10/20/2008
8/04/2008
Insincere racaism
So you think you're a bad boy, eh? Look, there is none worse than me! I have been baa-aad! Don't you even start to kid yourelf. The reason I am so bad is that I am bad-to-the-bone. I mean to say I will always be bad, and there is no way I can be any good. But you oughta see that guy across the aisle, now he is unredeemable!
Only God is good.
So what is imagery?
Only God is good.
So what is imagery?
7/19/2008
taking the most to beganagain
I will begin some housekeeping and try to categorize and divide these posts into some sort of order.
RFR
RFR
7/14/2008
Did Adam know the Earth was Round
Unless Adam is merely legend, only rooted in truth and not actualized as an individual of flesh and bone, or indicative of a tribe, rather, even so, then, they would be much closer to God and His knowledge by His choice and the understanding by them of the actual shape of Universe might be more attuned to their purer DNA as well as a Biblically unreported or lost revelation from God[surely not!(I mean what good is truth if it is incomplete?)], or even just common knowledge later corrupted by 'you know who'. Now that might be something to report on...just when was truth interrupted and how fast did its corruption spread thus disallowing natural observation and overrinding that with shaded assumption? And just how complete was it or was there some remnant of acknowledged and perceived truth in existance until today concerning the shape of the universe. Does 'above and below' prescibe a flat earth? What seems more real than the physical realities we live in and accept, and how does the physical condition of our existance effect our need for salvation? so, 'Why report on it?' seems to be the operand. Or, am I living in fantasy, and the world really is flat, is that it? <8~} Then allow me repentance and confession, long live the Pope Paul V(a snake in puppy's cloth to Galileo) and Pope Urban VIII, his Inquisitor, as well as Melanchthon, his antithesis to the Protestant!
7/11/2008
Fun duh mentality
Fundamental of or relating to the necessary
fundamentalism one of a modern group of protestants
modern and basic?
how does this jibe? I have my doubts! I have a Great Grandfather from Missouri, you know, I mean like what are the fundamentals the fundamentalists of fundamentalism are purporting? Love and forgiveness? the Faithfulness of God to an unwarranted people?
fundamentalism one of a modern group of protestants
modern and basic?
how does this jibe? I have my doubts! I have a Great Grandfather from Missouri, you know, I mean like what are the fundamentals the fundamentalists of fundamentalism are purporting? Love and forgiveness? the Faithfulness of God to an unwarranted people?
7/09/2008
Evangelism Now
Links to a couple of places influencing my thought right now.
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-problem-with-real-christians
http://evangelicalmanifesto.com/
http://aintsobad.typepad.com/pastorspal/2007/12/instantaneous-s.html
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-problem-with-real-christians
http://evangelicalmanifesto.com/
http://aintsobad.typepad.com/pastorspal/2007/12/instantaneous-s.html
7/08/2008
To train or not to train
What is the purpose of church. Is it only to reach out to ever increasing numbers of people in need? Shall it focus solely on bringing them to congregate with others who are needy? How shall it reach those in need, what shall it say to those in need, what shall it offer to those in need? At some point, more a focus than else, but real nevertheless, and in need of time, substance, place, and earnestness, there must be the effort to learn of the people, to learn of their needs, to learn their dreams, their culture. There must be an effort in the same brush stroke to learn the capacity of the Church and the churchmember, to concentrate the interest of the Church and focus the effort of the church into a Christ centered, Holy Spirit inspired, amalgamation of individual and grouped missions emanating from within the Church.
Now, perhaps you noticed, I have capitalized the word church at almost every instance, in order to indicate the universal church. But the universal church hardly needs man's(our) attention to it so much, because we appropriate that attention to the manifestation of that Church as we find it in our local sphere of attendance. The storehouse, as it were! So, no I am not railing against the Body of Christ, it will continue with or without me or my consent. Rather, I speak to those of us who attend, and pray, and work within a particular set of walls, a stack of bricks and mortar and steel and electricity and plumbing, on a regular basis, for the purpose of ministering to each other and those from outside our group as we realize their need.
