Well, Doc, I think this is about the most fantastic thing I've ever read.
(Tongue-in-cheek) If it is, then you definitely need to read more...
No thanks. I value the peace in my heart way
to much to keep on exposing it to this kind of blasting
Seriously, I was in so much emotional distress after reading it that I had to leave it for a day to let the profound sadness in my heart of thoughts dissipate before I could dare approach it again with a reasonable frame of mind.
And while I'm sure you may agree with Martin Zender's… 'antilogic'… I'm very grateful that you didn't write it yourself.
And for that I think it may be close to the time for me to move on.
The truth is sometimes hard to swallow. Be that as it may...
No! Say it isn't true!
I want to ask you some questions, Doc and your answers will let me know if we have reached a point in our discussion when all we will be doing is bantering and repeating the same things over again.
Martin Zender said:
I would like, at this time, to make two statements. Some will consider these heretical, for they are logical; logic, we know is the enemy of all religion.
Do you believe this to be a truthful statement? Yes or No.
This is a sarcastic statement that he made intentionally to make a point. Neither Martin or I believe that logic is the enemy of all religion (faith-based belief system); although I will say that it is the enemy of all Religion (with a capital R) If you get my meaning.
Yes I do. And the point is taken. So the answer is, "No", you do not agree with his statement because it was intended to be sarcastic.
So, it is reasonably safe to say that you embrace his logic and his logical conclusions as accurate reflections of reality, that is they are the truth.
He also said:
I want you to see that anyone who attempts to relieve God of responsibility for sin, ends up making Him the very thing they try to avoid.
Do you agree with his conclusion as he stated it here? Yes or No. If No then please let me know why you think it is not correct.
I agree with His statement as stated, yes; understanding that he means they only make God so in the eyes of those viewing Him through that lens as a logical conclusion of viewing God through that lens.
The answer then is, "Yes"- with a... 'clarification'; and I would add, one worthy of John Calvin himself.
I'm sorry, Doc but I gotta pause here and add that what I perceive coming from Martin is a logical attempt to justify what, to my perception, cannot be justified because it is a lie; namely that God foreknew of the fall, as a fact, before it happened.
Doc, truly I was not being hyperbolic when I described the effect Martin's words had on me. "Ugly" was my initial word of choice, but I withdrew it and inserted "fantastic" out of respect for your appreciation of this man. For it is not my intention to demean Martin in your eyes, but I also want you to know that my emotional reaction to his words was genuine- given the glibness I know you intended only in fun. No offense was taken and I hope you perceive none for these words.
That being said, I certianly know that both you and he and many others, do not perceive it that way. And in fact, Martin does sound brilliant for his logic (The Q & A thingy was very clever).
But so was Calvin.
And I too know how logic works even as I have tried to share that knowledge here by demonstrating how to discern if the logic is truthful by examining the conclusions for accuracy; assuming one is really looking for truth; for logic itself is neutral and works independently of the truth in the statements that drive it.
So, if his logic satisfies your heart of thoughts, for believing, with all your heart, that The Bible teaches us that God foreknew the fall before He created Adam and Eve- then it does. And I will not be found gainsaying it.
He also said:
Katabole does not mean what you think it does. It literally means to throw down or lay down, as in laying down a foundation. (Rev. 13:8)
What does the Greek word katabole mean?
Does it mean 'foundation'?
Or does it mean 'disruption'?
Well, actually, that was my bit, not his. I was trying to personalize it to the discussion based on elements of your previous post.
Anyway my answer is that it means what I said it meant in the rest of that part of the post, and what others have confirmed it means in subsequent posts above. I'll repost it here for ease of reference:
here is what katabole means in the greek
Strong's G2602 - katabolē
Part of Speech
Root Word (Etymology)
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) a throwing or laying down
a) the injection or depositing of the virile semen in the womb
b) of the seed of plants and animals
2) a founding (laying down a foundation)
So the answer is, "I choose 'foundation'".
