False teachings, was The Passion of Christ
calv...@sysko.com
11:20)."
This is one of three invented false doctrines taught recently. It is
the product of a single mind using only itself as a reference of
validity absent the correction of a communion of christians. It teaches
that all things in creation, including rocks and trees, have free will
and souls.
It can be tied to a second of the false doctrines,ie. the false doctrine
of "chi" taken from a false pagan doctrine of taoism blended with a
false doctrine of the Holy Spirit.
The third invented false doctrine is that the three persons of the
Trinity are submerged in a system of 7 spirits.
These are the product of lone ranger inventions that are passed off as
valid when only internal emotional states related to "chi" are the sole
measure of the interpretation of scripture. We are told that such
teachings put the advocate outside the fold.
Very true, amen. May God provide abundant love and blessing and
protection and peace upon the advocate. If we confess our sins He is
quick to forgive them.
JVN
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Your bearing false withness against me is forgiven as far as I am
concerned.
May GOD continue to heal your heart, dear neighbor Calvin whom I love
unconditionally.
Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung
Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit
As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
unconditional love they have for everyone including their
enemies(Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17).
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/d3b7b57d0fbf89ed?
calv...@sysko.com
got the response:
"Your bearing false withness against me is forgiven as far as I am
concerned."
If he now wants to turn away from the false doctrines then it can be
said it was false witness. If he continues in the false doctrines then
it is not. The measure as it has always been is the 2000 years of
orthodox teaching on the topics of the false doctrines, it is not my
opinions that matter. When using self reference alone lone ranger bible
interpretation will almost always be false with out the correction of a
communion of christians, such is what we find here.
The love and blessing and protection and peace of God upon you. If we
confess our sins He is quick to forgive them, very true; amen.
JVN
God, I have no problem with that, but do it in a group about God or
spirituality. I do believe in God, but I believe this is not the place
to discuss these subjects.
Chuck Stamford
<calv...@sysko.com> wrote in message
news:44e9c7e4$0$24656$1c46...@selenium.club.cc.cmu.edu...
Are you sure you're not just trying to stir up trouble by making a mountain
out of a mole hill?
And just out of curiosity, what *do* the "communion of christians [sic]"
(who I guess must have sent you here as their representative) think Jesus
was teaching us with His cursing of the fig tree?
And what is so wrong in believing that without the love of God to sustain
them in being, all created things would simply cease to exist?
Chuck Stamford
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> <calv...@sysko.com> wrote in message
> news:44e9c7e4$0$24656$1c46...@selenium.club.cc.cmu.edu...
> > When it was mentioned that three false doctrines were being taught we
> > got the response:
> >
> > concerned."
> >
> > If he now wants to turn away from the false doctrines then it can be
> > said it was false witness. If he continues in the false doctrines then
> > it is not. The measure as it has always been is the 2000 years of
> > orthodox teaching on the topics of the false doctrines, it is not my
> > opinions that matter. When using self reference alone lone ranger bible
> > interpretation will almost always be false with out the correction of a
> > communion of christians, such is what we find here.
> >
> > The love and blessing and protection and peace of God upon you. If we
> > confess our sins He is quick to forgive them, very true; amen.
>
> Are you sure you're not just trying to stir up trouble by making a mountain
> out of a mole hill?
There are those who wish to believe they will know GOD through orthodox
doctrine rather than through HIS Word with the counsel of the Holy
Spirit.
> And just out of curiosity, what *do* the "communion of christians [sic]"
> (who I guess must have sent you here as their representative) think Jesus
> was teaching us with His cursing of the fig tree?
Orthodox doctrine which is man-made and not GOD-breathed has no
explanation for why Christ Jesus cursed the fig tree for not bearing
figs out-of-season (Mark 11:12-14) nor for why the tree was found the
next morning withered to its roots (Mark 11:20).
Since the Holy Spirit has given me the understanding that the fig tree
sinned against GOD by refusing to bear fruit for LORD Jesus Christ, the
thought of figs has been on my mind. In all my life, I have never
eaten figs and I wondered how they tasted. Today without my asking her
(did not know that she even had a fig tree), a patient brought me 4
figs from her tree (uncommon in Atlanta). She said this was the first
time her tree had borne fruit and that she remembered my telling her to
share whenever she had more food than she should eat and was moved to
choose me to be the recipient of the extra harvest. These figs added to
my lunch would have made my noon-time meal inordinately large at 15
ounces so I gave 2 to my office manager reducing the meal to a more
reasonable 12 ounces. The figs were delicious ! ! Most assuredly
without doubt GOD reads our minds and is sovereign over all things.
Amen !
Laus Deo !
Marana tha !
> And what is so wrong in believing that without the love of God to sustain
> them in being, all created things would simply cease to exist?
It threatens the authority of those who Calvin represents.
People of this world control others through fear and intimidation.
Only GOD can draw us to HIM with HIS love and kindness.
HE is our Shepherd.
We are HIS sheep.
May GOD continue to bless you, dear brother Chuck whom I love
Chuck Stamford
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nos...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
news:1156311142....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
On all but the part about the tree sinning. You know, it doesn't
necessarily follow from the fact that all creation "groans" under the curse
of God against the sin of Adam, that all of creation sins. It's entirely
possible for something to be affected by the actions of another without that
thing being a culpable party to that action. And it's entirely possible
that that poor little fig tree wasn't producing any fruit, not because of
its own sin, but because of the sin of Adam, whom God had (before his sin
and fall from grace) given dominion over His creation. So just as Adam's
sin rebounds to us because we all come "out of" Adam, so to it rebounds to
all creation because all creation was under Adam's dominion when he sinned.
In any case, if Genesis teaches us nothing else about "sin", it teaches us
that sinning (just as "loving") requires making a morally significant and
uncoerced choice.
>
> Laus Deo !
>
> Marana tha !
That gets an unconditional "Amen"!
>
>> And what is so wrong in believing that without the love of God to sustain
>> them in being, all created things would simply cease to exist?
>
> It threatens the authority of those who Calvin represents.
Who could Calvin possibly represent that would see the love of God
sustaining them in being as a "threat" to their authority?
>
> People of this world control others through fear and intimidation.
>
> Only GOD can draw us to HIM with HIS love and kindness.
>
> HE is our Shepherd.
>
> We are HIS sheep.
>
> May GOD continue to bless you, dear brother Chuck whom I love
> unconditionally.
And may He continue to bless you as well.
Chuck Stamford
panam...@hotmail.com
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> Chuck Stamford wrote:
> > <calv...@sysko.com> wrote in message
> > news:44e9c7e4$0$24656$1c46...@selenium.club.cc.cmu.edu...
> > > When it was mentioned that three false doctrines were being taught we
> > > got the response:
> > >
> > > "Your bearing false witness against me is forgiven as far as I am
> > > concerned."
> > >
> > > If he now wants to turn away from the false doctrines then it can be
> > > said it was false witness. If he continues in the false doctrines then
> > > it is not. The measure as it has always been is the 2000 years of
> > > orthodox teaching on the topics of the false doctrines, it is not my
> > > opinions that matter. When using self reference alone lone ranger bible
> > > interpretation will almost always be false with out the correction of a
> > > communion of christians, such is what we find here.
> > >
> > > The love and blessing and protection and peace of God upon you. If we
> > > confess our sins He is quick to forgive them, very true; amen.
> >
> > Are you sure you're not just trying to stir up trouble by making a mountain
> > out of a mole hill?
>
> There are those who wish to believe they will know GOD through orthodox
> doctrine rather than through HIS Word with the counsel of the Holy
> Spirit.
Woe unto thee, O thou babbling Assyrian, for you will be taunted by the
king's concubines!
-Panama Floyd, Atl.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
EAC Martian Commander
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Correct. Sin arises from choice made through the free will generously
given by GOD to the soul.
> It's entirely
> possible for something to be affected by the actions of another without that
> thing being a culpable party to that action.
Correct.
> And it's entirely possible
> that that poor little fig tree wasn't producing any fruit, not because of
> its own sin, but because of the sin of Adam, whom God had (before his sin
> and fall from grace) given dominion over His creation.
