In article <n0OUj.37967$zw.22570@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, jjsargent@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>I'll keep this as short as possible.
Once again, you break your word. You did not "keep this as short as
possible." Not even close.
>On May 4, 6:43=A0pm, Matthew Johnson <matthew_mem...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> In article <Yn8Sj.8780$r12.7335@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, jjsarg...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>[snip]
>> >Do you actually know God?
>> You should be asking that question of yourself, since the 'God' you
>> describe is such a monstrous perversion of the Christian God.
>You ignored the question as regards yourself.
I gave it all the attention it deserves -- and then some;) After all,
despite your false accusation, I _did_ address the question, though
not very directly. You just failed to notice.
But true to form, just as you pin the blame for your distress on God
in post after post, now you try to pin the blame on me for 'ignoring'
you, when it was you who failed to notice that I -did- address the
question, by making a general characterization of who it is who _does_
know God.
>Don't answer it too glibly.
No need to worry yourself about _that_ possibility;)
>Be thoroughly, deeply honest with yourself and with God (if such
>there be);
Am I the only one to see the tragic irony here? You ask me to be
"deeply honest" with someone you doubt exists? Be "deeply honest" with
yourself and recognize how nonsensical this is. Either admit that He
exists, and not as the Deist God, or admit there is nothing for me to
be "deeply honest" with.
>you're not required to tell me what you find out.
Again: no need to worry yourself about _that_ possibility;)
>If you do honestly believe you know God, I'm not sure that what you
>know is not also a perversion of the Christian God (I don't observe
>much that comes across as love for your neighbor).
This is a perfect example of how you did not "keep this as short as
possible": there was no need to say this, since your other words made
it all too painfully obvious, that you yourself 'observe' nothing that
comes across as love for your neighbor.
>Whether this is a communication problem or an actual problem with the
>content of your faith I'm not sure.
The problem is with the content of _your_ faith, as I showed in my
previous post. And it is you who is ignoring that.
>> People who _do_ know God say as St. John Chrysostom said as he was
>> dying in exile: "glory to God for all things". They do not wilt
>> under suffering and blame God for their distress.
>Yes, but what would *you* do in similar distress?
I have considered telling you what similar distress I have had. I
decided against it. Why? Because I can tell from your posts, that even
if I did, you would dismiss my words groundlessly and
presumptuously. You would fool yourself into believing that your own
suffering was greater than mine, just like every farbissiner Schlimazl
before you has done with everybody else.
Why, you just _confirmed_ that my decision was correct. For your
suffering was _nothing_ compared to St. John's death in exile. Yet
here you dismiss his words and refuse his saving example, like a dog
to his vomit returning to blaming God for your distress.
>Heck, you don't even say "Glory to God for that pain in the rear Jeff
>Sargent", much less for any more severe troubles you may have.
You don't know that. You are once more making presumptuous
assumptions.
>(Which brings up one side point: I'm capable, as I just demonstrated,
>of self-deprecating humor; are you? I have my doubts.)
All the more reason to leave that point on the side;)
>As for me, my view is quite simple:
Lots of wrong views are simple. Why would yours be an exception?
>if God is sovereign, He logically -- *necessarily* -- is responsible
>for all suffering. He even said so, in Isaiah 45:7.
Not true. Augustine, Basil, Peter Lombard and Aquinas all explained
this (why you are wrong) in _great_ detail. What is your excuse for
passing judgment on the topic without first understanding their
achievements?
I would repeat the explanation here, but it is too painfully obvious
that you are not paying attention.
>He's no friend.
Again, not true. True to your Baptist background, you are reading Isa
45:7 out of context. Is your Baptist background also your excuse for
rejecting out of hand the Saints's explanation of Isa 45:7?
For that matter, you are still ignoring the point I made to you
earlier, that:
The refining pot is for silver, and the furnace for gold; but the LORD
trieth the hearts. (Pro 17:3 JPS)
This 'trying' is _necessary_ and it is even for our own greatest good
(Jam 1:12). But there will certainly be times when this seems
impossible.
Admit it: you have no sound reason for denying that this is one of
those times.
Admit it: by _ignoring_ this, you have done yourself a great disfavor,
far worse than my _alleged_ ignoring of your impertinent question.
>[I understand the reason for the question. But Usenet does not bring
>out the best in many people. I try to refrain from drawing
>conclusions about people's spiritual state from how they participate
>in these discussions, no matter how tempting that may be. --clh]
And I will agree that in your posted words, Charles, you have shown
that restraint. If there has been even one exception to that rule, I
cannot remember it. And no, I don't care to try to verify it in
Google. It is too far off topic.
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
|
