Here's a tough question:

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
You see, when you make a comment, such as you just made, you put the topic of theology in a box...

That's true! Well said.

But even so...as long as there are 'boxes' there will be those who try to stuff them full of all sorts of things - even GOD.

Even though I personally think that it is an illusion (because how can EVERYTHING be stuffed into a compartment within itself?) it is obviously an allowed illusion - or else it would not be.

If it is okay to pack the boxes, then it is okay to unpack the boxes!
Even if GOD is put into a box 2 million times to the 7th power...I won't cease un-boxing GOD up to even the 2 million to the 7th power + 1!



Why?
Because I CAN!

reply to post by queenannie38


Queen, I completely understand.
My point to Madness was that typically when people use such terms as theology, they are usually referencing mainstream theology, which, well, you have been here long enough to know my view on that . Pfft...

Madness made the comment that my view/views are not "theologically sound." I was asking him, whose theology. If he was referencing mainstream theology, then, yeah, I'd agree. However, 1st and 2nd theology was very similar to many of my views... Of course, the "church" labeled a large portion of that "heresy."

It just seems to me that Madness is putting theology in a box; whereas, I am not.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Queen, I completely understand.
My point to Madness was that typically when people use such terms as theology, they are usually referencing mainstream theology, which, well, you have been here long enough to know my view on that . Pfft...

Indeed I do!

However, 1st and 2nd theology was very similar to many of my views... Of course, the "church" labeled a large portion of that "heresy."

I must admit that I don't even know what you are referring to when you say '1st and 2nd theology.' Were those specific designations by the early church, or some other institution, used to describe a set of beliefs? Could you point me in a general direction for more information?

I am always interested in reading 'heresy'! As opposed to 'theology.'

It just seems to me that Madness is putting theology in a box; whereas, I am not.

Well, if one doesn't believe in GOD, I guess all that is left to box up is ideas about...well...nobody. And for one that believes there is probably no box big enough!

I think I'd rather put theology in a box and maybe go have an ice-cream with GOD and just CHAT.

Queen, ahh, typo.. I meant the first and second century... Damn... :shk: Sorry about that.

[edit on 19-11-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

reply to post by SpeakerofTruth


i said "theologically sound" instead of logically sound... i'm saying you can't really back up your arguments with anything except for "i believe"
which means there isn't a theological argument, just a personal statement of belief.

Why bother? :shk:

[edit on 21-11-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
i said "theologically sound" instead of logically sound... i'm saying you can't really back up your arguments with anything except for "i believe"
which means there isn't a theological argument, just a personal statement of belief.

THEN, in that case, there is NO SUCH thing as sound theology!

AND IF there is no sound theology then to say that someone's statement is not sound, theologically speaking, is no longer meaningful in any way.

And to tell you the truth, madness, I agree with you. For far different reasons but nonetheless I do not think 'theology' is a word that fits in with the general meanings of all other 'ology' words.

I just don't understand why you bring up such a supposedly meaningless subject all the time?

reply to post by queenannie38


ok..true, there is no such thing as sound theology. i'll completely agree with you there.

but still, question at hand (which we're really off the topic of)

good because god does it/says it's good
or
god does/commands it because it's good>

As I stated before, given that God is goodness, your question is really a moot point because both are correct.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
but still, question at hand (which we're really off the topic of)

good because god does it/says it's good
or
god does/commands it because it's good>

I answered the question. For myself, that is.

Madness, I did answer.

Goodness comes from God, and he places it in humans (grace).

But if the human doesnt accept it, he rejects the grace.

So It is good only because of God, so im leaning towards the first.

But both are true, only in terms of humility.

if the second is commanded because its good, then its still from Gods grace.

Its cooperative.

God dispenses graces, man accepts or not.

the reason the saints became saints, is because they didnt reject alot of graces. Graces of love and of conscience.

Look at stuff like when you here about people smuthering their babies in pillows, or evil people killing someone over 10 bucks or so..

This trype of evil is a deprevation of grace, I know you may not understand this, but you know what evil is im sure.

So God makes people good, which would mean he commands the good, and the person accepts it.

God cant make someone good, without their accepting grace, and a person cannot be good without God.

that would be pride, which alot run on, and they dont think they need God even if he existed, so God allows them to run on pride, and of course these are the ifrst minded people who love to flatter themselves about their own goodness.

I dont know how else to explain it.

peace.

reply to post by JesusisTruth


i'm not talking about some abstract fictional concept of goodness here, i'm talking of MORALITY.

again, speaker, god cannot be GOODNESS in this context as the "good" i speak of is MORALITY. are you saying that god is morality?
however, i'll address to you another question
is it goodness because it's a quality of god or is god good by some other standard?

[edit on 11/22/07 by madnessinmysoul]

Madness,

It is clear to me that you are talking about mans morality as the standard by which things occur or are judged. YOu are not talking about God's Soverignty.

Your attempt in this whole diatribe is to put judgement on God and God's Soverignty by questioning others. To sow doubt. This is the box of doubt you are attempting to form around the posters in here. This is an attempt to sow confusion/doubt.

It works well on most Believers. They will trip up easily because they are not sufficiently Salty.

The issue is who's morality..whose Soverignty??

For Morality to play throught unhindered it must be Soverign over another.

Whos morality do you expect to play through by default Madness?? Men or God??

If you keep this up you will go around full circle.

To believers who know the fingerprint you are using you have an incomplete set in which you are attempting to frame the question. YOu have left out the important characteristic of the God of the Bible...Soverignty. This is the box you use to try to frame people into your default setting. This is politics..this is public education. This is also historically sophism..which is a religion and stems from the ancient religions of men. It is also phariseeism.



Thanks,
Orangetom

reply to post by orangetom1999


god doesn't seem to have morality here.
just ask those innocent egyptian firstborns...
or the midianities
or many others
i think i'll go with the secular morality that's even the root of religious morality

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by orangetom1999

 

god doesn't seem to have morality here.
just ask those innocent egyptian firstborns...
or the midianities
or many others
i think i'll go with the secular morality that's even the root of religious morality

Madness.

You are seriously joking here?? Also very selective on what you post in as I have previously stated ..hoping and praying that most of the posters on here know so little Bible and or history.

Amazing to me how selective you are to me just like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson in attempting to play through on the ignorance of others. However..as a strategy you would do very well on this tack because most dont know the weakness in your brand of selectivity.

Watch how this nonsense works. As a matter of fact...your tack doesnt even make good nonsense to those of us who know the history.

Innocent Egyptian first born. You omit what the Egyptians were in fact doing to other nations. Totally gloss over or omit this history. Why so selective or deleting of the whole picture?

How do you think Moses came to be in the river in the first place to be picked up by one of Pharoah Sister. The Egyptians leadership and priesthood were wary of the prophecy of the redeemer coming from out of the Hebrew line. They did not like these storys or prophecys. They ...the Egyptians chose to kill all the Hebrew males of a certain age or below. Did I miss something here in "Humanity?" THe Word records that the Mother of Moses chose to put him in the river rather than have him killed by the Egyptians.
Alot of Hebrew male children were slain here . Why do you choose to avoid this history in default to your political/religious desires??

Amazing to me in your posts over the last year how selective you can be of posting one view and not the whole view or history to make your very selective and political/religious points. You are using a placebo here in an attempt to silence people who dont know. It does not silence me. I am not that guilty that I need to let this nonsense play through.
Learn about Salt Madness.

Please try again and do a better job of it.

You do not also post as to what peoples like the Midianites or for example the Moabites were doing among themselves with thier first born or young. This was happening in the religions of many of the nations surrounding Israel. Yet you avoid this history assiduously

If more people knew enough history to get a measure of what the nations surrounding Ancient Israel were doing in thier religions they would be shocked and offended. Remember..the nation of Israel was instructed to do not as the nations surrounding them were doing. For the land was defiled. This I suspect is why this history is avoided and not taught.
Remember also Madness..their Kings, religions, and the priesthood of the nations surrounding Ancient Israel were also tied together ..no seperation of church and state. And these were Pagan nations. Absolute Power to the Priesthoods and the Kings. Out of these olde religions came what to day is called the Gnostic religions..sophism..the reason and logic of today. You should already know this history.

How is this for time warp technique Madness?? I like history..dont you??

Are you telling me ..in that you prefer to go with secular morality..that you prefer the placebo..even if it is not the whole story or a decpetion?? Is that it??

Give me the name of your god who would decieve peoples in this manner...by omission..by a slight shuffling/reshuffling of the cards. By omitting part of the history. In short a counterfit?? A deception.
Give me the name of the counterfitter??

This is a much bigger picture than that of which you are wont to post to support your positions.

Keep it up again Madness..sooner or later others will be able to know enough to see what you are doing....over and over again. They too will know the name of your god. Clearly.

Thanks,
Orangetom

[edit on 22-11-2007 by orangetom1999]

[edit on 22-11-2007 by orangetom1999]

[edit on 22-11-2007 by orangetom1999]

reply to post by orangetom1999


Yes if only people knew history and not some mumbo jumbo fairy creating the universe 6k years ago.

Originally posted by AncientVoid
reply to post by orangetom1999

 

Yes if only people knew history and not some mumbo jumbo fairy creating the universe 6k years ago.

Ancient Void,

You totally lost me. I was in fact talking history with Madness. He is just wont to leave out alot of it in favor of incomplete posting and hoping that no none knows the difference.

I dont know where or what your post implys on the line of the topic or other posts. Totally lost me here..to deep for me. Clarify please??

Thanks,
Orangetom