.com/psalms/1-1.htm
Regards,
Brock
atypican
> > trust your own judgments about who he is, and how worthy he is of that
> > trust.
>
> I disagree. Christ is not trustworthy simply because I trusted my own
> judgments about who He is, rather, He is trustworthy regardless of my
> internal dialectic.
about him. Rather I am saying that you, considering him to be
trustworthy IS a result of you first trusting judgments you've made
about him.
Arguing as if I am saying things that I am not, appears to be quite
the standard procedure for you.
On Apr 26, 6:10 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
e_space
someone who is alive is a totally different ball of wax
Brock Organ
>> > If you claim to place trust in Jesus, I assert that you must first
>> > trust your own judgments about who he is, and how worthy he is of that
>> > trust.
>>
>> I disagree. Christ is not trustworthy simply because I trusted my own
>> judgments about who He is, rather, He is trustworthy regardless of my
>> internal dialectic.
>
> I am not saying that his trustworthiness is caused by your thoughts
> about him.
The excellence of the gospel of Jesus Christ is independent of such.
He is wonderful regardless of human dialectic. If I fail to trust Him,
He is no less trustworthy. If I decide to trust Him, He is no more
trustworthy. :)
> Rather I am saying that you, considering him to be
> trustworthy IS a result of you first trusting judgments you've made
> about him.
Statement of self-centered faith noted. Contrastingly, the Statement notes:
"The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to
us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its
meaning."
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
So I don't consider that any particular person's trust in Christ
originates solely within themselves, but rather external to self, from
God's Holy Spirit. :)
More generally, I consider inquiry on the origination of trust to be
open to the kinds of issues illustrated by a classic epistemological
problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Generals%27_Problem
> Arguing as if I am saying things that I am not, appears to be quite
> the standard procedure for you.
Just holding epistemological first principles to a higher standard
than "self". :)
Humankind is not the measure of all things.
Regards,
Brock
e_space
and you are trustworthy (or gullible) enough to believe it ... admit
it brock ... you trust your preacher man enough to consider that his
message that the words of man (the bible) are actually the words of
god ... this is sufficient enough to convince you to believe in that
which you have no concrete knowledge of ...
did you ever consider that your favorite expression that "humankind is
not the measure of all things" is actually detrimental to your
message? how can you talk about things as fact that you have not been
able to measure, or substantiate ... silly aint ya?
On Apr 26, 4:31 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
14SM.jcil
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:13 AM, atypican <david...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I consider godly trust is rooted not in self, but in the marvelous
>>> person of Christ:
>>
>> If you claim to place trust in Jesus, I assert that you must first
>> trust your own judgments about who he is, and how worthy he is of that
>> trust.
>
> I disagree. Christ is not trustworthy simply because I trusted my own
> judgments about who He is, rather, He is trustworthy regardless of my
> internal dialectic.
I agree with you both, but for different reasons because I perceive that you're talking about different things.
Brock, I agree that the trustworthiness of Christ is in no way advanced or detracted by our perception (in much the same way that objective truth is neither a function of our awareness or acceptance if it)...but I think that our inability to perceive his trustworthiness (which is at least in part a function of our natural and inherent unwillingness to believe) necessarily inhibits our trust of Him.
I believe it an act of the grace of God that enables us to believe what is otherwise impossible to believe, and therefore agree with atyp's perception that one cannot trust that which we judge to be untrustworthy.
Certainly, apart from the grace of God our judgements are naturally impaired and either uninformed or ill-informed, but such is the consequence of sin.
14SM.jcil
> Arguing as if I am saying things that I am not, appears to be quite
> the standard procedure for you.
Could also just be a simple misunderstanding of your intended meaning.
Just pointing out the possibility.
14SM.jcil
> trusting a dead human is a pretty safe gamble ... now, trusting
> someone who is alive is a totally different ball of wax
Concur.
14SM.jcil
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 10:24 AM, atypican <david...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> If you claim to place trust in Jesus, I assert that you must first
>>>> trust your own judgments about who he is, and how worthy he is of that
>>>> trust.
>>>
>>> I disagree. Christ is not trustworthy simply because I trusted my own
>>> judgments about who He is, rather, He is trustworthy regardless of my
>>> internal dialectic.
>>
>> I am not saying that his trustworthiness is caused by your thoughts
>> about him.
>
> The excellence of the gospel of Jesus Christ is independent of such.
> He is wonderful regardless of human dialectic. If I fail to trust Him,
> He is no less trustworthy. If I decide to trust Him, He is no more
> trustworthy. :)
Enthusiastically agree, however I don't think that atyp is ostensibly making a judgement about the trustworthiness of Christ...I perceive that he's merely saying that we only trust those things that we judge to be trustworthy.
> So I don't consider that any particular person's trust in Christ
> originates solely within themselves, but rather external to self, from
> God's Holy Spirit. :)
Concur.
atypican
>
> "The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to
> us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its
> meaning."
holy spirit communicates with them through this "inward witness" and
are mistaken?
"Intellectual traps, are hard to expose without the aid of yeses and
nos." ~atypican
On Apr 26, 1:31 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
e_space
fanatic
On Apr 26, 7:51 pm, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 26, 2011, at 9:10, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
SM
> Statement of self-centered faith noted. Contrastingly, the Statement notes:Wouldn't you agree that some, if not many, people believe that the
>
> "The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to
> us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its
> meaning."
holy spirit communicates with them through this "inward witness" and
are mistaken?
SM
belief hath no limits ... as is quite evident by the typical religious
fanatic
e_space
belief obsolete ... if one doesnt KNOW, they have the option to
BELIEVE ... as you do ... that you have determined this is logical is,
from my viewpoint, a skewed conclusion ...
your "knowledge" about god was passed to you from people you have
never met ... you heard it, bought it, and now promote it as the
truth ... i dont find this blind faith "amazing" ... to me, its just
the unfortunate way of the religiously indoctrinated, who take
unsubstantiated promotions and make it their truth ...
would "god" exist in your life if you had not been introduced to "him"
through religion? if so, do you think you would view god differently,
or the same as you do now?
On Apr 27, 9:15 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > belief hath no limits ... as is quite evident by the typical religious
> > fanatic
>
> unbelief* that is the most amazing and illogical. My compassionate hope for
e_space
enlightenment is erroneous because it conflicts with scripture is
hilarious ... who proved that the scriptures were written by the
"Spirit of God"? ... the people who created the god stories, "ensured"
us that ONLY the bible was the inspired word of god ... rather pompous
and highly unsubstantiated claim, from my perspective ...
when you make statements like this, you should add a disclaimer that
this is your opinion only, and not state it as a factual reality ...
On Apr 27, 9:09 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
Brock Organ
> On Apr 26, 2011, at 9:10, Brock Organ <brock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:13 AM, atypican <david...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I consider godly trust is rooted not in self, but in the marvelous
>>>> person of Christ:
>>>
>>> If you claim to place trust in Jesus, I assert that you must first
>>> trust your own judgments about who he is, and how worthy he is of that
>>> trust.
>>
>> I disagree. Christ is not trustworthy simply because I trusted my own
>> judgments about who He is, rather, He is trustworthy regardless of my
>> internal dialectic.
>
> I agree with you both, but for different reasons because I perceive that you're talking about different things.
Cool. :)
> Brock, I agree that the trustworthiness of Christ is in no way advanced or detracted by our
> perception (in much the same way that objective truth is neither a function of our awareness
> or acceptance if it)...but I think that our inability to perceive his trustworthiness (which is at
> least in part a function of our natural and inherent unwillingness to believe) necessarily
> inhibits our trust of Him.
Well, salvation is not inhibited by our trust, or lack thereof in God.
That is, it is not the case that God's Holy Spirit presents to a
neutral or even open-minded searcher, who carefully and adequately
weighs the gospel in their heart (against an internal standard as I
presume atypican is positing) and then decides, based upon their
internal soul-searching, to accept Christ.
Instead, contrastingly, it is the case that sinful, vile humankind
actively resists God in every way possible, not willingly acquiescing
to the gospel, but instead being conquered by a sovereign act of God.
"God's kingdom is like a treasure hidden in a field for years and then
accidentally found by a trespasser. The finder is ecstatic—what a
find!—and proceeds to sell everything he owns to raise money and buy
that field. Or, God's kingdom is like a jewel merchant on the hunt
for excellent pearls. Finding one that is flawless, he immediately
sells everything and buys it. Or, God's kingdom is like a fishnet cast
into the sea, catching all kinds of fish. When it is full, it is
hauled onto the beach. The good fish are picked out and put in a tub;
those unfit to eat are thrown away. That's how it will be when the
curtain comes down on history. The angels will come and cull the bad
fish and throw them in the garbage. There will be a lot of desperate
complaining, but it won't do any good. Jesus asked, "Are you starting
to get a handle on all this?" "
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2013&version=MSG
In these parables, many often read them as if the sinner was the
searcher, ie the finder of the treasure hidden in the field, or the
fisher catching loads of fish, as if the sinner were comparing the
gospel to an internal standard, finding it internally worthy of their
internal trust, then internally deciding that they will respond to it
positively. But this is not so!
More adequately, the searcher is not the sinner, but God. So there is
no adequacy around sinful humankind's "internal assessment of trust".
> I believe it an act of the grace of God that enables us to believe what is otherwise impossible to
> believe, and therefore agree with atyp's perception that one cannot trust that which we judge to
> be untrustworthy.
Well, atypican said:
"to place trust in Jesus ... you must first trust your own judgments"
But to the degree that such an assertion would indicate salvation
originates with self, the assertion is not well founded. Instead, God
is the seeker and sinful humankind resists with all of his/her might
and being until finally God's will for the person triumphs.
To illustrate with another example:
I grew up a very appreciative fan of Isaac Asimov's writings (both
fiction and non-fiction). Except on the topic of Christianity, where
I thought he sounded ignorant, I found him to be one of the most
sharp, creative and inventive minds it has been my pleasure to
experience. I've felt for maybe 10-15 years that one of the most
interesting fictional characters that portrayed in a particular way
some[2] of the personal aspects of God's Holy Spirit was Asimov's
character The Mule[2]:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule_%28Foundation%29
The Mule had the ability to adjust the mental state of the people with
whom he interacted, to make them "love" him, to make them devoted to
his cause and interests, to make individual persons "want" what he
wanted. The people who he "converted" intellectually knew that they
were once different, that they were once his enemies, but now they
didn't want that old nature. This, in a particular way, seems to me a
model of how God's love for humankind can be considered.
