Discussion:
Is there ANY Beauty in this world?
(too old to reply)
Glenn
2008-06-30 23:07:56 UTC
Permalink
Is there ANY Beauty in this world?


I'll have to admit that I spend (some will accuse, too much) time
looking at the bad coming on this world -- so much that the good and the
beauty seems hard to find.

So, when I discovered this,




I wanted to share...

Glenn
--
www.thelittlebookopened.org [Key words:] "The Little Book";
Glenn McClary, servitum, gaedhealic, oldwetdog
<Kelly>
2008-06-30 23:38:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Glenn
Is there ANY Beauty in this world?
Of course there is. Just look at a newborn baby, Glenn.
Post by Glenn
I'll have to admit that I spend (some will accuse, too much) time
looking at the bad coming on this world -- so much that the good and the
beauty seems hard to find.
Not if you look for it - don't you live in Portland? For heaven's
sake - look around you! Mount Hood, go to Astoria and watch the waves
hitting the beach where the Columbia and the Pacific meet, drive to
the Johnston Ridge Observatory and look at the restored natural beauty
around Mt. St. Helens. You live in one of the most beautiful areas of
North America and you can't see the beauty there?
Post by Glenn
So, when I discovered this,
http://youtu.be/vlO0ikRPZrc
I wanted to share...
She has an amazing voice, especially for being so young.
Glenn
2008-07-01 03:56:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by <Kelly>
Post by Glenn
Is there ANY Beauty in this world?
Of course there is. Just look at a newborn baby, Glenn.
Or children in a park, or children with their parents on the street, or
a family shopping, a bunch of high school kids (lol! how they chatter!)
on a bus, or a kid and a dog, kids in a water fountain on a hot day, or
a Dad carrying a sleeping child down the street...
Post by <Kelly>
Post by Glenn
I'll have to admit that I spend (some will accuse, too much) time
looking at the bad coming on this world -- so much that the good and the
beauty seems hard to find.
Not if you look for it - don't you live in Portland? For heaven's
sake - look around you! Mount Hood, go to Astoria and watch the waves
hitting the beach where the Columbia and the Pacific meet, drive to
Ummm... I don't own a car, or a TV. But I can google for Mt St. Helen's
http://www.fs.fed.us/gpnf/mshnvm/

http://tinyurl.com/6bu5v9

But, in mentioning Mt St. Helens, you seem to miss the point.
Post by <Kelly>
the Johnston Ridge Observatory and look at the restored natural beauty
around Mt. St. Helens. You live in one of the most beautiful areas of
North America and you can't see the beauty there?
And just where did you get the idea that I can't, or don't, see the
beauty here, or else where?
Post by <Kelly>
Post by Glenn
So, when I discovered this,
http://youtu.be/vlO0ikRPZrc
I wanted to share...
She has an amazing voice, especially for being so young.
I've seen more than one like this over the last year or so... and just
wanted to share this one. I'm glad you agree.

I've discovered that closing my eyes while I listen to her sing... is...
revealing.

(BTW, I'm sad that you miss the point. Jesus said that His return would
be like the days of Noah. You just don't get it, do you?)