It is through the original sin of Adam and Eve that a sinful nature was
conferred to the souls of everything that GOD created in this world.
Prior to the original sin, only the serpent satan in the garden of Eden
had a sinful nature (Genesis 3:1 and Revelation 12:9).
The tree of knowledge of good and evil standing in the middle of the
garden was a fig tree and was the source of the leaves that Adam and
Eve used to make coverings for themselves (Genesis 3:7).
It was not by chance that a fig tree sinned against GOD here.
Indeed, there is no such thing as chance (Proverbs 16:33).
> So just as Adam's
> sin rebounds to us because we all come "out of" Adam, so to it rebounds to
> all creation because all creation was under Adam's dominion when he sinned.
See above.
> In any case, if Genesis teaches us nothing else about "sin", it teaches us
> that sinning (just as "loving") requires making a morally significant and
> uncoerced choice.
GOD's choice to give HIS generous gift of free will while retaining HIS
infinite will speaks to HIS infinite glory.
Laus Deo !
Marana tha !
May GOD continue to heal our hearts, dear brother Chuck whom I love
unconditionally.
Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
Nechesh
Andrew the Dishonest wrote:
> Your bearing false withness against me is forgiven as far as I am
> concerned.
I should hope so, as you have a propensity to bear false witness aginst
others.
Nechesh
Andrew the Dishonest wrote:
> Prior to the original sin, only the serpent satan in the garden of Eden
> had a sinful nature (Genesis 3:1 and Revelation 12:9).
You need to re-read your bible. His name was not satan.
I'll give you a clue. The number of the name of the serpent, is the
number 358.
It consists of 3 letters.
HTH with your Hebrew
richdz2001
> And it's entirely possible
> that that poor little fig tree wasn't producing any fruit, not because of
> its own sin, but because of the sin of Adam, whom God had (before his sin
> and fall from grace) given dominion over His creation. So just as Adam's
> sin rebounds to us because we all come "out of" Adam, so to it rebounds to
> all creation because all creation was under Adam's dominion when he sinned.
Man kind proceeds from Adam and Eve but nothing else does no plant no
animal. Every plant and animal has it's own master copy in the garden
of eden. When God cursed Adam he cursed all the males of man when he
cursed Eve he cursed all the females of man when he cursed the snake he
cursed all snakes both male and female. The result all the males of man
struggle to survive (unless their sinning). All the females of man have
painful child birth (unless they sin) and their desire is to control
their man. And of course all snakes male and female lost their legs.
The point is look around the animal kindom and I see no male animals
struggling to survive and I see no female animals having painful child
birth. Man alone would find it difficult to survive in the wilderness
without all his modern tools knife, gun, shovel, axe, etc.
Man still has dominion over the animals you see that in your dog and
cat and horse etc, but that's something completely different. And of
course the dominion we enjoy over the animals is subject to the post
flood curse when God put the fear of man in to all animals. Which means
now man first has to tame or reduce the fear of the animal of man in
order to have dominion over it.
The green tree is likely a metaphor for earth and Lucifer's rule as
being on fruitful.
Luke 23:31
For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the
dry?
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew wrote:
>
> > Prior to the original sin, only the serpent satan in the garden of Eden
> > had a sinful nature (Genesis 3:1 and Revelation 12:9).
>
> You need to re-read your bible. His name was not satan.
"... that ancient serpent called the devil or satan, who leads the
whole world astray." (Revelation 12:9)
May GOD continue to heal your heart, dear neighbor whom I love
Nechesh
Andrew the Dishonest wrote:
> "... that ancient serpent called the devil or satan, who leads the
> whole world astray." (Revelation 12:9)
>
Revelation wasn't written in Hebrew.
Try again.
HTH with your Hebrew.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew wrote:
>
> > "... that ancient serpent called the devil or satan, who leads the
> > whole world astray." (Revelation 12:9)
>
> Revelation wasn't written in Hebrew.
Does not matter because the naming of satan occurred before there was
human language.
Chuck Stamford
So what does "soul" mean as you're using it here, Andrew? I take it to mean
the sum of our cognitive faculties; our faculties of perception, reasoning,
memory, sympathy, testimony, and something Calvin called the "sensus
divinitus"; that faculty in us the Holy Spirit of God uses to communicate
with us. (And I don't mean by "faculty" something material in this
instance. I mean, taking "perception" as the example here, the perceptual
"beliefs" we form, or perhaps even more explicitly, have delivered to us by
this perceptual faculty, on having our visual apparatus stimulated)
So as I understand soul, at a minimum, it takes a "person" to have one;
understanding that at a minimum a "person" is a being possessed of "mind",
"will", and "emotion". So, by extenstion, I believe that only "persons" are
capable of making cognitive choices, and to "sin" takes, at a bear minimum,
making a cognitive choice.
>
> Prior to the original sin, only the serpent satan in the garden of Eden
> had a sinful nature (Genesis 3:1 and Revelation 12:9).
I don't think he was the "only" one. Scripture tells us of a "war" that
took place in heaven when Satan fell from grace, and that he took a "third"
of all the angels God created with him in that war, which resulted in all of
them being cast out of heaven. Now I take these stories to be true, but I
also take them to be metaphorical to some degree. So I'm not sure I take
the "war" literally, but I take Satan and his angels being cast out of
heaven literally in the sense that their state of being before God was
irrevocably changed and damaged beyond repair, even for God. The point
being that when Satan entered the Garden as the serpent, more persons
(angels being "persons") than just him had sinned against God...and we have
God's word for that.
>
> The tree of knowledge of good and evil standing in the middle of the
> garden was a fig tree and was the source of the leaves that Adam and
> Eve used to make coverings for themselves (Genesis 3:7).
Andrew, the text doesn't tell us that the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil was a fig tree, nor does it tell us that the fig leaves Adam and Eve
sewed together to cover their "nakedness" after their sin came from that
tree. What you're doing here is working off an inference from the text, not
the text itself.
>
> It was not by chance that a fig tree sinned against GOD here.
How is it possible, even if the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were
a fig tree, that it sinned? What did it *do*, Andrew, except be what God
created it to be? It didn't engage in some act contrary to its Divine
design. It was just there, standing in the middle of the Garden exactly
where God placed it when He created it, being what God intended it to be: an
alternative for Adam and Eve that gave to them the potential to exercise
*their* free will and make a choice either to obey God or disobey.
I would suggest to you that it was God's *command* to Adam not to eat of it
that made eating of it sinful; not that the tree, in and of itself, was
sinful, or had committed any sin against its Creator. The tree came
straight from God who is perfectly holy, and did nothing but what God
intended in creating it. If our premise is that it is sinful, then we have
to find some way of avoiding that it's sinfulness was created *in it* by
God, and to do that we would need to identify some act of the tree contrary
to the will of it's Creator in the text...and there just isn't any that I
can find.
I would also suggest to you that there is nothing inherently sinful about
the knowledge of good and evil. There can't be, because God is omniscient,
which means God surely must have this knowledge, and God certainly isn't
sinning against Himself by having it.
>
> Indeed, there is no such thing as chance (Proverbs 16:33).
You get a big "Amen" to that! I'd only qualify it by adding that I don't
believe God's creation is completely deterministic in nature, because if it
were, free will would be an illusion, and I don't accept that free will is
an illusion anymore than I accept that sin is an illusion. People who
commit sin may be said to be suffering under an "illusion" when they do, but
the sin itself is absolutely real.
>
>> So just as Adam's
>> sin rebounds to us because we all come "out of" Adam, so to it rebounds
>> to
>> all creation because all creation was under Adam's dominion when he
>> sinned.
>
> See above.
They say that if you get Genesis right, the rest of biblical theology comes
much easier. Here's a passage from Genesis I'd like you to give some
thought, and then tell me what it means to you.