I am convinced that many, if not most, non-believers are as smart or
smarter than I; but I have simply been a passive agent who has
received God's gift of salvation and have felt a compelling love that
has completely changed me and made me something new. Like the
"converted" characters in Asimov's writings, my being has been
adjusted and changed, and I am objectively so much the happier and
better for it. I don't want to go back to what I was. I can
understand the character Captain Han Pritcher in the novel, after
being "converted" to the service of the Mule. And more: I want the
people in my life to have this experience and feel this love.
So I do my best, even if the courtesy is not returned, to not belittle
non-believers. They are generally at least as smart as me, but maybe
I've experienced something that they haven't, something exquisitely
wonderful. Regarding the new life in Christ, I think of the words
from the David Bowmen character from the movie 2010:
Something wonderful is about to happen.
I hope and pray that my thoughts are glorifying to my wonderful God,
and that for those non-believers reading these words, God might be
pleased to bless them with His perfect love and salvation.
====
[2] though I anticipate but reject the crass comparisons of God's Holy
Spirit to the pejorative aspects of the Mule's character, limitations
and personality. Unlike the Mule, who was a frail, finite, misguided
being, I consider God's Holy Spirit to be complete and perfect in His
Godliness and Majesty.
> Certainly, apart from the grace of God our judgements are naturally impaired and either uninformed
> or ill-informed, but such is the consequence of sin.
I agree.
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
> Enthusiastically agree, however I don't think that atyp is ostensibly making a judgement about the trustworthiness of Christ...I perceive that he's merely saying that we only trust those things that we judge to be trustworthy.
I am disagreeing specifically with a concept that "all trust is rooted
in self trust" is normative.
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
>> Statement of self-centered faith noted. Contrastingly, the Statement notes:
>>
>> "The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to
>> us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its
>> meaning."
>
> Wouldn't you agree that some, if not many, people believe that the
> holy spirit communicates with them through this "inward witness" and
> are mistaken?
One can note that sinners have confused, limited, deceived, inadequate
and sinful physical, mental and spiritual faculties. But that does
not make these faulty faculties normative.
Regards,
Brock
SM
belief is an indication of a lack of knowledge ... knowledge renders
belief obsolete ...
your "knowledge" about god was passed to you from people you have
never met ...
would "god" exist in your life if you had not been introduced to "him"
through religion? if so, do you think you would view god differently,
or the same as you do now?
SM
coming to the conclusion that someone elses claims of spiritual
enlightenment is erroneous because it conflicts with scripture is
hilarious ... who proved that the scriptures were written by the
"Spirit of God"? ...
when you make statements like this, you should add a disclaimer that
this is your opinion only, and not state it as a factual reality ...
SM
Well, salvation is not inhibited by our trust, or lack thereof in God.That is, it is not the case that God's Holy Spirit presents to a
neutral or even open-minded searcher, who carefully and adequately
weighs the gospel in their heart (against an internal standard as I
presume atypican is positing) and then decides, based upon their
internal soul-searching, to accept Christ.
Instead, contrastingly, it is the case that sinful, vile humankind
actively resists God in every way possible, not willingly acquiescing
to the gospel, but instead being conquered by a sovereign act of God.
In these parables, many often read them as if the sinner was the
searcher, ie the finder of the treasure hidden in the field, or the
fisher catching loads of fish, as if the sinner were comparing the
gospel to an internal standard, finding it internally worthy of their
internal trust, then internally deciding that they will respond to it
positively. But this is not so!
More adequately, the searcher is not the sinner, but God. So there is
no adequacy around sinful humankind's "internal assessment of trust".
> I believe it an act of the grace of God that enables us to believe what is otherwise impossible toWell, atypican said:
> believe, and therefore agree with atyp's perception that one cannot trust that which we judge to
> be untrustworthy.
"to place trust in Jesus ... you must first trust your own judgments"
But to the degree that such an assertion would indicate salvation
originates with self, the assertion is not well founded. Instead, God
is the seeker and sinful humankind resists with all of his/her might
and being until finally God's will for the person triumphs.
I am convinced that many, if not most, non-believers are as smart or
smarter than I; but I have simply been a passive agent who has
received God's gift of salvation and have felt a compelling love that
has completely changed me and made me something new. Like the
"converted" characters in Asimov's writings, my being has been
adjusted and changed, and I am objectively so much the happier and
better for it. I don't want to go back to what I was. I can
understand the character Captain Han Pritcher in the novel, after
being "converted" to the service of the Mule. And more: I want the
people in my life to have this experience and feel this love.
So I do my best, even if the courtesy is not returned, to not belittle
non-believers. They are generally at least as smart as me, but maybe
I've experienced something that they haven't, something exquisitely
wonderful.
SM
Brock Organ
>> More adequately, the searcher is not the sinner, but God. So there is
>> no adequacy around sinful humankind's "internal assessment of trust".
>
> I again agree. God instigates; we respond (or reject).
Well, I actually consider it is stronger than that. God instigates,
and it comes to pass. :)
Bringing the spiritually dead to life isn't something that the dead
person has any activity in. It is solely divine action, and in that
context "all trust is rooted in self trust" is simply inadequate. I
didn't choose to be born physically, nor did I choose to be born again
spiritually. God did. Of course, having come to spiritual life
again, I praise Him, bless Him and adore Him and thank Him for what He
has done. :D
> I agree with your perspective and only suggest that all of us think that
> we're the ones doing 'the searching' (at least at first; prior to obtaining
> a more complete understanding of Scripture which even many believers don't
> ever come to). This is manifest in the way a believer often speaks about
> his salvation experience...it's typically something like: "...after
> searching for God, my eyes finally opened...", etc. It's a common
> colloquialism that someone "found God".
Well, just because it is common doesn't mean it's correct or normative. :)
In the early years of my new life in Christ, I often thought and said
"I found the Lord". And perhaps the sentimentality behind the
statement is good and wholesome, but the statement itself is simply
incorrect in one specific respect: The Lord found me. :)
> The fact that atypican considers that those who make a judgement about the
> divinity of Jesus do so from a position of reliance on their ability to make
> sound judgments is very reasonable to me.
Reasonable != correct
To the degree that an appeal to reason is human centered (ie "all
trust is rooted in self trust"), it is just not a tenable standard.
One can sometimes see people incorrectly using terms like "rational",
"reasonable", "fair" in a normative sense, as if the objective nature
of reality should in some way be subject to them. :(
> The alternative would seem that
> one 'blindly believes', and I don't think that anyone really 'blindly'
> believes in anything.
Another alternative is that salvation was solely God's choice and
initiative. For example, one doesn't choose to be born physically, a
presumption that one somehow chooses to be born spiritually is
analogously flawed.
Further, though the Bible often uses the language of choice, it never
uses that language regarding humankind's obedience to God. It's not
my "choice" to obey God or not as I will, it is in fact instead my
obligation to obey God regardless of my choice. The Lord's prayer is
not:
"Our Father, who art in heaven ...
Thy kingdom come, and if I so choose, thy will be done ..."
it is instead:
"Our Father, who art in heaven ...
thy kingdom come, thy will be done ..."
No choice in the matter here. :)
Further, regarding salvation, the Bible does not offer the sinner
choice. It does not, for example say "Choose to repent!", it simply
says to sinners "Repent!". The command is imperative and
authoritative, with no discretion or agency allotted to the creature.
:)
> We all make assessments based on the evidence that we
> choose to accept as valid.
To the degree that such assessments rely upon finitely, flawed sinful
faculties, those assessments aren't normative.
> In the case of a believer, he is empowered by the Spirit of God to 'see' the
> evidence about Christ as being true, whereas previously he was unable to do
> so because his nature would not accept it.
So I consider the rebirth precedes a believers "trust", and not the converse.
> Agree with all of the above (including a passing interest in Asimov's
> writings when I spent more time reading novels). I just also see it as
> reasonable to hold the notion that each of us starts from a position of
> trusting ourselves and those things that we consider to be trustworthy.
I disagree, and consider sinful human faculties in less adequate fashion:
"The doctrine of total depravity asserts that people are by nature not
inclined or even able to love God wholly with heart, mind, and
strength, but rather all are inclined by nature to serve their own
will and desires and to reject the rule of God. Even religion and
philanthropy are wicked to God to the extent that these originate from
a human imagination, passion, and will, and are not done to the glory
of God. ... Total depravity does not mean, however, that people are as
evil as possible. Rather, it means that even the good which a person
may intend is faulty in its premise, false in its motive, and weak in
its implementation; and there is no mere refinement of natural
capacities that can correct this condition."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity
> As
> it relates to 'our need for', 'the work of', and 'the divinity of Christ', I
> think that each of us accepts this truth using the same mechanism of
> accepting what we find to be true...just in this case, we start from a
> nature that is at enmity with this truth, and therefore require the grace of
> God to illuminate our minds to its truth, such that we're then able accept
> it.
Well, I consider it precedes our trust, not that our trust precedes it. :)
In any event, I don't consider that an appeal to sinful human
faculties are normative, so "all trust is rooted in self-trust" fails.
HTH,
Brock
e_space
people say "i trust you over myself, because you are older"? "wiser"?
"represent god"? "etc"? ... what fails, in my book, is blindly taking
the unsubstantiated words of others over personal determination ...
only a small percentage of "gods word (the bible)" is actually
available for reading ... one has to wonder what the larger percentage
that wasnt included in the book has to say, and why it wasnt
included ... this sort of editing (censorship) leaves one (at least
me) to wonder about the credibility of the book ... the fact that the
book of john was written several hundred years after his death also
causes some puzzlement to me ... not to you though i guess, right? ...
trust sure seems like a scary proposition when accepted with such
blind fervor ... but hey, thats just me ;-^)
On Apr 27, 3:07 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
Brock Organ
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Brock Organ <brock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:29 PM, 14SM.jcil <14sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Enthusiastically agree, however I don't think that atyp is ostensibly
>> > making a judgement about the trustworthiness of Christ...I perceive that
>> > he's merely saying that we only trust those things that we judge to be
>> > trustworthy.
>>
>> I am disagreeing specifically with a concept that "all trust is rooted
>> in self trust" is normative.
>
> I think that's a good summation of the difference. I observe that it is in
> fact normative (humanly speaking; i.e., mankind's default position since
> Adam).
Well, I think I understand your meaning, but maybe consider that
"normative" is ambiguous, dangerous and misleading here. For example,
the following two statements are not identical:
a) "All even integers greater than 2 are non-prime"
b) "All even integers greater than 2 are non-prime, therefore ..."
