RE: [TruthTalk] Divine Nature

[Slade Henson]

slade in yaroq   I understood Slade's thoughtful repose to be the result of nothing more than one who is thinking out loud.   In the end of this episode, Slade concludes his presentation by admitting  that " Since these questions both have two answers depending upon the working mindset, they are a useless argument."  I don't know how "useless" this internalization was, but it was of little consequence in view of the fact that it actually spoke little as to what I consider to be important  -- from my point of view, of course.   What I meant by the term "Useless argument" was that if two people have divergent mindsets, they can fail to understand each other and discussion between them can break down and fail. Two answers to the same question can be different but yet both correct.. depending on the stance of the author. I never intended to waste your time with unimportant topics.   I see the biblical authors as writing with an emotional focus that is in stark contrast to the Western mindset which places the analytical on the throne of all that is righteous. and sensible.  "Mindset" is not "wrong" or "preferable" but it must be recognized and understood.    When James writes concerning "justification by works,"  I believe that in his mind, he is in full agreement with Paul and couldn't care less if his (James's) wording seems in conflict with the apostle he [on occasion] pastors.  And those of you on TT that read from the upper deck, so to speak, know that some high church theologians cast off the book of James because of this imagined  conflict  -- not recognizing that the oriental mind thinks and writes differently than the Western.  I try to allow for this difference in spite of the fact that I fancy myself as being a logical and analytical thinker.  As a result, I see lots of textual problems in the biblical message but no actual contradictions.   What the Book is intended to be is much more important to me than the various problems seen by the critical mind   --  such musing as to theoretical conflict within the written word is a waste of time to me.   I think that the “conflict” between James and Paul is imaginary—a definite clue to the fact that Paul is misunderstood. I agree with Izzy when she says there is no conflict with Shaul and James (Yaakov). After all, Peter says that people twist the words of Shaul to their destruction and Shaul said in his last address in the book of Acts, that he never did anything against the customs of their [Jewish/Israeli] fathers [i.e., Torah].   Hitler was a child of God. When??? He served the devil. His rebellion to that FACT brought him to a complete and miserable end.  I am a child of God and that defines what I do and how I am included in eternity.  Praise the Lord. For me to deny that reality puts me in the pond of hell in which Hitler finds himself.    To say Hitler was/is a child of God is baffling at best. His works define who he is and he defines himself as DEATH and the DARKNESS of death. In God, there is no darkness and there is no death. We worship the God of light and HE is the God of the living.  I found a quote in a book I would like to give: The great mass of Jews who remained [in Europe during the time of the Nazi pogroms] overwhelmingly religious, were deceived and self-deceived. Their history told them that all persecutions, however cruel, came to an end; that all oppressors, however exigent, had demands that were ultimately limited and could be met. Their strategy was always geared to saving 'the remnant.' In 4,000 years the Jews never faced, and had never imagined, an opponent who demanded not some, or most, of their property, but everything; not just a few lives, or even many, but all, down to the lat infant. Who could conceive of such a monster? The Jews, unlike the Christians, did not believe the devil took human shape. This quote refers to your child of god Hitler. Please consider redefining your definition of a "child of God" by using John 1:12 and Matthew 7:16-20.   -- slade