Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
I was thinking of "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory…" Glory as God shining through.
Any that can as best I can. We have to try, yes? We could sit back and not err, but that would be an error of omission, wouldn't it? So we try, we err, we pray, we try again. Isn't this how it is for you too?
It's not "following" the sacraments but receiving them. However, you do point an interesting "problem" that can be observed in sacramental Apostolic churches.
Reception of sacraments is usually preceded by proper preparation. Generally, in the Orthodox tradition, no confession without a 12-hour fast, and no Eucharist without a proper confession. This, of course, has its good reasons, but is not followed.
Today was a very good example of it: this morning was a Holy Saturday liturgy with Eucharist. Those who received it in the early afternoon (say about 2 PM) supposedly fasted at least 12 hours. The service preceding the Eucharist took almost three hours -- standing! For anyone who has not eaten anything for such a long time, this is a trying thing to do.
Tonight at 11 PM began the Paschal service and lasted until about 2:30 AM. I saw a lot of the same people receive the Eucharist again, 12 hours after the first one! In order for them to be "properly prepared" as the priest reminds them, they would have not had anything to eat for more than 24 hours! Well, if so, they didn't look it or act it. They stood through the whole service.
So, barring those exemplary exceptional people who can go without food or drink for 24 hours and stand through nearly six hours of liturgy in one day, I would say that an awful lot of people received the Eucharistic Mystery wrongly, which is on their conscience.
But they did it, obviously, for selfish reasons to "stack up" mysteries (sacraments). Certainly one sacrament today is enough grace not to warrant asking for "seconds."
The problem is that people seek faith either in the Church or in the Bible. Whether God's grace is infused or imputed is irrelevant -- we cling on to something that will provide us with grace. But, technically speaking, if faith is something given to us by God, then it exists independently from the Church or the Bible.
Is this all you wanted: a yes or no? If so, pick one or the other and do with it what you will. I'm sorry I wasted your time.
When you are asked a yes or no question, the proper way to start your response is usually with a yes or a no.
I am not sure I understand your question.
He's knowable. We differ on how He is knowable I think.
…how do you live your life and by what guidelines if not those given by a coherent Creator?
Jesus gives us the guidelines to know Him. And, He is coherent, but ineffable. Perhaps the closest I can come with scripture is "Be still and know that I am God."
thanks for your reply.
Any of what kind of harm do you try to defend people from?
Is it difficult to be specific? Is it a secret?
thanks for your reply.
How is God knowable to you?
Any that I can as best I can. No secret. All harm. As best I can.
I think you have something in mind? Go ahead and ask. I will sincerely try to answer.
LOL. I sincerely am asking the same question I've asked twice before. From what kind of "harm" do you "defend" people?
Or is it ineffable, too?
Everywhere in everything. Jesus teaches us how. I'll give you a specific example: Love your enemies. If we do this and do this and do this again, we will know God more.
For me it is not an intellectual understanding, but a deeper knowing. Maybe it's the same for you as well?
What kind of harm you got?
Any harm; all harm. It was your question about my nick; and if you can't spell it out better, for the life of me, I can't either.
If you have something more in mind, just say so, please.
Perhaps I misunderstood you. I thought you said you'd "sincerely try to answer" the question.
After three attempts to elicit an answer, it's obvious you don't intend to explain what "harm" you "defend" people from. For some reason known only to you, you prefer to make coy, cryptic statements.
Strange, isn't it?
So Jesus isn't "ineffable," but God is "ineffable."
Have I stated your opinion correctly?
No, it's not strange. Any and all means any and all. What's strange is making something strange from a simple answer to a simple question.
You want more, here: I try to protect others from physical harm, from emotional harm, from psychological harm, from spiritual harm.
If you wish more specifics you only have to ask.
All means all. As best I can.
Do you wish more of an answer, more explanation? Then just ask. Ok?
I see.
You're Batman.
Jesus is God, so we get into a contradiction there. But, if I understand your intent. God is ineffable, Jesus's teachings were spoken, so, by definition, not ineffable.
What we can know of God, by following Jesus's teachings, is not fully describable in words, no.
Please.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.