I consider a) to be pro-positionally true, but not normative, while b)
is proposition-ally true and referenced in a term that may have
normative implications ...
So when atypican says:
"all trust is rooted in self trust"
one may try to say it is normative in that entry one applies:
1. of or pertaining to a norm, especially an assumed norm regarded as
the standard of correctness in behavior, speech, writing, etc.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/normative
I don't doubt that the statement "all trust is rooted in self trust"
may be an assumed norm by atypican, that he regards it as the standard
of correctness. I just disagree that his assumption is correct, and
disagree that such a labeling of the statement is normative in the
second sense of the entry:
2. tending or attempting to establish such a norm
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/normative
Why? Because humankind is not the measure of all things.
> I know we're in agreement that it's not normative that we trust
> Christ, or perceive him as trustworthy. Our default position (what we
> consider 'normal') is to be at enmity with God, serving ourselves and
> trusting ourselves above all things.
Agreed.
> I agree that this is not how God originally intended things to work (and for
> that reason our state is rightly considered 'abnormal' when viewed relative
> to God's perfect design), but it is what is 'normal' now as a lasting
> consequence of sin.
Abnormal AND I would fear it is not productive to use "normative"
because at best it only refers to dictionary.com entry 1, while of
course the temptation is for it to be incorrectly used in the sense of
dictionary.com entry 2.
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
> funny that one should trust others, but not themselves ...
Or just trust God more than self. :)
Regards,
Brock
SM
Brock Organ
Well, I don't know that I would concede anything to naturalistic
observation. I would instead note the epistemological limitations of
such a position.
Sometimes non-believers do hold a "you'll have to curry favor with me
if you want me to believe in your god" approach to debate ... I think
alternatively reality for the sinner is much worse: a drowning person
does not care to haggle or negotiate about the color of the life
preserver being thrown to them. :(
Regards,
Brock
e_space
your own determination? ... by your own admition, the only trustful
appreciation you have of god is what you have been told by man ... men
wrote the bible brock, why not accept that, and get on with some real
self determination ... too much like work?
On Apr 27, 3:29 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
e_space
your own? thats like saying "i saw something, but wait! ... i couldnt
have because someone who i dont know told me that it doesnt exist" ...
why are you so scared to trust your own perceptions?
On Apr 27, 5:11 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 1:55 PM, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
e_space
version of god ... i realize that equates to the same thing to you,
and S&M, who claims that muslims worship a false idol ... they are
believers, but not to you, right? ...
btw, youre a sinner brock ... is your reality bad?
On Apr 27, 6:21 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 5:11 PM, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 1:55 PM, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
SM
why trust the reliability of someone else's words and perceptions over
your own? thats like saying "i saw something, but wait! ... i couldnt
have because someone who i dont know told me that it doesnt exist" ...
why are you so scared to trust your own perceptions?
SM
and S&M, who claims that muslims worship a false idol ...
SM
I would instead note the epistemological limitations of such a position.
* Speaking generally. A notable exception is youth who are fortunate enough to transition from trusting their parents to trusting God before being caught up in humanism and self-glorification.
...reality for the sinner is much worse: a drowning person
does not care to haggle or negotiate about the color of the life
preserver being thrown to them. :(
Brock Organ
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Brock Organ <brock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I would instead note the epistemological limitations of such a position.
>
> My perception is that I'm doing exactly that when I point out that while
> indeed man starts from a place of trusting his own wisdom, he is at a loss
> unless he's validating that wisdom against a trustworthy external standard
> (trusting more than himself).
> Apparently, there's something you're seeing in the assertion of "all trust
> starts from self-trust" that I'm not seeing (perhaps it's his use of the
> word "all"??). I see it as no more than stating the obvious really - we
> all* start from a place of considering ourselves the most reliable authority
> in our lives. Certainly, this is an epistemologically perilous state, but I
> consider that it is an accurate observation and a place from which to begin
> a dialogue.
Well, firstly, I don't agree with the presupposition that: "all trust
is rooted in self trust".
I don't agree that it forms a valid place from which to begin a dialogue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_In,_Garbage_Out
Secondly, I think the difference is that I see the danger in the
assertion as being offered as normative. Perhaps atypican will
clarify in another fashion (which I would of course welcome), but,
after post after post of statements of self-dialog, self-absorption,
self-canonization, self perception, self understanding, self
affirming, self criticizing, self discovery, self acknowledgment, self
consideration, self evaluation, self indoctrination, self
illumination, self <insert -tion here>, I don't consider he is simply
informing, but additionally untenably offering it as a presupposed
normative:
"all trust is rooted in self trust, therefore ..."
Contrastingly, I respond to such an epistemological self absorption by noting:
Humankind is not the measure of all things.
>> ...reality for the sinner is much worse: a drowning person
>> does not care to haggle or negotiate about the color of the life
>> preserver being thrown to them. :(
>
> Agree, but in my experience most non-believers are clueless to their state
> of peril. In fact, I consider it nothing less than the grace of God at work
> in the heart of a non-believer when they're able to recognize that they're
> even in need of a 'life preserver'.
I agree. And that is, I think, an answer to the situation when a
non-believer invalidly asks the believer to make the gospel more
pleasing to their subjective standards. I fear the request to be
folly, like a drowning person rejecting a life-preserver because its
color didn't match their personal preference.
Regards,
Brock
Joe
On Apr 26, 5:50 am, atypican <davidmja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Agree?......Disagree?
atypican
for doubt isn't yet developed
atypican
On Apr 26, 5:29 pm, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 26, 2011, at 16:31, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 10:24 AM, atypican <davidmja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> If you claim to place trust in Jesus, I assert that you must first
> >>>> trust.
>
> >>> I disagree. Christ is not trustworthy simply because I trusted my own
> >>> judgments about who He is, rather, He is trustworthy regardless of my
> >>> internal dialectic.
>
> >> about him.
>
> > The excellence of the gospel of Jesus Christ is independent of such.
> > He is wonderful regardless of human dialectic. If I fail to trust Him,
> > He is no less trustworthy. If I decide to trust Him, He is no more
> > trustworthy. :)
> Enthusiastically agree, however I don't think that atyp is ostensibly making a judgement about the trustworthiness of Christ...I perceive that he's merely saying that we only trust those things that we judge to be trustworthy.
>
> > originates solely within themselves, but rather external to self, from
> > God's Holy Spirit. :)
>
> Concur.
atypican
typed. :)
On Apr 27, 10:55 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Enthusiastically agree, however I don't think that atyp is ostensibly
> > making a judgement about the trustworthiness of Christ...I perceive that
> > he's merely saying that we only trust those things that we judge to be
> > trustworthy.
>
> > I am disagreeing specifically with a concept that "all trust is rooted
> > in self trust" is normative.
>
atypican
should be otherwise. :)
On Apr 27, 2:11 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 1:55 PM, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
Joe
On Apr 29, 1:36 am, atypican <davidmja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Depending on how "little" you mean, I would say that their capacity
> for doubt isn't yet developed
>
becomes of your statement to Brock that,
"If you claim to place trust in Jesus, I assert that you must first
trust your own judgments about who he is, and how worthy he is of that
trust. "
What I'm getting at is that it seems to me trust is more basic than
forming judgments, and thus unlikely to necessarily rely on it. One
can trust, as a basic human tendency, without first making a judgment
call based on one's own trust in one's own capacity to so judge. And
in fact, it seems to me that in the general case of Christians
trusting Christ, this is what happens. Jesus after all said, "except
ye be converted and become like little children, ye shall not enter
the Kingdom of God."
Additionally, we are advised to trust in God *rather than* relying on
ourselves, not *because* of it.
atypican
> is rooted in self trust".
> I don't agree that it forms a valid place from which to begin a dialogue:
from which to begin dialog?
> Secondly, I think the difference is that I see the danger in the
> assertion as being offered as normative. Perhaps atypican will
> clarify in another fashion (which I would of course welcome), but,
> after post after post of statements of self-dialog, self-absorption,
> self-canonization, self perception, self understanding, self
> affirming, self criticizing, self discovery, self acknowledgment, self
> consideration, self evaluation, self indoctrination, self
> illumination, self <insert -tion here>, I don't consider he is simply
> informing, but additionally untenably offering it as a presupposed
> normative:
“There is only one corner of the universe you can be certain of
improving, and that's your own self.” ~ Aldous Huxley
Doesn't make me selfish, self absorbed, or any other pejorative
connotation you'd like to attach to my focus on self.
On Apr 28, 3:52 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 4:50 PM, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
atypican
I'm not sure that doing what comes instinctively is rightfully called
trust at very early stages of development.
The ability to trust and doubt seem to develop around a persons hunger/
desire and fear
I don't think you can trust, doubt, or judge until you know what it is
that you want.
perhaps I could have responded better but this is what you get for
now.
atypican
> and sinful physical, mental and spiritual faculties. But that does
> not make these faulty faculties normative.
Noting that no one is perfect indeed is not what *makes* being
imperfect normal. But being imperfect and subject to profound folly is
more than just normative, it's rather universal whether or not one has
the humility to admit it or not.
On Apr 27, 9:04 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 3:22 AM, atypican <davidmja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Statement of self-centered faith noted. Contrastingly, the Statement notes:
>
> >> "The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to
> >> us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its
> >> meaning."
>
> > Wouldn't you agree that some, if not many, people believe that the
> > holy spirit communicates with them through this "inward witness" and
> > are mistaken?
>
> One can note that sinners have confused, limited, deceived, inadequate
> and sinful physical, mental and spiritual faculties. But that does
> not make these faulty faculties normative.
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock
14SM.jcil
>> I agree that this is not how God originally intended things to work
>
> Please rephrase that unless you are still comfortable with what you
> typed. :)
I am comfortable with what I typed but recognize in your response that perhaps my intended meaning is not clear, so I'll add:
God didn't intend for man to regard his own opinion as preeminent. Man was created by God and as such should rightfully trust the Creator above all else, including himself.
14SM.jcil
> (paraphrasing I forget who) If my creator had wanted me otherwise, I
> should be otherwise. :)
I'm not certain if your intended meaning, but in the current context of this thread I consider this paraphrase is misapplied.
Man is profoundly unaware of the devastating affect upon each of us that sin has had. We are literally no more than a shadow of what we were originally created to be...however, the glorious truth is that we have not been left without hope or remedy. Through Christ Jesus the original design for each of us can be redeemed!
14SM.jcil
>> Well, firstly, I don't agree with the presupposition that: "all trust
>> is rooted in self trust".
