|
|
First My Examination Of Acts Seventeen.
'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some
of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' 29 "Therefore since we are God's offspring, we
should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone--an image made by man's design and skill. 30 In
the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he
has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all
men by raising him from the dead." (Acts 17)
Here Paul Is Quoting Their Philosophers And Then Acknowledging Their
Previous Acknowledgment Of A Truth That God 'Made Plain' To Them. (Romans 1)
It Would Be pointless To Quote The Philosophers If
A Common Ground Already Existed.
We Can Show That Paul Made Some Clear Contrasts of The Gospel To Greek Philosophy,
but That Doesn't Mean There Were No Connections Or Established Common Ground.
This Also Contradicts Paul's 'Becoming All Things To All People' Approach.
"Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone,
to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like
a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so
as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having
the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win
those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak,
to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings." (1 Cor.
9:22)
The Logical Results Of The Calvinist Approach Is To Become Nothing To Everyone
Because God Will Save Whoever He Wishes And Irresistably Damn The Rest.
Paul Actually Evangelized The Unsaved And Thought 'All' People Ought To Hear
The Gospel.
For The Purpose Of This Discussion, There Isn't Any Need to Disagree That There
Were Differences Of Thought Between Greek Philosophy And The Gospel, Because There Were.
The Theologian That Alleges No Common Ground Has The Burden Of Proof To
Show That There Are No Commanalities At All Between The Gospel and Pre Christian Thinking.
My Burden Is To Only Prove One Case.
It Is Important To Show That The Gospel Was Revealed In Christ.
To Deny That God Used Common Ground To Lead People Into Deeper Truth Is Erroneous.
Then We Would Have To Deny That God Influenced The Zoroastrian Magi And Even
Used Their Religion In Helping them find The Messiah.
It Is Important To Note That Their Idea Of Messiah and Other Important Truths Are
Skewed, But To Deny Any Commanalities Is To Have Ones Head In The Sand Theologically Speaking.
"That Zoroaster used Vedic Materials found in early Hinduism can hardly be denied;
that he was a polytheist like Darius, Xerxes, and others who were probably Zoroastrians (at least, their inscriptions pay
homage to Ahura Mazda), seems most likely...Zoroastrianism is therefore called a dualism-but it is a limited dualism. ...The
Ultimate Victory of Ahura Mazda, however was not to be accomplished by human assistance but by the advent of a messiah like
figure, the Saoshyant....The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has reopened the discussion, due to the presence of marked 'Zorastrian' influences in the Qumran Literature.
Some of The Most Striking Parallels to Jewish-Christian Eschatology can Be Shown To Be Very Late Developments In Zoroastianism.
On the Other hand, It would Not Do Violence To A High View Of Inspiration to Admit That God Could Have Used Zoroastrianism
As A Means Of Stimulating The Jewish Mind to Think On These Subjects Even As He Used Hellenism To Prepare The Jewish Mind
For The Christian Revelation. (Witness Saul Of Tarsus). The Magi ('Wise Men') Of The Birth Narrative May Have Been Zoroastrian
Priests." (Bakers Dictionary Of Theology. Zoroastrianism, William Sanford LaSor)
Greek Thought Wasn't All Related To Greek Theology.
Actually Stoicism Also Taught The Divine Predestination Of All Things, Though
Their Gods And Our God Are As Different As Night And Day.
"Major doctrinal likenesses suggested between Paul and the Stoics are the Logos
as a principle of reason pervading all, a universal gospel, submission or faith as the criterion for right religious adjustment,
and the divine predestination of all things." (Bakers Dictionary Of Theology)
I Use History Outside The bible To show Those That Do The Same That History
Is fallible, And Contradicts Itself. The Errant Shouldn't Be Used To Interpret The Inerrant.
What Some Somehow Miss Is that Paul Quotes The Poets As Saying 'His Offspring'-Singular
Not 'Their Offspring'-Plural.
