| Author | Message | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
All those muches in my last post reminds me of a riddle my SDA preacher-man daddy used to ask: "How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck, would chuck wood?" There are two answers to this riddle, a long one and a short one. That's the long and short of it. | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Short answer: much much wood. | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Long answer: If a woodchuck could chuck, would chuck wood, a woodchuck could chuck much much wood. | ||
| Lynn W |
"Yet, they tend to give God credit for everything..." I'm the worst offender, because I give God credit for the very breath I breathe. Do I pray about it first? No. I take it for granted it will be there when I need it. Do I have low self-esteem? Beats me. I try not to think about it. I prefer to esteem Him. Why? Because He gives me everything, fom the very breath I breathe... | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Okay, Allenette, At your request I've taken my "theologian's hat" off and donned my "philosopher's hat." Though I'm neither a philosopher nor a theologian, I do know the difference: Theologian: assumes that God exists and proceeds from there. John's starting point is, "In the beginning was the Word." Philosopher: does not necessarily assume that God exists and proceeds from any number of starting points. Descartes' starting point is, "I think, therefore I am." In the theological arena the ages-old debate you pose is between free will and predestination. I agree with and cannot improve on Colleen's answer -- that the answer lies in balancing the two ends of the paradox -- though I would add that mystery is a primary attribute of God and that either end of the paradox extends beyond our view into utter mystery. SDAs, whether current or former, in general border on near total ignorance of biblical statements refering to God's mystery, such as Psalm 18:11 NIV, "He made darkness his covering, his canopy around him." What!? God!? In darkness!? Afraid so. Sorry if that should offend you. But you don't want theology. You want philosophy. You posted, "To say that we have no control over what we eventually do, that God is 'up there' somewhere gleeful about what we will do because there's nothing we can do about it, sounds too much like the old predestination or even 'we're all just acting out our parts in the cosmic Sin Play--and the universe is watching' stuff I couldnt swallow as a kid. Have I misinterpreted you? just wondering. :-) Because as I see it, there goes TRUE free will out the window. Can this be a philosophical question rather than a theological one just this once? meant friendly!" And since you "meant friendly," I have to "mean friendly," too, don't I? If the theological paradox is predestination on the one hand and free will on the other, then the philosophical analog would be determinism on the one hand, and on the other hand, libertarianism (metaphysical libertarianism which is not to be confused with political libertarianism). In other words, in the theological realm the dilemma is "predestination vs. free will," whereas in the philosophical realm the same basic dilemma is "determinism vs. libertarianism." There is the old story about the determinist philosopher I'll call Platotle: He kept his sharp-eared personal slave, Eucritus, by his side at all times as he instructed his disciples in the intricacies of "hard" determinism: every action is rigidly caused by a prior action and the individual has zero free will. One day determinist Platotle caught his slave Eucritus beating Platotle's favorite horse, a beautiful stallion. Enraged, Platotle wrested the stick out of his slave's hand and began beating him with it. Desperate to stop the blows, Eucritus cried out, "But, master, I heard you say just yesterday that I have no free will and therefore I'm not responsible for my actions. I couldn't help beating your horse, so why are you beating me?" Platotle paused and answered, "Nor have I any free will, and therefore I'm not responsible for my actions either. And neither can I help but but beat you." And he continued to beat the slave until his rage was satiated. And the horse? Well, the beautiful stallion was so angry he went back to the barn and began kicking the creatine out of his beautiful mare. And so, in philosophy, and not necessarily assuming the existance of any kind of God, you still have the same basic dilemma. My answer: Maybe we exist somewhere on the continuum between extreme determinism on one end and extreme libertarianism on the other. My Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996) says this: "Libertarianism (metaphysical). A view that seeks to protect the reality of human free will by supposing that a free choice is not causally determined but not random either. What is needed is the conception of a rational, responsible, intervention in the ongoing course of events. In some developments a special category of agent-causation is posited, but its relationship with the neurophysiological workings of the brain and body, or indeed any moderately naturalistic view of ourselves, tends to be very uneasy, and it is frequently derided as the desire to protect the fantasy