To this group I say, pause, consider your roots. A plant which is constantly subjected to the harshness of the weather can only wither until and unless such a time as relief is granted it in the form of respite from the weather and nourishment from the ground and water.
While I am assured of God's ability to accomplish despite my frailty and stubbornness, I am sure that He wants my best effort, my fullest attention and my sincerest willingness.
So how do I get to that point without some descipleship?
Is there not a time when Christ called His very closest to Himself and leaned on them or closely instructed them.
Instructed them, descipled them, TRAINED THEM.
Now, perhaps you noticed, I have capitalized the word church at almost every instance, in order to indicate the universal church. But the universal church hardly needs man's(our) attention to it so much, because we appropriate that attention to the manifestation of that Church as we find it in our local sphere of attendance. The storehouse, as it were! So, no I am not railing against the Body of Christ, it will continue with or without me or my consent. Rather, I speak to those of us who attend, and pray, and work within a particular set of walls, a stack of bricks and mortar and steel and electricity and plumbing, on a regular basis, for the purpose of ministering to each other and those from outside our group as we realize their need.
To this group I say, pause, consider your roots. A plant which is constantly subjected to the harshness of the weather can only wither until and unless such a time as relief is granted it in the form of respite from the weather and nourishment from the ground and water.
While I am assured of God's ability to accomplish despite my frailty and stubbornness, I am sure that He wants my best effort, my fullest attention and my sincerest willingness.
So how do I get to that point without some descipleship?
Is there not a time when Christ called His very closest to Himself and leaned on them or closely instructed them.
Instructed them, descipled them, TRAINED THEM.
7/05/2008
Sinners and Church Insidership
There are two sides to every coin and an edge besides.
The one side of the coin is defined by the question of evangelism and witnessing.
The second side is defined by how the Body of Christ is seen as a place of rest and minstry of needful things to an evangelizing outreaching yet human body in need of rejuvenation.
Besides, the edge is that both sides of this coin are called for by a Spirit enfilled Church.
Evangelism is based on iindividual calling along with group emopowerment.
Rubbing the coin we see that empowerment takes many guises.
The one side of the coin is defined by the question of evangelism and witnessing.
The second side is defined by how the Body of Christ is seen as a place of rest and minstry of needful things to an evangelizing outreaching yet human body in need of rejuvenation.
Besides, the edge is that both sides of this coin are called for by a Spirit enfilled Church.
Evangelism is based on iindividual calling along with group emopowerment.
Rubbing the coin we see that empowerment takes many guises.
Baptist fundamentalism and forgiveness
I note that much of our moneys and benefit packages are still tied to the SBC, and until we become independent of that then griping, we come across as biters of the hand that feeds us, though in reality as Rick Davis says, we the church member feeds the church which feeds the Convention, Association and Fellowships or Alliance. They will all have divisions, almost too numerous to mention. This leads to politics and thus to compromise, which becomes tricky in the realm of religion, where soul competency is foundational and everyone believes their version of the Word Of God is the one true revelation.
Some of us see the struggles of the past twenty years as rooted in those very differences Baptists have always tacitly encouraged by tolerating them for growth and the purpose of ministry under the banner of Christian unity. So the disagreements were always there, and are not some sudden flare up leading to the "takeover twenty years ago". Our inability to overcome the pride engendered by hurt feelings, which did lead to that takeover and seems now to emanate from it, is a real failure--and a sign to us that arrogance has its consequence. Within the local church and inside the associations and conventions there needs to be a return to genteel open minded conversation. I know from my own youth experience based during the sixties that the fundamentalist view was in part an expression of frustration with the secular social centers of influence and a desire to protect children from what can be desctribed as a determined, metered, unbounded, focused attack on Christian ethic and institutions, groups and individuals--almost a paranoia.
