Just thinking that if i had a guy who was the
maker of everything in my world... in this way He was holding everything
together... and He came to me and told me that He loved everyone the
same... only that He loved me like He loved the world... and I was told
that He would not act like He loved me in a personal sense ... only as
He was using me to love the world... then my reaction would be that i
could only depend upon Him in being loved like a reprobate. But if He
told me that He loved me before I was born... and He chose to love me
not because of me... but because He loved me freely... then i would know
that He loved me in the sense that He set me apart as a special object
of His love... even tho He did not decide to love the others like me...
because His love is not according to anything that is in a dependent
way. So that this would convince me that He loves me personally and
freely by what He did. I know Jesus is very exclusive... like being in
the house and not having the experience of being outside. Its not a
general love at all.
|
5093
|
Members Only / Purgatory / Re: Universalism: Definding the unbeliever at the expense of the Sheep
|
on: April 27, 2009, 06:28:21 PM
|
Not to worry, MBG. Don't you be oppressed anymore. Freedom rings  Our perception of reality is just that. Perception. There is something much bigger than our perception and it's God's Truth. The one thing I do understand is that we are all God's creations. I think we lose sight of that because people don't meet up to what we think God wants them to be. Guess what. We're human and God has His plans for all of us. If one appears to be unsaved, who knows what will happen the very next moment in time. We have no idea. I'm not even sure why it's important for us to know if "this" is going to happen or if "that " is going to happen. "It's " going to happen the way God has determined, not us. If we gave a bit more focus on how it is that we can acheive a higher level of acceptance with each other, attempt to get through things without decharacterizing this one or that one for this or that .. we would have a life long job ahead of us, and quite a worthy one. Yes. Discussions are good. But, what Is will Be, and we just don't know. Time passes and then, it's gone. Not only have we missed each other, but we miss God and the amazing of His love in futile attempts to try to figure it out. All I do understand is God is love. I have a whole lot of work to do on me. I've just learned my thoughts on church were all messed up.. just my own perception, gone wrong, gone bad. So, what's happened? I've missed out on a whole lot of time in being just more positive. Just today, someone has set me straight in my tracks and it's humbling. I hate not having answers. Hate it hate it hate it. But, my ' hating it ' doesn't make a hill of beans of difference, nor does it change anything except my own cold outlook at times. I'm sorry. It's now my turn to be rambling. You offer some wonderful things, MBG. Don't give up, but I hope you remember, the important thing is love. And, love for us, it's just not an easy thing. It's a lot of work. Have a great evening! Tuggs - I
hope that my rambling was not something that i want to appear different
from my own experience in all of this. I agree that we must step back
and write as if these things were at an arms length... God is other...
He is in control.... and its not going to change one thing when its all
said and done. Nor do i want to have a life where i do nothing but find
the experience of truth in light of sorrow and suffering. Sometimes when
i write... i am finding the futility of this life and so i thank God
that He has revealed to me a certain way that He has decided to work in
me... so that i will not be left with just focusing on relaxing and
finding God as other... as a habit. So then truth is lived in a certain
inanimate reality before we can describe it as it is applied to us on
the level of His communicating to us personally. I hope to have a kind
of freedom in this thread... and it is my practice to take these
different workings from my meditations.
|
 Remove
 Reply
 Quote
 Notify
|
|
|
5095
|
Members Only / Purgatory / Re: Universalism: Definding the unbeliever at the expense of the Sheep
|
on: April 27, 2009, 05:21:38 PM
|
God
is not universal in His special love. God has a disposition of love but
God does not love all men the same. God only loves the object of His
choice... in an individual sense. Gods love is particular. God only
loves by His relation to His people. What is possible is made possible
by God... what is impossible is determined by Gods relation to men. God
only makes things possible by His relation to men. His love determines
what that relationship is and what is possible for men. It is impossible
outside the love of God for men to do good, be accepted.. be loved
unconditionally.. and to experience love as it is defined in God being
love. God only loves His own eternally.