Then God blessed them [Adam and Eve], and God said to them, "Be fruitful and
multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the
sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on
the earth." 29 And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields
seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit
yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 "Also, to every beast of the
earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth,
in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food"; and it was
so. Gen 1:28-30 (NKJV - "Adam and Eve" aren't in the text, but for any
casual readers who might read this post, they are who God is speaking to in
the text, so I've inserted their names in brackets to denote that fact)
I take it that what is being said here is very important, for in a chapter
that runs only 31 verses, and summarizes God creation of *everything* that
He created, three of those verses are used to express this message! That's
10% of the text that deals with all of creation spent to tell us whatever
it's telling us. I'd like to know what you think it's telling us, and why
it's given this much attention in God's word.
>
>> In any case, if Genesis teaches us nothing else about "sin", it teaches
>> us
>> that sinning (just as "loving") requires making a morally significant and
>> uncoerced choice.
>
> GOD's choice to give HIS generous gift of free will while retaining HIS
> infinite will speaks to HIS infinite glory.
Yes it certainly does. But it also means there are truths here that are
true because they are contingent upon God having given the marvelous gift of
free will, and one of those contingent truths is that God gives that gift
only to persons (i.e., to *be* a "person", a being must possess free will as
an essential property, by definition), which entails that only a person can
sin, because sin requires not only that a person possess (as God's gift)
free will, but exercise it; make a choice; albeit a poor one, since we are
talking about sinning.
God bless
Chuck Stamford
Chuck Stamford
"richdz2001" <richd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156355351.4...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Well that's certainly one way to look at it. However, it isn't without it's
serious problems. For example, it's just not true that man has dominion
*now* over all the animals. Under the right circumstances a lot of these
animals will *eat* man! There are certainly a good number of domesticated
animals to be sure, but compared to all the animals there are on earth, it's
really a very small ratio, don't you think? In any case, domesticated
animals don't give us grounds for a generalization about man still having
dominion over everything on earth that is alive (had a "cold" this year?),
which is what Genesis 1 is speaking about at the very minimum.
And I'm not confident that Genesis *is* speaking only about what is alive in
chapter 1. I know that is all that's specifically expressed by the text,
but a lot of the language in Genesis is poetic metaphor, and it may very
well be the case that all of the world; the ground, the rocks, the air, and
everything alive, were given to Adam and Eve to have dominion over. What we
may be being told in Genesis 1:28-30 is that God, who had a rightful
dominion over all creation as its Creator, ceded, of His own free will, and
out of His amazing love for His creatures Adam and Eve, an important part of
that dominion over an important part of that creation.
And if there is any truth to this understanding of that passage at all, it
would help explain those passages in the Bible that speak as if Christ
redeemed not only all of mankind, but all of creation. As I see it, the
passing of "dominion" over God's creation possibly goes like this:
1.) God has this dominion inherently as creation's Creator
2.) God grants to man this dominion over His creation out of His love for
man.
3.) Man unwittingly cedes his dominion over creation to Satan when he
chooses to put his trust in something other than God.
4.) Christ, as the "God-man", and by His sacrificial love demonstrated on
the cross, and testified to in the Resurrection, redeems creation from
Satan, returning it to God *and* man so long as man walks by faith in
Christ.
5.) Eventually, in God's perfect time, Christ returns to take full
possession of what He has redeemed.
As for the parable of the fig tree having any direct connection to Luke
23:31, I can't see it. I do see that you seem to understand that in some
sense the Bible tells us that Satan (Lucifer isn't his name anymore
according to Scripture) rules on the earth, which means he got the right to
rule from somewhere, which points to it possibly being something similar to
#3 above...probably the most difficult of the five to adequately support out
of Scripture.
God bless
Chuck Stamford
>
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
The same soul/spirit as described in the Holy Bible:
"But if from there you seek the LORD your God, you will find HIM if you
look for HIM with all your heart and with all your soul." (Deut 4:29)
"Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and
with all your strength." (Deut 6:5)
"The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love HIM with
all your heart and with all your soul." (Deut 13:3)
"The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your
descendants, so that you may love HIM with all your heart and with all
your soul, and live."(Deut 30:6)
"...to preserve his soul from the pit, his life from perishing by the
sword." (Job 33:18)
"HE redeemed my soul from going down to the pit, and I will live to
enjoy the light." (Job 33:28)
"The LORD examines the righteous, but the wicked and those who love
violence HIS soul hates." (Psalm 11:5)
"To you, O LORD, I lift up my soul" (Psalm 25:1)
"As the deer pants for streams of water, so my soul pants for you, O
GOD." (Psalm 42:1)
"My soul thirsts for GOD, for the living GOD. When can I go and meet
with GOD?" (Psalm 42:2)
"O GOD, you are my GOD, earnestly I seek YOU; my soul thirsts for YOU,
my body longs for YOU, in a dry and weary land where there is no
water." (Psalm 63:1)
"I spread out my hands to YOU; my soul thirsts for YOU like a parched
land." (Psalm 143:6)
"The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, and he who wins souls is
wise." (Proverbs 11:30)
"For every living soul belongs to ME, the father as well as the
son-both alike belong to ME. The soul who sins is the one who will
die." (Ezek 18:4)
"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.
Rather, be afraid of the ONE Who can destroy both soul and body in
hell." (Matt 10:28)
"What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet
forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?"
(Matt 16:26)
"For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the
Shepherd and Overseer of your souls." (1 Peter 2:25)
"When HE opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of
those who had been slain because of the word of GOD and the testimony
they had maintained." (Rev 6:9)
"I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority
to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of
their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of GOD. They had not
worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their
foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a
thousand years." (Rev 20:4)
> I take it to mean
> the sum of our cognitive faculties; our faculties of perception, reasoning,
> memory, sympathy, testimony, and something Calvin called the "sensus
> divinitus"; that faculty in us the Holy Spirit of God uses to communicate
> with us. (And I don't mean by "faculty" something material in this
> instance. I mean, taking "perception" as the example here, the perceptual
> "beliefs" we form, or perhaps even more explicitly, have delivered to us by
> this perceptual faculty, on having our visual apparatus stimulated)
See above.
Clearly the soul is much more.
> So as I understand soul, at a minimum, it takes a "person" to have one;
> understanding that at a minimum a "person" is a being possessed of "mind",
> "will", and "emotion". So, by extenstion, I believe that only "persons" are
> capable of making cognitive choices, and to "sin" takes, at a bear minimum,
> making a cognitive choice.
The understanding given to me by the Holy Spirit is that GOD has placed
souls in everything HE commands.
> > Prior to the original sin, only the serpent satan in the garden of Eden
> > had a sinful nature (Genesis 3:1 and Revelation 12:9).
>
> I don't think he was the "only" one. Scripture tells us of a "war" that
> took place in heaven when Satan fell from grace, and that he took a "third"
> of all the angels God created with him in that war, which resulted in all of
> them being cast out of heaven. Now I take these stories to be true, but I
> also take them to be metaphorical to some degree. So I'm not sure I take
> the "war" literally, but I take Satan and his angels being cast out of
> heaven literally in the sense that their state of being before God was
> irrevocably changed and damaged beyond repair, even for God. The point
> being that when Satan entered the Garden as the serpent, more persons
> (angels being "persons") than just him had sinned against God...and we have
> God's word for that.
The other fallen beings were not in the garden of Eden.
> > The tree of knowledge of good and evil standing in the middle of the
> > garden was a fig tree and was the source of the leaves that Adam and
> > Eve used to make coverings for themselves (Genesis 3:7).
>
> Andrew, the text doesn't tell us that the tree of the knowledge of good and
> evil was a fig tree
Correct. This understanding was "sealed" so that people would not
automatically believe that either the fig tree or its figs were to be
avoided.
>, nor does it tell us that the fig leaves Adam and Eve
> sewed together to cover their "nakedness" after their sin came from that
> tree.
Correct. This is part of the "seal."
> What you're doing here is working off an inference from the text, not
> the text itself.
In truth, this is an understanding from the Holy Spirit.
> >
> > It was not by chance that a fig tree sinned against GOD here.
>
> How is it possible, even if the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were
> a fig tree, that it sinned?
It had a soul and free will.
> What did it *do*, Andrew, except be what God created it to be?