The moderate view has a more complicated expression in its seeming desire for secular or government regulation on common definitions and enactments of charity but a laissez faire attitude concerning control of certain personal behaviours. Time and space and fersure my capacity limits a true analysis here of the differences, but as one who feels torn between, as opposed to pushed aside, or demonized, may this be a decent restart at a conversation which should have retaken place much earlier, but might possibly be mute, as to effect and affect, today, due to tardiness or lack of humility.
Some of us see the struggles of the past twenty years as rooted in those very differences Baptists have always tacitly encouraged by tolerating them for growth and the purpose of ministry under the banner of Christian unity. So the disagreements were always there, and are not some sudden flare up leading to the "takeover twenty years ago". Our inability to overcome the pride engendered by hurt feelings, which did lead to that takeover and seems now to emanate from it, is a real failure--and a sign to us that arrogance has its consequence. Within the local church and inside the associations and conventions there needs to be a return to genteel open minded conversation. I know from my own youth experience based during the sixties that the fundamentalist view was in part an expression of frustration with the secular social centers of influence and a desire to protect children from what can be desctribed as a determined, metered, unbounded, focused attack on Christian ethic and institutions, groups and individuals--almost a paranoia.
The moderate view has a more complicated expression in its seeming desire for secular or government regulation on common definitions and enactments of charity but a laissez faire attitude concerning control of certain personal behaviours. Time and space and fersure my capacity limits a true analysis here of the differences, but as one who feels torn between, as opposed to pushed aside, or demonized, may this be a decent restart at a conversation which should have retaken place much earlier, but might possibly be mute, as to effect and affect, today, due to tardiness or lack of humility.
7/03/2008
Degeneacy as gospel, no brag just fact and past
I try not to advertise my degeneracy, for I am sure it would shock most any who found it. While it might speak to some one struggliing in the throws of the same or a related degeneracy, if what I say to them is, 'My past is who I am and never better can I be,' then where is the hope? But if I can say 'That was how I was but now I am free from the chains of that _______________________(fiyob), then at least I am not offering the prospect of nothing really happening or changing because I am so bad, with inferrence that all are so bad, that nothing ever really changes other than now I can rely on Jesus to stand up for me...I firmly believe that God could and would under the right conditions forgive Attila the Hun, but only if those prescribed conditions included a change of heart detectable by God as a change in behaviour, if not even so much as a sigh of repenteance and tenderness of look, but its beginning, on a death bed. When God breathed life into Adam did He not say to himself something on the order of 'It is Good!' And he celebrated. Why should I argue with the edict of God? How do I love another as myself if I do not love myself? And this is not to say that I did not need, nor do I now not need, Jesus the atonemnt and His forgiveness. It is to say that if I mean it in my heart of hearts then I will begin to step out of the way and and Christ will begin to live through me. Edification anyone?
6/27/2008
So here it is Raca 3
Of course the Raca is hard to listen to.
One, the Raca pontificates from an assumed perspective of expertise.
Two, the Raca is given to buffoonery.
Three, the Raca mundanely reiterates the things that most people already know and do not care to hear.
Four, the track of the Raca’s own life has been uneventful, flailing or failing in terms of social success.
Five, The best record of the Raca’s accomplishment(s) might be found in various courthouse files.
Six, the Raca often speaks in complex ideation but always assuming prior knowledge or agreement on the part of his listener(s).
Seven, the Raca has demonstrated no intent other than his own self interest.
Eight, the Raca has been bully more than his allowed term.
Nine, the Raca has shown very little ability to maintain the even keel.
And
Ten, of course there is at least ten, the Raca is known for many, most, or all the above and is proud to claim some other person’s accomplishment as his own.
Of course the Raca is hard to listen to. He isn’t the voice chosen to authoritatively deliver the message. Usually. Do you notice the phonetic similarity of the Hebrew raca to our own rock? Dumb as a rock?
Yet, I wonder, have I been the object of someone I perceived as a raca's throw?