of an agency situated outside the realm of nature altogether." [In other words, to protect the "fantasy" of a God.] Now, I've studied philosophy formally in school, but only a few courses worth, including some on the graduate level. I've learned a little more in my reading, particularly in the area of biological determinism vs. free will. But I think that's getting away from the intent of your question. More to the point: The question of whether we on this website have good brains and use them is ill-considered. The answer is, of course we do. How anyone could read Colleen and Lynn and Bruce and Susan and Lydell and many others could come to the conclusion that we are mindless robo-zombies from Lalaland is beyond me! The charge just obviously lacks foundation in factual observation. Give us some "chapter and verse" before you kick our Heineken beer cans, Allenette. What you have encountered here -- and I'm still staying away from theology -- is a group of people who have found a reason for living, a joy in living. Indeed, we have found a "kingdom of heaven" in which to live, even a "paradise" (Luke 23:43), despite all the suffering that does inevitably exist in this life. The fact that we are not always very accurate in expressing our "philosophy of life" doesn't mean it isn't real or that it isn't intellectually satisfying and defensible. And any philosophy of life that can do that is worth a second look, wouldn't you agree? Still in your corner, Allenette, Jude | ||
| Maryann |
Hi Allenette, When it rains it pours, huh? Let me tell you how I found this site. I was listening to Hank, the Bible Answer Man, interview Norm Geisler ( heís a high powered theologian head honcho from a So. Collage) one day early last year and I figured he was the smartest person on the face of the earth. So very boldly, (sooo unusual for me!!?) I called the Collage and bingo, the secretary said, ìoh just wait a minute and Iíll get himî! I was flabbergasted. When I composed myself, I told him my sad story about how I was raised SDA and left and how Mom got out of it then got into the word faith movement, then back into the SDA with guns blazing. Where could I get help? I melted down when he said he wasnít the best to handle this, BUT, if I would call MacGreggor Ministries in Can.(his friend), I would get what I needed. I called and got several hundred $$ worth of books, two being Dale Ratzlaffís red books, Cultic Doctrine and Sabbath in Crisis. I was beside myself happy! I then saw Daleís ph. number and gave him a jingle, (several times). He gave me Colleenís ph. number and she sent me a Hebrews tape set that knocked my socks off. I was then in Arizona last year and found Daleís church and what a thrill to meet my first formers! After some conversations with him he reminded me of Colleenís web site and I found Richardís testimony that mentioned the white Bible in the cedar box with Jesusí picture in it. I grew to an immense size from the goose bumps on goose bumps (almost hives gggg) as I got one also around the same time and same age as him! I just had to call Colleen with my squeamish story. She returned my call and suggested that I check out the forum. It was like, ìwhatís a forum?î She explained and I checked it out and the first thing I ENCOUNTERED was Jude!! Soooooooo, about the first of Feb. I got hooked! Now, did I ask God for permission on every step of my little journey? No! I probably should have and could have found it sooner and de-toxed Momís brain before she got it petrified with 3ABN. Did God guide me on every step of this little journey with out me knowing? Iíd bet on it! I have a good idea Jude is saying, whether you like it or not, God is in control. Hope to continue hearing your postís as you are one of my favorites too. Your sister in more ways than you think....Maryann | ||
| Allenette |
Philosophy of life, yes, Theology of life [for me] maybe. I do appreciate that intelligent, enlightened people do tend to use the word, paradox, more than the word, miracle, these days, as the dictionary does define paradox as "1)a seemingly absurd, but possibly true statement 2)something self-contradictory." So...its down to faith again. ok. We dont even have to go there unless you all want to. I give in. We're coming from completely different perspectives. Jude, at least you DID put in parentheses 'the FANTASY of a God'. I have spent w a y too much time on the alt.humanities newsgroups, I can see. ;-) Perhaps my time is better spent there, who knows? Its not my purpose in life to make fun of or speculate on, the legitimacy of other people's happiness altho I can see why someone could lay that on me if they tallied up my posts :-( I'm gonna try to "zip it" from now on. Well, I sure do love reading a good discussion, and I will admit to having treaded that fine line between debate and baiting :-) . I DO consider myself to be politically libertarian (having voted that way for two decades--to no avail :-( ...however the definition given by Oxford even presupposes a few things, such as there BEING a reality of free will. I'd LIKE there to be that reality but we'll never know, will we? Well, most on here are convinced they will, in heaven, when they can ask all those disturbing paradoxical questions. :-) I DIDnt mean to (and to be