Glenn
His witness
--
www.thelittlebookopened.org [Key words:] "The Little Book";
Glenn McClary, servitum, gaedhealic, oldwetdog
<Kelly>
2008-07-01 03:59:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Glenn
Post by Glenn
Is there ANY Beauty in this world?
Of course there is.  Just look at a newborn baby, Glenn.
Or children in a park, or children with their parents on the street, or
a family shopping, a bunch of high school kids (lol! how they chatter!)
on a bus, or a kid and a dog, kids in a water fountain on a hot day, or
a Dad carrying a sleeping child down the street...
Post by Glenn
I'll have to admit that I spend (some will accuse, too much) time
looking at the bad coming on this world -- so much that the good and the
beauty seems hard to find.
Not if you look for it - don't you live in Portland?  For heaven's
sake - look around you!  Mount Hood, go to Astoria and watch the waves
hitting the beach where the Columbia and the Pacific meet, drive to
Ummm... I don't own a car, or a TV. But I can google for Mt St. Helen'shttp://www.fs.fed.us/gpnf/mshnvm/
http://tinyurl.com/6bu5v9
But, in mentioning Mt St. Helens, you seem to miss the point.
the Johnston Ridge Observatory and look at the restored natural beauty
around Mt. St. Helens.  You live in one of the most beautiful areas of
North America and you can't see the beauty there?
And just where did you get the idea that I can't, or don't, see the
beauty here, or else where?
Post by Glenn
So, when I discovered this,
http://youtu.be/vlO0ikRPZrc
I wanted to share...
She has an amazing voice, especially for being so young.
I've seen more than one like this over the last year or so... and just
wanted to share this one. I'm glad you agree.
I've discovered that closing my eyes while I listen to her sing... is...
revealing.
(BTW, I'm sad that you miss the point. Jesus said that His return would
be like the days of Noah. You just don't get it, do you?)
On the contrary - and I'm sad you think I missed the point just
because I didn't say what you would have preferred for me to say.
Glenn
2008-07-01 06:01:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by <Kelly>
Post by Glenn
Post by <Kelly>
Post by Glenn
Is there ANY Beauty in this world?
Of course there is. Just look at a newborn baby, Glenn.
Or children in a park, or children with their parents on the street, or
a family shopping, a bunch of high school kids (lol! how they chatter!)
on a bus, or a kid and a dog, kids in a water fountain on a hot day, or
a Dad carrying a sleeping child down the street...
Post by <Kelly>
Post by Glenn
I'll have to admit that I spend (some will accuse, too much) time
looking at the bad coming on this world -- so much that the good and the
beauty seems hard to find.
Not if you look for it - don't you live in Portland? For heaven's
sake - look around you! Mount Hood, go to Astoria and watch the waves
hitting the beach where the Columbia and the Pacific meet, drive to
Ummm... I don't own a car, or a TV. But I can google for Mt St. Helen'shttp://www.fs.fed.us/gpnf/mshnvm/
http://tinyurl.com/6bu5v9
But, in mentioning Mt St. Helens, you seem to miss the point.
Post by <Kelly>
the Johnston Ridge Observatory and look at the restored natural beauty
around Mt. St. Helens. You live in one of the most beautiful areas of
North America and you can't see the beauty there?
And just where did you get the idea that I can't, or don't, see the
beauty here, or else where?
Post by <Kelly>
Post by Glenn
So, when I discovered this,
http://youtu.be/vlO0ikRPZrc
I wanted to share...
She has an amazing voice, especially for being so young.
I've seen more than one like this over the last year or so... and just
wanted to share this one. I'm glad you agree.
I've discovered that closing my eyes while I listen to her sing... is...
revealing.
(BTW, I'm sad that you miss the point. Jesus said that His return would
be like the days of Noah. You just don't get it, do you?)
On the contrary - and I'm sad you think I missed the point just
because I didn't say what you would have preferred for me to say.
Oh come now, Kelly, you have a history of denying reality.

You missed the point, admit it to yourself, if not to anyone else.

Otherwise, you'll explain it to me, with scripture.

Sure, and I'll hold my breath. Lol!

Glenn
His witness
--
www.thelittlebookopened.org [Key words:] "The Little Book";
Glenn McClary, servitum, gaedhealic, oldwetdog
<Kelly>
2008-07-01 06:12:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Glenn
Oh come now, Kelly, you have a history of denying reality.
Hmmm...really? Prove it, Glenn. Provide a post where I am "denying
reality".
Post by Glenn
You missed the point, admit it to yourself, if not to anyone else.
I know that it makes you feel more manly and superior to believe that,
but once again, you are dead wrong.
Post by Glenn
Otherwise, you'll explain it to me, with scripture.
Well..if you'd like...
Post by Glenn
Sure, and I'll hold my breath. Lol!
Oh, I see. You challenge me, and then decide before I've had a chance
to prove anything that I'm not up to the task. How very predictable
for someone who is a known control-freak.

Yeah, I knew that you waxing poetic and finally somewhat human was too
good to be true. See ya, Mr. Doom-and-Gloom. Enjoy your little
lonely, closed-in life.
Glenn
2008-07-01 13:53:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by <Kelly>
Post by Glenn
Oh come now, Kelly, you have a history of denying reality.
Hmmm...really? Prove it, Glenn. Provide a post where I am "denying
reality".
LOL! All of your posts!!
Post by <Kelly>
Post by Glenn
You missed the point, admit it to yourself, if not to anyone else.
I know that it makes you feel more manly and superior to believe that,
but once again, you are dead wrong.
Oh, really? Then, prey tell me the point!
Post by <Kelly>
Post by Glenn
Otherwise, you'll explain it to me, with scripture.
Well..if you'd like...
Wow! You really proved me wrong with scripture, didn't you?