>> I don't agree that it forms a valid place from which to begin a dialogue:
>
> Well I'm open to suggestions. What do you think *is* a valid place
> from which to begin dialog?
>
>> Secondly, I think the difference is that I see the danger in the
>> assertion as being offered as normative. Perhaps atypican will
>> clarify in another fashion (which I would of course welcome), but,
>> after post after post of statements of self-dialog, self-absorption,
>> self-canonization, self perception, self understanding, self
>> affirming, self criticizing, self discovery, self acknowledgment, self
>> consideration, self evaluation, self indoctrination, self
>> illumination, self <insert -tion here>, I don't consider he is simply
>> informing, but additionally untenably offering it as a presupposed
>> normative:
>
> Just because I believe the statement:
>
> “There is only one corner of the universe you can be certain of
> improving, and that's your own self.” ~ Aldous Huxley
>
> Doesn't make me selfish, self absorbed, or any other pejorative
> connotation you'd like to attach to my focus on self.
atyp, I'm able relate to where you're coming from, yet I can also see that Brock is not incorrect in his assessment. Your approach, as admirable as it might seem, is as futile as bailing a sinking ship with a thimble.
e_space
upon each of us that sin has had", how can you comment on it, or make
factual sounding statements about what we were "created" to be ... are
you not a man, and therefore subject to the inability to be profoundly
unaware?
On Apr 29, 6:40 am, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
e_space
determination about "god", does not mean that others are ... i have
learned vastly about god in the solitude of my conscience than i did
from years of being preached to, studying the bible, or praying ...
what i find futile, is believing what others have told me that does
not contain proof ... you feel your ship is unsinkable based on the
words of multiple men that you have never met ... sounds sorta silly
to me ... to describe what others are doing independently as futile,
is another example of the blindness and rabid fervor of your
faith ...
On Apr 29, 6:51 am, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
SM
if as you say "Man is profoundly unaware of the devastating affect
upon each of us that sin has had", how can you comment on it, or make
factual sounding statements about what we were "created" to be ... are
you not a man, and therefore subject to the inability to be profoundly
unaware?
SM
just because you claim to be incapable of coming to your own
determination about "god", does not mean that others are ... i have
learned vastly about god in the solitude of my conscience than i did
from years of being preached to, studying the bible, or praying ...
what i find futile, is believing what others have told me that does
not contain proof ... you feel your ship is unsinkable based on the
words of multiple men that you have never met ... sounds sorta silly
to me ... to describe what others are doing independently as futile,
is another example of the blindness and rabid fervor of your
faith ...
e_space
made version that you worship ... i live as part of god, not separate
from "him", as you do ... i do not worship god because i am part of
it ... you worship a version of god created by man, and get your
thrill from the adoration of something external and superior to
yourself ... i experience spiritual joy within ... the difference,
from my perspective, is that you smell the soup, where as i taste
it ...
i totally reject your biased claim that "any experience can only be
comment diminishes all religions, [other than the one you have adopted
(through birth most likely)] to worthless insignificance, and i find
this pompous and ignorant ... you have already stated that muslims
worship a false idol, yet you claim to be open minded ... you are
quite confusing, or should i say, confused (imo of course) ...
i find it almost disturbing that one can worship as the "son of god",
that which they have never met ... that they can take words on paper
as 100% valid, with no thought or consideration for the possibility
that there is no truth to the words ... mass gullibility is my view on
it ...
the fact that a high percentage of those who claim to be christian (or
religious), have the capability to be vile, uncaring and abusive, is a
strong indication that being religious has no relationship with being
godly ... religion is not god ... god is not religion ... and in my
opinion, ne'er the twain shall meet ...
On Apr 29, 8:02 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
e_space
[as mentioned numerous times] ... your avoidance of some of the issues
i have raised is an indication that you cannot address them with
anything of substance ... i dont have the desire or inclination to go
back and resurrect these issues ... in reality, i know you have no
valid answer for them ... and that this is the true reason you have
not addressed them ... you use my "lack of civility" as a crutch to
avoid these issues (from my perspective of course) ...
On Apr 29, 8:07 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
SM
i enjoy a relationship with "god" already thank you, just not the man
made version that you worship
... i live as part of god, not separate
from "him", as you do ... i do not worship god because i am part of
it ... you worship a version of god created by man, and get your
thrill from the adoration of something external and superior to
yourself ... i experience spiritual joy within ... the difference,
from my perspective, is that you smell the soup, where as i taste
it ...
i totally reject your biased claim that "any experience can only be
considered authentic if it draws one closer to the truth, and mostspecifically the truth of Lordship of Jesus Christ"
... this arrogant comment diminishes all religions,
you have already stated that muslims worship a false idol
that they can take words on paper as 100% valid, with no thought or consideration for the possibility
that there is no truth to the words
the fact that a high percentage of those who claim to be christian (or
religious), have the capability to be vile, uncaring and abusive, is a
strong indication that being religious has no relationship with being
godly ...
religion is not god ... god is not religion ...
SM
sorry about your confusion, but i am not predisposed about anything
[as mentioned numerous times] ...
BTW - Christianity doesn't claim to 'have all of the answers', so this is nothing more than another straw man argument you're trying to rely on perhaps to avoid honestly evaluating and responding to the answers that it does provide.
e_space
referring to ... i dont consider "Christ" to be god ... you do? what
knowledge to you have that you can present that Christ is god in
verifiable terms?
okay ... the god of the bible isnt man-made, its man created/
invented ... does that work better? or should i say is that "dead
right"? it is to me, and until someone proves me wrong, i will
continue to think that way ...
my experiences are not delusions my friend ... they are alive and
well, and mean WAY more to me than anything i have been told about
your god ... what is a delusional fact from my standpoint, is your
propensity for putting adjectives on my experiences, those which you
have ZERO knowledge about ... if you'd care to give it some thought,
wouldnt that seem a tad ludicrous ?
please dont waste your time lamenting over my rejection of your
proselytizing ... i am very happy with my spiritual reality, and have
no need to replace it with the empty words of men ...
im not trying to "support religions", im just saying you are arrogant
and pompous for saying that you have the only valid religion, and that
you dont have the knowledge or even the right (at least of any
consequence), to make such statements based on nothing more than
biased ignorance ...
i dont recall ever using the words "trip your trigger", so why are you
putting quotation marks around it as if i did? no god invented by man
has any substantial meaning for me, whether allah or christ ... im
simply saying that someone who believes in anything that has no
factual support, should not bash anothers belief ... i dont know why
this is so hard for you to understand ... any ideas?
what you consider accurate in regards to what i have said is of
extremely little importance to me ... i consider your proselytizing to
be an accurate reflection of your belief, and certainly not an
accurate reflection of facts ...
btw, its nice to see a bit of your true character starting to
emerge ... let your emotions out my friend ... maybe i should start
charging you for my stress relief services? ;-^)
On Apr 29, 12:07 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
e_space
post one (or more), so until you tell me what you are referring to, i
have no idea what you are talking about ... trust this makes sense to
you?
On Apr 29, 12:16 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> does* provide.
Brock Organ
> (paraphrasing I forget who) If my creator had wanted me otherwise, I
> should be otherwise. :)
Statement of faith noted. Of course, it is the God-centered life, not
the self-centered one, where a person can be what God created him/her
to be:
" You're blessed when you stay on course,
walking steadily on the road revealed by God.
You're blessed when you follow his directions,
doing your best to find him.
That's right—you don't go off on your own;
you walk straight along the road he set.
You, God, prescribed the right way to live;
now you expect us to live it.
Oh, that my steps might be steady,
keeping to the course you set;
Then I'd never have any regrets
in comparing my life with your counsel.
I thank you for speaking straight from your heart;
I learn the pattern of your righteous ways.
I'm going to do what you tell me to do;
don't ever walk off and leave me.
How can a young person live a clean life?
By carefully reading the map of your Word.
I'm single-minded in pursuit of you;
don't let me miss the road signs you've posted.
I've banked your promises in the vault of my heart
so I won't sin myself bankrupt.
Be blessed, God;
train me in your ways of wise living.
I'll transfer to my lips
all the counsel that comes from your mouth;
I delight far more in what you tell me about living
than in gathering a pile of riches.
I ponder every morsel of wisdom from you,
I attentively watch how you've done it.
I relish everything you've told me of life,
I won't forget a word of it.
Be generous with me and I'll live a full life;
not for a minute will I take my eyes off your road.
Open my eyes so I can see
what you show me of your miracle-wonders.
I'm a stranger in these parts;
give me clear directions.
My soul is starved and hungry, ravenous!—
insatiable for your nourishing commands.
And those who think they know so much,
ignoring everything you tell them—let them have it!
Don't let them mock and humiliate me;
I've been careful to do just what you said.
While bad neighbors maliciously gossip about me,
I'm absorbed in pondering your wise counsel.
Yes, your sayings on life are what give me delight;
I listen to them as to good neighbors!
I'm feeling terrible—I couldn't feel worse!
Get me on my feet again. You promised, remember?
When I told my story, you responded;
train me well in your deep wisdom.
Help me understand these things inside and out
so I can ponder your miracle-wonders.
My sad life's dilapidated, a falling-down barn;
build me up again by your Word.
Barricade the road that goes Nowhere;
grace me with your clear revelation.
I choose the true road to Somewhere,
I post your road signs at every curve and corner.
I grasp and cling to whatever you tell me;
God, don't let me down!
I'll run the course you lay out for me
if you'll just show me how.
God, teach me lessons for living
so I can stay the course.
Give me insight so I can do what you tell me—
my whole life one long, obedient response.
Guide me down the road of your commandments;
I love traveling this freeway!
Give me a bent for your words of wisdom,
and not for piling up loot.
Divert my eyes from toys and trinkets,
invigorate me on the pilgrim way.
Affirm your promises to me—
promises made to all who fear you.
Deflect the harsh words of my critics—
but what you say is always so good.
See how hungry I am for your counsel;
preserve my life through your righteous ways!
Let your love, God, shape my life
with salvation, exactly as you promised;
Then I'll be able to stand up to mockery
because I trusted your Word.
Don't ever deprive me of truth, not ever—
your commandments are what I depend on.
Oh, I'll guard with my life what you've revealed to me,
guard it now, guard it ever;
And I'll stride freely through wide open spaces
as I look for your truth and your wisdom;
Then I'll tell the world what I find,
speak out boldly in public, unembarrassed.
I cherish your commandments—oh, how I love them!—
relishing every fragment of your counsel.
Remember what you said to me, your servant—
I hang on to these words for dear life!
These words hold me up in bad times;
yes, your promises rejuvenate me.