For we are also his offspring--the first half of the fifth line, word for word, of an astronomical poem of
Aratus, a Greek countryman of the apostle, and his predecessor
by about three centuries. But, as he hints, the same sentiment is to be found in other Greek poets. They meant it doubtless
in a pantheistic sense; but the truth which it expresses the apostle turns to his own purpose--to teach a pure, personal, spiritual Theism. (Probably during his quiet retreat at Tarsus.
Acts 9:30 , revolving his special vocation to the Gentiles he gave himself to the study of so much Greek literature as might
be turned to Christian account in his future work. Hence this and his other
quotations from the Greek poets, 1 Corinthians 15:33 , Titus 1:12
If All Paul Wanted To Do Is Show The
Differences Or Pit One Against The Other, He Would Have Said The Poets Say, We Are Their Offspring.'
But He Didn't And Emphasized 'His' AND 'Offspring'.
Regarding How He Viewed The One(s) He Quoted:
"the Syriac version reads in the singular number, "as a certain one of your
wise men has said"; but all others read in the plural;"
In This Translation He Even Recognizes The Wisdom Of 'One Of Your Wise Men.'
He Even Goes On To Confirm What He Quoted:
"Therefore since we are God's offspring..." (v. 29)
If That Isn't Establishing Common Ground Then Nothing At All Can Be Established.
Notice: 'Since We Are' Not 'Since You Think We Are..'
'but the truth which it expresses the apostle turns to his own purposes.'
The fact Still Remains That It Is True That 'We Are His Offspring' As Both Aratus
And Paul Stated, and Paul Agrees, (v. 29) And In Him (Not Them), We Live, Move And Have Our Being As Paul And Epimenides Say.
"If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish,
and it will be given you. 8 This is to my Father's" (John 15)
"15
If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God. 16 And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God,
and God in him."
Scripture Teaches That Even The Lost Live, Move And Have Their Being in God.
"17 He is
before all things, and in him all things hold together." (Colossians 1)
Special Note To The Calvinists, All Means All.
It Is A Gross Generalization To Either Equate An Opponents Belief In Free Will
Or Predestination to The Greek Philosophers, Because We Can Find Evidence For Both In Greek Thinking. Does This Mean We Should
forsake Belief In Free Will And Predestination Because Someone Of Greek Thought Believed Both Beforehand.
Paul Didn't Forsake, 'We Are His Offspring' And 'In Him We Live,
Move And Have Our Being' Just Because A Greek Believed It.
It In Fact Is What The Bible Teaches, In A Theistic Way.
This Is Like Saying, Because The Greeks Thought There Were Planets In Space,
We Ought To Reject That Notion.
It Is Unthinkable For The Experienced Debater Not To Establish Common Ground
Before Moving On To What He Disagrees With.
I Cannot Imagine One That Has Any Experience in Reaching The lost To Not See
The Value In This.
Then Paul Concludes With A Message That Is In Direct Opposition To Calvinism.
"In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere
to repent." (17:30)
Notice 'All People'. If All People Weren't Capable Of Repenting The Command
Would Be Cruel.
The Calvinist Denies This But Then Claims To Be Able To Refute Common Ground
Evangelism.
Then Paul Says: "For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice
by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead." (Acts 17)
Paul Seems To Be Opposing Calvinism More Than Anything Else In This Chapter.
The Being Nothing To Everyone Approach Of Calvinism, Is In Direct Opposition
To Paul's Of 'Becoming All Things To All People.'
"17:31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice
by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by
raising him from the dead."
If I Be Lifted From The Earth, Will Draw All Men To Myself. (Jn. 12:24)
Sure, There Is A Natural Side To This In That We Are His Offspring Through Adam.
But A Higher Understanding As Well, That We Are Commanded To Be God's Offspring
Through Christ As Well.
"But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those
who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through
a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive."
(1 Corinthians 15)
"14
Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command,
as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. 15
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace
and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and
brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those
who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was
condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act
of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men."