Glenn
--
www.thelittlebookopened.org [Key words:] "The Little Book";
Glenn McClary, servitum, gaedhealic, oldwetdog
rogue
2008-07-03 11:07:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by <Kelly>
Post by Glenn
Is there ANY Beauty in this world?
Of course there is. Just look at a newborn baby, Glenn.
Post by Glenn
I'll have to admit that I spend (some will accuse, too much) time
looking at the bad coming on this world -- so much that the good and the
beauty seems hard to find.
Not if you look for it - don't you live in Portland? For heaven's
sake - look around you! Mount Hood, go to Astoria and watch the waves
hitting the beach where the Columbia and the Pacific meet, drive to
the Johnston Ridge Observatory and look at the restored natural beauty
around Mt. St. Helens. You live in one of the most beautiful areas of
North America and you can't see the beauty there?
Post by Glenn
So, when I discovered this,
http://youtu.be/vlO0ikRPZrc
I wanted to share...
She has an amazing voice, especially for being so young.
JERRY
Oh please! All babies look like Winston Churchill! They all have
roundish faces, smug looks and appear ready to flash the V for Victory
sign and say "This Was Their Finest Hour!" ;-)
Al Smith
2008-07-03 14:13:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by rogue
JERRY
Oh please! All babies look like Winston Churchill! They all have
roundish faces, smug looks and appear ready to flash the V for Victory
sign and say "This Was Their Finest Hour!" ;-)
I've never seen one smoking a cigar.

-Al-
john w <j@yahoo.com>
2008-07-01 03:50:45 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:07:56 -0700, Glenn <***@spiritone.com>
wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Is there ANY Beauty in this world?
Sure. When I was a little boy, I thought my mother was beautiful.

As a senior, I still think my mother was beautiful.

I'd probably think my grandmothers were beautiful if I remembered
them. I only knew one grandmother, and I was too little to remember
her anymore.
I find beauty in flowers and sunsets.

I find beauty in art and poetry.
Post by Glenn
I'll have to admit that I spend (some will accuse, too much) time
looking at the bad coming on this world -- so much that the good and the
beauty seems hard to find.
So, when I discovered this,
http://youtu.be/vlO0ikRPZrc
I wanted to share...
Glenn
Al Smith
2008-07-01 04:18:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Glenn
Is there ANY Beauty in this world?
Sure. When I was a little boy, I thought my mother was beautiful.
As a senior, I still think my mother was beautiful.
I'd probably think my grandmothers were beautiful if I remembered
them. I only knew one grandmother, and I was too little to remember
her anymore.
I find beauty in flowers and sunsets.
I find beauty in art and poetry.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
The eye altering, alters all.

-Al-
john w <j@yahoo.com>
2008-07-01 05:23:51 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:07:56 -0700, Glenn <***@spiritone.com>
wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Is there ANY Beauty in this world?
The morning I saw my baby son's face for the first time, I saw real
beauty.
Post by Glenn
I'll have to admit that I spend (some will accuse, too much) time
looking at the bad coming on this world -- so much that the good and the
beauty seems hard to find.
So, when I discovered this,
http://youtu.be/vlO0ikRPZrc
I wanted to share...
Glenn
Glenn
2008-07-01 06:02:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Is there ANY Beauty in this world?
The morning I saw my baby son's face for the first time, I saw real
beauty.
May the God of Abraham grant eternal life to your child.
Amen.

Now, knowing your child will live with God, what will you do to be with
your child?

Scriptural reference?

Glenn
--
www.thelittlebookopened.org [Key words:] "The Little Book";
Glenn McClary, servitum, gaedhealic, oldwetdog
<Kelly>
2008-07-01 06:14:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Glenn
May the God of Abraham grant eternal life to your child.
Amen.
Now, knowing your child will live with God, what will you do to be with
your child?
Scriptural reference?
You're a jerk, Glenn.
john w <j@yahoo.com>
2008-07-01 11:18:36 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:14:31 -0700 (PDT), "<Kelly>"
<***@gmail.com> wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by <Kelly>
Post by Glenn
May the God of Abraham grant eternal life to your child.
Amen.
Now, knowing your child will live with God, what will you do to be with
your child?
Scriptural reference?
You're a jerk, Glenn.
^ ^ ^ You just scolded me for jumping into someone else's
conversation!

Now, you just did it to ME.

Please, don't!

And I felt that Glenn's comment-- while perhaps misplaced -- was
sincere. He is likely a dad like me, and he's concerned over the
eternal destination of my child and me.

I have assured him we are both safely "Heaven-bound."

I hope you can say that someday.
john w <j@yahoo.com>
2008-07-01 11:16:54 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:02:34 -0700, Glenn <***@spiritone.com>
wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Is there ANY Beauty in this world?
The morning I saw my baby son's face for the first time, I saw real
beauty.
May the God of Abraham grant eternal life to your child.
Amen.
Thank you.
Post by Glenn
Now, knowing your child will live with God, what will you do to be with
your child?
That's already taken care of for both of us.

