Posted on 07/02/2010 6:56:08 PM PDT by Desdemona
KOSTA: Jesus thought they were fit for heaven
Thank you! You have just disproved the EO error that men must be perfected in this life before they experience heaven in the next life.
We are saved in spite of our sins, not because we don't sin.
What you call trust is children's naïvete. They can be easily persuaded, misled, fooled.
Not if they are being led by Christ. The Good Shepherd promises not to lose any of His flock.
Inspired comes from Latin spiritus, a translation of Greek pneuma, which means breath, or wind, which is a synonym for mover. Inspired simply means moved. It doesn't mean God-breathed. That's why Paul had to specifically say that all writings were God-breathed, not just breathed (inspired).
Nice try, though... Nice try, though...
Or even Pascal's "Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connaît point."
The heart pumps blood. It has no emotions; it doesn't think, feel, or imagine, as the ancients believed. Because our heartbeat increases in frequency and intensity when we get excited, the ancients associated it with emotions.
Look it up. You seem to have plenty of time.
Superciliousness is neither necessary nor sufficient to gain your point
Are you making this personal again? I am not the subject of discussion. Stay on the topics. Can you do that?
And recall my earlier quote from Pascal.
Yes, thank you, the heart is a pump. The quote is idiotic.
They never refer to God as their "Daddy." The Orthodox see children as pure, unadulterated, and sinless.
What do you think the Pater Noster is, anyway?
A Latin title of a prayer, meaning Our Father.
Anyway, all this is inconsequential on a cosmic scale. In our little village things matter. But just because someone has, say, a domestic issue doesn't mean the rest of the creation cares or depends on it.
Or intelligence.
Wrong. The Orthodox church teaches no such thing.
Matthew 18:3 and 19:14
If poetry or music is said to be inspired, then that opens up the possibility that it is not "merely" human in origin.
Or even Pascal's "Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connaît point."
The heart pumps blood. It has no emotions; it doesn't think, feel, or imagine, as the ancients believed. Because our heartbeat increases in frequency and intensity when we get excited, the ancients associated it with emotions.
Pedantry is a great way to skirt uncomfortable issues.
Pascal's quote simply illustrates the contrast between savoir and connaître.
You (apparently) hold the the view that savoir is both necessary and sufficient to encompass all of existence; but merely asserting it over and over again, while denying the existence (such as inspiration, beauty, and the like) as anything other than physical phenomena, is begging the question -- especially as you cannot account for such things in detail down to a molecular level.
Hari Seldon would probably want to kick your ass. :-)
Cheers! Cheers!
Please don't make thing up. The EOC teaches nothing of that sort.
The EOC does not subscribe to the Augustinian doctrine of the original sin or the Protestant distortion thereof. In the Church, children are innocent until they can commit sin. No one is born "guilty."
We are saved in spite of our sins, not because we don't sin.
St. Paul seems to disagree with you: "I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." (Gal 5:21)
Not if they are being led by Christ
How can they accept Christ before the age of reason?
YOU: Look it up. You seem to have plenty of time.
I asked if you claimed Free Will for your choices, and you replied with the non-sequitur "It's called reason."
So, define your terms.
ME:Superciliousness is neither necessary nor sufficient to gain your point
YOU:Are you making this personal again? I am not the subject of discussion. Stay on the topics. Can you do that?
I am. I used the word "your" point as a synonym for "one's" -- a possessive.
But I applied it to you since you don't appear to be arguing anyone *else's* point on this thread...
And the word superciliousness was used to characterize the brief answer to my question, where you used a buzzword "reason" in a condescending tone .
Oh, and as far as making it personal -- if you insist on this, then don't include personal comments about how much time ("plenty") I seem to have, followed by a sneer ("look it up") that I should rectify a defect in your postings. Merely answering "it's called reason" is something of a non-sequitur to the question of whether you yourself claim to possess free-will: so asking you to define your terms is, and remains, legitimate, and in good faith.
Cheers!
Who says?
Pedantry is a great way to skirt uncomfortable issues
And distortion or ambiguity are a great way to obfuscate issues.
You (apparently) hold the the view that savoir is both necessary and sufficient to encompass all of existence
Nope. Man's capacity is limited.
but merely asserting it over and over again, while denying the existence (such as inspiration, beauty, and the like) as anything other than physical phenomena...
They are human perceptions. We don't perceive things on a molecular level because we can't (without proper tools). Just as we can not perceive the extent of the universe without proper tools.
So, the first thing a rational being ought to keep in mind is that what we see, feel, experience etc. is just an experience, an illusion, if you will, not necessarily the truth on a molecular, quantum or cosmic level.
Hari Seldon would probably want to kick your ass. :)
How appropriate, a fictional character!
So you admit that was a strawman? ("Abba, Father, all things are possible with you" are the words of Christ.)
Cheers!
Well then why don't you start by defining "free" and "will?" We may be talking right past each other. Okay?
Hardly. Abba means father in Aramaic. EO never refer to God as "Daddy" in any language.
I don't think all animals are conscious, few if any. As far as our evidence goes, consciousness seems to require quite a bit of evolution first.
But just because someone has, say, a domestic issue doesn't mean the rest of the creation cares or depends on it.
We are part of creation. Our attributes are part of creation. If we have consciousness part of creation is conscious; if we have purpose, part of creation has purpose, etc.
You were (apparently) attempting a dilemma by saying either people are predestined (God makes what he wants to happen, happen), or they have free-will.
I think that is an oversimplification -- there are degrees of influence, and constraints without full control, which don't fit into the horns of your dilemma.
See #1670, #1673, and #725.
BUT -- since you yourself laid claim to the "God wills it, so we don't have free will; OR God wills it, but He doesn't get his way, so God is not omnipotent" ...
I wondered whether you "really" believed that construct, or you were just using it in a cheap shot to attack Christians with.
I asked the question above to find out which one it was.
Cheers!
THAT'S FUNNY YOU SHOULD SAY THAT.
Remember the Marxist claim that "Religion is the opiate of the masses" ?
(E.g. Christianity is only believed as an self-induced ameliorative to suffering).
Now you're saying the suffering makes it impossible to believe Christianity.
And then of course, you have St. Paul's remark that "if for this life only we have believed in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied" or the admonitions in Hebrews 11 about those of old who had faith who never experienced the promised good; or Augustine meditating on the sack of Rome; or the worldwide symbol of Christianity being a man from a working-class ethnic minority in a military-occupied country being tortured to death following His conviction by an illegal kangaroo court.
SURE Christianity is only an armchair game for the comfortable.
Hack cough *spit*.
And for contemporary refernces, I think it was QUIX who talked about dealing with an alcoholic who left his child to suffer frostbite in a car in 12-degree weather while the alcoholic got drunk...and the other alcoholic who repented.
Cheers! Nice try.
Why do animals show some intelligence and plants don't? Do you think all animals are conscious? Or do they just blindly react?
I don't think all animals are conscious, few if any. As far as our evidence goes, consciousness seems to require quite a bit of evolution first.
But just because someone has, say, a domestic issue doesn't mean the rest of the creation cares or depends on it.
We are part of creation. Our attributes are part of creation. If we have consciousness part of creation is conscious; if we have purpose, part of creation has purpose, etc.
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.