Theology IV

[Willow Oran]

I'll concede concerning the church on all but one point, and to counter your argument I will have to lean away from the believer's view point that I've been arguing from.

But the moral failings of some human Church leaders do not in any way bring challenge the capacity of God to declare infallible truths through them, in spite of their weakness.

Moral failings of church leaders absolutely challenge the capacity of God to declare infallible truths. "Actions speak louder than words" is a proverb for a reason. Humans, especially since the rise of scientific thought, tend to believe what they see over what they hear. In such an environment, can a deity still declare truth through people whose words will be heard as false?

*Slaps head.* Oh, gosh.

Try asking a catholic school teacher if the 'divine ichor' running through the veins of the greeks gods is the same thing that makes Jesus holy sometime. I can gurantee that the answer does not promote paganism.

[inked]

Willow Oran, you do of course extend your logic to all human endeavors? That because of human fallibility there can be no knowledge of ........ whatever? Because exactly the same arguments are made in the attempted salvage of communism, socialism, fascism, scientism and every man-made construct.

The Church's claims about general revelation and special revelation have to be taken into account. You do not have to believe them, but you do have to take them into account.

And, because of human fallibility, true knowledge of God would have to come to us as a revelation since we could not arrive at it reliably ourselves per your argument.

Or would you plead a special case for the Church and the relation of the morality of leaders as opposed to human morality amongst say Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Pinochet, etc...........

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Willow Oran

I'll concede concerning the church on all but one point, and to counter your argument I will have to lean away from the believer's view point that I've been arguing from.



Moral failings of church leaders absolutely challenge the capacity of God to declare infallible truths. "Actions speak louder than words" is a proverb for a reason. Humans, especially since the rise of scientific thought, tend to believe what they see over what they hear. In such an environment, can a deity still declare truth through people whose words will be heard as false?

What you're describing, though, is a problem with people's capacity to hear, not God's capacity to speak.

You make a good point. People who speak truth, yet are themselves great sinners, are less likely to be believed. It isn't a coincidence that the Reformation started shortly after the death of Pope Alexander VI, one who I believe was the wickedest pope we've ever had. Most Catholics remained faithful to the Church, even though many were fully conscious of their pope's wickedness. The pope who succeeded Alexander VI, Pope Leo X, actually said that Alexander VI was burning in Hell.

So while you're right that many will spurn a wicked man, even if he presents a true message, it's also apparent that many will remain faithful to the true message even when it comes through an evil man. Besides, even if no one listened to the evil man God spoke through, that doesn't mean God lacks the capacity to speak. It simply means they lack the capacity to hear Him fully. Faithful Catholics at the time of the Reformation held to the truth passed on to them that God speaks through the Pope and the Pope's official word is God's official word. God doesn't promise moral purity to the pope, though. If Catholics fail to believe the Pope's infallible words, even when they see very correctly that the Pope is morally bankrupt, this is a failure on their part to believe in God's promise regarding the Papacy (Matthew 16:18-19). For this reason, many Catholics remained faithful, in spite of the Reformation's temptations.

It is also worthwhile to note that Alexander VI, in spite of his authority as pope, never tried to make an infallible declaration that justified his blatant disregard for Christian virtue (his murders, fornications and greed). He preached God's truth and practiced Satan's perversion. In fact, none of the bad popes have proclaimed, in their official capacity as pope, to be God's doctrine what is in fact a lie.

God has always been willing to speak through people participating in terrible sin. Balaam, Caiaphas (these I noted before), Pilate (John 19:19-22), and one of the centurions who participated in putting Him to death (Mark 15:39) are good examples of this. I bet I could keep expanding the list.

Because of the weakness of humanity, you're right that people will sometimes reject that which is glorious and true, because they despise the messenger. This is a problem with the hearing of many, especially those that do not cling to the promises of Jesus. It is not a problem with God's capacity to speak through anyone or anything He wants.

Originally Posted by Willow Oran

Try asking a catholic school teacher if the 'divine ichor' running through the veins of the greeks gods is the same thing that makes Jesus holy sometime. I can gurantee that the answer does not promote paganism.

[Willow Oran]

Speaking of paganism... schoolwork requires that I focus on the study of pre-christian matters now. Thanks for a good discussion guys.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Willow Oran

Yet in that insistence the Bible diminishes God, for it is a much greater deity that can and has chosen to reject evil within Himself before rejecting it in others. Is that not what His mortal incarnation did in the desert and is it not what we are supposed to do in seeking forgiveness?

