Fire My Words Myth 11: The Primacy of Pure Reasoning reveals conversion caliber truths.
This is fundamental to Thomisticguy’s (Dummies blog) infatuation with Hellenistic perversions of the gospel. With each topic, his blog steeps in deep philosophic thought celebrating the intellect of men. His motive is to insult the simple truths of God by extolling the virtuous thought of some men, implying the gross error of other men.
The greatest example of this blundering premise among the Christian Orthodoxy came from the mouth of Pope Benedict XVI, yesterday.
With scant references to Christ or Jesus, while extolling the salvation of “singular rationality” and the “right use of reason” with the power of today’s technologically-based scientific practice, Benedict flashed back to total darkness and quoted from a book recounting a conversation between 14th century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos II and a Persian scholar on the truths of Christianity and Islam.
“The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war,” the pope said. “He said, I quote, ’Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”’
His university speech was not just seasoned with the empty value of reason, but was marinated in it. For a crusade-driven Pontiff to extol the singular truth of Christian reasoning over that of Islamic irrational thought was not in itself “reasonable” nor “Christian”. But for the listeners, it smackedin the irony of Catholic adventures in conversions by the sword.
He concluded with a quote, “"Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God", said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor”
The only motive for this line of pontification is to insert a virtual knife and twist. With the pain, Christians reason they should embrace Islam.
So it is at Blogstream’s Dummies.
I speak to the Protestant style of dialogue with greater detail to promote greater understanding of what I am saying
It seems that having despaired of finding the answers to life's great questions, the Protestant and Catholic leaders through their adopted hellenistic (now worldly) culture focus on finding answers to little questions instead. The little questions for the Orthodoxy bloggers are far flung from doctrine or from conduct. No longer theologians but worldly philosophers have they become.
That is what I see in Thom's blog and the Pope's recent blundering address spoken of in my topic. Many philosophers here have all but given up the search for objective truth. Some have given it up entirely. In its's place they have adopted a view of truth in which accommodation, flexibility, and compromise are the highest values (lets reason together). Thus, listening to them, they have embraced an ecumenical age. With the growing diversity separating Protestants, ecumenism is easiest to come by. They are a people who together are least certain of their beliefs.
You may be wondering, if gospel truths cannot be found through the wisdom of men - where can it be found? It will be found, as it always has been, through the true Prophets of this dispensation. The only other Church in this dispensation to have a living Prophet and the ancient Priesthood is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
What have you against investigating it for yourself?
"Divine Revelation through Scripture is adequate for the believer and is all we need. However, to only quote scripture to a non-believing world is almost always not convincing to them. I engage in a lot of dialogue with non-Christians and I find it very helpful to draw on other classic Christian thinkers who effectively communicated to their pagan and non-believing generations. They gave reasonable explanations for what they knew to be biblically true. A classic biblical example of this is Paul on Mars Hill. My passion and giftedness is in this area."
by Thomisticguy (PM , CC ) on Monday October 17, 2005 @ 2:32 PM
I sure hope that you understand what Thom is saying here.
Thom and I have high regard for each other in spite of our religious differences. Fact is, this topic has little to do with him or the specifics of his practice. The problem is with a mentor of his, the Pope. You should read the text of his talk; you would love it.
I admonish you to speak to the topic. Since this has become an endless pattern, I will be including a reminder for you at the end of each of my topic discussions. When you get to it, you can remember.
Here let me help you....What do you suppose 'set off' those who admire Mohammad? In what ways do you think they are justified or not justified? You might want to read the complete text of his talk.
The reader of the Pope should note the extremely infrequent use of specifics to "Jesus" or "Christ" and his profusion of remarks toward "reason". This is a pronounced pattern in Protestant Churches as well. He also sees science and technology in our day admirably.
I found it very interesting that he needed to hide his own persuasion behind the words of another, as if he did not uphold them. It was especially revealing that his implied meaning could be so clear, yet now in the furor, he defended himself by once again telling others they didn't understand.
This is not meant to be critical of the person so much as to be critical of the insane consequences of doing what he did. |< << >> >|
Because I thought Jesus Christ bridged the great gulf? Remember how He walked here?
Don't worry, I will address further the rest of what you have said, but I decided that it was best to start by showing where you are wrong in your assesment of Thom. That was the basis for this anti-Christian sentiment. I know it was the basis because your opening volley and your conclusion were both directed at Thom and the "group over at Dummies."