John 3:16-17 / Romans 10:9-10
Post by Glenn
Scriptural reference?
Glenn
Glenn
2008-07-01 14:05:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Is there ANY Beauty in this world?
The morning I saw my baby son's face for the first time, I saw real
beauty.
May the God of Abraham grant eternal life to your child.
Amen.
Thank you.
Post by Glenn
Now, knowing your child will live with God, what will you do to be with
your child?
That's already taken care of for both of us.
John 3:16-17 / Romans 10:9-10
Well, those would apply to any person old enough to believe and confess,
but do not actually apply to a child. (Of course I don't know how old
you or your child is.)

What I was thinking was more on the line of David, who mourned as his
child was dying. 2 Sam 12:23.


There are stories in the OT where men of God had children who turned
away from the Lord...
...and I think of those stories as a metaphor for the Lord and His
children who turn away.


Glenn
--
www.thelittlebookopened.org [Key words:] "The Little Book";
Glenn McClary, servitum, gaedhealic, oldwetdog
john w <j@yahoo.com>
2008-07-01 14:46:09 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 07:05:48 -0700, Glenn <***@spiritone.com>
wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Is there ANY Beauty in this world?
The morning I saw my baby son's face for the first time, I saw real
beauty.
May the God of Abraham grant eternal life to your child.
Amen.
Thank you.
Post by Glenn
Now, knowing your child will live with God, what will you do to be with
your child?
That's already taken care of for both of us.
John 3:16-17 / Romans 10:9-10
Well, those would apply to any person old enough to believe and confess,
Correct.
Post by Glenn
but do not actually apply to a child.
Says who? Are you assuming that-- as his father-- I didn't have
enough sense (or knowledge) to ask him 10 questions to make sure he
understood?

He understood.

Also, Jesus said, "allow the little children" ("" suffer the
children"") to come to me! DO NOT FORBID THEM! It's these (the
children) who are MOST fit for the kingdom."
(they come with SIMPLE faith)

(Of course I don't know how old
Post by Glenn
you or your child is.)
^ ^ ^^ There you go.

I was 5 when I first believed. My family / pastor required me to
wait until I was 11 to be baptized.

My son was 3 when he believed, and I prayed with him.

He waited til he was about 11 to be baptized.

But today, he is as committed as he was when he was 3.
Post by Glenn
What I was thinking was more on the line of David, who mourned as his
child was dying. 2 Sam 12:23.
His child wasn't even a week old. Therefore, he was not "lost."

The angel (the Holy Spirit) told David that his son went to heaven,
and would be there, waiting for David.

That passage tells us that both David and his infant son went to
Heaven.
Post by Glenn
There are stories in the OT where men of God had children who turned
away from the Lord...
Yep.
Post by Glenn
...and I think of those stories as a metaphor for the Lord and His
children who turn away.
I don't consider all those stories "metaphor.'

And we can be raised in the church, but then turn our backs later.

I have siblings who were raised in church, but then got old enough,
and chose to not continue in the church.
Post by Glenn
Glenn
Glenn
2008-07-01 16:24:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Is there ANY Beauty in this world?
The morning I saw my baby son's face for the first time, I saw real
beauty.
May the God of Abraham grant eternal life to your child.
Amen.
Thank you.
Post by Glenn
Now, knowing your child will live with God, what will you do to be with
your child?
That's already taken care of for both of us.
John 3:16-17 / Romans 10:9-10
Well, those would apply to any person old enough to believe and confess,
Correct.
Post by Glenn
but do not actually apply to a child.
Says who?
What, you can't read the scripture for yourself?

16 ¶For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting
life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but
that the world through him might be saved.

As you say yourself, about David's son, "he was only a week old, so he
wasn't lost."

Think about it: Jesus did not need to die to save those who were not
lost. He did not die to save the innocent. He did not die to save
innocent children.

He did die to save the guilty.


9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt
believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou
shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the
mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be
ashamed.

Nor was Paul speaking to children, he was speaking to those who are
mature enough to comprehend that they have something to confess.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Are you assuming that-- as his father-- I didn't have
enough sense (or knowledge) to ask him 10 questions to make sure he
understood?
He understood.
I did not make ANY assumption...