God cannot love evil. Man cannot love evil. Evil, through itself, is incapable of being loved. The only value that people see in evil is that it leads them to something which is a genuine good (wealth, pleasure, esteem, etc.). But if something is evil, no-one, God, man, or devil, can love it for it's own sake, but only as an end to some good.

[Valandil]

GW: You got me to thinking things I haven't thought in many years (when one once settles these questions for oneself, the route of arriving at the answers can easily lie forgotten for a long while).

Regarding the nature of evil: some view it as a polar opposite of good - of the competitor, and rival and enemy of good.

But perhaps the best definition I have heard of evil is that it is 'corrupted good'.

That definition covers the ground that evil walks (some things less corrupted, some more so) - and also makes it easier, perhaps, to conceive of a God without evil (again, inasmuch as we can hope to understand God).

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Yes, evil is essentially just mixing up priorities on which goods are greater. Something is evil because it has the wrong good in mind. Thinking of evil in this way, it seems like evil in fact is non-being. That which we call evil is not actually something, not some positive existence, but simply the lack of a good which ought to be there.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Yes, evil is essentially just mixing up priorities on which goods are greater. Something is evil because it has the wrong good in mind. Thinking of evil in this way, it seems like evil in fact is non-being. That which we call evil is not actually something, not some positive existence, but simply the lack of a good which ought to be there.

...I get it now, you are not talking about the gospel, you are just giving what you feel/think is the definition of evil.

That is good that you are not talking about the bible because it specifically states that what you are doing (I must sound like a broken record) is evil. The ultimate and concise definition of evil according to the word of god, is exactly that, your own thoughts.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Sorry, where does the Bible say that my thoughts are the ultimate definition of evil?

And what, pray tell, are you objecting to, exactly? Philosophy? The statement that there is no evil in God?

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

And what, pray tell, are you objecting to, exactly? Philosophy? The statement that there is no evil in God?

I am objecting to your POV on evil in a religious debate, yet not providing any scripture to back up what you are saying. Your only going off your own feelings and ideas, without guidance from the word is folly.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Sorry, where does the Bible say that my thoughts are the ultimate definition of evil?

My point exactly, if you knew the bible you would not ask such a question when I broke this down before and in more ways than one.

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

The bible clearly tells you that the flesh is week:

Romans 7:18-19
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

So:

Proverbs 14:12
There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Jesus even said:

Luke 18:18-19
18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

So even jesus knew his flesh was weak and of no good. Your strength is in the spirit not in flesh, in god not man; this is what the bible teaches.

Luke 24
34 Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. 35 And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread. 36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. 37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. 38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? 39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. 40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. 41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? 42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. 43 And he took it, and did eat before them.

Hahahaahahaaaaaaaaa...wow, so classic:

Matthew 11:19
The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

lol...one of the first things the brother does after being resurrected is ask for food..hahaaa, hmmmmmmmmm.

Is that not a good illustration of the weakness of the flesh...

Trusting in your ideas about good and evil over what the word tells you is a mistake and no good can come from it. Notice, none of this is my opinion. I am only revealing what the bible says.

You can choose not to believe gods words but then you can't say your a christian, can you?

Psalm 50:17
Seeing thou hatest instruction, and casteth my words behind thee.

Proverbs 9:8-9
8 Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee. 9 Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning.

Proverbs 5:11-13
11 And thou mourn at the last, when thy flesh and thy body are consumed, 12 And say, How have I hated instruction, and my heart despised reproof; 13 And have not obeyed the voice of my teachers, nor inclined mine ear to them that instructed me!


Matthew 13:9
Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

Trusting in your ideas about good and evil over what the word tells you is a mistake and no good can come from it. Notice, none of this is my opinion. I am only revealing what the bible says.

That is ludicrous. You are giving your own interpretation of the Bible. Everyone does, when they read it, which is why Protestantism contains tens of thousands of denominations and vast numbers of non-denominationals who come up with their different theologies through their own fallible readings of Scripture. Which is why we need a Magesterium to give infallible interpretations of the infallible. Your own private reading of God's Word is fallible.

I might add that, as it happens, none of the passages you referred to says our thoughts are the source of all evil. They say that our thoughts can lead to error and show that our thoughts can be evil, but they do not say our thoughts are the source of all evil. Your philosophy on this is non-biblical.

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

You can choose not to believe gods words but then you can't say your a christian, can you?

