Liberty University & Jerry Falwell...

I thought you Liberals were supposed to be the tolerant ones.

 

Hi Nosborne: Just for the record, I think Falwell is a hell-bound liberal sacrament-denying heretic.

I find it difficult to imagine that Falwell would have anything to do with distributing the "Protocols." Whatever the weird eschatology behind the affection, dispensationalists such as Falwell are in their own way strongly philo-Semitic and pro-Israel. If I were a Jew, I wouldn't care for Falwell's drum-banging conversionism. But this just doesn't ring true at all.

If you want to find so-called Christians pushing the "Protocols", look to the psychotic holocaust-denying fringe of the Missouri Synod.

If it IS Falwell, he's cut loose from his own theological moorings entirely. I just don't think it's so--and I'm no fan of his (vide supra).

This charge cries out for clear documentation.

 

Pardon me for intruding on a post to Nosborne, but I never knew this! I've had a few LCMS friends and some LCMS folks attend some churches I have pastored.

Is this a recent trend?

The only negative I've really ever heard about the LCMS was the Tom Bird affair and that was really a commentary on a man in the Missouri Synod not the Synod itself.

Again, sorry for the intrusion.

 

Based on what?

 

Well, shoot. Since some good people posting here agree that the Protocols is a vile lie but also feel that Falwell could never have reprinted them, I agree that I'd better see if I can find some documentation behind the rumor. It should either be substantiated or laid to rest, I certainly agree.

I'll get back with what I find.

 

Okay. I stand corrected. Apparently the republishing is the work of a Colorado Church of Christ minister named Rev. Pete Peters. It was Falwell who stated that the Anti-Christ has been born and is a Jewish male.

My apologies to the Rev. Falwell and his supporters.

 

You're a stand up guy! Peters is a dangerous fanatic. He is part of a group who use Christian Church and Church of Christ in their names but have have deviated so far from the teachings of Christ it's sad. James Nicholls is another one like Peters.

 

Based on thousands of years of history describing the humanity of countless millions and 53 years of living and observing the kindness, compassion, mercy, and grace of my fellow human beings.

Also, John 1:9 says "He is the true light which lighted every man who came into the world."

That "divine spark" in everyone is good. It is honest, pure, and righteous.

 

Jimmy: there is a lunatic periodical, very widely distributed, supported by the extreme right in Missouri, which actively denies the Holocaust, etc. I will not print its name here as I don't want to give it any publicity. It has been in existence for at least thirty years and is in no way a new phenomenon.

 

Thanks, Uncle Janko. I was not aware of this. The only churches I am aware of that deny the Holocaust are the Aryan churches such as Aryan Nations, Christian Identity, etc., and some offshoots of Billy James Hargis' Church of the Christian Crusade, such as the New Christian Crusade Church of James Warner, who was associated with George Lincoln Rockwell and J.B. Stoner.

 

That's why you don't have to teach someone how to lie, right

Mabe it's time to open, inter alia, the book of Romans again?

 

The traditional Jewish notion is that humans are born neither good nor bad. Being good or bad has no meaning. There is no such thing as original sin, nor are people intrinsically inclined to do good.

CHOICES are good and bad. ACTIONS are good or bad. Thoughts are always neutral. A person who has committed a long series of bad acts is still free to choose to do a good act and that act has precisely that same amount of virtue as if it were committed by a saint. Similarly, a saint has precisely the same freedom to do an evil act.

Jewish thought therefore ascribes literally perfect moral freedom to human beings.

That's whence comes the saying, "The reward for doing a mitzvah is the opportunity to do another mitzvah."

As a lawyer and law student, I am not sure I buy this, but that's the traditional model.

 

I have never accepted the total depravity of man. [/B][/QUOTE]

===

Speaking now as a Biblicist :

The common understanding of "total depravity"among evangelicals who espouse Calvinism is NOT that the phrase means that man cannot do "good." It means that the "good" that man can do falls short of God's glory and that, as such texts like Romans 3:23 state, all before God are sinners and therefore need to respond to the redemption He provides (6:23).

Total depravity in Calvinism means , despite the effects of that 'spark' in John 1:9 [where BTW likely the subject of coming is the Light not the men, and which spark BTW ,incidently, yet leaves men loving darkness-3:19] that all men are dead in sin (Ephesians 2:1).

(1) Total depravity, of course, is the first premise of the ensuing major points in Calvinistic Soteriology , the others being : (2) Unconditional Election, (3) Limited Atonement, (4) Irresistible Grace, and, (5) Perseverance of the Saints.
"
The first letter of each doctrine forms the acronym "T - U -L -I -P."

No, should any wish, I don't want to argue Calvinism at this time!