I didn't want to say anything about the specifics of the body of your blog entry because I had not read the speach to which you are refering. I know well enough that I need to read the speach rather than rely on your own summary. The fact is ... you tend to take things out of context to try and prove your point. I'm not saying you have done this in regards to the Pope's speach, but I'm not going to try and engage on your summary until I know the full context of the speach.
Actually I do. Yes, it is the same thing the Pope was doing in Germany. He was avoiding the unpleasantries of doctrine as related to scripture as related to the real agenda of the Catholic Church worldwide. Only Thom does the same thing for all of Protestant Christendom.
I think you have gone 180 to what Thom said. I'm curious, do you do this intentionally or do you have some rare form of dyslexia that results in you arriving at the exact opposing conclusion to the statement that was given.
IF you read the quote I have provided, you will see that Thom is saying he is applying scriptural concepts in a format that many people in the world will interact with. It's kind of like the way the LDS church uses commercials that don't mention scriptures to try and get people interested in what the LDS religion might have to say from scripture.
Nothing personal. It's just that you have such a trash mouth here where you are civil to all others. See you at a future date.
I shake the dust from my feet (virtually of course).
-----------------------------------------------------------
I speak to the Protestant style of dialogue with greater detail to promote greater understanding of what I am saying
It seems that having despaired of finding the answers to life's great questions, the Protestant and Catholic leaders through their adopted hellenistic (now worldly) culture focus on finding answers to little questions instead. The little questions for the Orthodoxy bloggers are far flung from doctrine or from conduct. No longer theologians but worldly philosophers have they become.
That is what I see in Thom's blog and the Pope's recent blundering address spoken of in my topic. Many philosophers here have all but given up the search for objective truth. Some have given it up entirely. In its's place they have adopted a view of truth in which accommodation, flexibility, and compromise are the highest values (lets reason together). Thus, listening to them, they have embraced an ecumenical age. With the growing diversity separating Protestants, ecumenism is easiest to come by. They are a people who together are least certain of their beliefs.
There is nothing new in this: the notion that Orthodox Christians are progressively adopting the values and culture of the rest of the world. In times of old, coins that circulated in Judea bore the "image and superscription" of hellenistic rulers, even though the law of Moses forbade such "graven images." It was through the adoption of Hellenism and today the world that promotes the compromise found in the practice of "reasoning" away true Christian doctrines. It has produced the multiplicity of Protestant creeds and churches.
Frist let me say that your reaction to Lucy was rash, but not unexpected. If you choose to do such to myself, then you have none to blame but yourself when your words stand "unchallenged." Once I have been forcibly kicked out of this forum, I will not come back at a later time.
Now, on to the topic at hand. I have read the Pope's speach in its fullness, and I must say, I understand why you are afraid of it. Now only does the Pope speak of revelation, which you might hold as your own, but he speaks of how faith, revelation, and reason merged so successfully quite a long time ago (before Christ to be exact) and by this Judaism was able to survive the imposing Greek culture that wiped out hundreds of other religions.
He then speaks of a similar crisis that faces the church today where the current concept of reasoning as based on the scientific method can be counter productive if not carefully tread. He goes on to say, however, that the church should nto regress, but instead, should seek to expand the current approach to reason in such a way that it would be benificial to the church, and more reasonable to the greater portion of the world.
This kind of thing is designed to appeal to the billions, not the millions, and ultimately it can undercut the LDS church, so I can very much see where you are afraid of this Pope.
I don't understand how you believe you can accurately speak for Thom in his chosen absence. You cannot speak to his motives or know his mind. You are of the Assemblies of God Church and not a Senior Pastor, nor any Pastor. Thom is a Baptist MegaChurch Senior Minister. I will not have him stooped behind your carpenter's belt, as he chooses not to defend his doctrines here. You certainly are able to speak for yourself however.
As for your inability to feel of the Spirit of Truth while reading the Book of Mormon, I would speculate that placing the sacred words and procedures of the Lord's covenants as He requires them in the LDS Temple ON YOUR BLOG does not bode well for your fitness in recieving His Spirit in this matter. For you it may take a Road to Damascus Experience to sufficiently humble you. May the Lord give you that grace.
I find it interesting that you do not speak to what I say, but rather speak to what I do. Sounds like you are avoiding the issue.
As to my experience with the BoM, this was over 10 years ago, before I received any official training, and with and open mind. Even then I was able to discern the spirits in the matter, but I guess having already received the baptism of the Spirit, God was able to show me the difference.
Your rantings are as illogical and incoherent as usual; which, of course, is a beautiful fit with your LDS belief system. Instead of wasting a lot of my time dealing with your ramblings point-by-point, I will focus on your final statement:
“You may be wondering, if gospel truths cannot be found through the wisdom of men - where can it be found? It will be found, as it always has been, through the true Prophets of this dispensation. The only other Church in this dispensation to have a living Prophet and the ancient Priesthood is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.”
