Religious

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by hcap

You never answered my question. What sins? Shouldn't wisdom help men avoid sins?

Correct, prudence prevents men from sinning. Once a man sins, due to a lack of prudence, his sin may be covered by love. Our resident theologian doesn't understand this basic concept that it is more virtuous to avoid sin.

[hcap]

The letter of the law must trump the spirit of the law or he twists meanings and words to make his prejudices fit his version of God and Christianity and all other religions.

I have been asking him about compassion, the cornerstone of many religions and moral philosophies, and he acts as though it is a dirty word, unnecessary as long as men pay for their "crimes".

Apparently our "expert" considers God a comic book hero motivated by a shallow clichéd raison d'être of disposing of Gotham City evil doers

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Did the gentiles (heathens ) have faith in Jesus or the God of Abraham when Jesus walked the earth teaching about love? The answer is no and that is why he expressly used gentiles as an example. You need to stop believing whatever you proclaim is correct.

But what you don't know (and of this I'm certain) is that this same Jesus told the Pharisees in John 5 that they did not believe in him because the "love of God" was not in their hearts. Understand this: They had no faith because faith works through love. But the source of all love is God and they did not have his love in their hearts; therefore, they could not believe.

I'll give you another passage about charity:

41 For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink [y]because of your name as followers of Christ, truly I say to you, he will not lose his reward. Mark 9:41 (NASB)

This passage affirms charity (love) must be done for the correct reason (faith) because Christ did not say, a person, will not lose his reward giving just anyone a cup of water for any reason.

So, in this passage, love is not mentioned in this passage, but a good work is; yet, you label this passage "charity" (or love). Now, I understand perfectly that biblical love must find expression in concrete ways. Understood! But what you're not understanding is that this a chicken and egg problem. The chicken = love. The egg = works. This is so because godly love constrains a person to express it in practical ways. Love is the motivating force. And if you doubt this, read the entire chapter of
1Corinthians 13.

Did King Solomon ask for the gift of charity (love) or the gift of wisdom (prudence)? There is a whole book devoted to wisdom (prudence) in the Bible. Why, because prudence (wisdom) is the highest virtue a Man can have. Prudence is the mother of all the virtues.

King Solomon asked for wisdom because he was a king! He desired godly wisdom by which to RULE his people.

You really need to understand your knowledge is very limited and you lack prudence when you believe whatever you proclaim, based on your limited knowledge, is correct.

What I lack right now is the ability to make sense out of your poor excuse for a sentence.

I ask again, are you saying charitable works in themselves (works alone) cover a multitude of sins?

Where in the bible does it teach that prudence is the greatest virtue? Your reasoning based on Solomon's request? The Wisdom books in the OT? Does wisdom fulfill the royal law? Does wisdom fulfill the Law of Moses?

And where do you come up with "charitable works"? Peter never said that.
Why do you keep reading your presuppositions into passages, just as you did with the Matthew passage? This is what Peter said:

1 Peter 4:8
8 Above all, keep fervent in your love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins.
NASB

"Love" is used twice in this verse as a NOUN. If you pervert the passage and say that Peter is really saying "charitable works", then "charitable" becomes an adjective and "works" becomes the noun. It changes the entire sense of what Peter is saying. The love being spoke of in this passage, incidentally, is of the "agapee" type.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

The letter of the law must trump the spirit of the law or he twists meanings and words to make his prejudices fit his version of God and Christianity and all other religions.

I have been asking him about compassion, the cornerstone of many religions and moral philosophies, and he acts as though it is a dirty word, unnecessary as long as men pay for their "crimes".

Apparently our "expert" considers God a comic book hero motivated by a shallow clichéd raison d'être of disposing of Gotham City evil doers

Well, there you go...another distinctive of Christianity. Compassion is not its cornerstone. Compassion is a by-product of a more fundamental virtue.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Untrue. I've pointed that out. I'm satisfied to let other posters judge.

But you fibbed then, too. "Pain is good". And then you told me why and left it at that. Therefore, since you were satisfied to spout a a half truth, I'm free to extrapolate from that half truth

Ad hominem attack.

You're also quite the whiner. Although that might beat being a wino.

So, I take it that you don't think Socrates was an adult?

Never met the guy. But how did he get into this topic? Is he some self-proclaimed expert on "virtue"?

You tell me. Entire volumes have been written about it for centuries. Try reading Plato, Epicurus, Aquinas, Kant, et. al. I doubt I could offer anything more.

You're right. You could not. Neither could any of your above mentioned "friends". I have all I need. His name is Jesus Christ.

You are obviously setting up a scenario for further equivocation. I do not choose to participate. I'll just stand by and watch.

Can't handle my "tough" questions, eh? But could it be that you think there is virtue in hatred?

Just a comment, not an answer to your question. As I recall the seven virtues are

• charity
• courage
• diligence
• fidelity
• honesty
• humility
• purity

[/QUOTE]

Define "virtues".

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

BTW boxcar does the below thought apply to you?

You certainly did not follow your own advice when you preached about Genesis and God making a sacrifice and saving Eve, when neither the word sacrifice nor the word saved was used in the relevant passages.