sure DID NOT) do any name-calling like 'mindless robo-zombies from Lalaland' just wish that Jim Moyers would swoop in here and post again. BTW here's his website address...worth a look by ANY former SDA and many other fundie formers: http:\home.earthlink.net/~jcmmsm/groups/index.html His website says what I in my semi-literate way tried to. MaryAnn: your story said what I was attempting to, better than I did. :-) Susan: I hate to tell you this, but God didnt give you the information about the school system...the school board did and they only give out the very least info they have to...to cover their butts and make their school look attractive. If God gave out the information it would be more balanced and truthful :-) I hope. Oh well, who else do I need to apologize to? Step up and be counted :-) Oh yeah, Jude, regarding what God him/her/itself eats, I meant whereever he/she/it "currently" (eternity being what it is) resides, not what God ate here. :-) Personally I doubt there is a need for God to "carbo up", as it were, but who knows? I know I dont know. :-) | ||
| Lydell |
Oh Allenette, of course Christians don't feel the need to consult God on the silly little day to day decisions we make a hundred times a day! However, it is when we are faced with important decisions that the Christian feels blessed to have something more to draw on. You see, we don't have to rely on only our own intellect. There are times when the decision to be made is beyond all the facts we have available to our human intellect. At those times we aren't left to make the best possible guess we can. That is when we can draw on the wisdom of the all-knowing creator and sustainer of life. We can't see how our decision will affect our lives on down the road. But He can. And he is faithful to guide us in our decision on the basis of what He knows will be best for us. We can literally draw on his wisdom, joy, peace, and love during times when we are at the end of ourselves. (Sooner once we get smart enough to realize that we can avoid ourselves alot of trouble by doing so!) The Spirit-filled believer is not just looking to God for our salvation. He didn't just make us to be automotons, nor did he wind up the world and turn us loose to fend for ourselves as best we could, He didn't even only give us his written word to use to measure our the answers as best we humanly could. No, instead we can experience a close personal relationship with Him every moment. He literally cares about everything that happens in our lives. | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Allenette, You're a beautiful person, whether you think formeradventist.com thinks so or not. I don't see any need at all for you to apologize to anybody here. You've been absolutely honest, as far as I can tell, and that's a good deal better than some who've posted here under the color of "Christian." Don't ask how I know that. As to what God eats, I agree with you that "meat and drink" are not what "the kingdom of heaven" is all about (Romans 14:17). Jesus is the Mystery-Revealed. (Bruce does a stellar Bible study on this!) That's the only true meaning of "apocalypse" as used in Scripture. Apocalypse is NOT about some dark and serpentine plot of Lord Satan's to overthrow goodness and faith and love and everything that isn't evil on earth and kick everybody off the planet (secret rapture) except him and his followers who will then inhabit the kingdom of darkness "to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season" that just happens to last a thousand years. That utter claptrap issues from and is received by people who have little if any clue as to what God's sovereignty is all about. "He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh" (Psalm 2:4). The word "apocalypse" is a Greek word from the Koine dialect that is a joining of two word parts: (1) apo = "uncover" and (2) calypse = "cover": or to "uncover the cover" = "remove the covering." That's why the last book in the Bible, which is titled "Apokalupsis Iasou Christou" in Greek, can be and is correctly translated in English "The Revelation of Jesus Christ." And it could as correctly have been translated as "The Unveiling of Jesus Christ" or "The Disclosure of Jesus Christ." "Apocalypse" has an interesting history in Koine Greek (first-century common Greek or the Greek of the market place in which the New Testament was written and as distinguished from modern Greek spoken today and Attic Greek, the classical or literary Greek in which the likes of Homer wrote). A first-century Greek artist would sculpt a statue, say of a standing man. When the work was finished he would present it in a showing, just as artists do today. When the people arrived they would see only the opaque cloth covering over the statue, just as people would see today. Then, at the appropriate moment, with all the art critics and art collectors and high-society maestros and doyennes, not to mention nobility, clustering around in hushed silence, the fabled artist would do an apocalypse: In one motion he would bow and "swoosh away" the covering: And presto! There stands the statue gleaming in alabaster or whatever! In John's depiction, that "statue" is Jesus Christ." Period. Nothing more and nothing less. The New Testament writer