● Okay, so we are to bypass the Holy Bible to gain our “gospel truths” and we can dispense with a long and rich history of Christian theological tradition, and, of course, we can put our minds in neutral so that we can receive the oracle of truth. And what is that oracle of truth—surprise, surprise--none other than so-called “Prophets” of a heretical cult created by a twenty-something and his friend in an orchard in 1820. You’re not passing out Kool-Aid are you?
1. Your broad strokes of criticism toward my writing style do NOT assist anyone in arriving at a more accurate understanding of a better truth.
2. Without providing #1, reveals to the unbiased reader that you have no logical meaningful alternative to provide...
The Pope's talk has some analogy to 9/11, you say? He is only another "Christian" who acts to galvanize the offended and persecuted Islamic sympathizers. That's the spin over there. It only heightened the strife.
You provide a quote about his motives. The thought that He is not teaching gospel principles because he wants to convert people who are unchurched or nonChristian might indeed come into play to some small degree. But I have not seen the unchurched getting involved and as a consequence being persuaded. On the contrary, as they continue to sculpt a god over there that appeals to the philosopher by avoiding the unsophisticated language of the Bible, intellectuals dominate. That accomplishes quite the opposite. So you obviously miss his primary motive. I'll be talking about that next.
Feel free to go look at the quote. I quoted nearly the entire comment, so I think that I got the context. I also said it was in response to a comment I made saying that the scriptures prove what he was aluding to in his philisophical presentation in a very clear way.
Now, if I were regularly taking quotes out of context, I could see where your argument might be valid, but you are teh one that regularly takes things ou tof context to try and prove a point. That does not mean that I am taking things out of context. Now if you want to go review the comment in its full context, go right ahead. You will find what I have said regarding the fuller context to be true.
What will the unbeliver come to know about Christianity from good old worldly common sense. It was the good old worldly common sense that Thom wagged his finger at Osteen about (REMEMBER??) - saying he was not standing on solid ground. And a world of "Christians" came out of the woodwork hammering him and me for agreeing about Osteen. Presumably these are people that have been taken by his charm....and then there was Thom's comment about his "drop dead beatifull wife".
When I visited my mother also in California, we went to her "Christian" church where the sermon was about golf. He included in the program a piece of paper where is read, "free mulligan". And explained the concept of Mulligan in golf, then in what he supposed Christian life. Explaining how we can get a free pass after screwing up and we can collect these free passes all the day long. Certainly good old worldly common sense this message. The listener is left to make his own connections to doctrine. And as you and Thom say, the listener is not a student of the Bible. Heck, most listeners are not students of the Bible except second hand. The lesson is so abstract from the Bible that the listener formulates his own meaning. And it invariably (always) is not Biblical - given the characteristics of the listener.
So we have the Pope also who teaches from his own experience from the University where the brethren there in a different age could all have give and take on doctrine, reasoning it out. Well that is just great!!! That is fine. Everyone beginning through a bond and respect for each other. But now he expects it to be valuable with the Killers of Christians. He expects in his Germany talk that he can pursuade killers of Christians (Islam) in the name of Christian reason to unilaterally stop the killing. How naive can an old man have become. It parallels the reasoning of Thom. It parallels the reasoning of my mother's minister. It parallels your support of it. And it doesn't have to have anything to do with the doctrines of God.
Can you show me where Thom says he does not teach gospel principles?
This is a habit that seems to happen among many church leaders.
I can stand secure in the knowledge that since 1820. There has been only one retraction of a prophecy made by our Prophets and that one was associated with a lesson of learning how to listen to the still small voice vs the burning in the bossom. On how to know the sweet still small voice of the Holy Spirit to know for a surity that you have the truth.
What I have read here is so much noise that the truth of the post can't be heard.
I understand why you blocked LookinforLucy but they (collectively) do not.
LookinforLucy made a statement that had nothing to do with the topic de jure (of the day a little french lingo there).
I understand that this has happened so many times before that you wanted to control when and how what happens on your blog.
I agree that it is your blog and you set the pramaters of it and people should be considerate enough to follow that through.
As for thomisticguy choosing to not teach the scriptures to the masses that is his choice; as it is for puricristos. I myself can not understand how to know what to believe unless you read for yourself and pray and wait for understanding from Heavenly Father.
It certainly explains why they get so angry when I quote scripture over there as, once the scripture is there how can they argue with it except to say it is taken out of context.