(Romans 5)
Bj Maxwell
04/19/2007
Copyright ©
Now If We Are Irresistably Subject To The Influences Over Us, Then
Monsters Like Hitler Can Blame At Least Three Germans, One Englishman, One Austrian And One Divine Being For What
He Did: Martin Luther (The Jews And Their Lies), Nietzhe (Superman), Darwin (Origin Of Species) And Freud Who
Blamed It On Sex And One's Mother.
|
 |
|
'You're Hopelessly Predestined If You'
A Word Of Clarification Here Is That There Is Always Hope From God's Point Of
View.
It Is Only Hopeless, When On This Side Of Heaven One Refuses To Believe The
Plain Words Of Christ.
These People Are Predestined To Failure And Have Shot Themselves In The Foot
Before (Pre)They Have Reached Their Destination.
Some However, Maintain That 'The Majority Are Hopeless Because God
Determines So.'
This Is Predestination And Fatalism Which Are Not Scriptural
"Predestination and Fatalism do not differ in the main. They differ only in
this, that with predestination the external determination of human action proceeds from a rational Being, and with fatalism
from an irrational one. But in either case the result is the same: that happens which must happen."
(Arthur Schopenhauer, On Human
Nature, Free-Will and Fatalism.
But Even The Distinction That Schopenhauer Makes Doesn't Apply In Differentiating
Predestination From Stoic Fatalism Because In Stoicism The Logos, Is Not 'Irrational' But Is The Constant Principle Of Two
Becoming One, Or The Interaction Of Opposites And Our Accepting Of Its Course.
When 'that happens which must happen', We Are Not Dealing With A Loving
Personal God.
Marcus Aurelius, A Stoic Says This: Each thing is of like form from everlasting
and comes round again in its cycle. -- Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, II, 14
This Thought Began With Heraclitus, Who Taught That The Logos Could
Be Understood And Followed By Seeing How Opposites Interacted-Flux Of Nature (Two Uniting). Their Limitation Here,
Is That They Saw Part Of The Process But Didn't Understand The Similarities And Distinctions, And That The Person Behind It Who Would Take On Flesh (Two Uniting), Would Demonstrate That Both Groups Were Sinners,
(Two Uniting), And In Need Of A Saviour. (Romans 11:24:32; Acts 13:46ff) Would Bring Believing Jew And Gentile Together
(Ephesians 2) Through His Death (Two Uniting), Would Be Head Of The Church (Two Uniting), Which Is His Body (Ephesians
5:32).
"Heraclitus was the earliest Greek thinker to make logos a central concept.
He urges us to pay attention to the logos, which "governs all things" and yet is also something we "encounter every
day." We should probably emphasize the linguistic connections of logos when interpreting Heraclitus's thought. In our efforts
to understand the world, we should look to our language and the order embodied in it, rather than to scientific or religious
views that neglect this.
In the 3d century BC the proponents of Stoicism borrowed the idea of logos from
Heraclitus (neither Plato nor Aristotle had given the term prominence) and used it for the immanent ordering principle of
the universe - represented, at the level of language, by humankind's ordered discourse. Nature and logos are often treated
as one and the same; but logos is nature's overall rational structure, and not all natural creatures have logos, or reason,
within them. Humans are urged to "live consistently with logos...
The 6th-century BC Greek philosopher Heraclitus was the first to use the term
Logos in a metaphysical sense. He asserted that the world is governed by a firelike Logos, a divine force that produces the
order and pattern discernible in the flux of nature. He believed that this force is similar to human reason and that his own
thought partook of the divine Logos.
In Stoicism, as it developed after the 4th century BC, the Logos is conceived
as a rational divine power that orders and directs the universe; it is identified with God, nature, and fate."
The Article At The Top By Schopenhauer, Concerning Human Nature,
Free-Will and Fate Is Not Antagonistic To Fatalism And Predestination But Instead Defends Them Making Little Distinctions
Between The Two.