It's my understanding that God IS Love. That Love is undefinable. How is it that you can define and divide God's love? It's also my understanding, ''all things are possible, through Him". Is my thinking upside down or what? Strongly believe, too, it's not for any of us to diagnose where people stand with God or what capacity God Is in one's life. We aren't all that knowing to be pointing to "who is" "who isn't" and the "rights" and "wrongs" of how one is doing it, getting through it. We all do it, and we're all just as wrong for it. Tuggs -
This
is all so huge in its scope... i sometimes get a head ache trying to
explain what i consider harder and harder for me to comprehend.
Sometimes i am confounded in trying. And all of this focus... the level
of understanding and the nature of reality is so hard for us to grasp...
i mean what is very blurry and foggy. I have meditated on this love and
anger of God for a long time and the more i learn the more i am
confounded about what it looks like. I mean... i have experience a level
of sorrow... that i would consider beyond the normal part of most of
life... and yet that whole process consuming us sometimes. Then we are
left .... i mean after much progress in knowing the love and grace of
God... as if we were back to square one in our understanding of what we
thought we understood. Then some people say this and that is the
answer... a little of this and a little more of that... then you just
mix them together and its all understood. What ever we think... i agree
that when we get into specific circumstances... and identifiable people
... we are dealing in areas that only God knows. At the same time
our experience... our view of reality matters... it is vital to our own
health in this world ... where there is real pain... real fear.. .real
sorrow etc. So that we are more desperate than what it looks like to
us... i mean... there is a difference between living in a more clear
view of all of these connections that we have in how we feel.. how we
view our present circumstances.. and how we know what is available for
us in all of this experiencing of pleasure and pain. Its not just saying
love is the answer... i hope you know what i am saying. I am finished
rambling. Been a little oppressed.
|
|
Remove
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
5100
|
Forums / Main Forum / Re: Catholic Question about John 6
|
on: April 26, 2009, 02:23:15 PM
|
Good Morning!
1 Peter 3:15
But
sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a
defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you,
with meakness and fear. NKJV
If I am right in guessing
the Catholic Forum where this debate is occuring, the discussion can be
fairly interesting. From 1 Peter, it would seem a good idea to present
the reasons for our beliefs, and to be able to answer their "arguement"
(using the terms 'defense' and 'arguement' in the technical, debate
sense rather than the popular ''violent discussion' sense).
Presenting
a reasonable defence is good for us, to learn how to defend the faith,
and good for them in that they hear the truth. However, Socrates is
right in that it is not helpful, and a waste of time to merely
challenge one another back and forth. The thing is to be studying and
praying over the Word of God to come to an understaning of the truth -
which brings up another point to be mentioned in a minute. If we are
just argueing back and forth, it is a waste of time, and it doesn't help
anyone.
Now, the other point. Remember that for Catholics,
their church tradition is placed on an equal footing with the Word of
God. At least, that is what they say. In actual practice, however,
this means that they read Scripture though "tradition" glasses - in
other words, they interpret scripture based on tradition that they have
been taught, reading their tradition into the Scripture. In practice,
therefore, they place tradition over Scripture (although they would of
course, deny this). By the way, this was the point behind asking them
to look into the context of John 6 mentioned in my first reply. In
context of John 6, the Lord was saying that "eating and drinking" meant
believing in Him. The Lord's supper was instituted much later, and the
only way one would connect the two is to read Communion back into the
text.
This gets to the crux of the problem; you are speaking
different languages - you are speaking Scripture, they are speaking
tradition. The only one that can convince them of the problem is the
Holy Spirit; and He will use you, as you prayerfully and lovingly
present Scripture (See Acts 20:32). God bless you as you do so; trust
Him. When it becomes the "challenge" that Socrates refers to, I think
that you should politiely drop the discussion.
