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 04:39:44 AM »
Am wondering about PCIM. Is site not okay?
I haven't heard from Tim in ages
2
« on: March 03, 2025, 05:03:27 AM »
Growing up in Pentecostal churches i was taught rapture could happen any time .
And, breakfast isn't served in hell. Jesus freaks don't go to Hell, but impure girls do. Only pure girls and men who can keep a promise go to heaven. Both of whom should kiss dating goodbye because, you know, side hugs are the only holy option. Girls are only ever girls, and boys grow into men.
So pray to be included in the rapture, or stick around and watch some airplanes crash.
Do you really believe that God the Father would allow people to die when he raptures believers? He would then be labelled as a sloppy murderer.
1. Breakfast in Hell, Newsboys 2. Jesus Freak, DC Talk 3. Impure girls, Christian youth group purity culture 4. Pure girls and men, Joshua Harris, "I kissed dating goodbye" and "Boy meets Girl: Say Hello to Courtship" 5. Kiss dating goodbye, Joshua Harris, again 6. Side hugs, Joshua Harris again, and youth group purity culture, again 7. "Girls are girls and boys are boys", Western social wisdom passed off as profound theological insight 8. Airplanes crashing, the opening scenes of the first "Left Behind" movie I didn't share anything about what I believed. Everything I shared is what other people believe. But since you asked, do I think God is going to rapture billions(?) and protect the world from the consequences of billions(?) of people disappearing? No. If you think that makes God a sloppy murderer, then that's something to work out with your theology.
3
« on: February 26, 2025, 04:15:18 AM »
The concept of freewill is in fact the deception by which the devil 1st deceived man for he said "thou shalt not surely die" that is freewill in a nutshell. On the one hand, you want the "concept of free will" to be a Satanic deception ("thou shalt not surely die" is not about the will), and on the other, you want to say that Adam had freewill given to him by God. Adam had freewill, we do not, we are bound to sin and we are bound to die
So which is it?
4
« on: February 24, 2025, 04:29:39 AM »
Knowing good and evil is not being able to do either good or evil.
You sin, you must sin, you are bound to it as a consequence you will die, you must die, you are bound to it.
In fact as to your natural self you are already dead.
But what does it mean "bound to die"? Death has become our shepherd, it governs us. If we do not set our alarm clock we will oversleep, then we will be fired, then without money we shall be destitute and die of hunger or from lack of shelter. Our whole existence is caught up in this struggle to stay alive.
All this is our natural condition before we are saved.
Jesus has come to set us free, to save us ... when you say you had freewill and can choose to do good or evil you are insulting Christ for the awful price He has paid to buy your freedom.
You know what's really scary? When you engage in some particular sin but have the option not to. And then when you say, "But God, my nature is corrupted, I adopted an Augustinian ontology based on his poor Greek exegetic, and I simply had no choice in the matter!" God will say, "Bro, you didn't have to sin". Everyone of course *will* sin, but that doesn't mean we *have* to sin, such that our nature is corrupted (not found in Genesis), or because our will has been devastated (not found in Genesis), or some other thing (not found in Genesis).
5
« on: February 22, 2025, 02:00:15 PM »
Without free will there is no such thing as love
God is love, so freedom of the will must always exist
[!]
Yes.
OTOH, voluntarily giving up your free will also is an act of love.
But... you are making much more sense.
But we don't have love ... unless God pours it into our hearts. If Adam had love he'd never have rebelled.
Adam had freewill, we do not, we are bound to sin and we are bound to die
Adam didn't lack love; he loved the wrong 'thing' (Eve, over God). We would have all done the same, because we all do, do the same. Nowhere in Genesis is it suggested that free will was stripped from humanity. Our will is as "free" as it's always been, but we're no longer in the garden.
6
« on: February 12, 2025, 11:55:35 AM »
Figuring out my "10 year to avoid statins" plan.
7
« on: January 26, 2025, 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 
8
« 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.
9
« 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.
10
« 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.
11
« 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").
12
« 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.
13
« 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.
14
« 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.
15
« 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.
|
Is free will a failed concept?
by Slug1
Today at 05:48:16 PM
|
Self Introduction
by 49ersALLS.F.
Today at 05:14:31 PM
|
Watcha doing?
by Athanasius
Yesterday at 04:39:44 AM
|
What need to happen before the end times ?
by IMINXTC
March 03, 2025, 05:30:26 PM
|
Your most treasured books
by IMINXTC
March 02, 2025, 09:49:05 PM
|
Levite Priesthood and genesis 49
by Fenris
February 25, 2025, 04:51:06 PM
|
Finding Jesus in 1 Corinthians 13
by wolfman1223
February 24, 2025, 09:41:27 PM
|
Looking at Col. 2:16
by RabbiKnife
February 23, 2025, 03:47:23 PM
|
Israel, Hamas, etc
by Fenris
February 22, 2025, 08:58:56 PM
|
Plot holes
by Fenris
February 03, 2025, 08:51:21 PM
|
Quotable Quotes
by Sojourner
February 01, 2025, 03:43:37 PM
|
Walk
by Cloudwalker
January 26, 2025, 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
|
|
|
Show Posts