Some closing thoughts: Strong's 'definitions' of Greek and Hebrew words was derived from their usage in the KJV text, not from the original languages
. Thus the 'definitions' are self-referencing.
This is like defining a 'machine' as "anything that contains machinery".
The truth cannot be known from what is said in the definition because what is said refers back to the word itself for understanding.
The only thing Strong did to help ease the burden Calvin made The Words carry, given the severe bias that produced the KJV, was to list the usages in order such that, usually
, the last definition or two listed is the one that is not accurate.
One final question asked for thoughtful purposes only: Are Strong's definitions for aion
also just as accurate? Because if they are, then the Tentmaker's arguments against Strong's definitions are inaccurate and that peculiar hell really does exist, exactly as the King's English says it does.
My final word on this, then, is to sate the fact that everything
I have written here depends on katabole
meaning 'disruption'; just like it is a fact that what you have written here depends on katabole
And Doc: You and I know this.
So, I think you will agree that we have reached the inevitable impasse.
I say then, sincerely, thank you for answering these questions with honesty even as you have demonstrated an honorable spirit throughout our discussions; you are a rare find, indeed, Doc. And that is why I consider you a gift from God Himself.
Your answers will tell me whether I should be moving on or not.
And know, my friend, that I truly do appreciate all the time you have spent with me. You are literally a gift, sent from God.
I haven't responded to at least one of your posts to me here yet, but if you feel you need to move on after reading my answers here, that is of course your prerogative.
There was one other point I had intended to address previously that slipped my notice until something in your response to reformer's post, I think it was, jogged my memory. Bear with me here for a moment. I can't scroll back far enough on this page to get to that post, so I'm going to go back and look at it and edit this post with that particular thought. Back in a tic...
Ok... Adam and Eve's disobedience was the vehicle through which sin was brought into the world, yes? Where was it before it was brought in? It had to have existed already for them to bring it in, right? Adam and Eve therefore, did not create sin; they only brought it into the world. Now granted, sin and evil are not the same thing, though they often go hand in hand. The fact remains though, that we were created with the ability to miss the mark. That 'design decision' was therefore intentional, and thus part of God's plan.
Please, Doc, don't take this as a sardonic reply because, really, it is with a somber spirit that I say this, but, I perceive that you have learned well from Martin.
I'm sorry, Doc, but this idea you present is repulsive to me. You truly believe that Sin is a pre-existent 'thing'? And that God intentionally designed us
to... 'miss the mark' in order to introduce Sin... so He could later fix us
? (That is
His plan, right?)
And I noted, in past posts, that you seem to think of 'good' and 'evil' as 'things' also that He created
… Truly, I am sorry Doc, but the very idea
that Sin is a pre-existent 'thing', created by my
God for our Parents to 'introduce' into the world and that 'good' and 'evil' are also 'things'; with 'evil' being created by Him for our benefit
because He 'knows' that the only way that we can know of
'good' is objectively, for having to experience
'evil' first, is… something I understand… and don't wish to become better acquainted with.
All I have left to say, as I bring this reply to a close, is that, of truth, just as you and Martin have demonstrated it to be, this is exactly what one will come to logically
think about their God for believing what The Bible teaches us; that Jesus is, "…the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev 13:8 KJV).
Put your faith then in what you will and call it understanding; but I have to turn away from this for the ugliness I see.
One more edit... sorry, I just had to bring this up as well. You keep saying this throughout your various posts:
I think it's safe to assume that you no longer hold that peculiar hell that John Calvin gave us through the KJV interpretation of The Words actually exists because if you did you wouldn't be here on Tentmaker.