I dare say my next post will be a part of the lesson I taught in Sunday School and the rest will be what I didn't have time to say. Isiah 1-6 if anyone wants to read up and get ready for it.
Take care my brother in the gospel. Beth.
If you pay attention, you will note that I was not suprised that Stealth blocked Lucy, Just as I won't be suprised that you will not be reprimanded, but in fact extolled, for speaking off topic. I am also not suprised that you have still not grasped what THom and I have said about quoteing scripture. None have ever been angered by your quotes, but we have often sugested for you to only quote what is needed and give the source so the context may be viewed if desired. Thom uses scripture. In fact, so does the Pope. If you read this speach you will find that he quotes scripture here. As for only one prophecy being retracted. Maybe only one has officially been retracted, but others have been found false. Moreover, key doctrines have been retracted when social situations demand.
I could go on and on, but responding to your off topic comments puts me off topic, and Stealth will surely reprimand me for this.
When I quote an entire chapter as I have done on very few occassions it is because if I take one passage I am accused of taking things out of context, as is Stealth, therefore it is to my advantage to put out for all to see what the entire passage is in context of the rest of the applicable scripture surrounding it. In this manner I feel that the people who read and do not comment have the opportunity to judge for themselves right then and there what is in context and what is not and how I came to my conclusions as opposed to how you come to yours and we don't have to quibble over context just what we believe it to mean or not mean.
Beth.
Well dah, how 'bout the present one!
In it has an extensive self assessed "brilliant" quote from Aquinas.
He talks about Satan and his minions.
He talks about evil.
He gives a 4 word paraphase without specific reference to the Bible
He makes no reference to Jesus Christ or his teachings.
His topic is about depression and more specifically "the blues".
And the gospel principle: you guessed it, the blues sometimes but not predictably a consequence of not doing good things.
This is entirely secular. You can get it from your local shrink and he could be Hindu.
Beth.
So you are saying that what he is saying is nto a Biblical Principle?
"It seems that having despaired of finding the answers to life's great questions, the Protestant and Catholic leaders through their adopted hellenistic (now worldly) culture focus on finding answers to little questions instead. The little questions for the Orthodoxy bloggers are far flung from doctrine or from conduct."
It is a little question of no uniquely Christian value. It is far flung from doctrine. It is secular, infuenced by worldly values. It is the kind of question asked and answered by worldliness.
BethAnne, this is a warning: should you ever throw hand grenades filled with authentic California black venim from Hell here to break up topic related discussions, I will delete such comments. After three months of it you will get blocked. I gave that other person 6 months because she was not a cat person.
BethAnne, I understood a gospel principle in Sunday school today that brought me to tears when I realized what it meant. Imagine this old High Priest still learning stuff that can do that. I'll be sharing it you personally later.It was the second temple lesson in the manual.
Thank you for the friendship and especially the support. I Proxied for a guy at the Temple who was born in the 1820s with a first name of "Hierum" out of the midwest. We are now visiting the Kona Temple every Saturday. Worldwide we have the distinction on the Big Island of having the smallest number of members in our temple district in support of our Temple anywhere. My wife and I will be Saturday shift ordinance workers within the month.
Wow, I am shocked, you "reprimanded" beth for speaking off topic, though I am sure that anyone can tell you don't care about Beth's words being off topic and only said something because I did. Oh and speaking ofhandgrenades ... yyeah I guess you would know well on that.
Anyways, to the topic at hand. I had to ask because I wanted to make sure that you were actually saying that Thom's words were not based on Biblical principles. I still wonder if that is what you are saying, or if you are being petty because you don't think there are deep enough doctrinal truths being explored over there.
"It is a little question of no uniquely Christian value. It is far flung from doctrine. It is secular, infuenced by worldly values. It is the kind of question asked and answered by worldliness."
Little question, far flung from doctrine, secular ... all of these things seem to indicate you feel the question is below you, not that it is an unBiblical principle. I just want to give you one more opportunity here.
The principles of fear, laziness, depression, and true happiness, joy, hard work, courage ... you are saying these are not found in the Bible, or are they just below you?
By the way, as I am sure you have discovered, I can defend anything I write on a religious topic by using the Bible. I am well-trained in Biblical apologetics but, I also believe I have a gift from the Lord to be able to use philosophy, common sense, and contemporary culture to demonstrate the reasonableness of Christianity. These are all different arrows in the quiver for someone dialoguing with the irreligious, adherents of other religions and heretics.
