archive

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

PJ: XVII

See HERE

10 comments:

Marellus said...

You mentioned the Trinity in this post. May I ask if you know how to argue against Arianism then ? I've seen the texts the Arians use to state their case, and the texts are, for want of a better word, formidable.

My thanks for any help.

Jack H said...

Funny you should ask...

This
http://historicchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/05/trinity.html
speaks for itself; not long, but on the mark.

Best,

J

Marellus said...

@ Jack H,

I've read it, and this was of great help :

In Deut 6:4, we have the great declaration of Hebrew monotheism, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is One.” What could be more plain? Yet the word for ‘one’, here, is 'achad. In Hebrew there is a word for an abso­lute unity, 'iysh, used of an individual — an in-divide-able. Then there is the word of a composite unity, a single thing which in some manner is made up of parts. Thus a mar­ried couple, which becomes one flesh, is 'achad flesh; a bunch of grapes is an 'achad of grapes. And "the Lord our God, the Lord is 'achad — a composite unity." When we consider that a much better word was available, if the intent had been to indicate a God of the Mos­lem type — utterly monolithic — then we are safe in concluding that 'achad, a com­posite unity, was chosen for a purpose.

Here in my country, I see the faithful being captured by elements that demands the Law should still be kept, these elements are quite particular in how the Almighty must be called (Yahweh), but for all of this, when you get down to the nuts and bolts, they have an Arian creed.

I fear for my people.

Many thanks.

Jack H said...

Sounds like Jehovah's Witnesses. Organization claims to be a prophet. A prophet cannot be false, and of God. Any error proves deceit.

So...

http://historicchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/05/cross-or-stake-response-to-watchtower.html

FYI.

J

Marellus said...

@Jack H

I'll leave my thanks here as well.

It's funny that you should say they are Jehova's Witnesses, because I confronted them with this accusation, and they denied it.

On another blog I follow I see there's quite a spat between Calvinists and those who oppose this creed.

Have you written something on this as well ?

Once again you have my thanks.

Jack H said...

Doctrinal debates hold no interest for me. Calvinists, the Reformed Church, tend to predestination and election, which is fine, but only half the argument. There are very few essentials, and an infinite number of opinions. Get the essentials right. :-)

J

Marellus said...

That 'half the argument' saved me from certifiable madness. Oh I was close to being put in a padded cell lemme tell ya. Oh so very close.

In my final year of high school I was admitted to a mental hospital. The doctors all diagnosed me for depression, and obsessive thoughts.

No, they were wrong.

I thought I had lost my salvation by blaspheming the Holy Spirit. My mind was a mess.

From deep within me there was this rising tide of thoughts that all had but one thing in common.

Blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

I couldn't stop them. I tried and I failed. I saw the pits of hell beckoning for me. The terror. The sheer unadulterated terror. I prayed the sinner's prayer, read the bible (to such an extent that my father forbade me from reading it any further), and tried to be a good christian.

Not to mention the pastors who told me I wasn't really saved, and compelled me to pray with them again and again. Then there were others that told me to praise and worship, to rebuke the devil and quote scriptures out loud.

It didn't work.

The thoughts always returned.

Rinse & repeat.

I didn't commit suicide. Why ? I was too scared of what will happen afterwards.

It took me four years to become 'normal' again. I read a lot of spiritual books, and when it came to the bible, I learned to stay away from the four gospels, the book of James, and the book of Hebrews,

... maybe I'll read something in those books that'll drive me crazy again. I don't read the bible now, and I doubt I ever really will again. It brought me nothing but suffering.

Am I bitter as I write this ? Yes.

When I read about reformed theology, I thought this was a gospel that's just too good to be true. But the idea that one can entrust one's salvation in the capable hands of the Almighty, and that He'll take care of you no matter how bad you've been, brought me a sense of peace.

Whether it's true or not, I can't be sure. I'm pretty sure that you can muster a good argument at some of the errors within this doctrine ... if there are errors.

What I do know is this - I wish it was the truth.

I wish it was. I wish it is. I wish always will be.

And if it is, then I will destroy those fucking loons, those leprous congregations, those blasphemous christians who NEVER deigned to tell me about this when I really needed to hear it.

Nobody should ever have to endure what I had to endure back then.

Nobody.

Jack H said...


That's quite a mouthful. A big part of adolescence is learning to not be so absolute and theoretical. We call it 'idealism' because it isn't real. That other people didn't know how to counsel you in your particular distress ... it's not their fault they lacked that particular wisdom. Their wisdom worked, for other people. Forgive them their limits.

The problem with Calvinism slashed Reformed theology is that it's so much election, and no free will. Works don't save, but they show salvation. That's not hard or confusion. We earn nothing, but we work to show our thanks. Easy. Thus, works are our reassurance ... 'how, How, HOW can I KNOW that I'm saved!?!' A feeling your heart isn't enough. Nothing is more corrupt than the human heart. Work like you are a hypocrite! But not for the eyes of men.

It's good to have God for a friend, but you'd better have him for your God. It's a theme of my little project here: God is not nice.

J

Marellus said...

It's good to have God for a friend, but you'd better have him for your God. It's a theme of my little project here: God is not nice.

This is true in the way that a fact is true. There are indeed many facts that can be brought forth to confirm this.

Yet there is Psalm 23 and and there is Psalm 91.

No man who fears God could have written these.

For if God is truly not nice, then He must indeed be feared.

... and fear is a tool for obedience ... obedience leads to fatalism ... and fatalism is blind ... so the blind must listen.

... and, in the end, to whom does the blind listen ?

Look at the excuse of the slave that received only one talent :

"Master, because you are a hard man ..."

And the master rebuked him for not investing that talent somewhere to earn interest. He just had to walk into a bank and do a fixed deposit. So easy.

How could he be so stupid ? Fear.

How many have been lead towards perdition because they feared God ?

The existence of Psalms 23 and 91 can only be explained by the existence of men who truly loved God.

We don't know the love of God, either giving or receiving, and because we don't ... we contemplate, we tabulate facts, we proclaim Him not nice, or too nice, or too far away, or not far enough.

God is a mystery.

He Is what He Is ... of all the names he could have given Moses before his return to Egypt, it just had to be I Am what I Am.

Why ?

It's the truth.

Nothing beats a fact like the truth.

The truth sets you free.

Jack H said...

Well. All that is no doubt true. God is what he is. Truth is more important than facts. Then again, if we pull it back and look at the words actually used, and their meaning, your conclusions may profit from some reevaluation. God is nice, or God is not nice. Logic and the law of the excluded middle. We must define our terms, here, nice. What do you suppose my meaning might be? There are three things that God give: justice, mercy, or grace. It's hard to distinguish between them sometimes. Grace is nice. Mercy is nice. But justice is implacable. Since God is not any one of these things, "nice" is simply not a word that can be used as a meaningful descriptor. I did not say 'God is not love.' Nor 'God is not just, or merciful.' Indeed, the context in which I used the word should have made my meaning clear -- that simplistic, childish meaning, that gives you what you want in the way you want it.

You assert that no one who fears God could say he is not nice. First, does God want the truth from us? Does he want us to understand his character? If I were to say, somehow, to Jesus, 'You are not nice,' he would smile, and nod, and agree.

Not following your thought, re "How could he be so stupid ? Fear." If we are to fear God, yet fear makes us stupid, then that fear is inappropriate. Fear God and be wise, not foolish. Fear to be dishonest with God - fear to say God is nice, because he is not nice.

"obedience leads to fatalism". Incorrect.

J