The insolent ridicule me without mercy,
but I don't budge from your revelation.
I watch for your ancient landmark words,
and know I'm on the right track.
But when I see the wicked ignore your directions,
I'm beside myself with anger.
I set your instructions to music
and sing them as I walk this pilgrim way.
I meditate on your name all night, God,
treasuring your revelation, O God.
Still, I walk through a rain of derision
because I live by your Word and counsel.
Because you have satisfied me, God, I promise
to do everything you say.
I beg you from the bottom of my heart: smile,
be gracious to me just as you promised.
When I took a long, careful look at your ways,
I got my feet back on the trail you blazed.
I was up at once, didn't drag my feet,
was quick to follow your orders.
The wicked hemmed me in—there was no way out—
but not for a minute did I forget your plan for me.
I get up in the middle of the night to thank you;
your decisions are so right, so true—I can't wait till morning!
I'm a friend and companion of all who fear you,
of those committed to living by your rules.
Your love, God, fills the earth!
Train me to live by your counsel.
Be good to your servant, God;
be as good as your Word.
Train me in good common sense;
I'm thoroughly committed to living your way.
Before I learned to answer you, I wandered all over the place,
but now I'm in step with your Word.
You are good, and the source of good;
train me in your goodness.
The godless spread lies about me,
but I focus my attention on what you are saying;
They're bland as a bucket of lard,
while I dance to the tune of your revelation.
My troubles turned out all for the best—
they forced me to learn from your textbook.
Truth from your mouth means more to me
than striking it rich in a gold mine.
With your very own hands you formed me;
now breathe your wisdom over me so I can understand you.
When they see me waiting, expecting your Word,
those who fear you will take heart and be glad.
I can see now, God, that your decisions are right;
your testing has taught me what's true and right.
Oh, love me—and right now!—hold me tight!
just the way you promised.
Now comfort me so I can live, really live;
your revelation is the tune I dance to.
Let the fast-talking tricksters be exposed as frauds;
they tried to sell me a bill of goods,
but I kept my mind fixed on your counsel.
Let those who fear you turn to me
for evidence of your wise guidance.
And let me live whole and holy, soul and body,
so I can always walk with my head held high.
I'm homesick—longing for your salvation;
I'm waiting for your word of hope.
My eyes grow heavy watching for some sign of your promise;
how long must I wait for your comfort?
There's smoke in my eyes—they burn and water,
but I keep a steady gaze on the instructions you post.
How long do I have to put up with all this?
How long till you haul my tormentors into court?
The arrogant godless try to throw me off track,
ignorant as they are of God and his ways.
Everything you command is a sure thing,
but they harass me with lies. Help!
They've pushed and pushed—they never let up—
but I haven't relaxed my grip on your counsel.
In your great love revive me
so I can alertly obey your every word.
What you say goes, God,
and stays, as permanent as the heavens.
Your truth never goes out of fashion;
it's as up-to-date as the earth when the sun comes up.
Your Word and truth are dependable as ever;
that's what you ordered—you set the earth going.
If your revelation hadn't delighted me so,
I would have given up when the hard times came.
But I'll never forget the advice you gave me;
you saved my life with those wise words.
Save me! I'm all yours.
I look high and low for your words of wisdom.
The wicked lie in ambush to destroy me,
but I'm only concerned with your plans for me.
I see the limits to everything human,
but the horizons can't contain your commands!
Oh, how I love all you've revealed;
I reverently ponder it all the day long.
Your commands give me an edge on my enemies;
they never become obsolete.
I've even become smarter than my teachers
since I've pondered and absorbed your counsel.
I've become wiser than the wise old sages
simply by doing what you tell me.
I watch my step, avoiding the ditches and ruts of evil
so I can spend all my time keeping your Word.
I never make detours from the route you laid out;
you gave me such good directions.
Your words are so choice, so tasty;
I prefer them to the best home cooking.
With your instruction, I understand life;
that's why I hate false propaganda.
By your words I can see where I'm going;
they throw a beam of light on my dark path.
I've committed myself and I'll never turn back
from living by your righteous order.
Everything's falling apart on me, God;
put me together again with your Word.
Festoon me with your finest sayings, God;
teach me your holy rules.
My life is as close as my own hands,
but I don't forget what you have revealed.
The wicked do their best to throw me off track,
but I don't swerve an inch from your course.
I inherited your book on living; it's mine forever—
what a gift! And how happy it makes me!
I concentrate on doing exactly what you say—
I always have and always will.
I hate the two-faced,
but I love your clear-cut revelation.
You're my place of quiet retreat;
I wait for your Word to renew me.
Get out of my life, evildoers,
so I can keep my God's commands.
Take my side as you promised; I'll live then for sure.
Don't disappoint all my grand hopes.
Stick with me and I'll be all right;
I'll give total allegiance to your definitions of life.
Expose all who drift away from your sayings;
their casual idolatry is lethal.
You reject earth's wicked as so much rubbish;
therefore I lovingly embrace everything you say.
I shiver in awe before you;
your decisions leave me speechless with reverence.
I stood up for justice and the right;
don't leave me to the mercy of my oppressors.
Take the side of your servant, good God;
don't let the godless take advantage of me.
I can't keep my eyes open any longer, waiting for you
to keep your promise to set everything right.
Let your love dictate how you deal with me;
teach me from your textbook on life.
I'm your servant—help me understand what that means,
the inner meaning of your instructions.
It's time to act, God;
they've made a shambles of your revelation!
Yea-Saying God, I love what you command,
I love it better than gold and gemstones;
Yea-Saying God, I honor everything you tell me,
I despise every deceitful detour.
Every word you give me is a miracle word—
how could I help but obey?
Break open your words, let the light shine out,
let ordinary people see the meaning.
Mouth open and panting,
I wanted your commands more than anything.
Turn my way, look kindly on me,
as you always do to those who personally love you.
Steady my steps with your Word of promise
so nothing malign gets the better of me.
Rescue me from the grip of bad men and women
so I can live life your way.
Smile on me, your servant;
teach me the right way to live.
I cry rivers of tears
because nobody's living by your book!
You are right and you do right, God;
your decisions are right on target.
You rightly instruct us in how to live
ever faithful to you.
My rivals nearly did me in,
they persistently ignored your commandments.
Your promise has been tested through and through,
and I, your servant, love it dearly.
I'm too young to be important,
but I don't forget what you tell me.
Your righteousness is eternally right,
your revelation is the only truth.
Even though troubles came down on me hard,
your commands always gave me delight.
The way you tell me to live is always right;
help me understand it so I can live to the fullest.
I call out at the top of my lungs,
"God! Answer! I'll do whatever you say."
I called to you, "Save me
so I can carry out all your instructions."
I was up before sunrise,
crying for help, hoping for a word from you.
I stayed awake all night,
prayerfully pondering your promise.
In your love, listen to me;
in your justice, God, keep me alive.
As those out to get me come closer and closer,
they go farther and farther from the truth you reveal;
But you're the closest of all to me, God,
and all your judgments true.
I've known all along from the evidence of your words
that you meant them to last forever.
Take a good look at my trouble, and help me—
I haven't forgotten your revelation.
Take my side and get me out of this;
give me back my life, just as you promised.
"Salvation" is only gibberish to the wicked
because they've never looked it up in your dictionary.
Your mercies, God, run into the billions;
following your guidelines, revive me.
My antagonists are too many to count,
but I don't swerve from the directions you gave.
I took one look at the quitters and was filled with loathing;
they walked away from your promises so casually!
Take note of how I love what you tell me;
out of your life of love, prolong my life.
Your words all add up to the sum total: Truth.
Your righteous decisions are eternal.
I've been slandered unmercifully by the politicians,
but my awe at your words keeps me stable.
I'm ecstatic over what you say,
like one who strikes it rich.
I hate lies—can't stand them!—
but I love what you have revealed.
Seven times each day I stop and shout praises
for the way you keep everything running right.
For those who love what you reveal, everything fits—
no stumbling around in the dark for them.
I wait expectantly for your salvation;
God, I do what you tell me.
My soul guards and keeps all your instructions—
oh, how much I love them!
I follow your directions, abide by your counsel;
my life's an open book before you.
Let my cry come right into your presence, God;
provide me with the insight that comes only from your Word.
Give my request your personal attention,
rescue me on the terms of your promise.
Let praise cascade off my lips;
after all, you've taught me the truth about life!
And let your promises ring from my tongue;
every order you've given is right.
Put your hand out and steady me
since I've chosen to live by your counsel.
I'm homesick, God, for your salvation;
I love it when you show yourself!
Invigorate my soul so I can praise you well,
use your decrees to put iron in my soul.
And should I wander off like a lost sheep—seek me!
I'll recognize the sound of your voice. "
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+119&version=MSG
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
>> Well, firstly, I don't agree with the presupposition that: "all trust
>> is rooted in self trust".
>> I don't agree that it forms a valid place from which to begin a dialogue:
>
> Well I'm open to suggestions. What do you think *is* a valid place
> from which to begin dialog?
Well, independently of where *I think* is valid, is the objectively
true and trustworthy revelation of God:
>> Secondly, I think the difference is that I see the danger in the
>> assertion as being offered as normative. Perhaps atypican will
>> clarify in another fashion (which I would of course welcome), but,
>> after post after post of statements of self-dialog, self-absorption,
>> self-canonization, self perception, self understanding, self
>> affirming, self criticizing, self discovery, self acknowledgment, self
>> consideration, self evaluation, self indoctrination, self
>> illumination, self <insert -tion here>, I don't consider he is simply
>> informing, but additionally untenably offering it as a presupposed
>> normative:
>
> Just because I believe the statement:
>
> “There is only one corner of the universe you can be certain of
> improving, and that's your own self.” ~ Aldous Huxley
>
> Doesn't make me selfish, self absorbed, or any other pejorative
> connotation you'd like to attach to my focus on self.
The paragraph doesn't respond solely to your Huxley quote, but
considers the full corpus of your recent "self" posts. :)
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
>> One can note that sinners have confused, limited, deceived, inadequate
>> and sinful physical, mental and spiritual faculties. But that does
>> not make these faulty faculties normative.
>
> Noting that no one is perfect indeed is not what *makes* being
> imperfect normal.
Well more adequately, I note that:
being "normal" != being normative.