That is why I said "I don't know how old you or your child is."
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Also, Jesus said, "allow the little children" ("" suffer the
children"") to come to me! DO NOT FORBID THEM! It's these (the
children) who are MOST fit for the kingdom."
(they come with SIMPLE faith)
(Of course I don't know how old
Post by Glenn
you or your child is.)
^ ^ ^^ There you go.
I was 5 when I first believed. My family / pastor required me to
wait until I was 11 to be baptized.
My son was 3 when he believed, and I prayed with him.
He waited til he was about 11 to be baptized.
But today, he is as committed as he was when he was 3.
Post by Glenn
What I was thinking was more on the line of David, who mourned as his
child was dying. 2 Sam 12:23.
His child wasn't even a week old. Therefore, he was not "lost."
The angel (the Holy Spirit) told David that his son went to heaven,
and would be there, waiting for David.
That passage tells us that both David and his infant son went to
Heaven.
Post by Glenn
There are stories in the OT where men of God had children who turned
away from the Lord...
Yep.
Post by Glenn
...and I think of those stories as a metaphor for the Lord and His
children who turn away.
I don't consider all those stories "metaphor.'
You don't think that any fact can be seen as a metaphor?

The problem is not seeing a father's sorrow over a lost child as a
metaphor for God's sorrow over His lost children -- the problem is
knowing when to see the scripture as fact and not to take it ONLY as
metaphor.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
And we can be raised in the church, but then turn our backs later.
I have siblings who were raised in church, but then got old enough,
and chose to not continue in the church.
Post by Glenn
Glenn
--
www.thelittlebookopened.org [Key words:] "The Little Book";
Glenn McClary, servitum, gaedhealic, oldwetdog
john w <j@yahoo.com>
2008-07-02 00:23:05 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 09:24:11 -0700, Glenn <***@spiritone.com>
wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Is there ANY Beauty in this world?
The morning I saw my baby son's face for the first time, I saw real
beauty.
May the God of Abraham grant eternal life to your child.
Amen.
Thank you.
Post by Glenn
Now, knowing your child will live with God, what will you do to be with
your child?
That's already taken care of for both of us.
John 3:16-17 / Romans 10:9-10
Well, those would apply to any person old enough to believe and confess,
Correct.
Post by Glenn
but do not actually apply to a child.
Says who?
What, you can't read the scripture for yourself?
If you want to converse with me, don't talk down.
Post by Glenn
16 ¶For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting
life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but
that the world through him might be saved.
As you say yourself, about David's son, "he was only a week old, so he
wasn't lost."
My son was 3 years old. Old enough to understand Right and Wrong.
Old enough to understand "Don't do that!" and obey. Old enough to
understand "Do this, son!" and obey.

Old enough to understand (in a child's way) "God." And "Jesus is
God in human form."

You might call my child "enlightened". He has always been "way
ahead."

Some call this "gifted."
I don't need to "think about it." I've been his father for more
than a decade now.

I know my son. At the age of Three, he was "ready."

Kindly don't hold others back due to YOUR limited understanding, and
knowledge.

You don't know ME, and you don't know my son.

And I am now going to stop. I'm getting into detail that I am planning
on putting in my autobiography.

"Sorry."

Jesus did not need to die to save those who were not
Post by Glenn
lost. He did not die to save the innocent. He did not die to save
innocent children.
Are YOU the one who decides who is old enough and who is not?
Post by Glenn
He did die to save the guilty.
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt
believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou
shalt be saved.
And you don't know me very well. I don't converse well with people
who "get preachy" and who insist on quoting the King James.
Post by Glenn
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the
mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be
ashamed.
Nor was Paul speaking to children, he was speaking to those who are
mature enough to comprehend that they have something to confess.
Don't lecture me about my son.

You don't know me; and you don't know my son.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Are you assuming that-- as his father-- I didn't have
enough sense (or knowledge) to ask him 10 questions to make sure he
understood?
He understood.
I did not make ANY assumption...
You haev made a ton of assumptions, and you're now quoting scripture
about how children (let's say a 14-year old CHILD) don't need to "be
saved."

That's between me, my son, and God.
Post by Glenn
That is why I said "I don't know how old you or your child is."
You said that, then you plunged right ahead and insisted that my
son was too young to "need to be saved."

I ask you this:

Did praying "the sinner's prayer" when he was 3 years old HURT him?

I say, "No. It didn't hurt anyone.

How can it hurt to pray?
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Also, Jesus said, "allow the little children" ("" suffer the
children"") to come to me! DO NOT FORBID THEM! It's these (the
children) who are MOST fit for the kingdom."
(they come with SIMPLE faith)
(Of course I don't know how old
Post by Glenn
you or your child is.)
^ ^ ^^ There you go.
I was 5 when I first believed. My family / pastor required me to
wait until I was 11 to be baptized.
My son was 3 when he believed, and I prayed with him.
He waited til he was about 11 to be baptized.
But today, he is as committed as he was when he was 3.
Post by Glenn
What I was thinking was more on the line of David, who mourned as his
child was dying. 2 Sam 12:23.
His child wasn't even a week old. Therefore, he was not "lost."
The angel (the Holy Spirit) told David that his son went to heaven,
and would be there, waiting for David.
That passage tells us that both David and his infant son went to
Heaven.
Post by Glenn
There are stories in the OT where men of God had children who turned
away from the Lord...
Yep.
Post by Glenn
...and I think of those stories as a metaphor for the Lord and His
children who turn away.
I don't consider all those stories "metaphor.'
You don't think that any fact can be seen as a metaphor?
^ ^ Bulletin: (a friendly joke) Ding Ding! Ding! You win
this round! "Fair enough."

