Posted on 01/05/2010 9:46:47 PM PST by the_conscience
I just witnessed a couple of Orthodox posters get kicked off a "Catholic Caucus" thread. I thought, despite their differences, they had a mutual understanding that each sect was considered "Catholic". Are not the Orthodox considered Catholic? Why do the Romanists get to monopolize the term "Catholic"?
I consider myself to be Catholic being a part of the universal church of Christ. Why should one sect be able to use a universal concept to identify themselves in a caucus thread while other Christian denominations need to use specific qualifiers to identify themselves in a caucus thread?
Somehow I’ve missed that Chesterton quote.
You're welcome ,dear brother. I have many more stored up.;)
If things like this are not against the will of God than neither is any sin because according to what you just said it was God’s will that Hitler was following in only killing 6 million Jews, so why blame Hitler for doing something other than the will of God.
Well, I think the phrase "will of God" must be considered carefully. On the one hand, God is plain as day in scripture that sin is evil and against Him and that He hates it and it is against His will, etc. OTOH, Jesus specifically prayed to the Father for the cup to be taken away, but more so that the Father's will be done. In answer to His prayer then great sin was committed against Christ and He died on the cross. So, was this great sin against Christ the will of God? Of course it was. The Bible is clear, the answer to Christ's prayer was "Yes, it shall be as you say".
So, while God hates sin, He still uses it to accomplish His purposes. For example:
Further, it cannot be said that Hitler et al. were "following" God in the evil they committed. They received no orders from God, nor did God zap them with a lightning bolt that forced them to commit evil. God simply left them to their own natures to commit the acts those natures naturally produce. God withdrew from them to such a degree as suited His plan. Therefore, since God has no duty to protect anyone from himself, Hitler et al. are responsible for their own acts.
We are supposed to love the will of God,FK -this would mean we are to love God’s will for having killed and tortured 6 million Jews instead of 8 to 10 million.
Certainly we are to love God's will, but it also seems clear that we are not always to understand it fully. Don't we all go through that when we mourn for a loved one?
If God is perfection ,how can murdering 6 million Jews be perfection? You know very well it’s not ,dear friend. Care to explain how God willing murder is perfection knowing that God is perfect in His essence and how His essence is not changed knowing that “God is light, and there is no darkness in Him” (I John i, 5) ?
I certainly know THAT it is perfection (good, pleasing and perfect will), but I do not know specifically WHY this particular event advanced God's plan. None of us can know for sure. We can't apply our human standards to God. If we did then none of us goes to Heaven. :) We CAN know for sure that God does some things we just don't understand.
I don’t willingly engage on a peer-to-peer level with people who make allowing them to hurt me a price of doing business. And if somebody wants to assume a parental role with me, he’s got to earn my trust. I guess that’s just the way I roll.
that we do well to do what we can to grab ourselves by the scruff of the neck and
insist that our flesh conforms to HIS PRIORITIES.
I don’t think, however, the flesh will ever be that good at doing that.
Apart from His Blood and His Spirit CONFORMING US with our ascent TO HIS IMAGE . . . we would be sunk, imho.
I understand what you're saying here, and it's clear what you mean. I more or less agree, but the violence in your imagery is very unpleasant to me.
As a psych nurse, I saw my share of violence in a clinical setting, and I'm keenly aware of language that escalates or exacerbates acting out.
And even if one is just sitting in front of a computer, it does not contribute to peaceful interchange. I'm not saying anything negative here, just that calm conversation is just as interesting, and more attractive, than language using more aggressive words.
I think there is a happy medium between passive, which most men dislike in themselves, and aggressive, which most women dislike in men. I call it the "alert, calm, interested" state. We can meet there, if you care to.
I’m not real thrilled with folks who claim a desire to be buddies when their MOTIVE and GOALS appear to be primarily to hurt me, either.
However, I have found that Scripture is right . . .
The kisses of an enemy are deceitful
while
faithful are the wounds of a Friend.
I’m trying hard to work at achieving that standard with you, Judith. I really am! LOL.
I appreciate the way you put all that. Thanks.
I hope you can and do appreciate that my 3,000+ hours of intense group work—much in the Navy and much in my PhD field placements and course work . . .
included a LOT of what you’d probably label ‘aggressive’
yet which produced extremely redemptive and healing results.
In some respects, it sounds like we had somewhat of an opposite set of experiences in some somewhat similar settings.
I don’t see those differences are
requiring
either one of us to be
WRONG
about such things.
He was certainly a perceptive fellow.
Well, I have worked with men AND women who had little control over their emotions; what I tend to value is control, so that the emotions are the servant rather than the master of the person.
That has its own pitfalls, i.e. sarcasm, pettiness, self-deceit; as you have noted, those are just as harmful as other kinds of acting out.
“Just to be clear, this passage in no way says that Calvin thought that we contribute to our own faith, or that faith is not a gift.”
I understand that. However, I’m waiting to see some scriptural evidence that we are born again first, and then receive faith and believing as a gift.
Consider these passages:
Mat 8:13 And to the centurion Jesus said, “Go; let it be done for you as you have believed.” And the servant was healed at that very moment.
Mat 9:28 When he entered the house, the blind men came to him, and Jesus said to them, “Do you believe that I am able to do this?” They said to him, “Yes, Lord.”
Luk 8:50 But Jesus on hearing this answered him, “Do not fear; only believe, and she will be well.”
Mat 8:10 When Jesus heard this, he marveled and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith.
Mat 9:2 And behold, some people brought to him a paralytic, lying on a bed. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven.”
Mat 9:22 Jesus turned, and seeing her he said, “Take heart, daughter; your faith has made you well.” And instantly the woman was made well.