GOD did not want Adam and Eve to fall from HIS grace by disobeying and
sinning against HIM. The fig tree willfully played along with satan's
deception of Eve.
It could have chosen not to bear fruit for Eve just as its descendant
chose not to bear fruit for LORD Jesus Christ (Mark 11:12-14).
> It didn't engage in some act contrary to its Divine
> design. It was just there, standing in the middle of the Garden exactly
> where God placed it when He created it, being what God intended it to be: an
> alternative for Adam and Eve that gave to them the potential to exercise
> *their* free will and make a choice either to obey God or disobey.
See above.
> I would suggest to you that it was God's *command* to Adam not to eat of it
> that made eating of it sinful;
Correct.
> not that the tree, in and of itself, was
> sinful, or had committed any sin against its Creator.
The tree was a willing participant in deceiving Eve.
> The tree came
> straight from God who is perfectly holy, and did nothing but what God
> intended in creating it.
The tree willfully did nothing to keep Eve from being deceived by
satan.
Such is the sin of omission.
> If our premise is that it is sinful, then we have
> to find some way of avoiding that it's sinfulness was created *in it* by
> God, and to do that we would need to identify some act of the tree contrary
> to the will of it's Creator in the text...and there just isn't any that I
> can find.
See above. The sinful nature of the forbidden tree would not be fully
revealed until LORD Jesus Christ cursed its descendant fig tree as
described in Mark 11.
> I would also suggest to you that there is nothing inherently sinful about
> the knowledge of good and evil.
The knowledge of good and evil without omniscience is incomplete and
harmful as was demonstrated in Adam and Eve..
> There can't be, because God is omniscient,
> which means God surely must have this knowledge, and God certainly isn't
> sinning against Himself by having it.
Omniscience, which is complete knowledge, is holy, which is by
definition without sin.
> >
> > Indeed, there is no such thing as chance (Proverbs 16:33).
>
> You get a big "Amen" to that! I'd only qualify it by adding that I don't
> believe God's creation is completely deterministic in nature, because if it
> were, free will would be an illusion, and I don't accept that free will is
> an illusion anymore than I accept that sin is an illusion.
Thought is separate from its actuation. The former arises from our
respective free wills and the latter is controlled by GOD's infinite
free will. It is the latter that is being described in Proverbs 16:33.
> People who
> commit sin may be said to be suffering under an "illusion" when they do, but
> the sin itself is absolutely real.
...even when GOD does not permit the sinful thought to become action.
These verses tell us of HIS love for us. They tell us how HE has shown
HIS love for us with the showering of gifts upon HIS beloved though we
have sinned against HIM. Our GOD loves us so very much (John 3:16).
> >> In any case, if Genesis teaches us nothing else about "sin", it teaches
> >> us
> >> that sinning (just as "loving") requires making a morally significant and
> >> uncoerced choice.
> >
> > GOD's choice to give HIS generous gift of free will while retaining HIS
> > infinite will speaks to HIS infinite glory.
>
> Yes it certainly does. But it also means there are truths here that are
> true because they are contingent upon God having given the marvelous gift of
> free will, and one of those contingent truths is that God gives that gift
> only to persons (i.e., to *be* a "person", a being must possess free will as
> an essential property, by definition), which entails that only a person can
> sin, because sin requires not only that a person possess (as God's gift)
> free will, but exercise it; make a choice; albeit a poor one, since we are
> talking about sinning.
Would have your remember that it is written that Christ Jesus has
informed us that the stones would cry out to praise HIM if we were to
fall silent.
These are related to the stones in the desert that could have been
commanded by HIM to turn to bread.
The mountains can be commanded by HIM to jump into the sea.
The storm clouds were commanded by HIM to disperse and they obeyed !
The fish was commanded to swallow a gold coin and be caught by HIS
disciples in order to be brought to HIM to pay the temple tax and it
obeyed !
Nechesh
Chuck Stamford wrote:
> >> >> Are you sure you're not just trying to stir up trouble by making a
> >> >> mountain
> >> >> out of a mole hill?
Well obviously.
It's much impressive if faith can be shown to move mountains, instead
of molehills.
> I don't think he was the "only" one. Scripture tells us of a "war" that
> took place in heaven when Satan fell from grace, and that he took a "third"
> of all the angels God created with him in that war,
But you can't expect Andrew the Dishonest to know that. He reads only
those part of scripture which suits his own warped view of the Lord,
and ignores anything he finds inconvenient.
> Andrew, the text doesn't tell us that the tree of the knowledge of good and
> evil was a fig tree, nor does it tell us that the fig leaves Adam and Eve
> sewed together to cover their "nakedness" after their sin came from that
> tree. What you're doing here is working off an inference from the text, not
> the text itself.
I told you so :-)
Nechesh
Andrew the Dishonest wrote:
> "But if from there you seek the LORD your God, you will find HIM if you
> look for HIM with all your heart and with all your soul." (Deut 4:29)
Is this the same Deuteronomy which states that rabbits chew the cud?
(Deut 14:7)
And the same Deuteronomy which commands you to stone to death a girl
who has had sex before marriage?
(Deut 22:20-21)
Andrew the Dishonest wrote:
> "The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, and he who wins souls is
> wise." (Proverbs 11:30)
Is this the same Proverbs which states that a righteous and loving
parent should beat their children with a stick?
(Proverbs 13:24; 23:13; 22:15)
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew wrote:
>
> > "But if from there you seek the LORD your God, you will find HIM if you
> > look for HIM with all your heart and with all your soul." (Deut 4:29)
>
> Is this the same Deuteronomy which states that rabbits chew the cud?
> (Deut 14:7)
"However, of those that chew the cud or that have a split hoof
completely divided you may not eat the camel, the rabbit or the coney,
Although they chew the cud, they do not have a split hoof; they are
ceremonially unclean for you." (Deut 14:7)
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, page 616:
This animal is mentioned only in the lists of unclean animals in
Leviticus and Deuteronomy...The hare and the coney are not ruminants,
but might be supposed to be from their habit of almost continuously
moving their jaws.
Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 2000 edition, page 552:
Because it "chews the cud" but "does not have divided hoofs," the hare
is classified as an unclean animal (Lev. 11:6; Deut. 14:7). Actually,
it is not a ruminant but may have appeared as such to ancient obervers
because of its constant chewing movements.
From:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=492669
May GOD continue to heal your heart, dear neighbor whom I love
Nechesh
Andrew the Dishonest wrote:
> >
> > Is this the same Deuteronomy which states that rabbits chew the cud?
> > (Deut 14:7)
>
> International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, page 616:
> This animal is mentioned only in the lists of unclean animals in
> Leviticus and Deuteronomy...The hare and the coney are not ruminants,
> but might be supposed to be from their habit of almost continuously
> moving their jaws.
'Supposed'?
Supposed by whom? The omniscient and infallible Lord God who created
them?
That is impossible. God would not 'suppose', and he certainly wouldn't
get it wrong. Twice.
Or maybe Deut 14:7 is not the word of God, but of some ignorant desert
nomad.
Don Kirkman
article <1156406829.7...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
>Chuck Stamford wrote:
Which of those citations refers to a "soul" in an inanimate (literally
"soulless") object?
"Soul" translates the Hebrew "nephesh", Greek "psyche", literally the
animating principle of life; "spirit" is Hebrew "ruah", Greek "pneuma",
related to breath and air.
Once more you're paying the price for your unwillingness to learn from
others what the texts mean.
--
Don Kirkman
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew the Dishonest wrote:
> > >
> > > Is this the same Deuteronomy which states that rabbits chew the cud?
> > > (Deut 14:7)
>
> > International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, page 616:
> > This animal is mentioned only in the lists of unclean animals in
> > Leviticus and Deuteronomy...The hare and the coney are not ruminants,
> > but might be supposed to be from their habit of almost continuously
> > moving their jaws.
>
>
> 'Supposed'?
>
> Supposed by whom?
By people who all fall short of GOD's glory.