Some day, someone will probably label this post "a metaphor."

:-)
Post by Glenn
The problem is not seeing a father's sorrow over a lost child as a
metaphor for God's sorrow over His lost children -- the problem is
knowing when to see the scripture as fact and not to take it ONLY as
metaphor.
You know what? I've made my living MOST of my 60 years, and ^ ^ ^
I could not have put that better myself!

Darn you!

:-)

Too many want to "allegorize" every word of the Old Testament.
Certainly some stories could be handled as "sheer fantasy," told to
make a point (I'm not referring to any of them; I personally accept
the whole OT as "FACT.")
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
And we can be raised in the church, but then turn our backs later.
I have siblings who were raised in church, but then got old enough,
and chose to not continue in the church.
Post by Glenn
Glenn
<Kelly>
2008-07-02 00:32:01 UTC
Permalink
  If you want to converse with me, don't talk down.
Why not? You do it continually.
  My son was 3 years old.  Old enough to understand Right and Wrong.
Old enough to understand "Don't do that!" and obey. Old enough to
understand "Do this, son!" and obey.
  Old enough to understand (in a child's way) "God."  And "Jesus is
God in human form."
  You might call my child "enlightened". He has always been "way
ahead."
In comparison to you, that could be an IQ of 60.
 Some call this "gifted."
Or just smarter than his father.
   I don't need to "think about it."  I've been his father for more
than a decade now.
Isn't he about 20 years old now? So...haven't you been his father for
about two decades, John? Or are you having trouble with numbers again
(remember 2008-2000=8 years? ;-)
 Some day, someone will probably label this post "a metaphor."
Some day, someone will probably label this post "two pot-heads
exchanging inane absurdities". You and Glenn are two peas in a pod,
indeed.
Chuck Stamford
2008-07-02 00:45:01 UTC
Permalink
"john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...

John, just wanted to point out that there are many theories about the
spiritual state of children who die before they reach the age of reason.
Some of them seem to me more reasonable than others, as I'm sure they would
for you too, but that's hardly where our hope lies. Our hope and trust
reside, when all is said and done, in the love of God, a absolute love
guided in everything it does by an absolute power controlled perfectly by an
absolutely perfect Mind! Next to that the best of the theories pales into
insignificance.

We can discuss and debate these various theories all day long, and even come
to some conclusion about which one is most likely the truth (or as close to
the truth as we're ever likely to get this side of Heaven), and this can be
profitable for us to some extent. But you should never let not knowing
which is the truth get under your skin, or allow anyone else to do it using
one or another of these theories...because we really already know all the
truth we need to know when we have Jesus Christ as our Lord, don't we?

No matter how much you love your son, God loves him infinitely more, and has
loved him infinitely more from all eternity. There was never an instant
throughout all eternity when God didn't love your son (and every son!) as
much as He loved His own. No matter what happens to your son now or in the
future, there is nothing that can separate him from God's love; "...neither
death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present
nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing"

Regardless of which theory about the disposition of young children we think
is pretty, we have plenty of reason to trust God with our children.

Chuck Stamford
john w <j@yahoo.com>
2008-07-02 04:48:03 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 17:45:01 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
<shell-***@cox.net> wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
John, just wanted to point out that there are many theories about the
spiritual state of children who die before they reach the age of reason.
I agree. And I don't know why. I believe scripture-- though
obscure-- if you find the right passages, is quite clear.

I believe the scripture on this issue is very clear.

If you read the passage about the death of King David's infant son, I
don't see how the text could be any more clear.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Some of them seem to me more reasonable than others, as I'm sure they would
for you too, but that's hardly where our hope lies. Our hope and trust
reside, when all is said and done, in the love of God, a absolute love
guided in everything it does by an absolute power controlled perfectly by an
absolutely perfect Mind!
Ok. However, I see no problem with using the text that is there,
when we find it, and when it "speaks to us very clearly."