Regards,
Brock
SM
i dont have any knowledge about "Christ", so i dont know what you are
referring to ... i dont consider "Christ" to be god ... you do? what
knowledge to you have that you can present that Christ is god in
verifiable terms?
okay ... the god of the bible isnt man-made, its man created/
invented ... does that work better?
it is to me, and until someone proves me wrong, i will continue to think that way ...
im not trying to "support religions", im just saying you are arrogant
and pompous for saying that you have the only valid religion,
i dont recall ever using the words "trip your trigger", so why are you
putting quotation marks around it as if i did?
no god invented by man has any substantial meaning for me, whether allah or christ ... im
simply saying that someone who believes in anything that has no
factual support, should not bash anothers belief ...
what you consider accurate in regards to what i have said is of
extremely little importance to me ... i consider your proselytizing to
be an accurate reflection of your belief, and certainly not an
accurate reflection of facts ...
btw, its nice to see a bit of your true character starting to
emerge ... let your emotions out my friend ... maybe i should start
charging you for my stress relief services? ;-^)
SM
any particular accusations come to mind? ive asked you recently to
post one (or more), so until you tell me what you are referring to, i
have no idea what you are talking about ... trust this makes sense to
you?
Joe
discussion.
On Apr 29, 3:23 am, atypican <davidmja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A thought provoking argument...Thank you.
>
> I'm not sure that doing what comes instinctively is rightfully called
> trust at very early stages of development.
>
> The ability to trust and doubt seem to develop around a persons hunger/
> desire and fear
>
> I don't think you can trust, doubt, or judge until you know what it is
> that you want.
>
> perhaps I could have responded better but this is what you get for
> now.
>
if you are so inclined.
One of the challenges facing a Christian such as myself who sees a
duty to evangelize, is, how to convince a non-believer? A legitimate
question is, how to convince them of what? And an answer to that is,
how to convince them of the value of believing the Gospel?
It is generally assumed that any person who frequents groups such as
these and/or is past a certain age has already heard the Gospel in one
form or another, at least once. And, if such a person is a non-
believer, then it stands to reason that their initial reaction to
hearing it for the first time was not to believe. There are also
those who say they used to believe and no longer do. These two groups
of non-believers tend to be different. The latter group, when we
encounter them on these forums, tends to be quite a bit more hostile
towards faith. And the means of convincing them would also have to be
different. Essentially, to convince anyone in the latter group to
double back and to take up again that faith that they have abandoned,
seems to entail convincing them that they have made a big mistake,
that they have taken a misstep that they never should have taken. And
more often than not, their decision to abandon their faith in Christ
was a major step for them, something that they considered deeply, and
often a break that was painful for them. As such, it seems that to
bring a person like that back around to faith is simply not possible,
and that is what Saint Paul says about them in his Epistle to the
Hebrews,
Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated,
have tasted also the heavenly gift and were made partakers of the Holy
Ghost, 5 have moreover tasted the good word of God and the powers of
the world to come, 6 and are fallen away: to be renewed again to
penance, crucifying again to themselves the Son of God and making him
a mockery.
Sobering words! They echo the words of Christ,
Luke 9:62 Jesus said to him: No man putting his hand to the plough and
looking back is fit for the kingdom of God.
But for that first group, those who have never yet believed in Christ,
even though they have heard the Gospel --- what about them? They are
no longer little children, so they do not trust like little children.
They were not moved on the occasion of their first hearing the Gospel
to believe in it. Why not? There are a few different possibilities.
One is, that perhaps they "listened but did not hear." It may be that
the Gospel was presented to them in such a way as not to appeal to
them, and that if it were presented in a different way, it might. It
may be that before ever hearing the Gospel at all, they encountered
Christians who turned them off in some way, and prejudiced them
against belief. I don't know that I can list all the possible
reasons, much less divide them in to real reasons vs lame excuses.
I do know this: not every preacher has equal success. And not all
successes are equal. There is such a thing as God's Gift of
Preaching. It was one of the Gifts possessed by Saint Anthony of
Padua. It is a Gift with which John Mark, according to George, will
be filled, so that the Scripture might be fulfilled in him, "I have
announced your justice in the vast assembly." Some make real
converts, who then follow up and pursue holiness. Others, make only
nominal converts, who fall away, or worse, who do not come to Christ
seeking their conversion from their sins, but seeking some other
thing, some worldly favor or other. There is a whole host of
televangelists preaching a false "Gospel of prosperity," encouraging
their followers to commit sins of greed in the name of Christ. There
are so many conflicting voices in the world. The great wonder is that
anyone ever hears the real Gospel at all!
Of course, there is the Bible, the written Word of God. Anyone, of
course, can just pick up a Bible and read the Gospels of the four
Evangelists for themselves. But then what are they to do with it?
Billy Graham and the like keeps recommending the "Sinner's Prayer,"
words to the effect of,
"Lord Jesus Christ, I am a sinner! I am convicted by Your Word, of my
sins. I know that I cannot overcome them on my own. But I believe
that you died for me, in order to take away my sins. So I humbly ask
you, good Jesus, to come into my heart and into my life, to forgive me
for my sins, and to wash me clean in Your Precious Blood. Father, I
beg of you, your Mercy and your forgiveness, in the Name of Jesus
Christ! Amen!"
Now, that is a good attitude to take, even though those exact words
are not found anywhere in Holy Scripture. So, someone picking up a
Bible for themselves wouldn't by any means know to do that. It
requires a preacher, to tell them what to do, which points out yet
another flaw in the increasingly evident failure of "Sola Scriptura."
What someone reading the Bible all on their own might find, is this:
Acts 8:26 Now an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying: Arise, go
towards the south, to the way that goes down from Jerusalem into Gaza:
this is desert. 27 And rising up, he went. And behold, a man of
Ethiopia, an eunuch, of great authority under Candace the queen of the
Ethiopians, who had charge over all her treasures, had come to
Jerusalem to adore. 28 And he was returning, sitting in his chariot
and reading Isaiah the prophet. 29 And the Spirit said to Philip: Go
near and join yourself to this chariot. 30 And Philip running thither,
heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Do you think that
you understand what you read? 31 Who said: And how can I, unless some
man show me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with
him. 32 And the place of the scripture which he was reading was this:
He was led as a sheep to the slaughter: and like a lamb without voice
before his shearer, so opens he not his mouth. 33 In humility his
judgment was taken away. His generation who shall declare, for his
life shall be taken from the earth? 34 And the eunuch answering
Philip, said: I beseech you, of whom does the prophet speak this? Of
himself, or of some other man? 35 Then Philip, opening his mouth and
beginning at this scripture, preached unto him Jesus. 36 And as they
went on their way, they came to a certain water. And the eunuch said:
See, here is water: What hinders me from being baptized? 37 And Philip
said: If you believe with all your heart, you may. And he answering,
said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he
commanded the chariot to stand still. And they went down into the
water, both Philip and the eunuch. And he baptized him.
So Scripture itself points beyond Scripture, to the Sacrament of
Baptism. It also points to all seven of the Sacraments, but the
Protestants deny this. I believe that the insistence on the extra-
Scriptural doctrine of Sola Scriptura is largely rooted not only in
self-trust, as I've said before, but additionally, in *mistrust* of
the Church.
It may seem like I am getting on the soapbox here, and to a certain
degree I am. Obviously, I am addressing not only you, Dave, but also
SM and Brock, because the flow of what I was saying has led me to
this. But it all does tie in with your original post.
The eunuch placed his trust in Saint Philip, and was rewarded. I
submit, Dave, that this was not in that eunuch a process of trusting
in his own judgment and deciding rationally, based on his own
judgment, to trust Saint Philip. It was, rather, God the Holy Spirit
who both brought them together, and moved the heart of the eunuch to
ask Saint Philip to explain the Scripture to him. It was God the Holy
Spirit who, in the first place, was inspiring the eunuch to read
Isaiah. The entire incident was the work of God the Holy Spirit,
using His Holy Scripture in its proper context, to bring the eunuch
into His Church. To reiterate, that is the usual case with
Christians. They do not usually arrive at trusting in Christ by
judging and assessing, with trust in their own judgment, but rather,
they are moved by the Holy Spirit to assent to the truth of Faith.
But then, to go back to what else I was saying, perhaps it is not
always instant. Certainly, conversion from sin is a lifelong process,
so it is reasonable to surmise that in some, initial conversion to
faith is also a process. God has at His disposal, literally
everything, and can use anything He chooses, to bring a soul to
Faith. So He certainly can use a soul's confidence in its own ability
to scrutinize and judge, as part of His means of leading them to
Faith. It is not the only thing He can use, but undoubtedly, it is
one of the things He can use. And certainly, in this form of online
evangelism that is really the only form possible wholly contained in a
forum like this, we might expect that He will use just that. Surely,
it is unlikely that a person would be posting in one of these forums
without already possessing a fairly high degree of self-trust. One
would not, I think, be very inclined to post one's views on a public
forum without being fairly convinced of them.
So your original point is interesting and has some merit, though I
would disagree that *all* trust is rooted in self-trust for the
reasons we've already gone over, still, much of it is, I think.
You wrote,
"I don't think you can trust, doubt, or judge until you know what it
is that you want."
Brock Organ
> do you just enjoy being belligerent?
Someone's got boundary issues. :)
Regards,
Brock
atypican
> discussion.
> They were not moved on the occasion of their first hearing the Gospel
> to believe in it. Why not?
agree)
We're just not loved enough to be among the elect and chosen, who are
graciously conquered
And I am into being conquered by anyone who has no intent to injure
me.
> I do know this: not every preacher has equal success.
'preached' to. We like conversations. In order for preaching to sink
in, the listener must regard the preacher as being better informed in
some way.
> Others, make only
> nominal converts, who fall away, or worse, who do not come to Christ
> seeking their conversion from their sins, but seeking some other
> thing, some worldly favor or other.
and for some good and/or evil reason I feel compelled to cite the
following (I think) relevant prophetic snipplet:
31Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new
covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the
day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of
Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto
them, saith the LORD:
33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of
Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their
inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and
they shall be my people.
34And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man
his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from
the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I
will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
> It may seem like I am getting on the soapbox here, and to a certain
> degree I am. Obviously, I am addressing not only you, Dave, but also
> SM and Brock, because the flow of what I was saying has led me to
> this. But it all does tie in with your original post.
out any relevant opinions they might have.
> You wrote,
>> "I don't think you can trust, doubt, or judge until you know what it
>> is that you want."
> A simple question directed to you: What do you want?
>
> read more »
Brock Organ
> One popular way of looking at it: (and I think Brock and SM basically
> agree)
>
> We're just not loved enough to be among the elect and chosen, who are
> graciously conquered
>
> And I am into being conquered by anyone who has no intent to injure
> me.