This leads to the next topic: insincere racaism.
One, the Raca pontificates from an assumed perspective of expertise.
Two, the Raca is given to buffoonery.
Three, the Raca mundanely reiterates the things that most people already know and do not care to hear.
Four, the track of the Raca’s own life has been uneventful, flailing or failing in terms of social success.
Five, The best record of the Raca’s accomplishment(s) might be found in various courthouse files.
Six, the Raca often speaks in complex ideation but always assuming prior knowledge or agreement on the part of his listener(s).
Seven, the Raca has demonstrated no intent other than his own self interest.
Eight, the Raca has been bully more than his allowed term.
Nine, the Raca has shown very little ability to maintain the even keel.
And
Ten, of course there is at least ten, the Raca is known for many, most, or all the above and is proud to claim some other person’s accomplishment as his own.
Of course the Raca is hard to listen to. He isn’t the voice chosen to authoritatively deliver the message. Usually. Do you notice the phonetic similarity of the Hebrew raca to our own rock? Dumb as a rock?
Yet, I wonder, have I been the object of someone I perceived as a raca's throw?
This leads to the next topic: insincere racaism.
6/26/2008
6/25/2008
Complete/Perfection
I may have to question to some degree the use of the word complete. While one of its nuantic meanings is perfect, it also and more primarily means finished, over, done. Ish may be fulfilled when joined with Isha, and, while without sin, Adam and Woman may have been more nearly perfect(complete?) had they eaten of the Tree of Life, but they ate that other fruit, whereby they realized their incompleteness(sin and guilt) so the Tree of Life was kept from their diet and thus they remain incomplete yet perhaps fulfilled(less lonely) in each other. As to: Were they 'complete' meaning perfect? Not for long, if at all, and only in that euphemism called 'potential'....
that other aspect of completeness-finished and done--keeps raring up and mok=cking me in this situation because when you look at the progress or perhpas devolution of man into a techno wonk and his frequent neglect of others and even God then complete seems a little out of the question. Now if complete means largely and almost exclusively capable of fending the world for themselves without thought or care for eternity and no shadow of "not gonna change nosiree" then complete is a good word for the state of man at alomost any time in his history.
RFR
that other aspect of completeness-finished and done--keeps raring up and mok=cking me in this situation because when you look at the progress or perhpas devolution of man into a techno wonk and his frequent neglect of others and even God then complete seems a little out of the question. Now if complete means largely and almost exclusively capable of fending the world for themselves without thought or care for eternity and no shadow of "not gonna change nosiree" then complete is a good word for the state of man at alomost any time in his history.
RFR
6/23/2008
Raca 2 as messenger
I thought I might begin again to explore the blogosphere at my place here with an essay or two from the perspective established by the previous post, namely ‘raca that I am’. So to that expect I purport to you that you have no reason for acknowledging my ranting and raving other than you might want to gather ammunition with which to further extinguish than I and others already have my reputation for being one who should be summarily rejected as to having any noteworthiness whatsoever and even go so far as to quit your reading now! Thereby leaving me to write to and for myself and worry not whether some one or another might agree or disagree or just think ‘what the hay’! But to halt the feeble attempt at humility and go on to the point of writing this attempt, it comes to my attention, from regions not mentioned for purposes of secrecy alone, that I might be one of the more obtuse thinkers of my time and somewhat unable to stir up any emotion of clarity or thought of focus in myself, let alone any other superficially or deeply interested block of grey matter connected by neurons skeletal structure and such to motor response mechanisms which could then act or react to my grating, halting, jumping and thumping line of thought. So, without aver I go to the point that it matters not so much the skill or reputation of the messenger but rather the message itself, if founded from sources which are respected and listened and adhered, then some means will be established by the receipt bearer to reckon the validity of the message and ascertain its appropriateness by those who are worthy of receiving it. Their worthiness of being messaged then will reveal itself in their ability to translate the conversation into its intended meaning and act, react and respond accordingly. While I might have at one time considered myself one who whould not be summoned in a way or some other personally percepted reprehensible way, I now am convinced that whatever the message, it is the source which determines its worth and not the medium in which it is delivered.