Those That Argue That Anything The Greeks Thought Ought To Come To
Nought And Be Disbelieved Should Be Challenged To Give Up The Belief In Predestination And Fatalism Because The
Stoics And Hindus Believed It Long Before They Did, Though They Believed In gods.
Rejecting Any Precedent Is Not What I Believe However, Because God Has Made
Some Of His Truths Plain To Even Unbelievers. (Romans 1)
There Is A Big Difference Between the logos Of Stoicism/Calvinism And True
Biblical Christianity.
The Logos Of True Christianity Is About A Person That Loves The Whole World
Not Just A Minority In It. (John 12:32; John 3:16; 2 Corinthians 5:14ff; Acts 17:30), And This Personal Relationship
Is What Makes Him Distinct From His Creation.
" For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that
one died for all, and therefore all died. 15 And he died for all, that those who live should no longer
live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again." 2 Corinthians 5:14ff
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him; and
without him was not anything made that hath been made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness apprehended
it not. ...9 There was the true light, [even the light] which lighteth every man, coming into the world.
(John 1, ASV)
The Following Chart Compares Stoicism To Views That Present Part Of The
Truth But Not The Whole Truth.
This Is A Work In Progress So More Will Be Added Later.
| Stoicism: |
Half Truths: |
|
Marcus Aurelius A Stoic:
"If the gods care not for me or my children,
there is a reason for it"
|
Calvinist:
'If God Care Not For Me Or My Children, There Is A Reason For It.'
-Limited Atonement
The Whole Truth Is, God Died For All But Not All Will Receive It.
"15 And he died for all, that those who live should
no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again." 2 Corinthians 5:15ff |
|
The controlling intelligence understands its own nature, and what it
does, and whereon it works. -- Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, VI, 5
This Sounds Like Self Consciousness.
|
8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither
are your ways my ways," declares the Lord. 9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher
than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55)
But The Rrrest Of The Story:
6 Seek the Lord while he may be found; call on him
while he is near. 7 Let the wicked forsake his way and the evil man his thoughts. Let him turn to the Lord, and
he will have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will freely pardon. (Isaiah 55)
Now Wouldn't It Be Deceptive And Cruel To Make This Offer Appear To Be
For Anyone, As It Does, But Really Mean For The Chosen Few? |
|
Each thing is of like form from everlasting and comes round again in
its cycle. -- Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, II, 14
|
"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun. 10 Is there anything of which one can say, "Look! This is something new"? It was
here already, long ago; it was here before our time....
15 Whatever is has already been, and what will be
has been before; and God will call the past to account. ..."
Ecclesiastes 1:5:-10-3:15
7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man
reaps what he sows. 8 The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction..(Ga.
6)
This Looks Like A Process, That Repeats Itself Over And Over And Getting
Along In Life Is Just About Knowing That You Reap What You Sow And What Goes Around Literally Comes Around.
But The Rrrrest Of The Story Is:
"the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal
life. 9 Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give
up. 10 Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong
to the family of believers." (Ga. 6)
Now Why Would God Expect Us To Love All If He Only Loves A Few?
|
|
Nothing happens to anybody which he is not fitted by nature to bear.
-- Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, V, 18
|
"13 No temptation has seized you except what is common to
man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he
will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it. " (1 Corinthians 10)
But Scripture Goes On To The Rrrrrrrrrrest Of The Story:
'14 Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry.' (Ibid)
|
|
Whatever may befall thee, it was preordained for thee from everlasting.
-- Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, X, 5
|
"I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and
create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things. ... 9 "Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker, to him who
is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, 'What are you making?' Does your
work say, 'He has no hands'? 10 Woe to him who says to his father, 'What have you begotten?' or to his mother, 'What
have you brought to birth?' (Isaiah 45)
Also Romans Nine.
However, Calvinists Again Miss The Other Side And Fail To See How The
Two Sides Unite.
"But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver,
but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. 21 If a man therefore purge himself from
these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work."
