Posted on 01/05/2002 11:44:50 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
Sleep well, lexcorp.
We aren't a warring nation. We have never been a warring nation with the intent to plunder. But here we are, wondering about GOD, country and our families united to destroy our enemies. There is a message in all this and I don't get it, yet. I don't know how GOD regards good but "we" certainly know what evil is, don't we?
Whether some make this connection or not is irrelevant- I am stating flatly that this is not a Christian teaching. Do you understand this? If you cannot, I will not argue with someone who seeks to tell others what they believe based on their own ignorant conceptions.
Furthermore, why don't you try studying philosophy before you before you create your own histories that satisfy your prejuidices. The idea of gods and rewards/punishments is far older than any conception of the soul which only came along with the Greeks. However, one's man 'invented' is another man's 'discovered' (even if even in a crude form.)
Hello, I'm st.smith, and I make broad, sweeping and incorrect assumptions about people whose belief systems I'm unable to understand."
If I am incorrect, why don't you try to formulate a rational argument why it is so?
Here's a test: assume a situation such as in "Towing Jehovah:" you wake up tomorrow and read the news "God Has Just Died" (or left the universe on it's own forever, or shut the doors to heaven and hell, whatever you like). There will be no more salvation, and it has been somehow or other proven to your personal satisfaction (Jesus came down and said "I've got some bad news, " something like that). When you die, it's lights out, but the universe keeps on ticking. Do you get dressed and go to work, or go nuts like a British soccer fan and start trashing your neighbors apartment
This scenario contains a fundamental contradiction. For God to act in this manner this manner would be arbitrary. God by definition is immutable and unchangeable- the god in this scenario is some sort of divine tyrant. I can make this statement on philosophical grounds alone. If God exists he is eternal and unchanging in nature.
However to answer your question I can posit a universe in which God does not exist at all. In such a universe I would agree with Dostoyevsky that "if there is no God, everything is permitted."
Dear Friend, the Sermon on the Mount is not such a good place to suggest as necessary for DOCTRINAL understanding in 2002. Not many understand the Bible as well as you. You, no doubt, understand that Christian doctrine (for this age), is understood best by a study of epistles to Christians, i.e., the Pauline letters, which of course Matt. is not.
For example, if one who were not quite so learned as you were to go to Matt. 5 (Sermon on the Mount), they may get the mistaken notion that if they were to be "poor in spirit", the "kingdom of Heaven would be theirs", (Matt. 5-3), and it wouldn't.
They may think that if they were to "mourn", that God would "comfort them", and He wouldn't.Matt. (5-4).
They may think that if they were to be "meek", that they would "inherit the earth', and they will inherit nothing. (Matt. 5-5). Etc., etc., etc..
I do not intend to criticize you, only to offer a bit of insight and clarification to those who may not be quite so grounded in "rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Tim 2-15) as you are.
Your friend, LP.
Why the separation?? Matthew must be understood within the context of the entire NT canon as well as the Bible as a whole- but this in no way negates its truth (doctrinal or otherwise), it simply places it within the context of a more comprehensive message.
For example, if one who were not quite so learned as you were to go to Matt. 5 (Sermon on the Mount), they may get the mistaken notion that if they were to be "poor in spirit", the "kingdom of Heaven would be theirs", (Matt. 5-3), and it wouldn't.
I would never suggest that someone take any passage out of context. I was simply citing as a direct example of how Christianity requires self-purification and not merely Pharasaical following of the letter of the law. However, I do not see the purpose of denigrating Matthew's gospel or at least placing it in opposition with Paul's epistles.
If you are asking where do God's sympathies lie- that is a dangerous road to follow. Inummerable wars have been fought under the misapprehension that 'God is on our side.' God is not on anyone's side- to whatever extent we trust in God and His will we are on His side, to whatever extent we don't we are against God.
I would agree with the above (emphasis mine).
To it I would add that the twain are so inextricable as to lend veracity to the following:
Where there is good, there is God also.
I have always contended that this was so.
Which brings up, indirectly, the un-baptized baby question:
Will a baby who dies un-baptized go to Heaven?
Yes.
For the heart of the infant is pure, and where such purity is, there is God also. One cannot exist without the other.
Unconvinced of this part.
Yes!
Consider that slavery was societally sanctioned just 137 (roughly) years ago.
Ignorance is bliss? Cordially disagree. Met some awful mean snakes...
We've been through a miscarriage, and we hope in your words here. All of us have inherited Original Sin, which is the center of the debate over the unbaptized baby question. The early church said the issue (NOT THE BABY) is in limbo, for we do not know God's mind on this and leave all in the hands of Our merciful Father.
It was a later misrepresentation of the former that lead people to think the baby, not the issue itself, was in limbo.
Why, how, where, and with who?
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.