10/17/2007
Worthless Perfection
I guess since I was unable to finish a thought during the discussion tonight at Prayer Meeting, I will finish here, where no one will hear and especially no one will interefere, interupt, or stop me from finishing. Matthew 5 is one of the most famous passages of all Jesus recorded sayings and perhaps includes a synopsis of almost everything He did say. After climbing to a spot from whence He could be heard He began with blessings, blessing which we today utilize as instructions to our behaviour and attitude and guidance for our relation with God. Then the lesson was probably as true but perhaps not as poignant as the possible personal connection Jesus was making to the majority of the individuals probably present in the mass of teeming flesh which was following Him and pressing Him at every turn. After this series of blessings Jesus began to teach concerning the familiar Rabbinic topic of the Ten Commandments. Perhaps feeling a common acceptance by the masses of the importance of respect of parents, and knowing that many present felt ostracized from true worship of the Father, and perhaps even intimidated into a feeling of worthlessness concerning their attempts to worship, or at best a frustration with their material lack of receipt and the ostensible inequity of God's Graces as the social, political and religious powers of the time both local and foreign tended to keep the proverbial heel of the boot to the neck of the downtrodden. He attacks all the so called keepers and interpreters of the law as too lenient in personal application and lacking in true understanding, pointing out that anger is murder and the epithet of 'worhtless waste' is no worse than the term 'fool'! The thought is as pregnant as the deed in terms of sin and separation. Finishing the diatribe against those who were able to, by position and circumstance and careful adherence to the letter of the law while skirting the intent of the law, show appearance of perfection and thereby foist themselves upon the public as examples of God among us by encouraging all of us to go with this new and expanded understanding and be perfect.
I think He finishes with the admonishment to perfection because God always finsishes with a positive note however strongly we might think that He should be pessimistic.
But right now I know that I am probably the least likely to be understood, but, if understood, then most likely disagreed with, but more than likely I will not even be considered. Raca that I am. Thankyou for your time.
RobeFRe
I think He finishes with the admonishment to perfection because God always finsishes with a positive note however strongly we might think that He should be pessimistic.
But right now I know that I am probably the least likely to be understood, but, if understood, then most likely disagreed with, but more than likely I will not even be considered. Raca that I am. Thankyou for your time.
RobeFRe
1/26/2007
Ostensible Christianity
While touring Dr Roark's orchards for his most current fruit I found this one, not so recent, but, which has a poignant aspect to it for me. When I was in HSchool, I and two other well meaning witnesses purposed to form a group whereby voluntary organised Christian Fellowship could be found somewhere in the halls of the public school which we attended. I, the congenial, all accepting one, the young lady, a potent strictly thinking future 'church lady', and the warrior, no holds barred full steam ahead 'twist their arm till they repent', type began to debate first what it was that would bring us together. The one wanted to seclude ourselves and demonstrate our faith in a passive way so that others would see the Grand Effect in our behaviours, another wanted to choose particular individuals and go at their beings with all the might the Spirit could bring through our selves so that prospects could not help but to be affected as we would want them to be. I wanted somefolks I could rely on as a source and haven of Christian affirmation and activity. We never were able to get beyond definitions, intents and tactics to establish a time and place or modus operandi, so it never actuated. A short time later, some group began to meet early, before classes and pray around the flag pole, I hear they still do that. I was one of the first to stick a smiley face to my notebook cover, I actually recieved grief over that! (A continuous smile could not be real!) I wonder about those fish on the backs of some people's cars, how many lemons have been sold to an unsuspecting public under the auspices of Christian Tradesmanship? Many times I raised my index finger, pointing to the sky, informing and reminding others of the 'One Way' through Christ, but I never (at least I hope I never, and its my story so I never) repeated that awful mantra coined by Flip Wilson for us "The Devil made me do it!". If God is truly relative then surley He means for me to do my very best to glorify Him, realizing when I fail to do a superb job of it, He will forgive me, He will forgive not only me, but any one else who acknowledges in their heart His being and effort on our part. So when He says in Matthew 6:1 "Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.", how does He expect me to glorify Him, through silence and inaction? For surely men will notice my actions and inactions both--aha it is the attitude, and not that I should judge the actions or results of others, nor expect that people even passively know my righteousness. I should do these things to make God known and certainly not to further my own self centered cause before others. If somone else is promoting God who am I to tell them they should not promote God because I know of their duplicity, hypocracy or outright deceit? That speck in their eye, and the log in my own what of that? Paul did say, and I am too lazy right now to find the scripture and verse, that we should do those things for which we could be proud. God Himself will judge that for its truth.
