This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Athanasius
1
« on: Yesterday at 06:14:23 AM »
In "The Ghost and the Darkness," Val Kilmer's character narrowly escapes death when his rifle jams while taking aim at an approaching lion. Michael Douglas' character tells him, "they have a saying in boxing that everybody has a plan until they get hit. You just got hit, my friend." The problem? The events depicted in the movie took place in 1898, while the boxing quote was by Mike Tyson in 2012.
1987 
2
« on: January 09, 2025, 12:08:14 PM »
Efez 2:4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us,
Efez 2:5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved—
Efez 2:6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,
Is a part of us already in the heavenly places?
I've always taken this to mean that we are in Christ Jesus and through Him and thus also "seated... in the heavenly places," even though we aren't ontically situated there, if by "there" we mean someplace other than our present circumstance.
3
« on: December 29, 2024, 04:18:54 PM »
Given the very first quote has "gods" in quotes, and is taken from a broader argument wherein Martyr is attempting to prove that Christ is God, what do you imagine the ECFs are saying? Certainly not theosis in every instance, least of all as asserted.
4
« on: December 25, 2024, 09:51:37 AM »
This is a sub-forum for writing blogs, not for linking to superficial opinion pieces as a roundabout way of playing SEO for a certain app.
5
« on: December 16, 2024, 10:38:58 AM »
Thinking about counterfactual knowledge.
Say you were to pray for God to show you what your life would be like if you didn't struggle with A, B, C, or if X or Y didn't happen, or what have you. And, instead of being merely shown, you were dropped into that potential made actual. I think you'd find yourself to be a stranger, and would destroy the life you now have in search of the one you left behind, for all of its associated ills.
And that's just one set of counterfactuals. I think a person would go insane. But God knows all of the counterfactuals, and that seems to me to be a terrible burden.
I wasn't thinking of Picard while thinking about this, but that's a pretty solid example (TNG S6 E5, "Tapestry").
6
« on: December 11, 2024, 03:40:11 PM »
Just for the record I see a difference between divorce and remarriage. Sometimes divorce could be necessary, but the command of being single or be reconciled stays put imo.
"Hey Brenda, sorry your husband sexually abused your children, and it's fine if you divorce him, but please don't get re-married unless it's to the child molester I allowed you to divorce."
Said Jesus, never.
Situations like this certainly muddy the water but did Jesus provide exceptions? He might not have literally phrased it the way you did but if he said remarriage is adultery without offering exceptions then remarriage is adultery.
It's one thing to make a case that something doesn't apply today because it was a cultural call rather than an eternal call but if we start to throw stuff away because it's inconvenient there are all sorts of other things that are more inconvenient to more people.
We shouldn't necessarily get caught up creating all sorts of requirements that don't exist but we should be equally careful not to expect to walk a path that doesn't become inconvenient at times.
The extreme example is specifically to highlight the difficulties of holding to positions that seem "easy" when all is well. We would be wrong to use such an instance to justify divorce and remarriage in every other circumstance, but I think it would also be wrong for us to do the reverse.
We certainly need to be careful. It's easy to say what someone else should do when you're not the one having to do it (much the same applies to Paul's call to stay with a spouse, with no provision made there for abusive spouses), but at the same time we need to be careful not to simply disregard things that are very clear because they are inconvenient to us.
If we pick and choose which bits to follow based on what we want to do we might as well just throw the Bible in the trash and accept we're going our own way. The idea isn't to have some tool to beat other people over the head - "Bad Brenda. Naughty Brenda. Go back to your abusive husband right now or you get no support from us, and we don't care if he is going to beat you literally to within an inch of your life, the Bible is clear what you have to do. Don't forget to take your kids with you, and teach them to forgive him." - but I don't see how we can avoid things ultimately boiling down to the simple duality that either we follow what Jesus said or we don't.
A consideration as above is not a simple disregard. The issue is, of course, one of understanding what Scripture actually does say, and what it doesn't, and avoiding the temptation of confusing an accusation of "picking and choosing" for proper exegesis.
If Jesus said that remarriage after divorce is adultery, how do you argue the exact opposite without disregarding what Jesus said?
By pointing out, the following verse (Matthew 19:9) permits divorce on the grounds of sexual immorality. In the case of my example, is Jesus going to say, "Sorry, paedophilia is a funny way of spelling 'adultery'"? I think that would be absurd. Do you?
Do we think that it is God's desire for a boy or a girl to be raised in a single-parent home because their mother was taught it was a sin for her to remarry because she blew her first marriage on a man who sexually abused her children?
Let's keep in mind my example in no way softens the "exception" clause. No one is going to view molestation as lesser-than adultery.
Sure, if the idea of adultery is sleeping with someone else then it doesn't matter whether that someone else is adult or child, consenting or non-consenting, it's covered. The issue is whether remarriage is permitted.
Whatever we might think about God's will for the children, did Jesus make exceptions for remarriage? If not, on what basis do we decide we know better than Jesus? If God wanted to provide exceptions we might expect Jesus to have mentioned it.
There are two issues here - the first is whether the mother should leave the abusive father and the second is whether she's allowed to marry someone else if she does so.