But the difference is that that was a narrative by which God acted. Therefore, God's words to the serpent and his subsequent actions were open to interpretation. Common sense should tell you that Eve could not have been the enemy [spiritually] of God and Satan. Since God declared enmity between Satan and her, this implies that He reconciled Eve unto Himself. If reconciled, then God saved her. God will never condemn anyone who is at peace with Him or anyone whom He has sovereignly restored. And this is precisely what he did with Eve. She is a great example of a saint who received God's reconciliation (Rom 5:11).

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

There are indeed. I've visited them and I have not found a single one that disputes the fact that the word in the Hebrew text is almah, not virgin. If you know of any site, Christian or otherwise, that says otherwise please post a link.

Nor have I disputed it. The issue is not the word but rather one of word usage. How words are used in scripture can often change their meaning.

Again, I wrote on this subject almost a year ago to date. Go back and find my posts. You can start around 7020 or thereabouts.

Boxcar

[Show Me the Wire]

Where in the bible does it teach that prudence is the greatest virtue? Your reasoning based on Solomon's request? The Wisdom books in the OT? Does wisdom fulfill the royal law? Does wisdom fulfill the Law of Moses?

Are you under the Law of Moses?

This is the bottom line. Prudence prevents men from sinning. Once a man sins, due to a lack of prudence, his sin may be covered by love. It is more virtuous to avoid sin.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Correct, prudence prevents men from sinning. Once a man sins, due to a lack of prudence, his sin may be covered by love. Our resident theologian doesn't understand this basic concept that it is more virtuous to avoid sin.

But this "resident theologian" does know his bible fairly well. Jesus never taught that if you have wisdom you'll keep his commandments, did he?

Boxcar

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But the difference is that that was a narrative by which God acted. Therefore, God's words to the serpent and his subsequent actions were open to interpretation. Common sense should tell you that Eve could not have been the enemy [spiritually] of God and Satan. Since God declared enmity between Satan and her, this implies that He reconciled Eve unto Himself. If reconciled, then God saved her. God will never condemn anyone who is at peace with Him or anyone whom He has sovereignly restored. And this is precisely what he did with Eve. She is a great example of a saint who received God's reconciliation (Rom 5:11).

Boxcar

Open to interpretation because you said so? If it is open to interpretation than the woman is Mary the Mother of God as it was her seed God used.

Adam's seed produced the offspring of Adam and Eve. Since it was Adam's seed and not Eve's seed producing their offspring, she is not the woman God used to create enmity between satan and she is not reconciled as you imply.

Now explain to me how the non-usage of the word sacrifice is open to interpretation.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Are you under the Law of Moses?

No. I'm under the Law of Christ, a/k/a "royal law". This law was also predicted in the O.T. But why do you ask? The people to whom Jesus was addressing were under the Law of Moses, just as He was.

This is the bottom line. Prudence prevents men from sinning. Once a man sins, due to a lack of prudence, his sin may be covered by love. It is more virtuous to avoid sin.[/QUOTE]

But prudence isn't the great motivator to do that. It takes something far stronger than mere wisdom.

Boxcar

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But this "resident theologian" does know his bible fairly well. Jesus never taught that if you have wisdom you'll keep his commandments, did he?

Boxcar

Yes, He did. He taught how to fight satan's temptations through prudence, during His encounter with satan, in the desert. Also, Jesus taught prudence (wisdom) through the parables. Additionally, Jesus told people, He cured or forgave to sin no more. You need prudence to understand how to avoid sin.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

No. I'm under the Law of Christ, a/k/a "royal law". This law was also predicted in the O.T. But why do you ask? The people to whom Jesus was addressing were under the Law of Moses, just as He was.

This is the bottom line. Prudence prevents men from sinning. Once a man sins, due to a lack of prudence, his sin may be covered by love. It is more virtuous to avoid sin.

But prudence isn't the great motivator to do that. It takes something far stronger than mere wisdom.

Boxcar

Prudence is not a motivator. Prudence is the way to avoid sin. Love in itself is not a motivator either. Hope is the motivator.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Open to interpretation because you said so? If it is open to interpretation than the woman is Mary the Mother of God as it was her seed God used.

Adam's seed produced the offspring of Adam and Eve. Since it was Adam's seed and not Eve's seed producing their offspring, she is not the woman God used to create enmity between satan and she is not reconciled as you imply.

Yes, she is. Because there are TWO seeds spoken of here. The serpent's and hers. And the seed being spoken of is SPIRITUAL seed. I provided numerous proof texts for this biblical truth. The "he" is only one of Eve's SPIRITUAL seeds.

Now explain to me how the non-usage of the word sacrifice is open to interpretation.

I have. Why do you want to rehash? Go back and read my posts.

Boxcar
P.S. Mary "the mother of God" was also one of Eve's spiritual seeds.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Yes, she is. Because there are TWO seeds spoken of here. The serpent's and hers. And the seed being spoken of is SPIRITUAL seed. I provided numerous proof texts for this biblical truth. The "he" is only one of Eve's SPIRITUAL seeds.



I have. Why do you want to rehash? Go back and read my posts.

Boxcar
P.S. Mary "the mother of God" was also one of Eve's spiritual seeds.

Go back and read my posts, about how you erred. Remember your admonishment about reading words into the text. The word spiritual is not used to describe the woman's seed.