Next to that the best of the theories pales into
Post by Chuck Stamford
insignificance.
I don't consider my "position" on this issue "theoretical."
Post by Chuck Stamford
We can discuss and debate these various theories all day long, and even come
to some conclusion about which one is most likely the truth (or as close to
the truth as we're ever likely to get this side of Heaven), and this can be
profitable for us to some extent.
My point is that, when a person you know loses a very young child
(let's say the child is 6 months old, and dies)
I believe it's proper to comfort that family as best we can.

If I believe I have a SOLID answer on "Can we be CERTAIN that our 6
month old daughter REALLY IS in heaven now, and not burning in the
pit?"

I believe we CAN say, "Absolutely!"

The God I believe in doesn't punish 6 month old babies who die
without ever having had the chance to "believe" and be baptized.

I believe such belief (and supporting text) is VITAL to our
credibility to the world.

"Well, the way I hear it, you stupid &)(&)*& &&()&)*(& Christians
believe that if a 3-month old baby dies, it goes to the PIT! Because
it "didn't have time to accept Jesus as its savior." < That's why
I'm not a Christian, you (*&)*&)*(& SLOB!"

^ ^ ^ ^ typical rhetoric.

No, we DON'T believe that! And any time I see a Christian spouting
such NONSENSE, I LEAP to correct him / her!

That's pure, unadulterated Calvinism, mixed with mis-interpreted
Roman Catholicism.

It's right out of the pit of hell.


But you should never let not knowing
Post by Chuck Stamford
which is the truth get under your skin, or allow anyone else to do it using
one or another of these theories...because we really already know all the
truth we need to know when we have Jesus Christ as our Lord, don't we?
Well, sorry. On that, I have to say "Yes, and no."

I likewise don't believe that some Australian bushman who dies when
he's 15 and he's never heard the name "Jesus", and he's never heard of
/ or seen a Bible... he doesn't go to hell, simply for being born at
the wrong place and time.

I believe there's a better answer.
Post by Chuck Stamford
No matter how much you love your son, God loves him infinitely more, and has
loved him infinitely more from all eternity. There was never an instant
throughout all eternity when God didn't love your son (and every son!) as
much as He loved His own. No matter what happens to your son now or in the
future, there is nothing that can separate him from God's love; "...neither
death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present
nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing"
^ ^ ^ ^ On this, we agree.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Regardless of which theory about the disposition of young children we think
is pretty,
we have plenty of reason to trust God with our children.

^ ^ ^ ^ There, you go!
Post by Chuck Stamford
Chuck Stamford
Chuck Stamford
2008-07-02 16:40:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 17:45:01 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
John, just wanted to point out that there are many theories about the
spiritual state of children who die before they reach the age of reason.
I agree. And I don't know why. I believe scripture-- though
obscure-- if you find the right passages, is quite clear.
I believe the scripture on this issue is very clear.
If you read the passage about the death of King David's infant son, I
don't see how the text could be any more clear.
You mean 2 Samuel 12:15:23? If so, you'll have to explain to me how you see
this as "clear" as to the spiritual state of the child, because I don't see
a word in this text concerning that.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
Some of them seem to me more reasonable than others, as I'm sure they would
for you too, but that's hardly where our hope lies. Our hope and trust
reside, when all is said and done, in the love of God, a absolute love
guided in everything it does by an absolute power controlled perfectly by an
absolutely perfect Mind!
Ok. However, I see no problem with using the text that is there,
when we find it, and when it "speaks to us very clearly."
Neither do I. I've just never found such a text. I'm anxious for you to
show me what you've found.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Next to that the best of the theories pales into
Post by Chuck Stamford
insignificance.
I don't consider my "position" on this issue "theoretical."
Ah...that's a dangerous attitude. In my thirty years as a Christian I've
watched literally scores of people take that attitude and walk right over
the crazy cliff with it. At best it tends to stunt any periodic and
objective re-examination of our beliefs (not to mention the belief our
belief is not subject to error is false on it's face, since we are not
omniscient), and at worst it leads us into areas of judgment God has
specifically warned us to stay out of.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
We can discuss and debate these various theories all day long, and even come
to some conclusion about which one is most likely the truth (or as close to
the truth as we're ever likely to get this side of Heaven), and this can be
profitable for us to some extent.
My point is that, when a person you know loses a very young child
(let's say the child is 6 months old, and dies)
I believe it's proper to comfort that family as best we can.
So do I, but I temper "best we can" with keeping to the truth. For me,
"best we can" doesn't include telling them something is for sure true that I
don't know, and can't know is for sure true. I know God is loving and
merciful toward us for sure. I know God is trustworthy, and that all
judgment belongs to Him, for sure. I don't know, for sure, the spiritual
state of ANYONE, and I"m warned by God not to pretend I do. So I can't, in
good conscious, comfort anyone with anything but the truth, for a lie is
poor comfort.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
If I believe I have a SOLID answer on "Can we be CERTAIN that our 6
month old daughter REALLY IS in heaven now, and not burning in the
pit?"
I believe we CAN say, "Absolutely!"
I understand, John. I'm just waiting to hear from you what your
justification is for that belief.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
The God I believe in doesn't punish 6 month old babies who die
without ever having had the chance to "believe" and be baptized.
I believe such belief (and supporting text) is VITAL to our
credibility to the world.
"Well, the way I hear it, you stupid &)(&)*& &&()&)*(& Christians
believe that if a 3-month old baby dies, it goes to the PIT! Because
it "didn't have time to accept Jesus as its savior." < That's why
I'm not a Christian, you (*&)*&)*(& SLOB!"
^ ^ ^ ^ typical rhetoric.
But you and I know that no one ever goes to hell because they "didn't have
time to repent", don't we? The idea presupposes that if God had just let
them have more time, they would have repented, and that God, by taking them
before the time He knew they'd repent and be saved, is the CAUSE of their
eternal punishment!

