Religion II

[Andy Asaro]

I gotta take 9,000

Believe what you want. In the end we'll find out who was naughty and who was nice.

Seriously, Everyone should believe what they want to believe.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

I gotta take 9,000

Believe what you want. In the end we'll find out who was naughty and who was nice.

Seriously, Everyone should believe what they want to believe.

Yes...everyone should believe what they want to believe. But when someone comes up with a justification for the death of a child, and threatens with eternal damnation those who refuse to share in his ludicrous beliefs...then that someone should be ostracized from the rest of society...lest his affliction be contagious, and infect everyone else.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I don't work from any personal presuppositions. I try to make a concerted effort to work directly from divine revelation -- to follow where scripture leads, not vice versa. And the passages I quoted don't have anything to do about "God's love being poured into our hearts". God had to settle the legal issue before anyone could experience the fullness of his love that Christ expressed for his Father's people at Cross. In fact,I believe this is why the peculiar gift of the Holy Spirit was reserved for God's New Covenant people -- this gift not given in its fullness until after the Cross, whereby God demonstrated both his love for his people and his justice.

Also, if Christ's righteousness is not imputed (reckoned, accounted, credited) to his Father's people, then the doctrine of Original Sin crumbles in the analogy of Rom 5:12ff. And if this doctrine is destroyed, then it must be explained how God can be just in allowing any innocent infants or children to suffer the penalty of sin (death) when they have no personal sins for which to account. How could a righteous, holy God permit the innocent to physically die before coming to the personal knowledge of good and evil? For very clearly the scriptures teach that the wages of sin is death --death in both its senses! Yet, no innocent infant or child has any personal sin debt to pay!

But as Romans 5 teaches, Adam, being the federal head of the human race, had his personal sin imputed to all his posterity. Likewise, the Last Adam had his personal righteousness imputed to all his spiritual posterity (inheritance). Sticky problem solved. Therefore, when anyone underage dies who has no true knowledge of good and evil, that death is justified because they "sinned" when in Adam's loins. (Yes, the underage, too, need Christ's salvation!) In a forensic sense, they participated in Adam's sin, the way the Levites participated in Abraham's tithes to Melchizedek when they were in their forefather's loins (Heb 7:8-10).

The way God's people experience God's agape love is by the Holy Spirit being poured out into their hearts. The work of Sanctification is how Gods' people experience God's holiness and love through his gift of the Spirit. It seems to me you conflate all the aspects to salvation -- or at least Justification and Sanctification.

But enough theology...

'Tis a noble thing you seek to do in quantifying as much as raw PP data as you can. I hope your time and efforts will pay off in big dividends for you.

My partner-in-crime (the programming guru of the team) and I had a pretty big breakthrough this year when we were able, with a trio of ratings, to quantify to a fair degree the very important TI (Trainer's Intentions) factor. (It's really great to know when trainer, as well as the horse, is well placed, according to today's race conditions and raw PP data.) So, now in addition to our sizeable arsenal of qualitatively-based racing angles, we will be adding some quantitative muscle to this factor, as well, which is kind of exciting.

I, too, hope to get more time in this year playing the flying manes and tails -- but God only knows if that will come to past. There never seems to be enough time in a day for me.

I wish you the very best for the upcoming New Year.

I've really come full circle from when I believed, with Beyer that racing couldn't be quantified, though being a Lone Ranger, I'll probably never ultimately engage in computer handicapping-- just obvious-by-my-factors favorite vulnerable races.

If I'm weighting prominent interpretations of infused vs, imputed righteousness, Aquinas and Augustine get .99 and .91 respectively. Calvin... .04, multiplied by the weight of the early Church theologically apostatizing, if Christ was God...=0.0.

Blessings, Box.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

IMO...we owe this man a debt of gratitude. If it weren't for his meanderings...how else would we get reminded of the ludicrous speculations and superstitions upon which organized religion is hinged? When the human mind gets brainwashed enough...even the death of a CHILD can be deemed readily justified.

All, or even the majority of Christianity doesn't state the matter quite in the terms of Reformed theology, much less all organized religion.

But it is no matter, since the "blame" rests with either your substitute for the Judeo-Christian God (how does becoming "woke" prevent natural "evil"?) ,or there is no blame to be had, and no reason to inject morality and justice into your post, regarding the amoral, blind process of evolution.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Yes...everyone should believe what they want to believe. But when someone comes up with a justification for the death of a child, and threatens with eternal damnation those who refuse to share in his ludicrous beliefs...then that someone should be ostracized from the rest of society...lest his affliction be contagious, and infect everyone else.

You have me confused about your concern over children being subjected to death. You are on record stating human overpopulation is the biggest threat to the survival of humanity.

Isn't death an effective way to control overpopulation, even the death of a child before they can reproduce more humans?

I am truly confused by your inconsistent position regarding death and your position on the threat of overpopulation being the greatest danger to humanity's survival.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

You have me confused about your concern over children being subjected to death. You are on record stating human overpopulation is the biggest threat to the survival of humanity.

Isn't death an effective way to control overpopulation, even the death of a child before they can reproduce more humans?

I am truly confused by your inconsistent position regarding death and your position on the threat of overpopulation being the greatest danger to humanity's survival.