(2 Timothy 2; KJV )
|
|
Whatever happens at all happens as it should; thou wilt find this true,
if thou shouldst watch narrowly. -- Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, IV 10
In Other Words, 'If You Have A Narrow Mind You Will Agree With him.'
|
There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under
heaven: ...14 I know that everything God does will endure forever; nothing can be added to it and nothing taken from it.
God does it so that men will revere him. 15 Whatever is has already been, and what will be has been before; and God
will call the past to account. 18 I also thought. (Ecclesiastes 3)
The Rrrrrrrrrest Of The Story?
|
|
Are We No More Self Aware Than Plants And Animals?
All that happens is as usual and familiar as the rose in spring and the
crop in summer. -- Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, IV, 44
Each thing is of like form from everlasting and comes round again in
its cycle. -- Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, II, 14 |
19 Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits
them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything
is meaningless. (Ecclesiastes 3)
21 Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of
the animal goes down into the earth?" 22 So I saw that there is nothing better for a man than to enjoy his work, because
that is his lot. For who can bring him to see what will happen after him? (Ecc. 3)
The View Of Ecclesiastes Makes Man No More Self Determining Than
Soulless Animals.
What Is Plant That Thou Art Mindful Of Him?
No
"What Is Man That Thou Art Mindful Of Him "
|
|
"Stoicism is characterized as a philosophy of materialism, pantheism,
and fatalism. It is materialistic in the sense that everything that exists possesses corporeality and is ultimately traced
back to God. The Stoic God, redolent of Plato's Timaeus, is said to be the "body" of the universe whereby God is its
soul. This is how Stoicism becomes pantheistic in its understanding of the relationship between the universe and God. It further
portrays a fatalistic universe by declaring that everything that occurs happens by necessity. Nothing is left to any libertarian
volition. This has caused its followers to adopt a sort of apathy toward our fatalistic universe.
|
This apathy, say the Stoics, is characterized as "accepting the will
of God", something very reminiscent of Christianity. Hence, many make the association of Stoic fatalism with the Christian
doctrine of predestination (e.g. the Augustinian-Calvinist view)."
The Calvinist Will Say That They Are Not To Be Apathetic Because He
Commands Them Not To.
But If Their Concept Of God Loving Some Rejecting Most Is True, How
Can He Expect Them To Love More Than He Does?
Well They Say, God Doesn't Tell Us Who He Hates So We Must Love All. |
|
|
|
Man Is In The 'Image Of God':
26 Then God said, "Let
us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air,
over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." 27 So God created man
in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." (Genesis 1)
We Are In the Image Of A God Who Says, 'Us' And 'Our'
14 God said to Moses, "~I am who I am. This is what you
are to say to the Israelites: '~I am has sent me to you.'" 15 God also said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites,
'The Lord, the God of your fathers--the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob--has sent me to you.' This is
my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation. " (Exodus 3:14)
God Who Says, 'I am who I am', And 'I am has sent me to you', Has Revealed Here
That Being In His Image Includes Being Able To Not Only Say, 'He Is', But 'I Am'.
"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God
must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." (Hebrews 11)
Jesus Says: "Before Abraham Was, I Am." (John 8)
The Jews Didn't Attempt To Stone Him Just Because He Said 'I Am'-Eyw Eimi, But
Because He Was, The I Am, Before Abraham.
It Was His Eternal I Am-Ness That Rouled Them.
We Are In The Image Of God At Conception.
This Is How We Should Argue Against Abortion.
If We Are Not In The Image Of God At Conception Then Abortion Is No Worse
Than Pulling Up A Weed Or Killing An Animal.
Killing Animals Is Wrong, But Not Comparable To The Killing Of Man.
But That Doesn't Stop Mindless New Agers And Evolutionists From Protecting The Animals More Than The Unborn.
We Can Say 'I Am' As Well.
Saying This Is Self Awareness And Consciousness. Through The Use Of Personal
Pronouns We Distinguish Ourselves From Others And Soulless And Mindless Plants And Animals.
