Originally posted by serigado
Do you still have her number? I think I'm in love.

867-5309

Originally posted by whodey
I would not say that death is a bar, rather, I would say that sin is the bar and that it simply causes death. This death cannot be changed physically because our flesh has been corrupted but it can be helped in a spiritual sense because we can be spiritually reborn through Christ.

In order for us to live eternally we must have God living inside us beca ...[text shortened]... is life source through my consent or faith in him and let him worry about the rest.

I’ll just respond to a few of your comments, so as not to leave you in the lurch. (My thinking on all theological talk is in the process of changing somewhat, and I was revisiting some of my old arguments here—about which you and I have had to declare impasse before.)

Also, what of the statement by Christ that the greatest love is seen by those who lay down their life for their friends?

psuche: soul. Life in the sense of one’s innermost self; not zoe or bios. Also, the Greek word translated as “lay down” is tithemi: to put or place; to lay down as in “to lay the table” with dishes, silverware, etc. To translate this as if to mean simply “to physically die” is an error.

For me, the disease model of sin is simply loosing faith in God's perfect will. Coupled with this perfect will is the realization that God is a God of love, thus his perfect will is assumed to be what is "best" for us. Anything less than what is best for us would be falling short of God's loving perfect will for us.

I could use this whole statement in my argument (except for the first sentence, which makes no sense to me: if sin is in any way inherited, how can the disease—or illness—model not apply?). If you mean by God’s “perfect will” that God’s will is perfectly efficacious, then the old question remains: “Does God fail to save, or choose not to?”

If the story of Adam and Eve is "correct" do you find the judgments handed down to them for their lack of faith in God seen in their disobedience as harsh?

If you read the story that way—yes. However, as you know, I have never read the story that way.

But, you know, I don’t think any of the way you read this makes sense. I have no idea what you mean by God’s moral perfection, or how you decide that. You seem to be using God’s holiness, righteousness, moral perfection (with it’s perfect intolerance of imperfection) as setting bounds on God’s love—rather than the other way ‘round. So be it.

Also, your version of God is, in fact, coercive: demanding unfailing, unquestioning obedience or death (or worse). And none of this is undone by the incarnation or the cross—only the terms of obedience are changed. Your concept of God is simply not a God who is love—unless “love” in the godly sense has as much meaning to us humans as “umshukha”.

I am fast coming to the conclusion that nearly all theological talk is so fraught with contradictions and meaningless terms as to be senseless. My own such talk in the past included...

Originally posted by vistesd

Also, what of the statement by Christ that the greatest love is seen by those who lay down their life for their friends?

psuche: soul. Life in the sense of one’s innermost self; not zoe or bios. Also, the Greek word translated as “lay down” is tithemi: to put or place; to lay down as in “to lay the table” with dishes, silverware, etc. To translate this as if to mean simply “to physically die” is an error.

Whether that specific translation of that specific verse is "wrong" one would have to also take into account the "big picture" of what the gospels are saying in terms of the death and resurrection of Christ and its implications, no? For me it is akin to picking apart a sentence in favor of ignoring the paragraph.

Originally posted by vistesd


I could use this whole statement in my argument (except for the first sentence, which makes no sense to me: if sin is in any way inherited, how can the disease—or illness—model not apply?). If you mean by God’s “perfect will” that God’s will is perfectly efficacious, then the old question remains: “Does God fail to save, or choose not to?”

When I mentioned God's perfect will I was referring to God's plan for why he created us in how we were designed. I view our design or purpose for being created as simply communing with God as he did with Adam and Eve in the garden. It is simply sharing a loving relationship. We can go against this design by sinning, or choosing to seperate ourselves from a holy God, hoewever, it comes at a cost. No longer are we connected to him in the same way. For example, I could place a lawn mower engine in my car and have moderate to little success but sooner than later the car will eventually stop working altogether simply because the engine was never made to work in such a way. I see sin in a similar fashion. We were never designed to die physically yet we have gone against our design and as a result we are comparible to the lawn mower engine placed in the car in this respect.

You could then later ask does the designer of the engine have the ability to make the motor work or does he not have the will to make it work? Neither question really applies here because the designer never placed the lawn mower engine into the car!! What the designer of the engine can do, however, is change out engines and put them back where they belong so that they will then run like clock work.