Yes...you caught me in a true inconsistency. If I consider overpopulation to be a threat to our survival as a species...then...how could I be concerned about seeing the children die?

You are a real piece of work.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

All, or even the majority of Christianity doesn't state the matter quite in the terms of Reformed theology, much less all organized religion.

But it is no matter, since the "blame" rests with either your substitute for the Judeo-Christian God (how does becoming "woke" prevent natural "evil"?) ,or there is no blame to be had, and no reason to inject morality and justice into your post, regarding the amoral, blind process of evolution.

I said "all organized religion"...because I find the Buddhist notion of "karma" to be just as nonsensical as Boxcar's argument about 'Adam's loins". To look at a dying child and assume that this child is somehow deserving of its dire situation is to forfeit our membership to the human race...IMO.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Yes...you caught me in a true inconsistency. If I consider overpopulation to be a threat to our survival as a species...then...how could I be concerned about seeing the children die?

You are a real piece of work.

I see your post about overpopulation, as a greater threat, in the still laughing at global warming thread has been scrubbed.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

I see your post about overpopulation, as a greater threat, in the still laughing at global warming thread has been scrubbed.

And you think that I removed it so I could solidify my argument with you here? If so...then you take your opinions a lot more seriously than I do.

I have no idea if, or why, that post of mine was removed. But your notion that a person, by asserting that overpopulation is a serious concern, is somehow implying that child mortality is an acceptable solution to this problem...is about as ridiculous an assertion as I've ever seen here. And that's really saying something.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

And you think that I removed it so I could solidify my argument with you here? If so...then you take your opinions a lot more seriously than I do.

I have no idea if, or why, that post of mine was removed. But your notion that a person, by asserting that overpopulation is a serious concern, is somehow implying that child mortality is an acceptable solution to this problem...is about as ridiculous an assertion as I've ever seen here. And that's really saying something.

I am suggesting to anyone who is concerned about overpopulation that death is nature's tool to control overpopulation.

In any case I am glad you do not feel overpopulation is a problem for humanity.

I don't know why your post has been removed or who removed it, thus I am not accusing anyone.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

I am suggesting to anyone who is concerned about overpopulation that death is nature's tool to control overpopulation.

In any case I am glad you do not feel overpopulation is a problem for humanity.

SMTW...don't take this the wrong way...but I'd rather converse with Boxcar than debate this with you.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

SMTW...don't take this the wrong way...but I'd rather converse with Boxcar than debate this with you.

I understand completely. However, my confusion has been cleared up. You don't feel overpopulation is a threat to our survival on the planet due to overuse of limited resources.

I apologize for my confusion in this matter.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I said "all organized religion"...because I find the Buddhist notion of "karma" to be just as nonsensical as Boxcar's argument about 'Adam's loins". To look at a dying child and assume that this child is somehow deserving of its dire situation is to forfeit our membership to the human race...IMO.

"Organization" speaks to man's nature as a social creature...anything meant to last would be constructed as necessary to provide for future adherents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurdjieff_Foundation

God is necessarily true to himself, and so in light of man's sin necessarily withdrew his life giving power (original justice) that man rejected. The consequence is mortal and spiritual death. In one act of Being, he knew this while also willed to reconcile that relationship by his own entrance into man's dilemma.

Subjecting his divinity to our state of severely wounded reason and judgement, physical ills and fallen nature, in order to restore man to adoption as sons and daughters of the Father-- literal co-heirs with Christ -- didn't bring about his removal of physical ills, but his participation in them, giving them redemptive meaning...redemptive suffering.

That last part doesn't wholly or perhaps at all comfort, for instance, the parents of my son's 6th grade classmate at the time, a star soccer player destined for local fame who died unexpectedly from undiagnosed leukemia. But for the Christians I know, that's a mystery and not a motive for condemnation, since Christ endured the same.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

I understand completely. However, my confusion has been cleared up. You don't feel overpopulation is a threat to our survival on the planet due to overuse of limited resources.

I apologize for my confusion in this matter.

No...please allow me to clear this up for you a little further. I DO feel that overpopulation is a threat to our survival on the planet. And I also feel that your implication that this somehow means that I should be unaffected by child mortality is easily the most idiotic notion that I've ever read here...or anywhere else.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

No...please allow me to clear this up for you a little further. I DO feel that overpopulation is a threat to our survival on the planet. And I also feel that your implication that this somehow means that I should be unaffected by child mortality is easily the most idiotic notion that I've ever read here...or anywhere else.

Overpopulation is a threat to our survival. Hmm I wonder where I got that idea about you having that exact position about overpopulation?

Of course you could be sad or affected about the death of a child or at the death of anyone, no matter what the individual's age. I never said anything to the contrary.

My confusion is based on the conflict between having the position that overpopulation is a threat to our survival and using nature's tool to prevent overpopulation as a club to bash other people's beliefs.

There is a natural safeguard built into the system and it is death. Again and I can't emphasize this enough that we can grieve over anyone dying, while also understanding death plays a role in regulating population.

Also, let me add this. I don't advocate any person in a dire situation or deserves to forfeit his life, because that person deserves such. And such we should have at least compassion for such people.