Chuck Stamford
How so, Andrew? Look at those several passages you selected. Is there even
one of them which tells us what the "soul" essentially is? They tell us to
love God with all of it; lift it up to God; that it can be ruined; be in the
presence of God, but not a word about any of its essential properties. We
could look together and find scores of other passages telling us what a soul
does, or can do, and what happens to a soul under various circumstances, but
we would have to *infer* from all this indirect evidence what a soul *is*.
We know it can be lifted up to God, become weary, be in a state of longing,
continue to exist after the body dies, be saved by faith, or ruined by
disbelief; can love and bring glory to God its Creator, or sin against Him..
Since we can say the same things about our "mind", it seems to me that the
mind and soul are, if not the same thing, then things that are very similar.
Now I understand that this is inference, and that inferences don't enjoy the
same status as propositions expressed explicitly in God's word, i.e., they
can be wrong. But this inference, I think, is well grounded so long as we
don't understand the "mind" to simply be the brain. As long as we
understand that the mind is that immaterial part of "us", the part of us
that continues on after our physical part dies (or is changed in the
twinkling of an eye at the coming of our Lord!), I think this inference
presents no problems for anything else in Scripture, and accounts fairly
well with the scriptural account of the soul, indirect as that account is.
>
>> So as I understand soul, at a minimum, it takes a "person" to have one;
>> understanding that at a minimum a "person" is a being possessed of
>> "mind",
>> "will", and "emotion". So, by extenstion, I believe that only "persons"
>> are
>> capable of making cognitive choices, and to "sin" takes, at a bear
>> minimum,
>> making a cognitive choice.
>
> The understanding given to me by the Holy Spirit is that GOD has placed
> souls in everything HE commands.
But you can't examine that understanding; test it to see if it's true,
unless or until you understand what a "soul" is, and that means being able
to identify at least some of its essential properties. Perhaps it's true
that God has given souls to everything He has "commanded" (which I take it
means "created"), and perhaps it isn't. I know that I have the Spirit of
God indwelling me; giving me what insights I've had into God's word; giving
me the knowledge of God that I have, and I know I'M not infallible, or even
inerrant in those understandings....ever. Many times in my Christian
experience I've found myself having to give up a strong belief that I had
upon discovering that it wasn't true (often because I couldn't maintain it
consistently without causing God's word to become contradictory at some
point); that I'd misunderstood what the Holy Spirit wanted me to know as I
studied His word. If I took the position that I *shouldn't* test my beliefs
from time to time, shouldn't take the chance that perhaps I was believing
what wasn't true, I don't think I'd have ever been in a position for the
Holy Spirit to correct those beliefs that were false, and affirm those that
were true. And I think this has to be an ongoing process in the life of
every believer, because love abides in the truth, and as long as we allow
this process to continue, guided by God's Spirit of love, as we study His
word and His creation, we continue to approach more fully God's truth.
>
>> > Prior to the original sin, only the serpent satan in the garden of Eden
>> > had a sinful nature (Genesis 3:1 and Revelation 12:9).
>>
>> I don't think he was the "only" one. Scripture tells us of a "war" that
>> took place in heaven when Satan fell from grace, and that he took a
>> "third"
>> of all the angels God created with him in that war, which resulted in all
>> of
>> them being cast out of heaven. Now I take these stories to be true, but
>> I
>> also take them to be metaphorical to some degree. So I'm not sure I take
>> the "war" literally, but I take Satan and his angels being cast out of
>> heaven literally in the sense that their state of being before God was
>> irrevocably changed and damaged beyond repair, even for God. The point
>> being that when Satan entered the Garden as the serpent, more persons
>> (angels being "persons") than just him had sinned against God...and we
>> have
>> God's word for that.
>
> The other fallen beings were not in the garden of Eden.
I'm sorry. I didn't realize that you were speaking of only those who were
"in the Garden" just before the Fall. I thought you were saying that at
that time only Satan, of all created beings *anywhere*, had a sinful nature.
But we can't really say with any certainty that there were no other fallen
angels but Satan in the Garden. All we can say with certainty is that Satan
is the only one spoken of. Perhaps others were there, but are not mentioned
in the story because doing so would simply be a distraction or irrelevancy
to the message God wants to give us at that particular juncture of His
revelation.
>
>> > The tree of knowledge of good and evil standing in the middle of the
>> > garden was a fig tree and was the source of the leaves that Adam and
>> > Eve used to make coverings for themselves (Genesis 3:7).
>>
>> Andrew, the text doesn't tell us that the tree of the knowledge of good
>> and
>> evil was a fig tree
>
> Correct. This understanding was "sealed" so that people would not
> automatically believe that either the fig tree or its figs were to be
> avoided.
Where does God's word say anything about the knowledge of what kind of tree
it was being "sealed"?
>
>>, nor does it tell us that the fig leaves Adam and Eve
>> sewed together to cover their "nakedness" after their sin came from that
>> tree.
>
> Correct. This is part of the "seal."
>
>> What you're doing here is working off an inference from the text, not
>> the text itself.
>
> In truth, this is an understanding from the Holy Spirit.
Then it should be able to stand up to a careful analysis. All truth does,
you know. I'm wondering if you've done that with this understanding.
>
>> >
>> > It was not by chance that a fig tree sinned against GOD here.
>>
>> How is it possible, even if the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
>> were
>> a fig tree, that it sinned?
>
> It had a soul and free will.
>
>> What did it *do*, Andrew, except be what God created it to be?
>
> GOD did not want Adam and Eve to fall from HIS grace by disobeying and
> sinning against HIM. The fig tree willfully played along with satan's
> deception of Eve.
>
> It could have chosen not to bear fruit for Eve just as its descendant
> chose not to bear fruit for LORD Jesus Christ (Mark 11:12-14).
But that's just you saying it could choose, Andrew. I look around at God's
creation, and the only things I can find that can truly choose to engage in
an act or refrain from engaging in it are persons. I also don't find
anywhere in God's revelation of His truth where God specifically says that
everything He created, He created with free will. I don't even find any
grounds in God's word for that conclusion, Andrew.
All I find is you saying it's true, and that you understand this by the Holy
Spirit. That's not good enough, Andrew. If it were, then what's to stop us
Christians from forming all sorts of strange beliefs about which God's word
is completely silent, and which fly directly in the face of everything we
can discover about God's creation using those cognitive faculties God gave
us for, in part, just that purpose? We have to have more than just a
feeling, or a thought that comes strongly to our minds to believe that it is
from the Holy Spirit, and so should accept it as true. There are other
spirits in the world besides the Holy Spirit, and our own hearts, as God's
word *expressly* tells us, are "deceitful".
>
>> It didn't engage in some act contrary to its Divine
>> design. It was just there, standing in the middle of the Garden exactly
>> where God placed it when He created it, being what God intended it to be:
>> an
>> alternative for Adam and Eve that gave to them the potential to exercise
>> *their* free will and make a choice either to obey God or disobey.
>
> See above.
All that's "above" is your belief, expressed as a naked assertion, Andrew.
There's not a scintilla of evidence, either biblical or scientific, to
support that belief. And there is a veritable mountain of both kinds of
evidence to support rejecting that belief. So, seeing above doesn't give
anyone much in the way of a compelling reason to think they should join you
in your belief that fig trees can make cognitive choices and can sin.
>
>> I would suggest to you that it was God's *command* to Adam not to eat of
>> it
>> that made eating of it sinful;
>
> Correct.
>
>> not that the tree, in and of itself, was
>> sinful, or had committed any sin against its Creator.
>
> The tree was a willing participant in deceiving Eve.
>
>> The tree came
>> straight from God who is perfectly holy, and did nothing but what God
>> intended in creating it.
>
> The tree willfully did nothing to keep Eve from being deceived by
> satan.
>
> Such is the sin of omission.
The problem is that God's word doesn't say the tree had any responsibilities
in this area, Andrew. All God's word says about the tree is that it was
standing there in the Garden *just* as God created it. If it had fruit,
then it was by God's design that it had fruit. God certainly wouldn't be so
irrational as to command Adam not to eat of the fruit of a tree that might
not have any fruit! Do you see how weird this is getting? Do you begin to
see the problems this belief brings with it for understanding God's actions
and commands? If the *tree* sinned in producing fruit for Adam and Eve to
eat, then the original entrance of sin in the world comes through the
*tree*, not through Adam! Yet God's word *specifically* says that sin
entered the world through Adam.