Nope, I don't agree. God is, in character, grace and majesty, much
more high and puissant than such a low-grade consideration. :)
> We like conversations. In order for preaching to sink
> in, the listener must regard the preacher as being better informed in
> some way.
A drowning person doesn't chafe in a crisis simply because he/she
doesn't like the color of their life preserver. No, instead, I
consider that person holds on for dear life to the object, and it
becomes dear and lovely to them for it has saved their life.
So too, I consider, does the repentant sinner hang on to the very
truths of the gospel. The very lovely gospel of Jesus Christ. May
His name be praised!
Regards,
Brock
atypican
> > agree)
>
> > We're just not loved enough to be among the elect and chosen, who are
> > graciously conquered
>
> > And I am into being conquered by anyone who has no intent to injure
> > me.
>
> Nope, I don't agree. God is, in character, grace and majesty, much
> more high and puissant than such a low-grade consideration. :)
Specifically not addressing qualities of any deity.
>> We like conversations. In order for preaching to sink
>> in, the listener must regard the preacher as being better informed in
>> some way.
> A drowning person doesn't chafe in a crisis simply because he/she
> doesn't like the color of their life preserver. No, instead, I
> consider that person holds on for dear life to the object, and it
> becomes dear and lovely to them for it has saved their life.
preserver. And I recognize that peoples lives are changed for the
better in some pretty important ways by going through processes
similar to the what you've been through.
On Apr 30, 7:05 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
Brock Organ
>> > One popular way of looking at it: (and I think Brock and SM basically
>> > agree)
>>
>> > We're just not loved enough to be among the elect and chosen, who are
>> > graciously conquered
>>
>> > And I am into being conquered by anyone who has no intent to injure
>> > me.
>>
>> Nope, I don't agree. God is, in character, grace and majesty, much
>> more high and puissant than such a low-grade consideration. :)
>
> Specifically not addressing qualities of any deity.
Sorry, I don't agree with that: God's love for sinful humankind and
creation includes and extends specifically even to the non-elect, in
regard to His providence, His forbearance, His gracious mercies and
tender gifts. As the psalm says:
"Good and upright is the LORD;
Therefore He instructs sinners in the way."
http://nasb.scripturetext.com/psalms/25.htm
>> A drowning person doesn't chafe in a crisis simply because he/she
>> doesn't like the color of their life preserver. No, instead, I
>> consider that person holds on for dear life to the object, and it
>> becomes dear and lovely to them for it has saved their life.
>
> Oh I'm not trying to talk anyone into letting go of their life
> preserver.
Well, I consider the sinful habitus is such that the drowning sinner,
acting within the miserable limitations of sin rejects it.
"Who has believed our message?
And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? ..."
http://nasb.scripturetext.com/isaiah/53.htm
But God, in His gracious and sovereign planning, conquers that sin
nature in His elect, and new life is born! His godly work births a
rose of impeccable goodness from the mud of sinful human misery! :)
> And I recognize that peoples lives are changed for the
> better in some pretty important ways by going through processes
> similar to the what you've been through.
Well, if you recognize the gospel simply as just a kind of self-help
or 12-step program or process, I consider its much more than that.
Regards,
Brock
Joe
On Apr 30, 4:23 pm, atypican <davidmja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Apologies for the length and for the material superfluous to our
> > discussion.
>
>
> > They were not moved on the occasion of their first hearing the Gospel
> > to believe in it. Why not?
>
> One popular way of looking at it: (and I think Brock and SM basically
> agree)
>
> We're just not loved enough to be among the elect and chosen, who are
> graciously conquered
>
are all those who will in the end be in heaven. Who they are, is
known to God, not to man.
> And I am into being conquered by anyone who has no intent to injure
> me.
>
> > I do know this: not every preacher has equal success.
>
> And I can tell you this about our sort. We aren't into being
> 'preached' to. We like conversations. In order for preaching to sink
> in, the listener must regard the preacher as being better informed in
> some way.
>
By a preacher, I simply mean the one who presents the Gospel. The
word, "Gospel" means, good news, and for it to be news, it seems that
it would have to be unknown previously to the one receiving it. It
seems, then, that the preacher of the Gospel would at least have to be
better informed than you as to the Gospel itself. But, if you have
heard it and not believed it, then it seems you did not consider it
real information.
> > Others, make only
> > nominal converts, who fall away, or worse, who do not come to Christ
> > seeking their conversion from their sins, but seeking some other
> > thing, some worldly favor or other.
>
> Well if it weren't for sheep, shepherds would be out of work.
>
insincere sheep. I know there are such, but they aren't hoping for
what they should.
> and for some good and/or evil reason I feel compelled to cite the
> following (I think) relevant prophetic snipplet:
>
> 31Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new
> covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
>
> 32Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the
> day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of
> Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto
> them, saith the LORD:
>
> 33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of
> Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their
> inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and
> they shall be my people.
>
> 34And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man
> his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from
> the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I
> will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
>
But news is still news. If all from the greatest to the least know
the Lord, then it stands to reason they all will have found out about
Him at some point. Or are you thinking that this will be some
automatic infusion of knowledge, coming right along with breathing the
air? I mean, I don't assume you even believe that Scripture will be
fulfilled, but if it were . . .?
> > It may seem like I am getting on the soapbox here, and to a certain
> > degree I am. Obviously, I am addressing not only you, Dave, but also
> > SM and Brock, because the flow of what I was saying has led me to
> > this. But it all does tie in with your original post.
>
> I get it. I do the same. In fact I hope they are bold enough to blurt
> out any relevant opinions they might have.
>
> > You wrote,
> >> "I don't think you can trust, doubt, or judge until you know what it
> >> is that you want."
> > A simple question directed to you: What do you want?
>
> Increased and prolonged health.
>
And, do you mean physical health only or would you extend that to
mental and spiritual as well? If so, in what would increased
spiritual health consist?
atypican
> > 'preached' to. We like conversations. In order for preaching to sink
> > in, the listener must regard the preacher as being better informed in
> > some way.
>
> Scripture says, "Let us reason together, says the Lord."
name, there am I in the midst of them."
If I wanted to experience that, how should I go about it? How can I
know Christ as someone more than what I think of as a pervasively
misrepresented philosopher?
> But, if you have
> heard it and not believed it, then it seems you did not consider it
> real information.
believe that there is such a thing as information that's not real.
> That day is coming!
>
> But news is still news. If all from the greatest to the least know
> the Lord, then it stands to reason they all will have found out about
> Him at some point. Or are you thinking that this will be some
> automatic infusion of knowledge, coming right along with breathing the
> air? I mean, I don't assume you even believe that Scripture will be
> fulfilled, but if it were . . .?
hope are already utterly broken. Their purpose has been fulfilled.
Guess which ones.
> I get the feeling I'm being tiptoed around.
expect?
> > > A simple question directed to you: What do you want?
>
> > Increased and prolonged health.
>
> For what?
> And, do you mean physical health only or would you extend that to
> mental and spiritual as well?
> If so, in what would increased
> spiritual health consist?
I would be inclined to dismiss the word spirit altogether if I weren't
quickened, and given hope by a loving spirit that I think is passed
from generation to generation. Now I don't think this spirit is of a
nature that it can be killed, but it certainly can change, becoming,
weak, strong, rich, dilute, and perverted.
SM
One popular way of looking at it: (and I think Brock and SM basicallyagree)
We're just not loved enough to be among the elect and chosen, who are
graciously conquered
And I am into being conquered by anyone who has no intent to injure
me.
SM
I have a different view. I am no Calvinist! In my view, God's electare all those who will in the end be in heaven. Who they are, is
known to God, not to man.
SM
Yeah it also says "For where two or three are gathered together in myname, there am I in the midst of them."
If I wanted to experience that, how should I go about it? How can I
know Christ as someone more than what I think of as a pervasively
misrepresented philosopher?
SM
Well your church is the parent of their churches so what do youexpect?
SM
I get the feeling I'm being tiptoed around.
e_space
there are non-religious people who display more "godly" attributes
than some of those who mingle amongst the saintliest of religious
patriarchs ... believing in god doesnt remove or absolve one from
sin ... in fact, claiming to believe in god, or associating oneself
with a religion, and then being abusive or vile, seems like it should
have a higher consequence than one who claims no such associations ...
thats why rapes by priests should be more harshly condemned and
punished by the judicial system, than that of a known pedophile, imo
it seems ludicrous to me that a benevolent god would punish a pious
and consciously astute person, who has no religious association, to a
fiery eternity, and then take an abusive, consciously void individual
to the place of gold paved streets, simply because he claims to
believe ... this type of math just doesnt add up to me ...
On May 2, 9:32 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
e_space
"beginning of time" [if such a thing is possible], when humans did not
appear on earth until billions of earth after its "creation"?... how
long was it after the "beginning of time", that the planet earth
actually came into being? ... who was "God's plan" being revealed to,
when humans had not even evolved yet [or been created, whichever
version suits]?
these are the types of pointed questions that i ask, that sometimes
get me into hot water ... yes, they are pointed, and you may consider
them to lack civility ... i consider them direct and unpretentious,
and would like them answered similarly, without all the complaints ...
if you make factual sounding statements based on belief rather than
presentable evidence, please expect these types of responses ...
On May 3, 11:03 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
SM
there are non-religious people who display more "godly" attributes
than some of those who mingle amongst the saintliest of religious
patriarchs
... believing in god doesnt remove or absolve one from
sin ... in fact, claiming to believe in god, or associating oneself
with a religion, and then being abusive or vile, seems like it should
have a higher consequence than one who claims no such associations ...
it seems ludicrous to me that a benevolent god would punish a pious
and consciously astute person, who has no religious association, to a
fiery eternity, and then take an abusive, consciously void individual
to the place of gold paved streets, simply because he claims to
believe ... this type of math just doesnt add up to me ...