 

Maybe you should appreciate living in a country that allows freedom of religion, thought, and speech.

 

I'm not a traditional Jew. But simply as a human being, I'm inclined to agree with that.

Yes. I would say that human beings are capable of both good and evil, but it make less sense to say that they are either of those things.

I'm not sure that I go that far.

I can imagine having the best intentions but, through no negligence of mine, accidently killing someone. I wouldn't call that act evil exactly. Unfortunate would be a better word.

And I can imagine fully intending to kill someone, actually trying to do so, but having the gun fail or having my arm experience a passing paralysis. Although I never succeeded in murder, I still would call the unsuccessful attempt an evil act.

Thoughts are a necessary component of actions. If they aren't guided by intention, motions of the physical body are spastic convulsions that are neither good nor evil in any moral sense.

So while I agree that good and evil are predicates assigned to acts rather than to inherent states of being, I think that there are "inner" mental acts as well as "outer" physical motions. Thoughts are deserving of some kind of evaluative predicate, even if we don't choose to use 'good' and 'evil' for them. 'Skillful' and 'unskillful' perhaps.

I'm afraid that even if they don't issue forth in physical acts, the inner thought-acts have consequences. If we spend our time dreaming of murdering a rival, we are going to end up subtly twisted, even if we never actually act on our fantasy. We are apt to find it increasingly difficult to feel empathy, love and compassion when those are appropriate, if we habitually inhabit a state dominated by fantasies of retribution, pain and death.

 

Jimmy,

Below I'm posting this text from Romans. I have no wish to argue. I'm simply posting it, and ask you how or what you intrepret it to mean. I'm not out to attack you but just want to understand why you say what you said about goodness of men. Please bear with me because I'm not judging you, though I may not agree. I'm simply curious.

Thanks

BTW verses 10-18 are quotes from the Psalms(OT)

 

Perhaps I should have said that a thought ALONE, unaccompanied by any act or omission of a commanded duty, is morally neutral.

Understand, please, that this is the very thing about which I express reservations. Christians are more realistic, I think, in considering that a virtuous life is easier to live if it is not full of hate and rage.

I do think that HABITS of thought will affect future choices in action.

However, the genius in the Jewish approach is that, strictly speaking, one can choose to act virtuously at ANY point. People are not helpless before their supposedly "fallen" natures.

 

Hi, Kevin,

I have never viewed you as one who is argumentive, hostile, or aggressive. You have never come across as one who judges.

Now, regarding your verses from Romans 3:

Verse 9 presents a textual problem (two questions and an answer). Various manuscripts use different Greek words (ti oun; proechometha; ou pantos) or (proechometha in the subjunctive) or (prokatechomen; perisson) and on and on and on.

Agreed that we are all under the power of sin. But we still have choices and most of us choose to be and do good: "The inherent worth and dignity of all humans."

Verses 10-18 are from the OT and this is called "testamonia." This string of passages shows the sinfulness of all of us. Yes, we are sinners because we are not perfect. But, we are still inherently good because the overwhelming majority of us choose good over evil.

You and I disagree. I appreciate and respect that as well as your civility in discussion; it is a rarity in today's circles of political, religious, and social discourse. You are to be highly commended!

I'd like to suggest you read The Temptation to Be Good, by A. Powell Davies; On Being a Real Person, by Harry Emerson Fosdick; and, Strength to Love, by Martin Luther King. The sermon in the King book about human suffering addresses the problem of sin and evil in the world and man's inherent goodness and he addresses the pessimistic doctrine of human nature. Take care, my friend!

 

I suppose that my own view goes something like this:
Humans, like any animal, will generally act in their own self-interest. They might put themselves at risk to benefit their child, their brother, their close friend, but in general the impulse is toward selfishness. This, however, conflicts with social living. When people live in groups they come to agree on certain rules so that the group can continue in an undisrupted manner. If I steal from you there is a disruption of the group and as a result the purposes of the group (protection, ability to accomplish larger tasks, etc) is diminished. The conflict between the desires of the individual and the needs of the group can account for much of what is being discussed in this thread. While there is a heavy religious tone to the arguments presented here, it is pehaps useful to note that religion need not be the language used to describe "evil." A sociopath, perhaps the most evil thing with which I've ever come into contact, cares for nothing and no one aside from themself, except insofar as that thing/person (they objectify all people) provides something that they need. To me that's evil.
Jack

 

That's not the issue.

I (as anyone in the US, at least) have every right to call a cat a poodle, I may have convinced myself that a cat is a poodle. But it doesn't make a cat a poodle, and I would be laughed out of a dog show if I tried to enter it as a poodle.