"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through
sin..." Romans 5:12a (NKJV)
>
>> If our premise is that it is sinful, then we have
>> to find some way of avoiding that it's sinfulness was created *in it* by
>> God, and to do that we would need to identify some act of the tree
>> contrary
>> to the will of it's Creator in the text...and there just isn't any that I
>> can find.
>
> See above. The sinful nature of the forbidden tree would not be fully
> revealed until LORD Jesus Christ cursed its descendant fig tree as
> described in Mark 11.
I'm not talking about its nature being revealed to us. I'm talking about
its being; what it essentially was; and *that*, as God's word strongly
implies, had the infinitely holy God as it's *direct* source. God
*specially* created that tree, Andrew. He didn't cause it to grow anymore
than He caused the Tree of Life to grow out of the ground of the Garden.
And out of the ground the LORD God made every tree grow that is pleasant to
the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the
garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Gen 2:9 (NKJV)
Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know
good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree
of life, and eat, and live forever"-- Gen 3:22 (NKJV)
As we can see, the text of Genesis strongly implies that Adam never ate of
the Tree of Life either before he ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good
and Evil, and God acted to *prevent* him from doing so afterward. So these
two trees are remarkably different from all the other trees in the Garden,
which God gave to Adam and Eve for food and to "tend". These two trees are
very special; very different; and quite frankly, most probably metaphors for
something else anyway.
Now we know from Revelation that the Tree of Life still exists in Heaven
(Rev. 2:7), and we know that nothing mortal may be in heaven (1
Cor.15:53-54), which gives me good grounds for believing that the Tree of
Life wasn't a tree as we normally think of trees...which means that it's a
*metaphor* for something *other than* a tree as we normally think of trees.
And since the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil
are both spoken of in Genesis as being very special, very distinguishable
from all the other trees God caused to grow in the Garden, gave to Adam for
food and to tend, it is not a giant leap to look on the TKGE as a metaphor
as well.
>
>> I would also suggest to you that there is nothing inherently sinful about
>> the knowledge of good and evil.
>
> The knowledge of good and evil without omniscience is incomplete and
> harmful as was demonstrated in Adam and Eve..
I said "inherently". Maybe you missed that.
>
>> There can't be, because God is omniscient,
>> which means God surely must have this knowledge, and God certainly isn't
>> sinning against Himself by having it.
>
> Omniscience, which is complete knowledge, is holy, which is by
> definition without sin.
I suppose I'd agree with that. One can't "know" to be true what is actually
false, and "sin" always entails some belief that a false proposition is
true. Omniscience, taken as believing all true propositions to be true, and
all false propositions to be false, would then by the definition of
"omniscience" and "sin" given be unable to sin.
>
>> >
>> > Indeed, there is no such thing as chance (Proverbs 16:33).
>>
>> You get a big "Amen" to that! I'd only qualify it by adding that I don't
>> believe God's creation is completely deterministic in nature, because if
>> it
>> were, free will would be an illusion, and I don't accept that free will
>> is
>> an illusion anymore than I accept that sin is an illusion.
>
> Thought is separate from its actuation. The former arises from our
> respective free wills and the latter is controlled by GOD's infinite
> free will. It is the latter that is being described in Proverbs 16:33.
This doesn't work. If our beliefs do not in some real sense cause our
actions, but God does, then God becomes directly responsible for all the
actual evil in the world; all the actual murders, actual robberies, actual
torturings, etc.
No, Andrew, our beliefs ground our actions, our cognitive faculties form
those beliefs, and God grounds those faculties, having created them in us.
>
>> People who
>> commit sin may be said to be suffering under an "illusion" when they do,
>> but
>> the sin itself is absolutely real.
>
> ...even when GOD does not permit the sinful thought to become action.
Well, yes. Thoughts that don't result in actions can still be sinful if we
entertain them instead of doing what we can to reject them as sinful.
Well you're tacking on the part about the fish swallowing the coin, but
certainly God is able to do whatever it is possible; logically possible, to
do. It's not logically impossible that the word "Hosanna" emanate from
stones, or be turned into bread, etc., so certainly an omnipotent God could
do these things if He wanted to.
But the subject isn't miracles, Andrew, it's how God designed the world for
His own purposes, a good deal of which He reveals to us in His word. And
from everything we can glean from that revelation, plus what we can discover
of God's truth through "natural revelation", it seems pretty apparent that
fig trees don't sin.
God continue to bless you, Andrew
Chuck Stamford
Nechesh
Andrew the Dishonest wrote:
> >
> > Supposed by whom?
>
> By people who all fall short of GOD's glory.
>
People such as the authors of Deuteronomy.
People who claim that Deuteronomy is the word of God - a blatent
blasphemy.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew the Dishonest wrote:
>
> > > Supposed by whom?
> >
> > By people who all fall short of GOD's glory.
>
> People such as the authors of Deuteronomy.
"A writer who does not write at the level of his/her audience has no
audience." -- Holy Spirit.
This is so that both you and Chuck Stamford will know that HE is here
with me.
May GOD continue to heal your heart thereby holding your interest, dear
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> <read, understood, appreciated, and snipped>
Our LORD's purpose for me here remains to inform and not to either
convince or to teach.
This has been done with the guidance of the Holy Spirit:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/4518e05509523f1c?
Take what has been written to heart or leave it.
"No one is convinced through argument but by ME." -- Holy Spirit
Amen !
Laus Deo !
Marana tha !
Nechesh
Andrew the Dishonest wrote:
> Nechesh wrote:
> > Andrew the Dishonest wrote:
> >
> > > > Supposed by whom?
> > >
> > > By people who all fall short of GOD's glory.
> >
> > People such as the authors of Deuteronomy.
>
> "A writer who does not write at the level of his/her audience has no
> audience." -- Holy Spirit.
And what does that mean? That you are the level of an ignorant desert
nomad circa the late stone age. Whereas Chuck and I are of a
sufficiently enlightened level that we undestand the difference between
cattle anbd bunny rabbits?
I'm not entirely convinced by such humility Andrew, but you carry on
digging yourself into that hole of yours...
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew the Dishonest wrote:
> > Nechesh wrote:
> > > Andrew the Dishonest wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Supposed by whom?
> > > >
> > > > By people who all fall short of GOD's glory.
> > >
> > > People such as the authors of Deuteronomy.
> >
> > "A writer who does not write at the level of his/her audience has no
> > audience." -- Holy Spirit.
>
> And what does that mean?
It means that the instructions about not eating rabbits were given to
folks who believed that rabbits were ruminating animals and not to
those who know that rabbits are not ruminating animals. We belong to
the latter group and so we eat rabbits without disobeying GOD (i.e. our
eating rabbits in the here and now is no longer sin).
May GOD continue to heal your heart, dear neighbor whom I love
Don Kirkman
>Our LORD's purpose for me here remains to inform and not to either
>convince or to teach.
Well, you're doing great with the not convincing and not teaching, but
so far you're falling a little short in the informing part.
--
Don Kirkman
Chuck Stamford
> Chuck Stamford wrote:
>> <read, understood, appreciated, and snipped>
>
> Our LORD's purpose for me here remains to inform and not to either
> convince or to teach.
>
> This has been done with the guidance of the Holy Spirit:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/4518e05509523f1c?
>
> Take what has been written to heart or leave it.
Then I'll have to leave it, Andrew, and recommend that others do likewise if
the situation arises where that would be the appropriate thing to do.
The particular false belief that you hold to here (i.e., that non-cognitive
beings can make choices and sin), while *obviously* false, apparently does
you personally no critical spiritual harm. So I'm am not concerned about
you. If that's what you believe, and you're strongly convinced it's true,
then that's the way things are.
But false beliefs can spiritually harm others, severely harm them, so
perhaps it would be a good example of loving unconditionally if you kept
this particular belief to yourself; especially since this belief has no
direct bearing on the message of salvation and saving faith in God through
His Son, Jesus Christ.