You speak as if Calvin is solely responsible for giving us "that peculiar hell". Now, I know you've got it in for Calvin; and I agree that the Turkey created a lot of theological problems with his doctrines. But I have to remind you that Calvin was not, by a longshot, solely responsible for "that peculiar hell". Augustine gets at least as much credit, and there are quite a large number in the rogue's gallery. Calvin was, relatively speaking, a latecomer to this whole affair. He played his role in propagating the whole mess, certainly, but I don't think in all fairness we can lay the blame squarely with him, eh?
I agree. Your summation is a good one and your question a fair one.
The reason I single John Calvin out for particular scrutiny is because of Calvin's unique
contribution to modern Medieval Christian thought, namely his theology, given into the mind of the world through the Latin-to-English King James Bible.
He gave us a systematic and highly logical way of appreciating the fact of a foreknown and even planned, eternal damnation of recalcitrant humans in an ever-burning hell by laying the sole responsibility for human sin at the feet of God through the… 'concept' of 'double predestination'.
Thus, it was found that his hellish theology was promulgated into popularity, with the help of the ecumenical leaders, right into the time of King James' truly brilliant strategy for undermining the power of the Holy Roman Church, while transferring that power to himself- through his loyal 'Reformers'- by giving the mostly ignorant and certainly unsuspecting commoners The Words of Calvin shoehorned into The Word of God, in their own language.
What my posts have been all
about is trying to undo the damage Calvin has done to our thoughts about God by exposing the translational trickery his interpreters employed to ensure that Calvin's theology was, 'The Truth, according to The Bible'.
And going even one better, I also offered a well thought out 'alternative theology' derived through the compelling nature of logic, for the change in meaning presented when katabole
is translated with 'disruption' instead of 'foundation'.
What's in a word?
And for what it's worth, I have also enjoyed our discussions so far. They've made me dig in a bit and think and rethink. So thanks for the challenge!
In closing, then, I let you know that your words are worth a lot to me. Thank you Doc, I am quite pleased to know that I was able to challenge you toward understanding even as you did me. Good thing, though, that I didn't come here to convince anybody of anything, eh?
I have a few promises to keep, including giving you a reply to the 'serpent thingy'. After that I will be likely moving on… with this exchange, so far, as my happiest moment:
Because I would say they were to be completed by refusing the offer to become like God, apart from Him, through trust in Him, despite their doubts, thus acquiring virtue.
And once that was accomplished, Jehovah would then grant them permission to eat from the 'forbidden' tree, removing all previous doubt from their minds of His intentions. And by eating the fruit, then, they would assimilate a conscience and become wise, exactly like God is, for His own knowing of the difference between good and evil. And thus they would begin to know of evil objectively instead of good, by experiencing all the good Jehovah planned for them to know. Their 'eyes would be opened' to understanding and wisdom and knowledge and they would comprehend that they were naked, but, would not be ashamed (or else they would retain the 'light' that I hear tell was around them 'clothing' them; an idea I like) and Jehovah would enable her womb with His blessing (instead of with a curse) and we would all be born into fully resembling God for not only being created to resemble Him in being Male and Female but also for being virtuous, that is, knowing the difference between good and evil and having not only the power to choose to be good (which Paul and John say He brings to us, now, through the spirit of Jesus 'making its home in us' [Paul] and acting like 'sperm' meeting an ovum to create a new human inside of us that 'partakes of the divine nature'[John]), but the will to because we would also be agape, fondness and affection, just like Him.
And that's a pretty good thing to be, don't you think? Not at all blasphemous, for concluding that Jehovah could not have foreknown their choice and therefore did not know, as a fact, that they were going to turn before He created them!
Well, it's a nice sounding theory...
High praise indeed!
And thank you for saying so, 'cause I, too, think it is... that is, of course, for something logically derived from my believing that The Words teach that Jesus is, "…the Lambkin slain from the disruption of the world" (Rev 13:8 CLV).
Which is why I continue to urge you and every one else to be good, 'cause, logically speaking, it's what you were originally
created to be!
Well, according to my
The 'last word' is your's, Doc.
And receive my blessings as well,