Hi
Loren... i dont recall you being a participant in these forums in the
past. But mos t of the people who come here are not trained in the art
of defending... i mean we dont bring any pedigrees with us... i would
suspect that you have some kind of degree in this area? In defense
of those who have taken part in this discussion... i cant recall a point
that they have presented that has been mixed with false teaching. I am
very proud of this team. If the way they have spoken has been offensive
... i challenge you to read some of the old works of argumentation. This
is very tame in comparison... and if you need some proof i would be
glad to start a thread on just how sharp these disagreements have been.
So maybe you can explain what you mean.... when you say that your way of
defending the faith is less offensive. Thanks.
|
5103
|
Forums / Main Forum / Re: Catholic Question about John 6
|
on: April 24, 2009, 10:04:59 PM
|
Soc...
this kind of thread can be frustrating. I know... but i think there is a
deeper meaning in all of this... and G2bh and Gouda have hit on
something here about the different presentation on which side of the
debate we are on. Although i comment you ... i know it is hard to keep a
thread going with everyone coming at you.... i think that you are not
fully convinced of the Eurcharist. But in the process of continuing
on... we will get into these struggles.
I think there is an
underling frustration here that may be fueling these other issues of
your presentation. The point of the thread it seems to me is to continue
on a thought process for as long as we can without really coming to a
conclusion. Now maybe we need to think about reasons we believe what we
believe .. .then in presenting these reason we will be more convinced of
our position. Nor do i see a problem with making a general contextual
inference in the line of thought if it brings lite into the particular
paradigm that we are to be sharpening in our understanding of our
different positions. So then this can be a very valuable exercise.... i
think we need to be patient.
Do i feel . . .
- Frustrated? Frankly, yes.
- Misunderstood? Most certainly.
You are completely wrong about my alleged purpose of this conversation. If you want to know what the purpose is, why not ask?
I
know that you have said .. .that you really want to know if the body
and the blood of Jesus as proposed in the teaching of t he Eucharist is
true and if someone can present the truth to you. Ok that may be a long
term goal but since we are bringing the truth to you.... there really
has not been a level of communication that the points we are making are
building to the truth of what you want to know. It seems like to me that
when we present a set of reasons then its like they dont exist at some
point and then we are back to square one.
|
|
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
5105
|
Forums / Main Forum / Re: Catholic Question about John 6
|
on: April 24, 2009, 09:47:48 PM
|
Soc... this kind of thread can be frustrating.
I know... but i think there is a deeper meaning in all of this... and
G2bh and Gouda have hit on something here about the different
presentation on which side of the debate we are on. Although i commend
you ... i know it is hard to keep a thread going with everyone coming
at you.... i think that you are not fully convinced of the Eurcharist.
But in the process of continuing on... we will get into these struggles.
I think there is an underling frustration here that may be fueling
these other issues of your presentation. The point of the thread it
seems to me is to continue on a thought process for as long as we can
without really coming to a conclusion. Now maybe we need to think about
reasons we believe what we believe .. .then in presenting these reason
we will be more convinced of our position. Nor do i see a problem with
making a general contextual inference in the line of thought if it
brings lite into the particular paradigm that we are to be sharpening in
our understanding of our different positions. So then this can be a
very valuable exercise.... i think we need to be patient.
| 5113
|
Forums / Main Forum / Re: Catholic Question about John 6
|
on: April 24, 2009, 07:32:36 AM
|
Soc...
if it is as you say that salvation is transferred in the Eucharist ...
my question is... what is the difference between saying that it is
through the act of tasting that salvation is transferred and partaking
of th e Eucharist? And if it is the means by which salvation is
transferred then what is the difference in the motive of the first act
of tasting in order to receive salvation and the consequent motives to
choices that happen in a succession. It would seem to me that
understanding that a work is required to be saved is what the motive is
no matter how many times one does the tasting.
Interesting
approach. Rather than scale the cliffs, you've found an entrance to a
dark cave and bid me to follow you in. Before i do, please tell me, do
you think the end of these caverns will be the peak of the mountain?
That is, will this way you suggest answer the question of who Jesus is?