He can choose not to believe your interpretation of God's words, and still say he's a Christian.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

That is ludicrous. You are giving your own interpretation of the Bible. Everyone does, when they read it, which is why Protestantism contains tens of thousands of denominations and vast numbers of non-denominationals who come up with their different theologies through their own fallible readings of Scripture. Which is why we need a Magesterium to give infallible interpretations of the infallible. Your own private reading of God's Word is fallible.

I might add that, as it happens, none of the passages you referred to says our thoughts are the source of all evil. They say that our thoughts can lead to error and show that our thoughts can be evil, but they do not say our thoughts are the source of all evil. Your philosophy on this is non-biblical.

He can choose not to believe your interpretation of God's words, and still say he's a Christian.

Romans 7:18-19
18 For I know that in me dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

That was my word?

Proverbs 14:12
There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

That too right?

Luke 18:18-19
18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

This too? Come on, come on...

Where are my words, where is my interpretation in that? I guess those scriptures are not saying, what they are saying Lief, so why don't you tell me what they are saying so I can be edified.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

Romans 7:18-19
18 For I know that in me dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

That was my word?

Paul is referring here to his sinful nature. In his sinful nature, there is no good thing. That isn't to say he has in himself no good thing- if that was the case, he wouldn't have had Jesus inside him, but he said he did (Galatians 2:19-20).

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

Proverbs 14:12
There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

That too right?

Of course men who rely on human understanding can stumble onto the paths of death. We are marred by a sinful nature, so when we try to set up our intellects independently from God, we destroy ourselves. That is what this verse is talking about.

On the other hand, God's way can sometimes seem right unto a man, and that way does not lead to death. That is from the Spirit. If the intellect of a man itself is a bad thing, God would not have made him one. I believe the verse is referring to the false wisdom of the sinful nature.

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

Luke 18:18-19
18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

This too? Come on, come on...

In John 8:46, Jesus said, "Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?" He never committed sin. When he said, "Why callest thou me good?", He was referring to the fact that the man who called him "good" did not know that He was good, and so was placing an improper emphasis on teaching that he saw incorrectly as fallible. If the man had recognized that Jesus was God and had believed in the infallibility of His teaching, Jesus would not have questioned him on this.

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

Where are my words, where is my interpretation in that?

All over it, IMHO. You need to realize that your interpreting abilities are not infallible.

[The Telcontarion]

Well, I will leave it at that, I think we both have said enough on that particular topic to allow others to learn some from it. Besides what you said below disturbs me and I need to address it.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If the man had recognized that Jesus was God and had believed in the infallibility of His teaching, Jesus would not have questioned him on this.

If the man recognized that jesus was who? The scriptures repeatedly say the father and his son. They are two seperate entities:

Proverbs 30:4
Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?

Two seperate names for two seperate beings:

Mark 13:32
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

That last was to the point, if they both were one and the same then the one would know what the other does but it is clear that it is not the case. Just as with the angels, so too with the son; well, as far as the day of judgment is concerned.

Now you can better understand what was presented before:

Luke 18:18-19
18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

All over it, IMHO. You need to realize that your interpreting abilities are not infallible.

I never said that I was infallible and that was what the point of the last debate on the weakness of flesh; I don't rely on "intellect" but on the word to guide me.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

I am objecting to your POV on evil in a religious debate, yet not providing any scripture to back up what you are saying. Your only going off your own feelings and ideas, without guidance from the word is folly.

Scripture does not tell us everything about everything. It does not claim to tell us everything about everything. There is no reason it should be forbidden to bring up anything aside from Scripture. If we can only talk about these things in the words of Scripture, then you are damned for writing about it in English. Only Greek and Hebrew would be permitted, if we take your perspective to its logical conclusion.

Trusting in your ideas about good and evil over what the word tells you is a mistake and no good can come from it. Notice, none of this is my opinion. I am only revealing what the bible says.

No Scripture comes to mind which contradicts what I have said about evil, nor does any Scripture you have cited contradict it. Therefore, it's not a question of trusting ideas over Scripture. You can't opposes them, unless they are opposed to each other.

You can choose not to believe gods words but then you can't say your a Christian, can you?

Actually, you can. Scads of people call themselves Christian's, but don't believe the Scriptures.

Myself, I am not one of them. Why do you say that I don't believe God's word?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

If the man recognized that jesus was who? The scriptures repeatedly say the father and his son. They are two seperate entities:

Two separate entities, yes, but also one.