John, certainly no fool and himself a masterful writer who, unlike EGW, was utterly disinterested in making money, by the way, word-played on this art-world custom when writing the first line of the Bible's last book: "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place...." It takes only this one simple line to render meaningless all modern definitions of the word "apocalypse" -- such as Francis Ford Coppola's critically acclaimed 1979 movie "Apocalypse Now" based on Joseph Conrad's famous novel -- if, that is, these modern users of the word intend to draw any significance at all from Scripture. For the same reason, John's famous opening line also renders meaningless all the efforts of people whose mentality reflects that of the "X-Files" or "Area 51" or "UFOlogy" or "The Sixth Sense" or "the new world order" or "conspiracy theorists" or even the likes of Art Bell (if you have to ask, ask somebody else) or "Revelation Seminars," for that matter. I have nothing against people like this doing "their thing," as it were, if "their thing" is limited to making $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ off of fearful and gullible people who are afflicted with "itching ears" (2 Timothy 2:3,4). I do have a problem when they begin to encroach onto the territory marked off for Jesus Christ, which is the territory of Scripture. It is no accident that the same book that begins with "The revelation of Jesus Christ," ends with this: "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. He who testifies to these things says, 'Yes, I am coming soon.' Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God's people. Amen." For the Apocalypse is ONLY the truth about Jesus Christ and his relationship to human beings on earth, right down to you and me. It's not about some silly wrestling match or bogus chess game between an evil "super angel" or Satan and a good "super angel" or Jesus. And if we can get beyond the errant nonsense of "The Great Controversy," we may be honored to do an apocalypse in our hearts every moment of every day. Meant friendly, Jude | ||
| Allenette |
Lydell, firstly, "We can't see how our decision will affect our lives on down the road. But He can." How does one tell that to anyone on the, was it, Korean flight that, as they say in the Air Force, "screwed in" a month or so ago? Does God see those people in their last terrifying moments and give his cosmic ok? As an ordained SDA pastor daringly reminded me last year, in the OT, God was given the glory/blame for everything that happened, good or bad, and as things progressed into the NT, there He/She/It only gets credit for the good stuff. Quite a progression, eh? I guess if I have any comments to add, I would mention that a college professor threw this out to my hubby's class last year: "Who do you think makes sure you wake up and get to class on time? (and THIS was at Tennessee State University, a public black college--we're white, if it matters) Mitch said, "I do". Wrong answer...no test :-) The prof wanted his students to say "God"....my point: personally I think us humans tend to overestimate our importance in the universe (consider the myths about "the whole universe watching us"....sheesh, a therapist would STILL have a field day with that attitude!) But...it seems to be supported with a Bible verse quoted here and there. Might I suggest that we belittle the concept of God by suggesting that God micromanages the universe or more specifically, this planet, by suggesting that "He literally cares about everything that happens in our lives." Is that why high school football teams PRAY before the game starts? Do we really think God gives a hoot who wins the local football game???? Come on! When we are children we fancy that our parents control every minute thing that happens, which to a certain extent they do, but as a mature adult, we KNOW that WE become responsible for most of what happens to us--i.e. our parents do NOT interfere with our decisions...why do mentally healthy adults know this? Because we realize that we have very little control over our "universe", and as we become adults we resign ourselves to that fact. We may worry about our children of course, but we cannot keep them ultimately safe from harm....IMO, this cuts to the core of human experience: how do we reconcile what we cant control with how we deal with the unfortunate? A very ancient dilemma which finally was dealt with, with reassuring mythologies which took on lives of their own as they were passed down from generation to generation. I dont really guess there is much point in continuing this here tho. If there is, well, just say so. :-) Allenette, the sand in the lowly oyster :-) | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Allenette, Come on, don't be an oyster. Ellen G. White ATE oysters -- in a train depot in Chicago, hiding from the rest of the flock. And if you're an oyster, three guesses as to what she might do to you! Remember Lewis Carrol's "The Walrus and the Carpenter"? Sorry, couldn't resist. You're no "lowly oyster." You're a child of God! By the way, I meant to include the following in my last posting to you, but forgot. It has to do with conspiracy theorists (among whom SDAs brook no rivals). Question: What's worse than just being annoyed? Answer below, backwards. (Okay, Colleen, I know I've pulled this one before, but I'm hoping Allenette missed it.) Answer: Dionarap a. I'll be right back after these messages. Don't go 'way. Jude Ps. Ooops, missed something: You're the SAND in the lowly oyster. Well, begging your pardon, but I'm going to leave my post as is. | ||