I dare you to do the following: A) attempt to prove that anything I have written on a religious subject is not biblical; or B) attempt to prove that any quote I have used from either Augustine or Aquinas is not biblical.
We can learn that God speaks with the full range of angry feelings - all the way from hate to righteous indignation. These are real feelings for him. This principle supports a greater principle - that God is an exalted perfected man.
The fundamental rules (principles) that Orthodox Christian leaders expound are based upon texts much less authoritative than the Bible. (We have the Pope pulling a quote from a dark ages conversation and mistakenly believes it has authority) The language the Orthodox Christian leader needs typically cannot be found in the Bible. What should that tell you about the principles they ask you to believe? Further, when they happen upon a principle expounded upon in the Bible, the Bible is never used as a primary source when they do not agree with its language.
In the event all that I just said went over the top, let me say this:
What you listed can be found in the Bible. Erotic poems are found in the Bible also. Should we blog on the merits of erotic poetry?
"I dare you to do the following: A) attempt to prove that anything I have written on a religious subject is not biblical; or B) attempt to prove that any quote I have used from either Augustine or Aquinas is not biblical."
You haven't been reading me.
And of greater concern in developing a proof, you do not make yourself available for give and take. You do not exhibit sustained speech in defense of your own conduct. You have long disappeared from my blog for such an examination. You have chosed not to stand alone in support of your bold challenges but have the need of others to defend you.
You watch selectively from the high vantage of a parapet while your Baptist member hoard joust the two of us.
-A rule used to choose among solutions to a problem.
-(generally plural) Moral rule or aspect.
-(somewhat dated) A fundamental essence, particularly one producing a given quality.
There are a few definitions of principle. The one you go with is "dated" but I figure we can work with it.
I think the following quote would apply as a principle, "When something is seen as good but it also has an “attendant evil” (i.e. taking a medicine that is disgusting) we might avoid the good. This is the basic principle that leads toward sadness." Now, if I can demonstrate that this principle, which is contructed as you define principle, is also a Biblical truth, then you are absolutely wrong on this matter.
Proverbs 6
6 Go to the ant, you sluggard;
consider its ways and be wise!
7 It has no commander,
no overseer or ruler,
8 yet it stores its provisions in summer
and gathers its food at harvest.
9 How long will you lie there, you sluggard?
When will you get up from your sleep?
10 A little sleep, a little slumber,
a little folding of the hands to rest-
11 and poverty will come on you like a bandit
and scarcity like an armed man.
I am sure you are able to see where the good would be to work without being forced to, and enjoy the fruits of your labor. The "attendant evil" is work is ... well hard. Now if a person were to avoid the work, they will avoid the good, and this will lead to the listed consequences which are certainly accompanied by sadness. Now, I could certainly find other passages such as the truths in parables that Christ told (right now I'm thinking of the prodigal son) that exemplify this principle also.
Of course, I still am waiting for a quote where Thom says he does not use Biblical principles. We now have Thom himself sugesting that he does.
I am wondering who Stealth is really speaking of here. He says that this is Orthodox Christian leader, but I would argue that this is the LDS leader. Look to the doctrines and speached given by LDS leaders, and Stealth himself. They are dependent almost exclusively on texts outside the Bible. In fact, many of the doctrines are not even supported by the BoM, but are based on PoGP and D&C exclusively. The LDS church outright rejects books of the Bible, and state upfront that the translation is questionable (speaking to the language clause Stealth used). In short, this quote reminds me of the slight of hand Stealth is so ... stealthy at useing. Even the well versed in Stealthese might have missed it. I know I did on first reading.
My mother-in-law is a devout Catholic and is very upset for one of the first times in my five year marriage because the Pope will not stand up for what he said and is trying to play nice with Muslim extremists.
That shows fear and fear is what feeds terrorism.
Is the Pope afraid the little world he lives in will be stricken down by these people or does he just want to play nice and roll over and play dead.
As for myself I say what I mean and I mean what I say. I know the same goes for our Prophet.
As for my unasked for opinion on Thomisticguy's challenge, we've debated enough on his terms. This is your blog. Let him use scripture to back up what he is saying. He has never visited my blog as a commentator, I don't know if he reads it or not, but plenty of other people are. I read his when I get a chance and if the topic catches my eye and is something not rehashed again; I will comment. If I see you getting creamed I try to jump in and help out. However; as I have said before and will say agian you can not convert someone to a religion based on your opinion, they may attend, but conversion comes through the Holy Ghost and if you are using the words of the Prophets why bother being a Christian, be your own philosopher who happens to have a belief in Christ.
Take care my brother in the gospel. Beth.