God bless
Chuck Stamford
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Without the LORD, your opinions are meaningless (Ecclesiastes).
May GOD continue to heal your heart, dear neighbor Don whom I love
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew wrote:
> > Chuck Stamford wrote:
> >> <read, understood, appreciated, and snipped>
> >
> > Our LORD's purpose for me here remains to inform and not to either
> > convince or to teach.
> >
> > This has been done with the guidance of the Holy Spirit:
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/4518e05509523f1c?
> >
> > Take what has been written to heart or leave it.
>
> Then I'll have to leave it, Andrew, and recommend that others do likewise if
> the situation arises where that would be the appropriate thing to do.
That would be your choice. We each retain the free will that HE has
generously given us.
> The particular false belief that you hold to here (i.e., that non-cognitive
> beings can make choices and sin), while *obviously* false, apparently does
> you personally no critical spiritual harm.
This understanding from the Holy Spirit is not false.
Personally, this understanding from the Holy Spirit has strengthened
and encouraged me because GOD now appears more awesome and not less.
The souls of mountains, planets, stars, galaxies must obey HIM ! ! !
GOD's love keeps them all alive. GOD's love is the unified field law
that Einstein sought but never found.
> So I'm am not concerned about
> you. If that's what you believe, and you're strongly convinced it's true,
> then that's the way things are.
Most assuredly without doubt, I know the truth for HE is our LORD and
HE is kind, just, and right.
> But false beliefs can spiritually harm others, severely harm them, so
> perhaps it would be a good example of loving unconditionally if you kept
> this particular belief to yourself; especially since this belief has no
> direct bearing on the message of salvation and saving faith in God through
> His Son, Jesus Christ.
Actually, this understanding from the Holy Spirit does have a direct
bearing on the message of salvation and saving faith in GOD through HIS
Son, LORD Jesus Christ because it was provided in response to a direct
challenge from an atheist who asked the simple question:
"Why did Jesus curse the fig tree for not bearing fruit out-of-season
as described in Mark 11:12-14?"
If you believe the understanding provided by the Holy Spirit is false,
then you should justify your belief by providing an alternative
understanding that you hold up to be true.
Chuck Stamford
> Chuck Stamford wrote:
>> Andrew wrote:
>> > Chuck Stamford wrote:
>> >> <read, understood, appreciated, and snipped>
>> >
>> > Our LORD's purpose for me here remains to inform and not to either
>> > convince or to teach.
>> >
>> > This has been done with the guidance of the Holy Spirit:
>> >
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/4518e05509523f1c?
>> >
>> > Take what has been written to heart or leave it.
>>
>> Then I'll have to leave it, Andrew, and recommend that others do likewise
>> if
>> the situation arises where that would be the appropriate thing to do.
>
> That would be your choice. We each retain the free will that HE has
> generously given us.
>
>> The particular false belief that you hold to here (i.e., that
>> non-cognitive
>> beings can make choices and sin), while *obviously* false, apparently
>> does
>> you personally no critical spiritual harm.
>
> This understanding from the Holy Spirit is not false.
It's your understanding that its from the Holy Spirit, Andrew, and THAT
understanding can be, and I believe in this particular case is, false.
>
> Personally, this understanding from the Holy Spirit has strengthened
> and encouraged me because GOD now appears more awesome and not less.
And if that's all that it does to you and for you, then praise God. I'd be
the last person in the world to try and dissuade you in it. Unfortunately,
the way in which God has designed us, we don't hold very many beliefs in a
"stand alone" status. Our beliefs have an awesomely intricate relationship
to each other, one in which the vast majority of them we hold to be true
form the basis for a whole string of other beliefs we hold to be true as
well. We hold beliefs in a "structure", Andrew, and it is my fear that this
false belief of yours acts, or will act, or can act, as the basis for other
beliefs you hold, or will come to hold. And you cannot base a true belief
on one that is false. That is logically impossible. So this one false
belief could (and I stress "could" here) become the basis for a whole string
of false beliefs, one or more of which very well could cause you spiritual
harm, if not now, then in the future. That is my real concern here.
> The souls of mountains, planets, stars, galaxies must obey HIM ! ! !
But this statement directly contradicts what you've already said about the
fig tree "choosing" to disobey God! Can't you see that, Andrew?? If they
"must" obey, then they have no choice to obey. And if they can choose to
obey or not, then they must not have to obey.
Now either you're not expressing this belief very well as the Holy Spirit
has given it to you, or the Holy Spirit hasn't given it to you despite what
you believe to the contrary, because one thing is for sure: God doesn't
contradict Himself!
> GOD's love keeps them all alive. GOD's love is the unified field law
> that Einstein sought but never found.
But Einstein wasn't looking for a field theory to explain why everything is
"alive", Andrew. He was seeking to explain why everything "exists". As a
doctor, you should well understand the difference.
The truth here is that you've got nothing to support your belief that
everything has a soul, and is alive in some sense (that remains completely
unexplained or described by you). Nothing out of God's word the Bible.
Nothing from any human inquiry into the nature of the universe.
Nothing...but you're naked assertion that it's true despite all the evidence
there is to the contrary.
>
>> So I'm am not concerned about
>> you. If that's what you believe, and you're strongly convinced it's
>> true,
>> then that's the way things are.
>
> Most assuredly without doubt, I know the truth for HE is our LORD and
> HE is kind, just, and right.
But on that basis so do I, Andrew.
>
>> But false beliefs can spiritually harm others, severely harm them, so
>> perhaps it would be a good example of loving unconditionally if you kept
>> this particular belief to yourself; especially since this belief has no
>> direct bearing on the message of salvation and saving faith in God
>> through
>> His Son, Jesus Christ.
>
> Actually, this understanding from the Holy Spirit does have a direct
> bearing on the message of salvation and saving faith in GOD through HIS
> Son, LORD Jesus Christ because it was provided in response to a direct
> challenge from an atheist who asked the simple question:
>
> "Why did Jesus curse the fig tree for not bearing fruit out-of-season
> as described in Mark 11:12-14?"
>
> If you believe the understanding provided by the Holy Spirit is false,
> then you should justify your belief by providing an alternative
> understanding that you hold up to be true.
First of all, I DON'T believe that the understanding provided by the Holy
Spirit is false. I believe your PRESENT understanding of it is false. So
let's keep that huge distinction straight, okay?
And I believe the Holy Spirit doesn't send us special understandings about a
passage of Scripture when He has already put the correct understanding
within the context of that passage, as is the case with Mark 11. So let's
look at all that Jesus has to say there:
"No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever." Mark 11:14 (KJV)
"Have faith in God. 23 For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say
unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and
shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he
saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith. 24 Therefore I
say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye
receive them, and ye shall have them. " Mark 11:22-24 (KJV)
Now the second speech is in direct response to the disciples inquiry about
the withered fig tree. When we realize that, and look at this second
speech, we begin to see that the situation doesn't have anything to do with
Jesus being displeased at the fig tree not having any figs, or His
punishment of the fig tree. How petty must we view Jesus to understand a
theme like that in the pericope?? He created the universe out of love, and
being omniscient, knew for all eternity that this particular fig tree
wouldn't have any figs when He came to it in time and space looking for
figs, and kills a fig tree because it didn't satisfy His hunger pangs???
That's nonesense, Andrew.
No, the second speech of Jesus explains the entire affair, and it is put
there, and preserved for us today BY the Holy Spirit...if we believe that
the Bible is the inspired word of God. And as we examine Jesus' speech
there, we see He is teaching on the power of faith, not about Divine
justice, or fig trees having souls and making free will choices, or anything
else. It's about faith, pure and simple, and we miss the lesson when we
start reading into it additional ideas that the Holy Spirit never put there.
I hope this is of help to you. I present it to you in that hope.
God bless
Chuck Stamford
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> "Andrew wrote:
> > Chuck Stamford wrote:
> >> Andrew wrote:
> >> > Chuck Stamford wrote:
> >> >> <read, understood, appreciated, and snipped>
> >> >
> >> > Our LORD's purpose for me here remains to inform and not to either
> >> > convince or to teach.