| Allenette |
Jude....I wuz hopin/expectin you'd get it.... like the Lacosanostra sez, fugedaboudit. ;-) | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Allenette, Back to philosophy and philosophers instead of theology and theologians, but staying on the subject of atheism/agnosticism vs. faith in God. By the way I know some agnostics for whom I have a great deal more respect than many many many who sport the name "Christian" on their shoulder patches. And I'm beginning to think you're one of them. A few months back I read "The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World" (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992) by Paul Davies, professor of mathematical Physics at the University of Adelaide in Australia. He is a world-renowned theoretical physicist and philosopher, who has also authored "God and the New Physics" and "The Cosmic Blueprint." I liked "Mind of God" so much I read it twice and nearly every page is highlighted and/or underlined and annotated in some detail. Remember, I said he is a philosopher. He is not a theologian and does not claim to be one. Nor does he begin with the premise that God exists. That's the reason I'd like to quote some passages here: Page 226: It seems to me that, as long as we insist on identifying "understanding" with "rational explanation" of the sort familiar in science, we will inevitably end up with turtle trouble: either an infinite regress, or a mysterious self-explaining superturtle, or an unexplained ring of turtles. There will always be mystery at the end of the universe. Before I quote the next 'graph, I want to cite the dictionary definition of "mysticism" as Davies uses the word: "the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight)." Remember Dr. Davies is first and foremost a scientist, a theoretical physicist (who're considered at the top of the scientific heap, up there with Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein), then a philosopher, but one who lays no claim at all to being a theologian. Page 226. Most scientists have a deep mistrust of mysticism. This is not surprising, as mystical thought lies at the opposite extreme to rational thought, which is the basis of the scientific method. Also, mysticism tends to be confused with the occult, the paranormal, and other fringe beliefs. In fact, many of the world's finest thinkers, including some notable scientists such as Einstein, Pauli, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Eddington, and Jeans, have also espoused mysticism. My own feeling is that the scientific method should be pursued as far as it possibly can. Mysticism is no substitute for scientific inquiry and logical reasoning so long as this approach can be consistently applied. It is only in dealing with ultimate questions that science and logic may fail us. I am not saying that science and logic are likely to provide the wrong answers, but they may be incapable of addressing the sort of "why" (as opposed to "how") questions we want to ask. Pages 226-227: The expression "mystical experience" is often used by religious people, or those who practice meditation. These experiences, which are undoubtedly real enough for the person who experiences them, are said to be hard to convey in words. Mystics frequently speak of an overwhelming sense of being at one with the universe or with God, of glimpsing a holistic vision of reality, or of being in the presence of a powerful and loving influence. Most important, mystics claim that they can grasp ULTIMATE REALITY in a single experience, in contrast to the long and tortuous deductive sequence (petering out in turtle trouble) of the logical-scientific methods of inquiry. Page 231: Should we adopt the approach of the pragmatic atheist who is content to take the universe as given, and get on with cataloguing its properties? There is no doubt that many scientists are opposed temperamentally to any form of metaphysical, let alone mystical arguments. They are scornful of the notion that there might exist a God, or even an impersonal creative principle or ground of being that would underpin reality and render its contingent aspects less starkly arbitrary. Page 231: Personally I do not share their scorn. Although many metaphysical and theistic theories seem contrived or childish, they are not obviously more absurd than the belief that the universe exists, and exists in the form it does, reasonlessly. It seems at least worth trying to construct a metaphysical theory that reduces some of the arbitrariness of the world. But in the end a rational explanation for the world in the sense of a closed and complete system of logical truths is almost certainly impossible. Pages 231. We are barred from ultimate knowledge, from ultimate explanation, by the very rules of reasoning that prompt us to seek such an explanation in the first place. If we wish to progress beyond, we have to embrace a different concept of "understanding" from that