1/19/2007
entelechins
What is intelligence?
Recent readings indicate it has its origin in a contained purpose of being. So if purpose is innate and discovered, realized and conveyed, remembered and displayed, then intelligence must also be ability, effectiveness and reliability. But that leads to the question," if you can't see it is it there?"
Recent readings indicate it has its origin in a contained purpose of being. So if purpose is innate and discovered, realized and conveyed, remembered and displayed, then intelligence must also be ability, effectiveness and reliability. But that leads to the question," if you can't see it is it there?"
1/17/2007
Plaristo
I love the opportunity to display my ignorance.
Plato describes the idea(-l) as the co-existance by three characteristics in man, 1)ration, 2)appetite and 3)spirit to effect a subjectified (quantifiable), understanding of truth, beauty, and reality(God somewhere out there?)or qualitative metaphysics, depending upon the chariot driver's competence of rationale.
Aristotle expounds the reason(s) for that subjectivity in metaphysical description as a consequence of faulty syllogism. Limited perception, poor observation, leaping surmisal.empirism and particularity over all, through all and in all.
Too simple, I am sure, and no where near the original authors' true intent.
Both seem to think reason able to explain all there is, or if it doesn't, then something is wrong.
I am not sure I understand the juxtaposition of Metaphysics to Empiracal and Particular in describing the differences of Plato to Aristotle.
this is also posted at http://aintsobad.typepad.com/ikant/
Plato describes the idea(-l) as the co-existance by three characteristics in man, 1)ration, 2)appetite and 3)spirit to effect a subjectified (quantifiable), understanding of truth, beauty, and reality(God somewhere out there?)or qualitative metaphysics, depending upon the chariot driver's competence of rationale.
Aristotle expounds the reason(s) for that subjectivity in metaphysical description as a consequence of faulty syllogism. Limited perception, poor observation, leaping surmisal.empirism and particularity over all, through all and in all.
Too simple, I am sure, and no where near the original authors' true intent.
Both seem to think reason able to explain all there is, or if it doesn't, then something is wrong.
I am not sure I understand the juxtaposition of Metaphysics to Empiracal and Particular in describing the differences of Plato to Aristotle.
this is also posted at http://aintsobad.typepad.com/ikant/
12/19/2006
Omnipotent Omniscient Omnipresent
Dr Roark wrote
Yes, you do seem nearer to Plato than Heraclitus, and, I suspect, nearer Plato than to the scriptures. Nearer to the Platonic stream of theologians who have been among the major shapers of our Christian thinking. In the process, I am convinced that many of them have not been good witnesses; rather, they have been mis-representatives of God. And too many of us have inherited their influence, although we were completely unaware of it.
We all know that the New Testament was written in Greek, but Plato and Aristotle also wrote Greek. Many learned Christians read and listened to both. Study the history of the first four or five centuries of the history of Christian thinking.
Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent? This is traditional rather than biblical language, language to which I will offer some challenges when the time seems right.
Let's keep the conversation going, now that I have learned how to respond.