You're summarising without adding anything. v9 allows for remarriage in the context already raised.
7
« on: December 11, 2024, 12:59:37 PM »
Just for the record I see a difference between divorce and remarriage. Sometimes divorce could be necessary, but the command of being single or be reconciled stays put imo.
"Hey Brenda, sorry your husband sexually abused your children, and it's fine if you divorce him, but please don't get re-married unless it's to the child molester I allowed you to divorce."
Said Jesus, never.
Situations like this certainly muddy the water but did Jesus provide exceptions? He might not have literally phrased it the way you did but if he said remarriage is adultery without offering exceptions then remarriage is adultery.
It's one thing to make a case that something doesn't apply today because it was a cultural call rather than an eternal call but if we start to throw stuff away because it's inconvenient there are all sorts of other things that are more inconvenient to more people.
We shouldn't necessarily get caught up creating all sorts of requirements that don't exist but we should be equally careful not to expect to walk a path that doesn't become inconvenient at times.
The extreme example is specifically to highlight the difficulties of holding to positions that seem "easy" when all is well. We would be wrong to use such an instance to justify divorce and remarriage in every other circumstance, but I think it would also be wrong for us to do the reverse.
We certainly need to be careful. It's easy to say what someone else should do when you're not the one having to do it (much the same applies to Paul's call to stay with a spouse, with no provision made there for abusive spouses), but at the same time we need to be careful not to simply disregard things that are very clear because they are inconvenient to us.
If we pick and choose which bits to follow based on what we want to do we might as well just throw the Bible in the trash and accept we're going our own way. The idea isn't to have some tool to beat other people over the head - "Bad Brenda. Naughty Brenda. Go back to your abusive husband right now or you get no support from us, and we don't care if he is going to beat you literally to within an inch of your life, the Bible is clear what you have to do. Don't forget to take your kids with you, and teach them to forgive him." - but I don't see how we can avoid things ultimately boiling down to the simple duality that either we follow what Jesus said or we don't.
A consideration as above is not a simple disregard. The issue is, of course, one of understanding what Scripture actually does say, and what it doesn't, and avoiding the temptation of confusing an accusation of "picking and choosing" for proper exegesis.
If Jesus said that remarriage after divorce is adultery, how do you argue the exact opposite without disregarding what Jesus said?
By pointing out, the following verse (Matthew 19:9) permits divorce on the grounds of sexual immorality. In the case of my example, is Jesus going to say, "Sorry, paedophilia is a funny way of spelling 'adultery'"? I think that would be absurd. Do you? Do we think that it is God's desire for a boy or a girl to be raised in a single-parent home because their mother was taught it was a sin for her to remarry because she blew her first marriage on a man who sexually abused her children? Let's keep in mind my example in no way softens the "exception" clause. No one is going to view molestation as lesser-than adultery.
8
« on: December 11, 2024, 06:45:06 AM »
Just for the record I see a difference between divorce and remarriage. Sometimes divorce could be necessary, but the command of being single or be reconciled stays put imo.
"Hey Brenda, sorry your husband sexually abused your children, and it's fine if you divorce him, but please don't get re-married unless it's to the child molester I allowed you to divorce."
Said Jesus, never.
Situations like this certainly muddy the water but did Jesus provide exceptions? He might not have literally phrased it the way you did but if he said remarriage is adultery without offering exceptions then remarriage is adultery.
It's one thing to make a case that something doesn't apply today because it was a cultural call rather than an eternal call but if we start to throw stuff away because it's inconvenient there are all sorts of other things that are more inconvenient to more people.
We shouldn't necessarily get caught up creating all sorts of requirements that don't exist but we should be equally careful not to expect to walk a path that doesn't become inconvenient at times.
The extreme example is specifically to highlight the difficulties of holding to positions that seem "easy" when all is well. We would be wrong to use such an instance to justify divorce and remarriage in every other circumstance, but I think it would also be wrong for us to do the reverse.
We certainly need to be careful. It's easy to say what someone else should do when you're not the one having to do it (much the same applies to Paul's call to stay with a spouse, with no provision made there for abusive spouses), but at the same time we need to be careful not to simply disregard things that are very clear because they are inconvenient to us.
If we pick and choose which bits to follow based on what we want to do we might as well just throw the Bible in the trash and accept we're going our own way. The idea isn't to have some tool to beat other people over the head - "Bad Brenda. Naughty Brenda. Go back to your abusive husband right now or you get no support from us, and we don't care if he is going to beat you literally to within an inch of your life, the Bible is clear what you have to do. Don't forget to take your kids with you, and teach them to forgive him." - but I don't see how we can avoid things ultimately boiling down to the simple duality that either we follow what Jesus said or we don't.
A consideration as above is not a simple disregard. The issue is, of course, one of understanding what Scripture actually does say, and what it doesn't, and avoiding the temptation of confusing an accusation of "picking and choosing" for proper exegesis.
9
« on: December 10, 2024, 04:20:50 AM »
Just for the record I see a difference between divorce and remarriage. Sometimes divorce could be necessary, but the command of being single or be reconciled stays put imo.
