Re: [TruthTalk] Belief

[Judy Taylor]

Depends on how one defines reality Lance. I find this ironic in light of the fact that you obviously spend a lot of time feeding upon fantasy in your personal life and from what I read from you spend little or not time in the Word of Truth.  You most definitely esteem the writings of some men over other men.   My tweaking would have to do with the terms logical and rational; these are not my focus per se - and if what I write appears logical and rational is because this is my understanding of God's Word.        On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 09:23:46 -0400 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I'd only 'tweek' this a bit by saying: I am a realist theologically while David Miller and Judy Taylor are rationalists.I do not esteem (intrinsically) any woman/man over any other.   > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Judy wrote to Lance: > > > Then please help me by doing your homework > > > and coming up with the goods on this "eternal > > > sonship" dogma you value so highly - from scripture > > > - simple request ... you should know why you believe > > > something > > > > I'm going to offer a few comments about what you are saying here.  > If you > or > > Lance think I am mistaken, please say so. > > > > It seems to me that Lance does not approach truth in the same way > as you, > > Judy.  For you, ideas must be logical and reasonable.  For Lance, > this is > > not so.  We had some discussion some time ago about whether or not > truth > is > > always logical, and Lance took the position that truth is not > always > > logical. > > > > It seems to me that Lance looks at who says things and considers > their > > credentials and the liklihood that they know what they are talking > about. > > For example, if someone like Tom Wright said something and Judy > said > > something which were opposed to each other, he would accept Tom > Wright > over > > what you would say, not because it makes more logical sense, but > because > of > > who said it and who is more likely to be right based upon popular > acclaim, > > educational background, etc.  In this particular issue, we have a > very old > > historical document with someone like Athanasius behind it.  It > has the > > popular acclaim of churches throughout the century.  The very > weight of > > history and intellectual people who embrace the dogma of "eternal > sonship" > > is what compels him to accept the idea and declare all those who > differ to > > be heretics. > > > > For people like you, there remains a problem.  The concept of > eternal > > sonship poses several logical problems for you. > > > > 1.  It attacks the Deity of Jesus Christ.  If Jesus was a son > prior to the > > incarnation, that means he had a beginning.  If he had a > beginning, then > he > > is a created being and not God. > > > > 2.  If he was a son prior to the incarnation, then the Father was > always > > greater than him, and his subjection to the Father has always > been.  This > > again, takes away from the concept of his Deity and equality with > God. > > Instead of being God, there is this so-called eternal relationship > of > > ancestor to descendent, progenitor to offspring, creator to > created being. > > > > 3.  The eternal sonship view therefore cheapens the sacrifice of > Christ, > > because from your perspective, he not only became flesh, but he > put > himself > > under subjection to the Father and became a Son whereas before he > had an > > equality and form with God that was not distinguished by such an > hiearchical > > relationship. > > > > The resolution for problem 1 above is approached by the adherents > of dogma > > by declaring that Jesus was begotten not made, as if this resolves > the > > illogical problems posed by their doctrine.  For people like you, > however, > > such is simply redefining a word and making an illogical statement > to > > justify an illogical dogma.  For people like Lance, the > irrationality of a > > particular dogma is not important because truth sometimes is not > logical. > > What is important for him is that the churches have held the dogma > in the > > majority for centuries and the intellectual caliber of people who > have > > embraced it is sufficient to make all critics wrong. > > > > Therefore, your insistence for him to make a logical case for his > belief > has > > little merit.  You think it is important for his viewpoint to > agree with > the > > "logos."  From his perspective, however, such does not matter > because > > regardless of any logical illustration, your view is contrary to a > popular > > viewpoint held by churches for 1600 years.  Can you see how you > two > approach > > truth from very different perspectives?  You are a rationalist > whereas > Lance > > is a dogmatist. > > > > 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. > > > ---------- > "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. > >