SM
how can one claim that something "literally" started from the
"beginning of time" [if such a thing is possible], when humans did not
appear on earth until billions of earth after its "creation"?... how
long was it after the "beginning of time", that the planet earth
actually came into being? ... who was "God's plan" being revealed to,
when humans had not even evolved yet [or been created, whichever
version suits]?
these are the types of pointed questions that i ask, that sometimes
get me into hot water ... yes, they are pointed, and you may consider
them to lack civility ... i consider them direct and unpretentious,
and would like them answered similarly, without all the complaints ...
if you make factual sounding statements based on belief rather than
presentable evidence, please expect these types of responses ...
e_space
according to the god you worship, we are all born sinners ... so imo
there is nothing to repent about there, since it is seemingly
inherent ... that would be the same as asking for forgiveness for
having teeth ...
i dont necessarily take the things you have "informed" me of, as the
truth ... actually, i dont consider that you are in a position to
speak for god, what "he" is, what "he" wants, or what "he" will do ...
making comments like "This is what mankind was created for" holds
absolutely nothing of value for me as it relates to "truth" ...
i find it amusing to hear the likes of you and brock making factual
claims about what god intends ... sounds a lot like those guys in
court making claims that god told them to do this or that ...
personally, i would be quite cautious about making factual statements
that are belief driven ... but thats just me
On May 3, 4:29 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
e_space
actually, i am more willing to accept that modern science can
determine the accurate age of something, especially over the words of
ancient men whose actual words you have never read ... and that in
fact, dinosaurs did exist for billions of years before humans came
along ... so i will reiterate ... what "plan of gods" was being
revealed from the "beginning of time"? and to whom?
btw, if you care to question the generally accepted findings of
science in order to substantiate your belief, thats fine with me, but
maybe you can take it up with scientists instead ... i really dont
have much interest in arguing about the heaven and the earth being
created in six days ...
On May 3, 4:50 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
14SM.jcil
> why should one repent for a condition that they were born in?
> according to the god you worship, we are all born sinners ... so imo
> there is nothing to repent about there, since it is seemingly
> inherent ... that would be the same as asking for forgiveness for
> having teeth ...
Good question (keep 'em coming).
Have you not sinned? You, like me are without excuse; we've chosen wrong.
> i dont necessarily take the things you have "informed" me of, as the
> truth ... actually, i dont consider that you are in a position to
> speak for god, what "he" is, what "he" wants, or what "he" will do ...
> making comments like "This is what mankind was created for" holds
> absolutely nothing of value for me as it relates to "truth" ...
I point out again (I've observed and pointed this out to you before) the double-standard on display here, namely that you expect me to provide you with responses to your questions but you don't like and find reason to complain about the responses I provide.
14SM.jcil
> im afraid quoting the bible doesnt resolve any issues for me ...
Noted, but I consider it worthwhile to clarify the basis of my ideas as not being merely my opinion.
If we need to revisit why the Bible is worthy of our consideration as being reliable and trustworthy (whereas our mere opinions are not), I'm happy to do so. In fact, I'm still awaiting your response to a rather comprehensive answer I provided to your question about how we can KNOW that the Bible is true...
> actually, i am more willing to accept that modern science can
> determine the accurate age of something, especially over the words of ancient men
While science has accomplished much, its conclusions have been proven to be fallible.
14SM.jcil
> so i will reiterate ... what "plan of gods" was being
> revealed from the "beginning of time"? and to whom?
Adam (and Eve).
> btw, if you care to question the generally accepted findings of
> science in order to substantiate your belief, thats fine with me, but
> maybe you can take it up with scientists instead ... i really dont
> have much interest in arguing about the heaven and the earth being
> created in six days ...
Opinion noted.
Joe
On May 3, 5:05 am, atypican <davidmja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > And I can tell you this about our sort. We aren't into being
> > > 'preached' to. We like conversations. In order for preaching to sink
> > > in, the listener must regard the preacher as being better informed in
> > > some way.
>
> > Scripture says, "Let us reason together, says the Lord."
>
> Yeah it also says "For where two or three are gathered together in my
> name, there am I in the midst of them."
>
> If I wanted to experience that, how should I go about it? How can I
> know Christ as someone more than what I think of as a pervasively
> misrepresented philosopher?
>
someone than to actually talk to that one himself.
By misrepresented, do you mean, in the actual texts of the Gospels
themselves? Or do you mean, by His followers, in some of their
interpretations of His desires?
> > But, if you have
> > heard it and not believed it, then it seems you did not consider it
> > real information.
>
> Well I have just been informed in a different way than others. I don't
> believe that there is such a thing as information that's not real.
>
fall up instead of down, that would not be real information. You
would not receive from it any new knowledge about what actually goes
on in my backyard.
Some people treat the Gospel in just the same way. The news that
Jesus Christ is no longer among the dead, but among the living, and in
fact in glory beyond mortal life, strikes some as not real
information, but rather misinformation.
> > That day is coming!
>
> > But news is still news. If all from the greatest to the least know
> > the Lord, then it stands to reason they all will have found out about
> > Him at some point. Or are you thinking that this will be some
> > automatic infusion of knowledge, coming right along with breathing the
> > air? I mean, I don't assume you even believe that Scripture will be
> > fulfilled, but if it were . . .?
>
> So many words that used to be useful for sending the good message of
> hope are already utterly broken. Their purpose has been fulfilled.
> Guess which ones.
>
I would simply point out that it is not the case that all, from the
least to the greatest, know the Lord, nor is it the case that Peace
reigns on Earth, nor is God's Will fulfilled on earth as it is in
heaven. So it seems to me that that Word still has more to do here.
And, "Scripture cannot be broken." (John 10:35) Also, "My Word shall
not return to me void, but will do that for which I have sent
it." (Isaiah 55:11)
> > I get the feeling I'm being tiptoed around.
>
> Well your church is the parent of their churches so what do you
> expect?
>
> > > > A simple question directed to you: What do you want?
>
> > > Increased and prolonged health.
>
> > For what?
>
> My whole family
>
> > And, do you mean physical health only or would you extend that to
> > mental and spiritual as well?
>
> I can't consider them separately
>
> > If so, in what would increased
> > spiritual health consist?
>
> I don't know what to say about "spiritual health"
>
> I would be inclined to dismiss the word spirit altogether if I weren't
> quickened, and given hope by a loving spirit that I think is passed
> from generation to generation. Now I don't think this spirit is of a
> nature that it can be killed, but it certainly can change, becoming,
> weak, strong, rich, dilute, and perverted.
who cannot change, nor become corrupted.
Joe
priest with the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Yet, he did not ordain any
priests to follow him, since he was not a bishop. There was indeed an
unbroken succession of ordinations, from the Apostles, all the way
down to Luther; but with him, that succession ended. This could be a
whole other thread.
Since you made it a point to mention that you do not believe your
beliefs have their basis in that 16th century fallen monk, I will
dutifully point out that at least one does: namely, the belief that
God authorized Martin Luther to break communion with the Apostolic
succession of bishops. Until the action of Luther, it was universally
held that Christ instituted His priesthood and hierarchy, and that the
authority to preach and teach, to bind and loose, and most importantly
to administer the Sacraments of the New Law, rested with the Apostles
and their successors. Luther introduced something quite novel in his
peculiar interpretation of the "priesthood of all believers."
Protestants hold his interpretation, from the 16th century onward; not
before. There were no Protestants before Luther, though there were
heretics.
Joe
On May 3, 10:37 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:06 AM, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I have a different view. I am no Calvinist! In my view, God's elect
> > are all those who will in the end be in heaven. Who they are, is
> > known to God, not to man.
>
> Joe, your response manifestly illustrates my earlier assertion that you have
> a great misunderstanding about what 'Protestants' believe.
>
> You say that you're "no Calvinist", but what you just described is
> I'll use yours) believe!
> One popular way of looking at it: (and I think Brock and SM basically
> agree)
> We're just not loved enough to be among the elect and chosen, who are
> graciously conquered
means say so. If you indeed disagree with that, perhaps you disagree
with this also:
"God preordained...a part of the human race, without any merit of
their own, to eternal salvation, and another part, in just punishment
of their sin, to eternal damnation. " John Calvin
I'm certain that I was not clear in my statement of Calvinism, above,
so your confusion is understandable. I was addressing atypican, not
you.
The assertion that God preordains any particular soul to eternal
damnation is exactly what atypican was addressing when he said, "We're
just not loved enough to be among the elect and chosen." He seemed to
think that was a belief that you and Brock would agree with, and
certainly it is explicitly stated by Calvin in the quote above.
For my part, I hold Calvin to be a heretic and a god such as he
describes to be a monster. In his zeal to pretend to understand
everything, he destroyed the Gospel.
What is your view?
Joe
When I first began posting here this time around, back in November of
last year, I know I came on too strong. As a word of explanation, I
was recovering from an experience of overwhelming spiritual impact
upon myself. Involved were, LSD, demons, magick, angels, God, myself,
and the prophetic word of the Two Witnesses. This is not offered as a
new subject of debate, but simply as a word of explanation of the
weirdness of my state.
Please accept my apology for any pain or suffering that I caused.
(That extends to everyone here.)
But please also know that my love for the truth, and I view the
Catholic Faith as the truth, is uncompromising and uncompromisable.
This is a discussion group, and so I am here to discuss, and yes to
learn, but not to reconsider my Faith. I consider that my Faith has
already been subjected to two thousand years of rigorous scrutiny by
the very best minds, has been tried in fire, and is pure gold. It is
not "my" beliefs, that are pure gold, it is the Faith of the Catholic
Church. My beliefs are good only insofar as they conform to that most
ancient Faith.
In view of that, I am willing to support it, to argue it, to prove it
in any way that it might be proved, here in this medium where all we
have are words. At the same time remembering that,
1 Corinthians 4:20 For the kingdom of God is not in speech, but in
power.
If you would love me, then so be it! Love me like a brother. Know
that I have fought hard with my brothers, and we still love each
other.
I don't think there will be anything lost if we honestly speak our
minds. According to Saint Paul,
2 Corinthians 12:9 And he said to me: My grace is sufficient for you:
for power is made perfect in infirmity. Gladly therefore will I glory
in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may dwell in me. 10 For
which cause I please myself in my infirmities, in reproaches, in
necessities, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ. For when I am
weak, then am I powerful.
By all means, if anyone has any questions for me about what happened
last year and early this year, do ask. Thanks.
e_space
ethical, or whatever ... it has no relationship with what you consider
to be a sin as dictated to you by other men ... i have done things
that my conscious determinations have deemed to be bad, and made
immediate and long lasting reparations for such behavior ... i dont
feel like a sinner at all, but realize that you do, as according to
your belief, you are born in sin ... so it is therefore inherent ...
re: "you expect me to provide you with responses to your questions but
anyway, i dont feel that i have a double standard ... ive asked you to
substantiate some of the claims you have made [which i am happy to do
for any claims i have made that you question] ... to offer support for
your belief that eve actually came from adams rib for example, or that
the universe was actually created in 6 days ... do you feel that you
have sufficiently responded to these requests? btw, you dont HAVE to
answer them ... and actually, i have no expectations that you will ...
On May 3, 7:21 pm, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
e_space
sorry, your continued claims of "truth" ring hollow to me ...
On May 3, 7:37 pm, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote: