|
Kyrie eleison posted:This happens in the Gnostic gospel of Judas, and is incorporated into The Last Temptation of Christ. I just want to say that you calling someone else's beliefs ridiculous while posting some of the things you have posted ITT (Willfully suppressing your critical thinking?) is pretty funny.
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 07:05 |
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Because I think it is better than diaspora. I think the Jews deserve a homeland, and that it is most fitting for their religion that it be the land known as Israel, as that land is essential to their faith. I would definitely rather that it be in Jewish hands than Islamic hands. How is it fair for some foreigner to come in and say "I'd rather this ethnic group have this land than this other one because it gives me warm fuzzies"? How is the status quo best for everyone? Or do you mean Arabs should forcibly be expelled from Israel, regardless of whether they're Israeli citizens?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
Nessus posted:It is rarely stated in such a direct sense, but it's certainly been high on the list of "Reasons Why This Is Totally The End Times, Guys". Presumably if Israel becomes West Jordan, Neo-Palestine, or Crazy Bibi's Discount Settlement Hut and Falafel Joint in the next few decades, it would imply it is now less likely that Revelations will literally come true AND SOON, so it's a thing to be avoided. Right, since traditional Protestant/evangelical Christianity states that there will be war declared on Israel, and God will miraculously save Israel with his hand, Israel is thus necessary for their view of Revelation to be fulfilled. I mean this is laid out pretty prominently in Left Behind, which isn't a guy writing ironic strawman versions of Christian End Times beliefs, he genuinely believes this stuff. And since the existence of Israel is necessary for his belief of how things will go down, Israel is thus required to exist. So yeah, they don't flat out say "I support Israel because they are necessary for the Second Coming" but that is ultimately the reason they do support Israel. Their actual response for supporting Israel is the Old Testament verses where God basically says to Israel, "Whatever country is your ally I will bless, and whatever country is your enemy I will curse." US Christians believe that if we oppose Israel, God will send his wrath on the US to destroy it. In fact there's a Chick tract that states the reason that Great Britain fell from being a great empire is because of their actions during/after World War II.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Your Talmud says Jesus is boiling in excrement forever, so do not tell me you have no Hell. I am not religious myself, but I would like to address this. The passage in question is from the Midrash- it relates a story about a Roman convert to Judaism called Onekos. Onekos summons three "enemies of Israel" who all are suffering exaggerated punishments in the afterlife, and of course regret ever defaming the Jews. One of those people, Yeshu, might be Jesus of Nazareth, or he could be one of the other people calledyeshu mentioned in the Talmud. The Talmud is an enormous compilation of speculative rabbinical commentaries. Like the rest of the Talmud, it's speculative musings, and it wouldn't have been taken at face value back in 500 CE, let alone now. Citing a section of the Talmud and claiming it represents the "position" of Jews at any time, or a statement of Jewish ontology, is to miss entirely why the Talmud was composed, and how Jews have related to it throughout history. The only people who cite this out of context Jesus's supposed suffering in the Talmud are Islamists and people like David Duke, Icke, Rense dot com(google Kyrie's claim). It's regrettable that KE's conception of the Jewish afterlife is primarily informed by a slur. I am curious as to how KE even became aware of this passage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:Right, since traditional Protestant/evangelical Christianity states that there will be war declared on Israel, and God will miraculously save Israel with his hand, Israel is thus necessary for their view of Revelation to be fulfilled. I mean this is laid out pretty prominently in Left Behind, which isn't a guy writing ironic strawman versions of Christian End Times beliefs, he genuinely believes this stuff. And since the existence of Israel is necessary for his belief of how things will go down, Israel is thus required to exist. But Christianity (at least traditional Christianity) associates the word "Israel" with the Christian people, not with the land called Israel. Many hymns quote the Old Testament, using words such as Israel or Zion or Jerusalem or the promised land, but Christians interpret these things differently, and believe we are the true spiritual descendants of the ancient Israelites.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
Dilkington posted:I am not religious myself, but I would like to address this. I was told about it by an Israeli friend of mine, incidentally, whom I like to discuss religion with. But one can also find it by looking up the wiki page on Jesus in the Talmud. I know that the official line is that there is only Sheol, which is essentially a metaphor for permanent death. But the Talmud cannot be so easily shrugged off with how it talks about Jesus. My point is only that neither Scripture nor Talmud are so cut-and-dry about the human afterlife, with Elijah resurrecting a boy from the dead, and himself ascending to Heaven. Quotes from the prophets include Daniel 12:2, and Isaiah 26:19. The books of Maccabees, particularly 2 Maccabees chapter 7 shows Second Temple-era Jews claiming resurrection.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:I was told about it by an Israeli friend of mine, incidentally, whom I like to discuss religion with. But one can also find it by looking up the wiki page on Jesus in the Talmud.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
I put myself at the mercy of all those reading this thread- let me be cursed to wander the earth forever if I "shrugged off" the Talmud's references to Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:But Christianity (at least traditional Christianity) associates the word "Israel" with the Christian people, not with the land called Israel. And traditional Christianity believes bad things happen to good people, good things happen to bad people, and that neither that man nor his parents sinned that he should be born blind. US evangelical Christianity is not traditional Christianity, it is a weird perversion of it. Evangelical Christians believe that the Israel in the Middle East right now is the same Israel the bible talks about and that all the OT prophecies and statements regarding it are still in effect. This might be because of the huge emphasis put on "literalism" in it, belief that everything in the bible must be completely 100% literal and factual, I can't say. It could just be that evangelicals see Israel as a useful ally for operations in the Middle East and justified their support of the country after the fact with the verses. I have no idea, but the point is that there are absolutely many Christians in the US who believe that Israel is basically a "useful idiot" for bringing about the Second Coming and staying in God's favor by supporting them. The rebuilding of the temple in Israel is another big thing in some Christian views of the end times, and there's even been people who have been trying to breed an unblemished red heifer since that's supposed to be another sign of the end in some interpretations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
Kyrie's thing is that he's allegedly Catholic but "Christians are Israelis" is not Catholic at all. We're Gentiles bro that's why we don't do the whole circumcision thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
Nessus posted:it is neither moral nor immoral to pick your nose, for instance. Says you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:there's even been people who have been trying to breed an unblemished red heifer since that's supposed to be another sign of the end in some interpretations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
twodot posted:Is this a real thing? I've read about this in fiction, but not real life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Temple_Institute quote:In recent years, the institute identified two candidates, one in 1997 and another in 2002.[5] The Temple Institute had initially declared both kosher, but later found each to be unsuitable. DrProsek posted:Kyrie's thing is that he's allegedly Catholic but "Christians are Israelis" is not Catholic at all. Oh yeah I'm familiar with Kyrie, from the prosperity gospel thread we had here a while back. I'm still not entirely sure whether or not to take his posts seriously but for the moment at least I'm going to treat them as if they're genuine. His claim of "Israel is interpreted as the Christian faith" is something I hadn't heard before and it makes sense now that you've said that, but even if it was true, US evangelical Christianity is so far removed from traditional Christian beliefs/teachings that I was willing to accept okay, sure, this is just another thing they're wrong about. But even back when I was a fairly strongly conservative Christian I still didn't buy the lines about the OT prophecies about Israel referring to the current country of Israel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
twodot posted:Is this a real thing? I've read about this in fiction, but not real life. quote:In addition to a variety of items required for service within the Temple, the institute has attempted to locate a parah adumah (red heifer) consistent with the requirements of Numbers 19:1–22 and Mishnah Tractate Parah for purposes of taharah (purification) necessary to enter the Temple sanctuary proper in most circumstances. In recent years, the institute identified two candidates, one in 1997 and another in 2002. The Temple Institute had initially declared both kosher, but later found each to be unsuitable. quote:As Lott read the Bible that day, he realized that the Second Coming and the fate of humankind now depended on the red heifer. In order for the Jews to rebuild the Temple and prepare the way for the return of the Messiah they must be purified with the ashes of a red heifer. (The real answer is because death is scary, and an apocalypse/rapture means the rapture believers don't have to face the fear of death/the unknown.  )
fade5 fucked around with this message at 05:05 on Nov 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Kyrie's thing is that he's allegedly Catholic but "Christians are Israelis" is not Catholic at all. We're Gentiles bro that's why we don't do the whole circumcision thing. He means the Old Testament Israelites are read as a metaphor for the Christian Church.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
No seriously what are works and are they related in some way to your cosmic gamerscore?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
Is giving a guy some weed cause his car broke down a Good Work? I feel that it is cause he was more positive and upbeat after this humble show of fellowship.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Is giving a guy some weed cause his car broke down a Good Work? I feel that it is cause he was more positive and upbeat after this humble show of fellowship. e: Of course this assumes you're in a place where weed is legal, since it'd probably be wrong to maybe get a guy in trouble with his drug test or the law, however low the odds. Nessus fucked around with this message at 05:26 on Nov 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
Ernie Muppari posted:No seriously what are works and are they related in some way to your cosmic gamerscore? The way I've consistently seen "faith without works is dead" explained (admittedly by Protestant pastors so Kyrie's interpretation may be different) is that you're not saved by your good works but they're a sign that your faith and repentance are genuine. If you claim you have faith in Christ but your actions in the world don't reflect that this is considered an indication that your repentence may not be legitimate and you need to ask yourself whether you truly understand the gospel and what has been done for you. Basically, good works are a natural consequence of true belief in Christ and if they're not there that says bad things about the strength or honesty of the belief. Torka fucked around with this message at 05:34 on Nov 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
Ernie Muppari posted:No seriously what are works and are they related in some way to your cosmic gamerscore? Works are only related to your cosmic gamerscore if you're Catholic or maybe Orthodox. If you're Protestant then they're more like the points in Whose Line Is it Anyway and the only thing that matters is if you said the magic words. Unless of course you didn't say the magic words in the right way, in which case, you're still hosed. See Chick tracts where someone says the magic words but is Catholic or a Freemason, or even missionaries who build hospitals and schools in a third world country but still go to Hell because they didn't say the magic words in the right way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Kyrie's thing is that he's allegedly Catholic but "Christians are Israelis" is not Catholic at all. We're Gentiles bro that's why we don't do the whole circumcision thing. You are wrong. Christians are considered to be Israel. It has nothing to do with circumcision (which the Church holds to be unnecessary). There isn't a clearer example of this than Galatians 6:15-16. When we listen to OT verses, we are not hearing about Jews, we are learning about our own history as the people of God. Look also at CCC 877 for a Church authority on the matter. The "New Jerusalem", first prophesied in Ezekiel, and upheld in Revelation, is not talking about the literal city, but a Heavenly Jerusalem. Paul does also refer to Jews as Israelites, and as "Israel from the flesh"; but Christians are held to be the true Israel. Due to the existence of the nation of Israel, I would not say that Christians are "Israeli" just to avoid confusion, and one has to use context cues to make it clear which you are referring to. Furthermore there are Jews who are Christians, and therefore are not gentiles, and may even (if they choose) practice circumcision and other traditional Jewish law, according to Paul, who was very interested in how Jews and gentiles would co-exist in the Christian church. fade5 posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Temple_Institute The red heifer thing (once parodied on South Park) is dumb. I think this is a pretty fringe belief, though, not something that is responsible for widespread conservative support of the nation of Israel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:You are wrong. Christians are considered to be Israel. It has nothing to do with circumcision (which the Church holds to be unnecessary). There isn't a clearer example of this than Galatians 6:15-16. When we listen to OT verses, we are not hearing about Jews, we are learning about our own history as the people of God. Look also at CCC 877 for a Church authority on the matter. The "New Jerusalem", first prophesied in Ezekiel, and upheld in Revelation, is not talking about the literal city, but a Heavenly Jerusalem.  But hey, the Torah wasn't really FOR them, after all!
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Answer: with the auto-da-fe. I was clearly talking about Christian Jews in that context.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
Torka posted:The way I've consistently seen "faith without works is dead" explained (admittedly by Protestant pastors so Kyrie's interpretation may be different) is that you're not saved by your good works but they're a sign that your faith and repentance are genuine. If you claim you have faith in Christ but your actions in the world don't reflect that this is considered an indication that your repentence may not be legitimate and you need to ask yourself whether you truly understand the gospel and what has been done for you. It will be different since he's Catholic, yeah. Protestants believe in salvation through faith alone so the problem for them becomes trying to make sense of passages like James (faith without works is dead) where the author certainly seems to be saying that faith on its own isn't enough and good works are also required. The way they do this is by saying that the works are really God's and he performs them through the believer as a consequence of their faith. In my mind this is a seriously tendentious reading of James though; it's worth noting that Luther thought that James was teaching works based salvation, and his solution was just to claim that James wasn't inspired like Paul was. Most modern Protestants would be seriously uncomfortable with this solution though. For Catholics, the problem becomes making sense of passages that do seem to support the Protestant doctrine. for instance: Ephesians 2:8-10: For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:The red heifer thing (once parodied on South Park) is dumb. I think this is a pretty fringe belief, though, not something that is responsible for widespread conservative support of the nation of Israel. The red heifer thing itself may be kind of fringe, but believing that the Temple must be rebuilt so that Jesus can return is very much not a fringe belief, it is probably a majority belief in the US in the Protestant community (possibly even some of the US Catholic community as well). But Israel being necessary to fulfill End Times prophecy is absolutely and unquestionably responsible for widespread conservative support of Israel, at least on the religious side. For atheists, it's probably more a matter of them being a strong ally in the Middle East against all the Muslim countries.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:I was clearly talking about Christian Jews in that context.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 06:37
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Cool theory but not a single example to support it, possibly because everything was done exclusively in Latin until 1965. -james I and the church of england commissioning the king james english version to cut off the radical puritan influence from the english translation of the geneva bible -missionaries in southern africa speaking in local vernaculars while trying to keep the written version in original colonizers' language. However, local vernacular bibles end up being made allowing local beliefs to supercede colonial authority. It doesn't matter what the official vatican or church of england stance is for those in faraway places once that happens; what matters is what is established there. From some essay: quote:10 Surveys show that the incidence of founding new, independent churches was higher -differences in interpretation of language (and insertion of filioque by the west) between eastern and western church leading to east-west schism. areas under orthodox rule persisted in having a theocratic state emperor who ruled both matters of church and state: quote:"The king is not God among men but the Viceroy of God. He is not the logos incarnate but is in a special relation with the logos. He has been specially appointed and is continually inspired by God, the friend of God, the interpreter of the Word of God. His eyes look upward, to receive the messages of God. He must be surrounded with the reverence and glory that befits God's earthly copy; and he will 'frame his earthly government according to the pattern of the divine original, finding strength in its conformity with the monarchy of God'." -interpretation of some old greek words "rsenokoitēs, malakos, and porneia" and whether the new testament refers to homosexuality or not (instead talking about exploitative male prostitution and pederasty). English translations may have turned this unduly into "homosexuality" based on mistakes or based on influence from comparative prudishness of english culture to greek and roman culture. Of course, these examples are only going into translations of the bible and I said "religious texts" so that's only just wading into a larger topic of language and codes of laws as soft power and an assistant to conquest Rodatose fucked around with this message at 07:31 on Nov 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Also, monarchs were subject to the official Magisterium teaching, and were not allowed to interpret religious policy in a subjective or inconsistent fashion; see, King Henry VIII and every other monarch during the Papal custodianship. I take it that you have never heard of Conciliarism or Gallicanism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 07:43
|
|
|
So here's a question: Why did it take god so long to get off his rear end and formally tell people what he wanted them to do? Also why doesn't he just pop in to remind people like, in person using his mouth words, if it's so important that they follow his instructions? I mean, I'm no omnipresent omniscient deity, but it seems like god's either kinda' lazy or hella' passive aggressive if the best he can manage is usually the magic equivalent of an obtuse post-it note.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 08:12
|
|
|
Well when we talk about objective morality, we don't simply mean taking a morality and simply calling it 'objective', nor can we really say that because one morality is able of being enforced by brute strength over another, the the former is 'objective'. Not without assuming that might makes right, which is itself a moral position. No, you saying that ultimately all acts must be judged by this ultimate morality, and that that is inescapable. It's not adequate enough to say (as I have) that it is simply the subjective morality of the 'god' subject, supposing it exists, and therefore it is valid to reject it. Otherwise, what's the point, right? But the only way that's possible is if the the 'ultimate morality' is descriptive, that certain acts must logically be 'wrong' or 'bad', and that is the domain of objective logic. So I totally say that Hume's law still applies here, and the status of 'creator' grants no ability to disregard that. I cannot 'create' a mathematics that has 2+2 = 5 without violating the previous understandings of '2', addition and '5'. Similarly, creating an subject does not mean that you can call your own subjectivity 'objective', because that would violate what it for something to be 'subjective' or 'objective'.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 12:10
|
|
|
Ernie Muppari posted:I mean, I'm no omnipresent omniscient deity, but it seems like god's either kinda' lazy or hella' passive aggressive if the best he can manage is usually the magic equivalent of an obtuse post-it note. It's sort of like a CEO in 1903 wrote a memorandum staying "Gentlemen, please cease the colorful remarks about our new manager or you shall be fired," and now a century later in some branch offices you can get fired for complementing the lovely red color of your manager's tie, in some offices it's a blanket ban on colorful or florid writing, in some offices it's carte blanche to call people yellow menaces or black brutes because clearly it only applies to the "new manager" in 1903, long since deceased, in other offices it applies only to men, not women, and so on. Like someone else said, it would be trivial for God to tell everyone "Yo this is what you should believe and do," but nope.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
Ernie Muppari posted:So here's a question: Why did it take god so long to get off his rear end and formally tell people what he wanted them to do? Also why doesn't he just pop in to remind people like, in person using his mouth words, if it's so important that they follow his instructions?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
Nessus posted:The usual statement here is that he can't possibly take away our free will, which is apparently so precious and important to him that it be not impinged in any way, shape, or form, that he is completely willing to let huge numbers of people blunder into eternal torment (or, more graciously, oblivion - which isn't so bad, comparatively) rather than possibly maybe impair it in even the slightest theoretical way. Good to see God adheres to the Non-Aggression Principle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
Nessus posted:The usual statement here is that he can't possibly take away our free will, which is apparently so precious and important to him that it be not impinged in any way, shape, or form, that he is completely willing to let huge numbers of people blunder into eternal torment (or, more graciously, oblivion - which isn't so bad, comparatively) rather than possibly maybe impair it in even the slightest theoretical way. Except for that time he wouldn't let the pharaoh of Egypt let the Jews go by hardening his heart. But you know besides that...
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:Good to see God adheres to the Non-Aggression Principle. Passive Aggression Principle. Who What Now posted:Except for that time he wouldn't let the pharaoh of Egypt let the Jews go by hardening his heart. But you know besides that... Job ring a bell?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Except for that time he wouldn't let the pharaoh of Egypt let the Jews go by hardening his heart. But you know besides that... And according to Paul, God hardens people's hearts all the time. Like, say for instance, every single non-christian. Romans 9 posted:18 So you see, God chooses to show mercy to some, and he chooses to harden the hearts of others so they refuse to listen. God makes certain people nonbelievers on purpose, the "garbage" if you will, to make salvation taste all the sweeter for those to whom he gives it. Nice guy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
Nessus posted:The usual statement here is that he can't possibly take away our free will, which is apparently so precious and important to him that it be not impinged in any way, shape, or form, that he is completely willing to let huge numbers of people blunder into eternal torment (or, more graciously, oblivion - which isn't so bad, comparatively) rather than possibly maybe impair it in even the slightest theoretical way. Well yeah, but then you're basically switching out the "bitchy roommate" persona for...I dunno', like, a kid who makes an ant farm and then gets mad that the ants aren't digging tunnels in as aesthetically pleasing a way as they'd wanted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
Nessus posted:The usual statement here is that he can't possibly take away our free will, which is apparently so precious and important to him that it be not impinged in any way, shape, or form, that he is completely willing to let huge numbers of people blunder into eternal torment (or, more graciously, oblivion - which isn't so bad, comparatively) rather than possibly maybe impair it in even the slightest theoretical way. What does it mean "to let them blunder into oblivion"? If you assume that God is the origin and cause of all things, and that His principles are imprinted into all things (since according to Aquinas all things are made up of a more general thing and a difference, therefore God as the most general thing is passed to all the more concrete identities), and that through observation one may deduce the appropriate . Not to mention that despite the imperfections of human reason, one can still understand God's principles and the Holy Doctrine 1) through literal meaning in the Bible 2) through allegorical meaning in the Bible and in the nature 3) through the illumination of God's Grace. Thus it would seem that to a faithful Christian the world is literally overflowing with lectures and meaning that should guide them through every step of their journey. In that case free will is crucial as it allows the knowledge of Christian life to be developed in each individual according to their specific sensibilities and prevents nobody from acquiring true knowledge. Furthermore, depending on your theology you can say that God doesn't let people to wander into damnation due to their sins, because of predestination (or more broadly because you believe in forgiveness). In that case one's conduct has no significance for afterlife, but is crucial in determining the quality one's relation to God: Person should act in accordance with the Writ and with religious principles not because of the fear of punishment, but because of their Love of God and the perfect ideals he encompasses. Just like a child should act nice not to avoid spanking, but because of his appreciation of rules and his willingness to please his loved ones. In this case Free Will is crucial because it gives value to humanity, establishes a difference between the person as a being created in God's image to possess special faculties, and the more primitive genus of living things. Also, if you consider the ontology of things, you could point out that it's impossible to change the properties of man, such as his reason and will, because doing so would change man's essence and invalidate the significance of man's existence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:And according to Paul, God hardens people's hearts all the time. Like, say for instance, every single non-christian. Not necessarily, vulgar literal interpretations of such passages have been widely contested (e.g. Augustine). In a way, he as the prime mover is responsible for the hardening of hearts of some, but that isn't contrary to Free Will, because God's will manifested in creation and free will coexist, however counterintuitive it may seem at first.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 07:05 |
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Not necessarily, vulgar literal interpretations of such passages have been widely contested (e.g. Augustine). In a way, he as the prime mover is responsible for the hardening of hearts of some, but that isn't contrary to Free Will, because God's will manifested in creation and free will coexist, however counterintuitive it may seem at first. quote:Whether God is the Cause of Spiritual Blindness and Hardness of Heart?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 20:43
|
|