"Hey Brenda, sorry your husband sexually abused your children, and it's fine if you divorce him, but please don't get re-married unless it's to the child molester I allowed you to divorce."
Said Jesus, never.
Situations like this certainly muddy the water but did Jesus provide exceptions? He might not have literally phrased it the way you did but if he said remarriage is adultery without offering exceptions then remarriage is adultery.
It's one thing to make a case that something doesn't apply today because it was a cultural call rather than an eternal call but if we start to throw stuff away because it's inconvenient there are all sorts of other things that are more inconvenient to more people.
We shouldn't necessarily get caught up creating all sorts of requirements that don't exist but we should be equally careful not to expect to walk a path that doesn't become inconvenient at times.
The extreme example is specifically to highlight the difficulties of holding to positions that seem "easy" when all is well. We would be wrong to use such an instance to justify divorce and remarriage in every other circumstance, but I think it would also be wrong for us to do the reverse.
10
« on: December 09, 2024, 10:29:11 AM »
Just for the record I see a difference between divorce and remarriage. Sometimes divorce could be necessary, but the command of being single or be reconciled stays put imo.
"Hey Brenda, sorry your husband sexually abused your children, and it's fine if you divorce him, but please don't get re-married unless it's to the child molester I allowed you to divorce." Said Jesus, never.
11
« on: November 25, 2024, 01:38:32 PM »
Episkopos
Boy there a hemorrhoid name from the past…
And there it will stay, if they ever make the poor decision to show up.
12
« on: November 25, 2024, 05:42:32 AM »
I have joined a new Bible forum, guess what, Hepzibah and Episkopos the 2 sinless preachers are still preaching an sinless life, else hell.
If they're so desperate for hell, who are we to stop them?
13
« on: November 22, 2024, 05:12:44 AM »
What are your most treasured books, collection of books, etc.? I'll start, in no particular order:
- The whole of Kierkegaard's authorship, translated Howard and Edna Wong. (I'd like to find slipcase / hardcover editions!)
- Harper Collins' deluxe slipcover versions of the whole of Tolkien's authorship!
- Slipcase editions of The Chronicles of Narnia (Harper Collins)
- Clothbound edition of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland
- Hendrickson Publisher's 14-volume edition of Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics
- The Everyman's Library editions of the classics: Dostoevsky, Orwell, Camus, Huxley, etc.
- A goatskin leather NASB gifted to me by a coworker who had bought it for her husband, only to learn he cheated on her with her best friend
- Various Oxford Annotated NRSV editions, e.g. 3rd, 4th, waiting on 5th
14
« on: November 22, 2024, 05:02:18 AM »
And heaven forfend you read the whole of Barth's Church Dogmatics only to realise you actually prefer Borg.
It's hard hitting content like this that keeps me coming back for more.
Could you imagine someone who adheres to the KJV moving all the way across the aisle, out of the building, into the parking lot, down the street, over the underpass, into the next city, onto a boat, across an ocean, onto a new continent, across 32 more countries, into a building, to sit on the other aisle, to find Borg compelling? That would be a divine miracle in and of itself!
15
« on: November 22, 2024, 04:59:44 AM »
I still get surprised sometimes when I realize that 1980 wasn't 20 years ago.
I still say "10 years ago" like I mean 1996.
|
Watcha doing?
by Sojourner
Today at 01:20:53 PM
|
Quotable Quotes
by Sojourner
Today at 10:58:53 AM
|
Plot holes
by tango
Today at 10:53:10 AM
|
Walk
by Cloudwalker
Yesterday at 02:42:24 PM
|
prayer for direction
by Sojourner
January 23, 2025, 01:24:28 PM
|
Riddle
by Athanasius
January 09, 2025, 12:08:14 PM
|
I Knew Him-Peter
by Cloudwalker
December 31, 2024, 11:43:20 AM
|
2.things are infinite
by Cloudwalker
December 30, 2024, 11:21:01 AM
|
The ECF and theosis
by Athanasius
December 29, 2024, 04:18:54 PM
|
Blog about Politics in Christian Dating
by Athanasius
December 25, 2024, 09:51:37 AM
|
Merry Christmas!
by Sojourner
December 24, 2024, 02:09:01 PM
|
Marriage - are the church failing us?
by The Parson
December 20, 2024, 10:06:51 AM
|
Your most treasured books
by MattTheCricketBat
December 20, 2024, 04:46:02 AM
|
2nd Sunday in Advent-Peace
by Cloudwalker
December 09, 2024, 11:40:24 AM
|
Israel, Hamas, etc
by RabbiKnife
December 08, 2024, 12:30:23 PM
|
Hello from South Africa
by ProDeo
December 06, 2024, 04:30:52 AM
|
Christmas 2024
by Cloudwalker
December 01, 2024, 01:07:23 PM
|
1st Sunday in Advent-Hope
by Cloudwalker
December 01, 2024, 01:04:29 PM
|
Hello!
by Kingfisher
November 25, 2024, 08:07:49 AM
|
Which Scriptures, books or Bible Study Would I need to Know God's Will?
by Fenris
November 24, 2024, 11:30:11 AM
|
|
|
Show Posts