The Bible doesn’t say, “God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.”
so I developed this scriptural and philosophic basis in response
aliquid quod maius non cogitari potest--St. Anselm circa 1050 AD that than the which nothing greater can be imagined
Term: Omnipotent
Definition: All powerful; all mighty.
Example: And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God OMNIPOTENT reigneth. (Revelation 19:6)
Jhn 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Jhn 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
omnipresence (De 4:39 Know therefore this day, and consider [it] in thine heart, that the LORD he [is] God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: [there is] none else.
De 10:14 Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens [is] the LORD'S thy God, the earth [also], with all that therein [is].
everywhere even small or deft and delicate of hand
Ps 139:6-16 [Such] knowledge [is] too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot [attain] unto it. Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou [art] there: if I%2
and published this there then
I would posit that we use terms not found in scripture other than by description on numerous occasions, for brevity's sake, and while it may be that this propensity opens us to errors of assumption, I am sure with due dilgence in reading and earnest humble spirit and God's consent, then we might ascertain the intent of God's revelation unto us. As Anselm put in the ninth century, 'aliquid quod maius non cogitari potest'-'something greater than which cannot be thought'! But a pipe which seems straight to me now, yet by my passing through it I realize it has a turn does not convince me that the pipe was not always designed to engulf me wherever I may go, and moreover it is most lilkely that I have found a place of pipe configuration that I had not previously observed, me being nearsighted and all. The pipe is still the pipe and as it probaby always was,(or is it the underside of an elephant, me a bangladeshi fixing to shower, it being no engulfing pipe at all, but rather a protruberance?
RobeFRe
Yes, you do seem nearer to Plato than Heraclitus, and, I suspect, nearer Plato than to the scriptures. Nearer to the Platonic stream of theologians who have been among the major shapers of our Christian thinking. In the process, I am convinced that many of them have not been good witnesses; rather, they have been mis-representatives of God. And too many of us have inherited their influence, although we were completely unaware of it.
We all know that the New Testament was written in Greek, but Plato and Aristotle also wrote Greek. Many learned Christians read and listened to both. Study the history of the first four or five centuries of the history of Christian thinking.
Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent? This is traditional rather than biblical language, language to which I will offer some challenges when the time seems right.
Let's keep the conversation going, now that I have learned how to respond.
The Bible doesn’t say, “God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.”
so I developed this scriptural and philosophic basis in response
aliquid quod maius non cogitari potest--St. Anselm circa 1050 AD that than the which nothing greater can be imagined
Term: Omnipotent
Definition: All powerful; all mighty.
Example: And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God OMNIPOTENT reigneth. (Revelation 19:6)
Jhn 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Jhn 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
omnipresence (De 4:39 Know therefore this day, and consider [it] in thine heart, that the LORD he [is] God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: [there is] none else.
De 10:14 Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens [is] the LORD'S thy God, the earth [also], with all that therein [is].
everywhere even small or deft and delicate of hand
Ps 139:6-16 [Such] knowledge [is] too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot [attain] unto it. Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou [art] there: if I%2
and published this there then
I would posit that we use terms not found in scripture other than by description on numerous occasions, for brevity's sake, and while it may be that this propensity opens us to errors of assumption, I am sure with due dilgence in reading and earnest humble spirit and God's consent, then we might ascertain the intent of God's revelation unto us. As Anselm put in the ninth century, 'aliquid quod maius non cogitari potest'-'something greater than which cannot be thought'! But a pipe which seems straight to me now, yet by my passing through it I realize it has a turn does not convince me that the pipe was not always designed to engulf me wherever I may go, and moreover it is most lilkely that I have found a place of pipe configuration that I had not previously observed, me being nearsighted and all. The pipe is still the pipe and as it probaby always was,(or is it the underside of an elephant, me a bangladeshi fixing to shower, it being no engulfing pipe at all, but rather a protruberance?
RobeFRe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
