Thanks for the post, John. I
won’t respond, as all my posts/questions lately are ignored anyway. Izzy
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 7:09
PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Divine
Nature
In a message dated 7/5/2004 10:57:06 AM Pacific Daylight
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Subj: RE: [TruthTalk]
Divine Nature
Date: 7/5/2004 10:57:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent from the Internet
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 do not see the need to defend what I said
above. I certainly did not mean to belittle and if that is what is
seen, I will give more attention to what I say. You all know
that we are sharing only (maybe) 50% of what would normally be communicated if
we were face to face. Body language and tonation are not included in
these emails so a sense of humor and the decision to think more highly of
others than we do ourselves is critical. Illustration on body language
and tonation: Say our loud wand with a big frown,
" You've got ten seconds to clean this room or you are in BIG trouble,
buster." Now, say the same thing while smiling
(yes - a fake smile but smile nonetheless).
I never intended to waste your time with unimportant
topics -- these words make me fear that slade is a little
ticked but how can I know for sure without asking. So I will assume the
best until it becomes obvious beyond debate.
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].
Did we not read my post a second time? Is John
saying there is a conflict between the two? Of course not. Does
there appear to be a conflict? To many the answer is yes.
Paul would never make the point of Jame's in the way Jame's wrote -- and,
guess what, he didn't. I will forgo the opportunity to start a new
thread regarding Paul and his opinion of the Law and the old-law abiding
saint. I was not even alluding to that theological issue.
What I said is to the point of mindset and intention rather than doctrine and
needs little defense.
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
Amen to all that slade has written but it has nothing to do
with my post. Sorry but no cigar.
Context is not only important in biblical studies, it is
important in forums such as TT. "Hitler was a child of God" was
said in this context: (And I quoted from my post, yes the very post you
find disagreeable on this point)
"That advice [don't let what you do define who you are] as it stands
alone, is not good enough to effect any real and vital change. It must be
combined [with] another principle. We are defined by creation and the
birthing event that extends from Adam and because we are all children of the
Almighty God, our worth and who we are is
defined by that reality.
The notion that "Hitler was a child of God" was not
spoken in the context of the soteriological. Of course not
!!! Does slade actually think he needs to convince me of the
wickedness of Hitler. Did I not say that my concern is not with
essence but purpose and potential? We are all created with
the same capacity, the same purpose, the same potential and when we live our
lives in denial of that, the end is exactly the same as what is seen in
Hitler's end. The parable of the prodigal son pictures what if not a
child of God going the wrong way down the road of life. There is a sense in
which we are (prodigal) children of God or that parable would have never
been spoken. We are defined AS HUMAN BEINGS "by
creation and the birthing event that extends from Adam and because we are all
children of the Almighty God, our worth and
who we are is defined by that reality. " That
is true for all of us. When we refuse
to join God into our lives and share in His glorious purpose for us, out
potential is denied and we are hell bound (and, again,
"hell" in this case is an allegorical reference for self
destruction.) Do we debate this point?
I could have said one thing a little more better
-- when I use the advice "don't let what you do define what you
are" I am actually saying, in real life counsel, do not allow past
actions and personal present time addictions define who you are -- you
may be a prodigal son of God, but a SON OF GOD NONETHELESS and your life will
continue to be a mess unless and until you admit that all this stuff in the
past, doing it your own way, has you screwed up but not without
hope." That is what I actually say. You got to
admit that those words are terrific because they are spoken as if the oracles
of God Himself............I am getting a little carried away.
Sorry. But I hope this clears the air a little.
There is more to say but my lovely bride wants me to take her out to
dinner. Yesterday we had 24 people here from 1 o'clock to
midnight. At eight, I told them they were welcome to continued
family fellowship but "just not here." No one paid me any
attention. It was great. Hope you all had as good a time with
family as we did.
Back with you later. My bride awaits.
a friend and a brother (like it or not) Johnathon Smithson
Hopefully this helps.
John
-- slade
