20 Oct 09
Originally posted by jaywillPaul is an apostate.
[b]============================================
Your gospel is too easy; that's why you'll never be an expert concerning Edwards (or any other Puritan).
===========================
It is not that difficult to be saved from eternal perdition. The hard part was done by Jesus. Our part is "too easy" in a sense. Yes.
Having said that I add, in ...[text shortened]... le"[/b]
Please, I can hardly contain myself - UNSEARCHABLE RICHESSSSS !!![/b]
20 Oct 09
Originally posted by jaywillRespect, not revere. A Christian should know the difference.
[b]====================================
Your gospel is too easy; that's why you'll never be an expert concerning Edwards (or any other Puritan).
=====================================
Christian history is a vast vast subject. The gospel has been announced for 2,000 years plus. I do not have time to master all this history.
It is OK wit ...[text shortened]... teria among the Puritan Pilgrims and I don't think they were bright spots in church history.[/b]
20 Oct 09
Originally posted by Wulebgr=======================
Respect, not revere. A Christian should know the difference.
Respect, not revere. A Christian should know the difference.
==========================
Your words are admirably sparse. But you are going to have to elaborate a little to me.
What are you implying, that one of us does not revere or respect the Puritans ?
20 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI'm telling you I think the only true realist is God, there is no other
I'm telling you I think the only true realist is God, there is no other
that sees all, holds all together, can speak things into reality thereby
molding reality and so on. You think anyone can get a cleaner
view of the ways things are and can make statements that depend
upon no one to accept or reject beyond Him? I think it impossible
to hold moral vie ...[text shortened]... .
I believe God is just in how He treats us, and His every action towards
us is fit.
Kelly
that sees all, holds all together, can speak things into reality thereby
molding reality and so on.
This makes it sound like you think a realist is one who "sees all, holds all together, can speak things into reality...and so on." But I don't know why you would think that, considering that I have been trying to tell you that a realist is just one who holds to a particular meta-ethical thesis regarding the nature of moral statements and properties. I don't know if God would be a realist, but I know several "true" realists.
I think it impossible
to hold moral views without a value system that holds somethings
more important than others, otherwise there is nothing by which we
can use to make our judgments, with respect to the rain that is just
a fact while morals judge with value statements.
Okay, but does this mean that you think there are no moral facts? If so, then what makes a true moral claim true (assuming that you are committed to the idea that at least some moral claims are true)? Also, if you have two competing value systems (both of which are internally consistent), is one just as credible as the other?
I believe God is just in how He treats us, and His every action towards us is fit
I find it ambiguous whether or not this actually addresses my question. My question was in regards to the claim that it is permissible for God to treat persons he creates any way he would please. Is the claim true or false? Hypothetically, would it be permissible for God to torture babies?
20 Oct 09
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayI agree, but how does this really address my question? If I am generally rationally bound to practical reasons that are germane to my circumstances, why wouldn't God also generally be bound to the same sorts of reasons if he were in the same sorts of circumstances?
""If there are reasons that rationally constrain or bind one, why wouldn't the same sorts of reasons generally bind the other as well? "
Depends, because there are exceptions to most. Killing for example
if one just goes about killing people that is one thing, while killing
to defend oneself and family is another.
Kelly
21 Oct 09
Originally posted by jaywillGo back and read your own words. You used the word revere (incorrectly).
[b]=======================
Respect, not revere. A Christian should know the difference.
==========================
Your words are admirably sparse. But you are going to have to elaborate a little to me.
What are you implying, that one of us does not revere or respect the Puritans ?[/b]
21 Oct 09
========================
Although Edwards and his contemporaries believed thoroughly in grace and election, they never expressed it with the hollow and nearly empty sense here.
Rather, they looked inward for their sins and feared that though there were a handful of outward signs, they were still among the unredeemed.
Evangelical arrogance that has become so all pervasive today was never possible in Puritan New England. But, to be told that they are as spiders suspended over the fire, that was sensible and realistic. Church members repented!
========================================
Sounds like you just have your axe to grind.
21 Oct 09
Originally posted by jaywillI doubt reveal was what you meant. No typo.
It must have been a typo. I don't recall using that word this whole month, and rarely.
Perhaps I meant to write "reveal". I couldn't find it.
Originally posted by jaywill
It is OK with me if you revere the Puritans. I suppose worse things could happen.
21 Oct 09
Originally posted by jaywillMy axe is already sharp.
[b]========================
Although Edwards and his contemporaries believed thoroughly in grace and election, they never expressed it with the hollow and nearly empty sense here.
Rather, they looked inward for their sins and feared that though there were a handful of outward signs, they were still among the unredeemed.
Evangelical arrogance th ...[text shortened]...
========================================
Sounds like you just have your axe to grind.[/b]
22 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by WulebgrSeems rather blunt to me.
My axe is already sharp.
In the last 40 years I have seen many Christians repent in places where I have met. Your thought that "In the good old days of John Edwards they did but no more" seems like some kind of hype.
Hey, if you get more edification out of brother John Edwards' messages, that's fine with me.
The glory goes to God and not to any man.
22 Oct 09
Originally posted by LemonJelloGod lived as one of us going through human life, bound by all the
I agree, but how does this really address my question? If I am generally rationally bound to practical reasons that are germane to my circumstances, why wouldn't God also generally be bound to the same sorts of reasons if he were in the same sorts of circumstances?
limitations of our circumstances. You are bound by the limitations
of your grasp of the universe, you are bound by all things human
and so your stance on all things will be quite different than God's.
It isn't much different than my take on things and my 4 year old
take on things, she may think eating cake for breakfast, lunch, and
dinner every day is a good thing while I'd disagree, because I know
where that would lead her. So if I were to trust the judgment between
you and God, I'd have to go with God, nothing personal there. 🙂
Kelly
22 Oct 09
Originally posted by LemonJelloGetting to your 'however God pleases' question, I said I trust God,
[b]I'm telling you I think the only true realist is God, there is no other
that sees all, holds all together, can speak things into reality thereby
molding reality and so on.
This makes it sound like you think a realist is one who "sees all, holds all together, can speak things into reality...and so on." But I don't know why you would think that ...[text shortened]... claim true or false? Hypothetically, would it be permissible for God to torture babies?[/b]
I trust His nature and I believe His, 'any ole way He pleases' will always
be just. If you are asking if God tomorrow wants to torture babies
would that make it okay because it is God doing it, while today it isn't
a good thing, I'd throw the question out, because I do not believe God
would ever do anything like that. The fact I trust God to always do the
right thing is an acknowledgement that I believe that is how He will
always behave, it is trust earned because of my dealings with Him.
Kelly