I
am proposing that if the body of Jesus is taken then you have an a
physical thing that is holy. If that thing is the means by which you
receive salvation then it is something that you do in order to obtain
your ends. Which gets back to your participation in the cause. This is
an expression of your own merit. So in sharing the work then you are
saying that you are the cause of your own salvation. Now i dont see any
thing different in this paradigm and bowing to Mecca. Can you convince
me that the Soc that believes in grace is also the Soc that rejects
works?
|
|
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
5115
|
Forums / Main Forum / Re: Catholic Question about John 6
|
on: April 23, 2009, 07:33:53 PM
|
Soc... if it is as you say that salvation is
transferred in the Eucharist ... my question is... what is the
difference between saying that it is through the act of tasting that
salvation is transferred and partaking of th e Eucharist? And if it is
the means by which salvation is transferred then what is the difference
in the motive of the first act of tasting in order to receive salvation
and the consequent motives to choices that happen in a succession. It
would seem to me that understanding that a work is required to be saved
is what the motive is no matter how many times one does the tasting.
| 5116
|
Forums / Main Forum / Re: Catholic Question about John 6
|
on: April 23, 2009, 05:59:12 PM
|
Soc , i find no where in scripture where the
act of tasting guarantees a partaking of grace. If i could be assured
that some act that i do would identify me as a saved person then i would
absolutely know who is saved and who is not. But i think you would
agree that profession ie what is physically presented into possession
are an assurance that we can not give to others.
|
5124
|
Forums / Main Forum / Re: Catholic Question about John 6
|
on: April 22, 2009, 08:14:36 PM
|
This
is my take but i think the doctrinal position you hold is much worse...
so that other thing is very small. If you feel you were wrong then i
definitely have forgotten your attitude has been superlative.
By
the word superlative do you mean i'm (1) of the highest kind, quality,
or order and surpassing all others, (i.e., supreme)? or do you mean i'm
(2) being more than is proper or normal, (i.e., exaggerated in
language or style)? My guess is you mean (2). The thing is,
MBG, i was certain (and perhaps i'm the only one fooled, here) that i
was deceiving you, and others. If i knew that someone was taking my
hyperbole seriously, and yet i let that person continue to be mislead,
doesn't that mean i'm guilty of intentionally misleading?
Ok
.. i apologize to some of the ladies for becoming difficult and i will
try to figure out a way to explain myself so that it can be better
understood. But because i believe in total corruption then i must
believe that absolute truth is only found in one Person. Let me explain.
God is a spirit who is three persons .. the Father the Son and the Holy
Spirit. The Father is God and is a spirit.... the image of God is
Jesus Christ ... and the Holy Spirit is the active person of the image.
God has an image of Himself. It is the Son... if the image of God is
perfect then it can be duplicated. A perfect reflection of an image is a
duplication of that image... there cannot be any other explanation of
the definition of the truth of an image in perfection than duplication.
So Christ is the perfect image of God... and He is the glory of the
Father. Now then we are created in the image of God... we are
created with the desire to worship God. That is we have an image that
has been place in our hearts of what God is like. Now God has made us in
comparison to the image we have of a perfect man ... we also have a
reflective image of who we are. We have no other way to understand
reality outside the reality of our self reflection. The truth is that we
are what we have an image of who we are. The problem is that we do not
have a perfect image of ourselves. This creates a lot of problems in our
relationships... with God and with one another. This makes things very
difficult. The reason is that when God says... promises... threatens...
explains... He is always who He says He is. God never changes. But we
change from one moment to another. Because we do not have an ability to
understand who we are at any time in this life. First because we do not
have the available knowledge about our parts. God sees all of our parts
and is familiar with us before we came into this world. But we do not
have a view of our souls... or hidden parts. So what i am saying
in this explanation is that as long as we are in this world we are
going to be under some kind of illusion to the truth in this world
because we dont have the knowledge enough to present ourselves in the
full truth of who we are. In a lot of ways we are like those people who
we know ... who tend to exaggerate everything.We practice deception all
the time. Not just as in the sins of commission... but the sins of
omission.
|
|
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment