|
1. The conscience of "fallen" HK (Human kind) does not have veridical
(coinciding with reality) access.
What many assume to be conscience is just socialization.
2) Who we are at 6 is who we are at 60.
Even those of us who have read multiple posts from the present participants
on this site could respond to both of my points as if we were: Judy, John, Bill,
David and so on.
There is no obligation for everyone to respond but, if you all
did...Lance
jt: I read the above as some kind of Calvinistic
jargon. The conscience may be bent by false teaching and/or living in a fallen
world but the truth makes a person free and this includes the conscience.
Your second point is just plain wrong. Christ died so that we would have
the power to change, why lock someone in to being at 60 who they were at
6. This is not me but it may be you. According to your faith so be
it unto you. No truth no reality. Selah jt.
Billt: Judy says >> All truth is not positive and
all error is not negative - and noone has arrived that I know of so far.
Judy, how does this statement jive with your Christian perfectionism?
Judy wrote:
... when I hear someone speak on that level with understanding that can only come from God - I listen. But when someone tries to impress with big words and complicated semantics. Oh well! To each his own. jt: Let me say right up front that I have never said that education
was evil, the question is from Lance. However, ignorance is a form of knowledge, so whether a person's education is good or evil depends on it's content. If it is looked to in place of God it is an idol. I think what you said here identifies the root problem that exists
when
educated men speak and you are present. It seems to me that perhaps you are insecure with your own educational level. You surmise that when someone uses "big words" or "complicated semantics" that they are trying to impress someone. Most of the time, that is not at all the case. jt: I am quite comfortable with where I am at right now but why
am I the issue? The reason that "big words" are used is simply because those
who
exercise themselves toward serious study begin to develop a larger vocabulary. Their knowledge of other scholars who have gone before them increases, and their knowledge of words increase. They use "big words" because such words better convey a meaning. Of course, if they knew ahead of time that such words were considered "big words" by their audience, they would not use them, or if they did, they would back up and define them first. jt: Hmmm .. The Bible is right on when it says students become
like
their teacher. Jesus used the language of the common people during his earthly ministry and His is the image I want to be conformed to. What bothers me with your reaction to the educated among us is that
it
perpetuates a class system among us. Scholars invariably become more esoteric in their language and understanding. It is simply an artifact of serious study that goes beyond the level in which others engage. jt: Who is doing the perpetuating here - the high class folk or those
of
us who are more down to earth? My Australian heritage probably does not help here. There is a definite bias in my homeland toward Pommie snobbery that came to the colony with the Oxford/Cambridge blueblood types. When I was a student in biology, there were very few people who I
could
talk with about biology. The only people I could talk with concerning my interests in biology were other professors and graduate students because nobody else could understand what I was talking about. They did not understand the words I used, and they did not understand the concepts. The further I progressed in my studies, the more lonely I became in regards to academic discussions. jt: This is true in any field and it gets worse as things become
more
and more specialized. There is a language for medicine and a language for psychology, a language for law, a language for theology, and apparently a language for biology though that's a new one on me. I would have to travel across the country to conventions with other
scientists to present my research with those who would understand, and I would read journals that only scientists read, the titles of which most people had never heard and could not understand when I said them. "What are you reading?" I would reply, "Copies." They would say, "Huh?" I would say, "oh, just a scientific journal." "Oh, ok. So, what is the article about?" I would reply, "It is about the ontogenetic relationship between prey size and body size in Nerodia fasciata compressicauda." They would reply, "What?" I think you can see how tedious conversations became and why I might have a tendency to crawl into my own shell and be more of a hermit. jt: This may be true in the area of your secular studies but should
not
be so in the body of Christ and this is why I do not like all this theological talk. To me it's like Babel revisited. My point is that I never wanted to impress anyone with big words or
my
knowledge. It is just that my studies took me into a realm that invariably separated me from others who did not pursue such studies. Believe me, I would do almost anything to be able to communicate with non-biologists about my own research and interests, but the nature of serious study simply separates scholars from non-scholars, both in language (words used) and in understanding. jt: This is why we need to stick with God's Word. There is such
Bible
illiteracy out there and this is the kind of thing that puts people off and makes them think they can't understand for themselves. We attended a PCA Church here full of Calvinists. The pastor was a nice guy but very intellectual and most of the people didn't have a clue what he was talking about. Big waste of time all the way around. Now the same thing happens in theological discussions. I believe
that
in Christ, these natural barriers that separate the educated from the non-educated should come tumbling down. There are two sides to this. The one who is educated needs to tread a little more softly and try not to inundate others with big words and difficult material. On the other hand, those who are less educated should not marginalize those who are educated, nor should they have the attitude that everyone educated is arrogant or dismissive of the uneducated. jt: I think it is out of place to put secular "educational"
definitions
upon walking after the Spirit and the study of God's Word. This is the problem and this is what causes division. Christianity should not be adversarial in and of itself other than Truth vs Error. All truth is not positive and all error is not negative - and noone has arrived that I know of so far. Somehow, we need to be joined
together, the educated with the uneducated, in a way that is peaceful and harmonious. I do not believe that the educated must cease from his studies, neither do I believe that the uneducated must marginalize the educated, in order for this to happen. What do you think, Judy? jt: I think we should give this a whole lot more
thought.
|