Originally posted by whodey
Whether that specific translation of that specific verse is "wrong" one would have to also take into account the "big picture" of what the gospels are saying in terms of the death and resurrection of Christ and its implications, no? For me it is akin to picking apart a sentence in favor of ignoring the paragraph.

So you are instead changing a sentence to match the paragraph? Do you do that with every sentence in the paragraph?

Originally posted by whodey
When I mentioned God's perfect will I was referring to God's plan for why he created us in how we were designed. I view our design or purpose for being created as simply communing with God as he did with Adam and Eve in the garden. It is simply sharing a loving relationship. We can go against this design by sinning, or choosing to seperate ourselves from a ...[text shortened]... and as a result we are comparible to the lawn mower engine placed in the car in this respect.

So, Does God fail to save, or choose not to?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you are instead changing a sentence to match the paragraph? Do you do that with every sentence in the paragraph?

I would not say that I am changing the sentence to match a paragraph. The sentence in question may be taken in many different ways. I think there is an element of truth in how visted interprets it as well as how I interpret it. However, one must not loose site of the paragraph for which the sentence owes its existence!!

Originally posted by twhitehead
So, Does God fail to save, or choose not to?

I see that my analogy was lost on you.

Originally posted by vistesd

But, you know, I don’t think any of the way you read this makes sense. I have no idea what you mean by God’s moral perfection, or how you decide that. You seem to be using God’s holiness, righteousness, moral perfection (with it’s perfect intolerance of imperfection) as setting bounds on God’s love—rather than the other way ‘round. So be it.

I veiw moral perfection as being sinless or not violating the law of love. Within this context God has an intolerance for sin and acts accordingly to counter it. For example, if you saw me harming myself or others around me and took not steps to counter these actions could one say that you loved me?

Originally posted by whodey
I would not say that I am changing the sentence to match a paragraph. The sentence in question may be taken in many different ways. I think there is an element of truth in how visted interprets it as well as how I interpret it. However, one must not loose site of the paragraph for which the sentence owes its existence!!

But visted implied that your interpretation is not contained in the sentence and that for you to 'interpret' it that way is essentially making things up.

Originally posted by whodey
I see that my analogy was lost on you.

No. It was quite obvious that the purpose of your analogy was to avoid answering the question and I can see that you will continue to do so.

Originally posted by vistesd
Also, your version of God is, in fact, coercive: demanding unfailing, unquestioning obedience or death (or worse). And none of this is undone by the incarnation or the cross—only the terms of obedience are changed. Your concept of God is simply not a God who is love—unless “love” in the godly sense has as much meaning to us humans as “umshukha”.

My concept of God in terms of our sinful nature is comparible to what God told the Israelites in Deuteronomy when he said, I lay before you blessing and cursing, life and death. Therefore, choose life and blessing.....

Is it coersive to tell my children not to play in the street or else!!?? The cross takes into account the notion that one way or another we will all wind up in the street anyway yet there is a way off that street without getting hit. Is this coercion? Also do not forget that Christ jumped in the street for us and was in no way obligated to do so.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No. It was quite obvious that the purpose of your analogy was to avoid answering the question and I can see that you will continue to do so.

The question at hand is like asking me if I have stopped beating my wife? Really, if I never beat her to begin with there is no proper answer to this question except by saying neither!!

To ask if God is unwilling or unable are both innacurate. Scripture indicates that it is God's will that none should perish. Also it says that through Christ we need not perish. Therefore, God is both willing and able to save us!!

Originally posted by vistesd
I am fast coming to the conclusion that nearly all theological talk is so fraught with contradictions and meaningless terms as to be senseless. My own such talk in the past included...[/b]

LOL! Yes, at times I feel the same. It seems to me that you approach a topic with the notion that the sky is blue and I approach a topic with the notion that the sky is green, however, it does not dawn upon either of us that the sky could be bluish green nor does it dawn upon us that we may have opposite views as what the terms sky and color actually represent. Usually such terms are defined by our view of them and not so much what they actually are.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
867-5309

Was she a one hit wonder by any chance ...?