Jonathan wrote: > Please define what the sin in the Garden > of Eden was? Attempt to do it without > using the words autonomy or individualism.
Ok. Disobedience, pride, lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes. How was that? Jonathan wrote: > Then define what Lucifer's sin was. Pride. Jonathan wrote: > Then figure out the difference between unity in > diversity and autonomy. They are not equivalent. If you are going to argue that men must be connected with God, and cannot be autonomous from God, then clearly that is true. If you are going to argue that those in the body of Christ must be connected together and not stand alone, then again, we certainly agree. However, how far do we go with this concept? Is all sense of autonomy and individuality lost? I think not. The context of the discussion was the founding documents of our country. These founding documents deal with a covenant with God. The concept found therein is that we the people are endowed with rights from our Creator. We, in a sense, loan what we have in God to the government. We grant the government powers because of inherit talents which we have received from our Creator. So when Lance speaks of autonomy and individualism in these founding documents, the context is not one which implies complete autonomy from God. Rather, it is just the opposite. It points out how community rights stem from the individual as he is blessed and connected through a covenant relationship with his Creator. This is a powerful concept, and the history of the United States reveals how powerful a truth this is. Communes of men that have attempted to strip men of their individuality and autonomy have all failed because they do not recognize this Godly principle. This is exactly why Socialism and Communism are false systems although ideologically they share many concepts with the gospel and Christian philosophy. Jonathan wrote: > Ask yourself who the autonomous individual > is subject to? Answer: no one. In the context of the founding documents of our country, the autonomous individual is subject unto God and subject unto his neighbor. The idea here is that individuals are free to pursue happiness and his religious ideals in whatever way God leads him without government or others interfering. This is what is meant by autonomy and individualism in this particular context. Again, if you are going to change the definition now and argue that the person who is subject to nobody is incompatible with the gospel, then we are in complete agreement. That would be the definition of lawlessness, and lawlessness is incompatible with the gospel. This was not the context in which these terms were brought up. Jonathan wrote: > You also fall for a belief that if something succeeds > than it must have God's blessing. This shows up in > a lot of your writings. It is one of the few reasons > you give for America being in the place it is today. > Success is not history's proof of God's blessing. > Go deeper. Some of what you are observing here is my scientific training. We can theorize many different things, but ultimately, if what we theorize does not conform to the physical world, then it is useless. In science, when we theorize, we are taught that we have to come back to, "but what about the data. What do the data show?" I follow this same principle in non-scientific discussions. If we observe any good from the success of the United States, it behooves us to ask what that good is and why it exists. What principles were put into place that brought this good about? If every good thing comes from God, then if we accept the premise that it is God, then it is a truism that it also is Godly. This is not to say that everything about the United States is good. The question only concerns what is good and how did it come about. What are the good and Godly principles which we can hang onto and maintain? One of these principles is the idea of our rights being endowed in each individual by the Creator. Another one is that government is not one that defines the person but that the people define government. Another principle is the need for government and the need to be a people ruled by law. Ownership of private property might be another consideration, and the list goes on. Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