John 1: 1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

John 8:58-59 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

58Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

59Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.



28And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.

12It teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, 13while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Scripture does not tell us everything about everything. It does not claim to tell us everything about everything. There is no reason it should be forbidden to bring up anything aside from Scripture. If we can only talk about these things in the words of Scripture, then you are damned for writing about it in English. Only Greek and Hebrew would be permitted, if we take your perspective to its logical conclusion.

It does claim to tell us everything. I never said other languages are forbidden only that you should do more of quoting scriptures than anything else, you in particular I might add. Why only in greek and hebrew, the original language is hebrew, it is already in greek and assyrian, what nonsense is this?


Proverbs 9:8-9
8 Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee. 9 Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

No Scripture comes to mind which contradicts what I have said about evil, nor does any Scripture you have cited contradict it. Therefore, it's not a question of trusting ideas over Scripture. You can't opposes them, unless they are opposed to each other.

I then answer the question again, and you say I did not answer it. Nothing else I can say to that.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Actually, you can. Scads of people call themselves Christian's, but don't believe the Scriptures.

Exodus 23:2
Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment:

Hey, you set yourself up for that one. A lot of people jump off bridges too.

Back at you

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Two separate entities, yes, but also one.

John 1: 1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

John 8:58-59 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

58Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

59Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.



28And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.

12It teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, 13while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.

Do you know that god called the elect gods? Do you know that jesus said that we will do greater miracles than he himself had performed? So we are god too?

He was, before Abraham, he is, the alpha and omega.

He knew and chose the elect of us before the world was also:

Ephesians 1:4
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Matthew 25:34
Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

[The Telcontarion]

We all know Tolkien was heavily influenced by christianity. Now look at the simularities.

1. Israel was split into two kingdoms, the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah - So was the Dúnedain in ME

2. The north kingdom, kingdom of Israel was larger - So was Arnor

3. The Kingdom of Israel was eventually over run and scattered - So was Arnor

4. Kingdom of Judah remained - So did Gondor

5. Eldarion's birth united the royal half elvin lines - The birth of Jesus united the two royal lines of king David.

I have been meaning to bring this up but as you can see I have been busy.

[Lief Erikson]

Do you know that god called the elect gods?

That is one reference to this (at most two?) from Psalms, in the whole Bible. That's it. Jesus also clarifies that these are called gods because the word of God came to them (John 10:35).

On the other hand, when the Jews said, "You, though only a human being, are making yourself God," Jesus did not object to their claim. Instead, He very reasonably pointed out that if people were called "gods" because of having received the word, they could not reasonably object to Him calling Himself God's Son when He was sanctified and sent into the world (John 10:33-36). The "divinity" Jesus claimed was very different from the kind that involves simply receiving the word of God. He said, "The Father and I are one" (John 10:30). A radically different claim.

The scriptures asserting Jesus' divinity are many and clear. The verses calling men "gods" are one -- at most two -- from Psalms, and that's it in the whole Bible. And Jesus explains that they are only called that because of having received the word of God.

There are, on the other hand, a multitude of verses referring explicitly to Jesus' divinity, and to His perfect unity with the Father, while there is no verse at all that says Jesus is not divine.

Here are some more relevant passages about Jesus, in addition to the numerous and clear verses Gwaimir brought up:

Originally Posted by Colossians 1:15-20

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers -- all things have been created through him and for him. He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the Church; he is the beginning, the firstborn of the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of the cross.

Originally Posted by Hebrews 1:2-4

In these last days [God] has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds. He is the reflection of God's glory and the exact imprint of God's very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word.

Originally Posted by Hebrews 1:6-8, 10

And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him."

Of the angels he says, "He makes his angels winds, and his servants flames of fire."

But of the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom"

[. . .]

And, "In the beginning, Lord, you founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands."

There are a great many more verses we can cite. There is nothing in the Bible that says Jesus is only human, but vast numbers of verses that refer explicitly to his divinity.

It is also impossible to deny this scriptural belief and be a Christian.

Do you know that jesus said that we will do greater miracles than he himself had performed? So we are god too?

The number of miracles does not prove divinity. Jesus said that John the Baptist was the greatest of the Old Covenant prophets, yet John the Baptist is not recorded as performing a single miracle. Also, there is debate among Christians over whether Jesus was saying the Church as a whole would perform more miracles than Him in the verse you're referring to, or whether He was saying individual believers would.