of rational explanation. Pages 231-232. Possibly the first mystical path is a way to such an understanding. I have never had a mystical experience myself, but I keep an open mind about the value of such experiences. Maybe they provide the only route beyond the limits to which science and philosophy can take us, the only possible path to the Ultimate. Page 232. The central theme that I have explored in this book is that, through science, we human beings are able to grasp at least some of nature's secrets. We have cracked part of the cosmic code. Why this should be, just why Homo sapiens should carry the spark of rationality that provides the key to the universe, is a deep enigma. We, who are children of the universe -- animated stardust -- can nevertheless reflect on the nature of that same universe, even to the extent of glimpsing the rules on which it runs. How we have become linked into this cosmic dimension is a mystery. Yet the linkage cannot be denied. Page 232. What does it mean? What is Man that we might be party to such privilege? I cannot believe that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, an accident of history, an incidental blip in the great quirk of fate, an accident of history, an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama. Our involvement is too intimate. The physical species Homo may count for nothing, but the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. WE ARE TRULY MEANT TO BE HERE. Praising God and thankful to be, Jude the Obscure | ||
| Allenette |
Jude: I appreciate the attempt, but it still smacks of infantilism, i.e. I am the most important being in the universe; take care of me. | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Sorry Allenette, Ain't gonna "fugedaboudit," regardless of what our mob-buds say or think. ;-) You saw that movie "Donnie Brasko," didn't you? DIDN'T YOU? 'Mon, 'fess up! Allie went to the movies! Allie went to the movies! I'm gonna tell! Ummm! Ummm! (I'm sharpening my finger at you!) Serously, though, Is THIS what you wanted me to "get"? 1. I'M the oyster. 2. YOU'RE the sand. 3. Sand in an oyster irritates it and causes it to GROW A PEARL to protect itself. Iffen I'm right, then all I can say is, Thank you, Allenette. That's the best compliment I've ever gotten on this website. Bless your hard hard head, Jude Ps. I saw that movie too. But you'd better not tell! | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Allenette, Remind me to tell you the tale of "The Tower of Babel" sometime. Jude | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Allenette, Ouch! You sure you understood Dr. Davies before you just dismissed the excerpts as "infantile"? Whoa! That's the first time I've ever heard Hawking, Einstein, Pauli, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Eddington, and Jeans waved off like pestiferous buzzing flies! You got an IQ in the high 200s like they do? You in the running for the next Nobel prize in theoretical physics! Or scientific philosophy maybe? Or mathematical metaphysics perhaps? Ooooh! Am I ever cowed down in awe and wonder! Not to mention shame and embarrassment! Here's hoping you'll share some of that lightning wisdom with me, a poor oyster with an IQ of 0.001, if that, trying diligently to make a pearl. But, not knowing quite what to do with irritating sand, apparently not succeeding very well. Please tell me HOW you arrived at so perspicacious a conclusion? Awaiting your answer, Jude | ||
| Bruce H |
You guys all need to take a closer Look at Jesus and use him as an example, read what he says. John 14:10 10 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. So Jesus does not speak on his own authority. Well we all like to speak on our own authority dont we. John 5:30-32 30 "I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me. 31 "If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true. 32 "There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the witness which He witnesses of Me is true. So Jesus of Himself can do nothing. His judgment is righteous because He does not seek his own will. Jesus does not bear witness of himself. Well I like to Judge and I seek my own will and I often bear witness of myself, do you guys??? In all the scriptures I could not find one place where Jesus took credit for anything he did (to the sinful me this sound like kind of a bummer). Now if we are in Christ and He in us who is doing the Good work, Him or us. If we are all one Body and the Body is CHRIST then when we are close to Him we will do His will. I know and trust in him and yet my sinful self has pride and it fights against this concept. But the true Gospel does not allow any place for pride, and I did not see it in my saviors words or actions. By the way I really like this discussion. Bruce Heinrich BH | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
You're right, Bruce. Sorry, Allenette. Got carried away there. | ||
| Bruce H |
Could it be possible that our own free will always leads to sin???????? Could it be possible that there are only two ways, sin and death, or righteousness and Life?????? I know that if it is my will, and way, it leads to sin and death. How about you? Can I choose my own way just once in a while, that would be OK, right????? ???????? Bruce Heinrich |