If We Have No More Say Than Plants And Animals Then Our Image That Comes
From God That Allows Us To Say, 'I Am' Is Meaningless, And Places Us With The Plants And Animals.
If God's Plan Doesn't Include The Exercise Of Our 'I Am-Ness' Then We Are Mere Machinations,
Not Thinking, Choosing Individuals.
With Self Awareness Comes Self Determination And The Drawing Of All Men (Jn.
12:32), By God, Enables All Men Self Awareness And Self Determination.
I Am-Ness Means That I'm Not A Mindless Participant In God's Plan, And The Majority
Removed From God's Plan But 'I Am' Therefore I Think, I Choose, I Feel. Because I Am Self Aware.
Murdering Man Is Wrong, Because It Takes Away His Self Awareness And Self Determination
And Because He Is In God's Image.
If This Isn't The Case We Ought To Hold God In Contempt For What Hitler Did.
Now Of Course We Know That God Influences Us, And His Drawing Enables Us To
Choose.
Now If We Are Irresistably Subject To The Influences Over Us, Then
Monsters Like Hitler Can Blame At Least Three Germans, One Englishman, One Austrian And One Divine Being For What
He Did: Martin Luther (The Jews And Their Lies), Nietzhe (Superman), Darwin (Origin Of Species) And Freud Who
Blamed It On Sex And One's Mother.
But Truth Is, We Are Responsible For Our Choices And No Influences, Including
God Are Irresistable.
God Wouldn't Give Man This 'I Am-Ness But Then Deny His Ability To Be As He
Was Created.
Concerning Stoicism,
Not Only Does Marcus Aurelius A Stoic mention 'gods' But He Speaks Over And
Over Of Predestination.
Now One Can Find Quotes From Aurelius That Appear To Be About Free Will, But
These Can Only Be The Surface Result Of A Prior And Irrestible Determinism That Stoics And Calvinists Believe In.
It Is No Different Than A Calvinist Claiming That We Are Predestined But Still
Maintaining That We Are Responsible For Our Decisions And God Is Love. Both Are Contradictory Statements.
"The Brahmin philosophers also express the unalterable fixity of innate character
in a mystical fashion. They say that Brahma, when a man is produced, engraves his doings and sufferings in written characters
on his skull, and that his life must take shape in accordance therewith. They point to the jagged edges in the sutures of
the skull-bones as evidence of this writing; and the purport of it, they say, depends on his previous life and actions. The
same view appears to underlie the Christian, or rather, the Pauline, dogma of Predestination."
However, I Don't Believe In Predestination And Certainly Not To The
Exclusion Of Man's Autonomy After The Resistable Drawing Of God.
If Our Image Isn't A Finite Reflection Of His Eternal Self Consciousness,
Self Determination And I Am-Ness, But Rather Machinations, Then Wouldn't That Say Something Of Our Maker,
In Whose Image We Are?
Things Would Be Likened To An Assembly Line Where Machines Build Machines.
Because If We Don't Have Self Awareness And Self Determination Then Neither
Does God, In Whose Image We Are.
Wouldn't It Then Have Been More Appropriate For God To Say:
Let Things Take Their Course Rather Than 'Let Us Make Man In Our Image...'
Rather Than Tell Them 'I Am Who I Am Has Sent You.'
I Am Whatever I Am And Whatever Will Be, Will Be.
Before Abraham Was, that happens which must happen.
'No Religions Rises Above Its Concept Of God Or The Universe.'
While At A Krishna Temple The Host Talked About His Religion. I Asked Him
About His God, Krishna Stealing Womens Clothing And Making Them Beg To Get Them Back.
He Adoringly Smiled And Said, Well He's The Supreme Enjoyer. This Is Why Even
The Krishna Devotees Don't Use Krishna As An Example, They Use Christ.
God Is Not Going To Command His Creatures To Be More Loving Than He Is.
If He Loves Only Some, Then Why Would He Expect Us To Love All?
Bj Maxwell
05/09/2007
| |
|