> >> >
> >> > This has been done with the guidance of the Holy Spirit:
> >> >
> >> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/4518e05509523f1c?
> >> >
> >> > Take what has been written to heart or leave it.
> >>
> >> Then I'll have to leave it, Andrew, and recommend that others do likewise
> >> if
> >> the situation arises where that would be the appropriate thing to do.
> >
> > That would be your choice. We each retain the free will that HE has
> > generously given us.
It is now clear that your actual choice is different from your stated
choice and different from the two choices that I offered you.
> >> The particular false belief that you hold to here (i.e., that
> >> non-cognitive
> >> beings can make choices and sin), while *obviously* false, apparently
> >> does
> >> you personally no critical spiritual harm.
> >
> > This understanding from the Holy Spirit is not false.
>
> It's your understanding that its from the Holy Spirit, Andrew, and THAT
> understanding can be, and I believe in this particular case is, false.
When two believers disagree about who is being guided by the Holy
Spirit, the one that says s/he is in the Holy Spirit is the one guided
by HIM.
In the Spirit, this understanding comes from HIM.
> > Personally, this understanding from the Holy Spirit has strengthened
> > and encouraged me because GOD now appears more awesome and not less.
>
> And if that's all that it does to you and for you, then praise God. I'd be
> the last person in the world to try and dissuade you in it. Unfortunately,
> the way in which God has designed us, we don't hold very many beliefs in a
> "stand alone" status.
No such thing as either fortunately or unfortunately when there is no
fortune (Proverbs 16:33).
> Our beliefs have an awesomely intricate relationship
> to each other, one in which the vast majority of them we hold to be true
> form the basis for a whole string of other beliefs we hold to be true as
> well. We hold beliefs in a "structure", Andrew, and it is my fear that this
> false belief of yours acts, or will act, or can act, as the basis for other
> beliefs you hold, or will come to hold. And you cannot base a true belief
> on one that is false. That is logically impossible. So this one false
> belief could (and I stress "could" here) become the basis for a whole string
> of false beliefs, one or more of which very well could cause you spiritual
> harm, if not now, then in the future. That is my real concern here.
It is clear you rely more on your logic and cognitive abilities than
the counsel of the Holy Spirit.
> > The souls of mountains, planets, stars, galaxies must obey HIM ! ! !
>
> But this statement directly contradicts what you've already said about the
> fig tree "choosing" to disobey God! Can't you see that, Andrew??
What I see is obedience as an expression of free will. Indeed,
obedience is proof of free will. Although GOD is sovereign so that all
souls must obey HIM or receive the wages of sin... at the present time,
there are souls that have made the choice to disobey HIM and that they
still exist speaks to GOD's infinite mercy and grace.
Now folks should understand why all things have to be made new...
... for it is written that after the LORD's day of judgment when
unrepentent souls are judged and destroyed, there will be a new heaven,
a new earth, and a new Jerusalem.
> If they "must" obey, then they have no choice to obey.
Where there is free will there is choice.
It remains GOD's infinite will that all souls retain HIS generous gift
of free will.
> And if they can choose to obey or not, then they must not have to obey.
Your logic fails you here.
Think of a parent telling a child that s/he must obey.
Has this parent taken away the child's free will upon issuing the
command of obedience?
No, of course not.
Analogously, all souls retain their free will even when obedience is
commanded by GOD.
> Now either you're not expressing this belief very well as the Holy Spirit
> has given it to you, or the Holy Spirit hasn't given it to you despite what
> you believe to the contrary, because one thing is for sure: God doesn't
> contradict Himself!
or you are having difficulty understanding what has been plainly
written.
This latter explanation is more plausible because you did demonstrate a
misunderstanding of my writing...
"Would concur with what you have written."
... to mean disagreement:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/5e083849014dcd6b?
> > GOD's love keeps them all alive. GOD's love is the unified field law
> > that Einstein sought but never found.
>
> But Einstein wasn't looking for a field theory to explain why everything is
> "alive", Andrew. He was seeking to explain why everything "exists".
With the death of their respective souls, GOD's creations would cease
to exist.
> As a doctor, you should well understand the difference.
As a scientist, I know that the distinction between life and existence
is blurred at the level of virus particles so that extrapolation of
this lack of distinction to souls is possible.
> The truth here is that you've got nothing to support your belief that
> everything has a soul, and is alive in some sense (that remains completely
> unexplained or described by you). Nothing out of God's word the Bible.
Actually, all Biblical references to LORD Jesus Christ being able to
command things (trees, fish, stones, water, sky, mountains) to obey HIM
support the understanding that these things have soul and free will
even if technically some are not "alive" in the usual sense of the
word.
> Nothing from any human inquiry into the nature of the universe.
Actually, from the personal experience of interacting with animals,
having observed their obedience and love for their owners, it is clear
each have soul and free will. Moreover, there have been scientific
evidence that plants are "aware" of their surroundings responding to
music and love by growing more vigorously.
> Nothing...but you're naked assertion that it's true despite all the evidence
> there is to the contrary.
You are straying from the truth here.
Recently, President Bush asserted that having the U.S. pull out of Iraq
now would mean death for America's soul. And, so our nation's president
has a sense that our nation has a soul. Indeed, disobeying GOD is sin
for a soul ...
... and it is written that the wages of sin is death (for a soul).
> >> So I'm am not concerned about
> >> you. If that's what you believe, and you're strongly convinced it's
> >> true,
> >> then that's the way things are.
> >
> > Most assuredly without doubt, I know the truth for HE is our LORD and
> > HE is kind, just, and right.
>
> But on that basis so do I, Andrew.
Yet, you have been straying from the truth in what you have written.
> >> But false beliefs can spiritually harm others, severely harm them, so
> >> perhaps it would be a good example of loving unconditionally if you kept
> >> this particular belief to yourself; especially since this belief has no
> >> direct bearing on the message of salvation and saving faith in God
> >> through
> >> His Son, Jesus Christ.
> >
> > Actually, this understanding from the Holy Spirit does have a direct
> > bearing on the message of salvation and saving faith in GOD through HIS
> > Son, LORD Jesus Christ because it was provided in response to a direct
> > challenge from an atheist who asked the simple question:
> >
> > "Why did Jesus curse the fig tree for not bearing fruit out-of-season
> > as described in Mark 11:12-14?"
> >
> > If you believe the understanding provided by the Holy Spirit is false,
> > then you should justify your belief by providing an alternative
> > understanding that you hold up to be true.
>
> First of all, I DON'T believe that the understanding provided by the Holy
> Spirit is false. I believe your PRESENT understanding of it is false. So
> let's keep that huge distinction straight, okay?
There is no distinction for those in the Holy Spirit. See above.
You have not answered the question:
"Why did Jesus curse the fig tree for not bearing fruit out-of-season
as described in Mark 11:12-14?"
> I hope this is of help to you. I present it to you in that hope.
You remind me of Job's friends. They also meant well.
Nechesh
Andrew the Dishonest wrote:
> It means that the instructions about not eating rabbits were given to
> folks who believed that rabbits were ruminating animals and not to
> those who know that rabbits are not ruminating animals. We belong to
> the latter group and so we eat rabbits without disobeying GOD (i.e. our
> eating rabbits in the here and now is no longer sin).
>
What a load of bullshit.Or is it rabbitshit?
Instead of lying to them, why didn't God tell them the truth?
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew wrote:
>
> > It means that the instructions about not eating rabbits were given to
> > folks who believed that rabbits were ruminating animals and not to
> > those who know that rabbits are not ruminating animals. We belong to
> > the latter group and so we eat rabbits without disobeying GOD (i.e. our
> > eating rabbits in the here and now is no longer sin).
>
> What a load of bullshit.Or is it rabbitshit?
Sorry you don't like the answer. Please forgive all my iniquities.
> Instead of lying to them, why didn't God tell them the truth?
Human knowledge is not the truth because it changes.
GOD is the truth because HE does not change.
"I am the way, the truth, and the life..." -- LORD Jesus Christ.