Mat 9:29 Then he touched their eyes, saying, “According to your faith be it done to you.”
Mat 15:28 Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly.
Mar 2:5 And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “My son, your sins are forgiven.”
Mar 5:34 And he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease.”
Mar 10:52 And Jesus said to him, “Go your way; your faith has made you well.” And immediately he recovered his sight and followed him on the way.
Luk 17:19 And he said to him, “Rise and go your way; your faith has made you well.”
Luk 18:42 And Jesus said to him, “Recover your sight; your faith has made you well.”
Act 14:9 He listened to Paul speaking. And Paul, looking intently at him and seeing that he had faith to be made well,
Now, someoone can obviously claim that in each of those cases, the person receive faith from God as a gift and then exercised it...but is that the plain sense of the texts? If not, is there a passage elsewhere that justifies taking a less obvious sense of the text?
What in scripture drives you or others to believe that faith is a gift we are given by God after we are born again?
To date, everyone I’ve asked has replied that we are dead in our sins until God causes us to be reborn, and only then are we capable of faith or belief.
But consider these passages - are we REALLY dead in our sins, or is that one of several ways of describing us:
Jhn 8:34 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin.
Rom 6:16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?
Rom 6:17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed,
Rom 6:19 I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.
Rom 6:20 When you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.
Gal 4:7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.
Eph 2:3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
Eph 5:8 for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light
2Pe 2:14 They have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin. They entice unsteady souls. They have hearts trained in greed. Accursed children!
1Jo 3:10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.
Mat 9:12 But when he heard it, he said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.
Mar 2:17 And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Phl 2:15 that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world,
Slaves, bondservants and children can receive input - they are captive, but not exactly dead.
Yes, we need God to intervene or we won’t repent. We do not seek God of our natural selves, but in his grace he gives varying degrees of revelation. Jesus said he came to save the sick. Not dead, sick. Why did he say that unless dead is just one of several analogies to help us understand our state apart from God?
The scriptural definition of faith is “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2For by it the people of old received their commendation. 3By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.”
Why did people of old receive commendation for something they received as a gift? Why is “little faith” a rebuke?
In a lot of ways . . . I’ve more worked with folks who were so bottled up regarding their emotions that they, in many cases, literally
COULD NOT feel any more.
And it became important to . . . pry loose, so to speek, their emotional persons buried so deeply . . . in order for them to have healthy robust psychologies and relationships with those they loved and who loved them.
Fascinating contrast in our back ground experiences in a similar field.
Very perceptive, very incisive post.
And MERCIFULLY short, sweet and to the point.
Isn’t it so often true that when there is a point to be made that brevity works best and is most easily remembered.
Thanks.
HEY, OVERSIGHT TEAM,
I think the stark contrasts between Judith’s
vs my own
experiences in the mental health field
are extremely interesting given our styles and perspectives hereon.
At least they are extremely interesting, to me! LOL.
BTW, Judith—I think you’ll be real impressed to know . . .
“Judity Anne” doesn’t fly hereon! LOL.
—silly fingers.
I do emphasize with my students . . . particularly those awash in depression and anger . . .
that FEELINGS/EMOTIONS
are merely information. It CAN be important information.
But that FEELINGS/EMOTIONS make tolerable servants and horrible slave masters.
“...calm conversation is just as interesting, and more attractive, than language using more aggressive words”.
How true—or perhaps, I should say how true it is that it SHOULD be that way.
I have experienced that many people suffering from personality disorders don’t seem to function well unless they can use more aggressive or emotion-driven ways to interact. They seem to get some relief from such behavior, while at the same time they inflict damage on others.
Just out of curiosity, because I don’t know, what kind of diagnosis would that “bottled up” relate to?
I know about catharsis, but as I recall, that relates to the whole neo Freudian etc. type of treatment, and even those guys take it very slowly and delicately, sort of like surgeons of the mind...
The clinical work I did was in the hospital, people from all the diagnostic spectrum from substance abuse to classical schizophrenia, from manic depressive to the organic dementias, from character disorders to personality disorders, the whole wide world of mania. We primarily were stabilizing people on a fairly short term (96 hours up to 30 days) basis for outpatient treatment. You know, the typical locked ward work.
Thanks. I feel understood. ;-D
That is an interesting point. Your interpretation seems to fit the context surrounding the verse. Please note:
I would not only support your interpretation, but the context of this passage seems to support double predestination.
“I would not only support your interpretation, but the context of this passage seems to support double predestination”
God gave us free will to choose Salvation, choose Life, choose Truth.
I didn’t do much hospital work.
A year of intake screening at Balboa Naval hospital was all.
Differential diagnosis? Goodness—it’s been more than a decade since I was remotely close to that . . . pondering . . .
I’d have to get out my DSM IV . . .
Can’t find it. Don’t remember what I did with it.
Certainly Schizophrenia is often characterized by flat affect.
So are sufferers of more serious levels of PTSD
So are the clinically depressed.
So are many with poor anger management . . . interrupted by outbursts of explosive rage . . . Though I don’t know that I’d characterize most of those without emotions at all—just that they tend to clamp a tight lid on them most of the time.
So also are those who have lost hope—either through trained hopelessness of serious abuse or other circumstantially induced hopelessness from a long series of devasztations—which essentially results in PTSD.
Certainly a lack of emtion—at least emotional expression—would fit many with more significant levels of autism.
Also, in my experience, again fitting PTSD . . . many spouses are just burned out. Their emotions have been so raw and stretched to extremes for so long, the well of emotions is just quite dry.
That’s about all my aging self can recall off the top of my head.
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.