What's typical about this thinking is the desire to make it God's fault that
people end up in hell. Skeptics have a hundred different rhetorical
arguments, but they all boil down to "God is responsible, not me". I didn't
ask to be born. If God knew me from all eternity, and knew I'd reject Jesus
and end up in hell, then God is morally responsible for my sins because He
went ahead and created me anyway. And on and on and on. The human desire
not to be responsible for the evil we all do is incredibly strong. It
subverts otherwise strong intellects; warps every perception of reality; and
even causes Christians to waver in their faith in God. We have to KNOW
certain people are in heaven, and that we'll be with them again, or we begin
to doubt God. We sometimes find we can't just trust God to do what is
perfectly right concerning someone we love with all of our hearts...as if
we've forgotten God loves them infinitely more and long before we were ever
born! What we need to understand is that brutal honesty is what we need
here, and we need to realize this is SIN in US when we begin to think like
this, not "insight" into the love of God! It's nothing more or less than a
failure of faith in us, and it's CERTAINLY not us being more loving than
God!
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
No, we DON'T believe that! And any time I see a Christian spouting
such NONSENSE, I LEAP to correct him / her!
That's pure, unadulterated Calvinism, mixed with mis-interpreted
Roman Catholicism.
It's right out of the pit of hell.
Well, I'll wait to see the Scripture you've found, and, hopefully, for you
to find some way to engage here on a less emotional basis than you seem to
be using at the moment. I'm not a Calvinist nor a Roman Catholic (nor do I
view those terms as repositories for the dispicable perspective on biblical
soteriology you've described above!), but I also can't say with certainty
that any given infant who dies is in heaven anymore than I can say any given
adult who dies is in heaven. We're all sinners from the womb, John, and God
is not willing that any perish, but many do according to the Son of God,
Jesus Christ. This is what I know "for sure". What it all means as far as
your infant son (when he was still an infant) or mine, or anyone else's is
something I can kick around with my fellow Christian brothers and sisters in
the hope of finding some insight and enlightenment from God, but I can't
"know". Thus my use of the term "theory" here.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
But you should never let not knowing
Post by Chuck Stamford
which is the truth get under your skin, or allow anyone else to do it using
one or another of these theories...because we really already know all the
truth we need to know when we have Jesus Christ as our Lord, don't we?
Well, sorry. On that, I have to say "Yes, and no."
I likewise don't believe that some Australian bushman who dies when
he's 15 and he's never heard the name "Jesus", and he's never heard of
/ or seen a Bible... he doesn't go to hell, simply for being born at
the wrong place and time.
I believe there's a better answer.
I do too, John, but I don't believe it includes us saying "Yes and no" when
it comes to knowing we have all we need when we have Jesus Christ as our
Lord. How can a good answer here, or any where, include NOT having Jesus
Christ as our Lord???
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
No matter how much you love your son, God loves him infinitely more, and has
loved him infinitely more from all eternity. There was never an instant
throughout all eternity when God didn't love your son (and every son!) as
much as He loved His own. No matter what happens to your son now or in the
future, there is nothing that can separate him from God's love; "...neither
death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present
nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing"
^ ^ ^ ^ On this, we agree.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Regardless of which theory about the disposition of young children we think
is pretty,
we have plenty of reason to trust God with our children.
^ ^ ^ ^ There, you go!
I know we're in basic agreement on the love of God, John. I'd still like to
see the Scripture you've found that makes it so clear for you that all
infants who die go to heaven, and why you see that biblical passage as so
clearly saying this. I'd also be willing to discuss further some of these
various "theories" (for lack of a more precise term), their merits and
weaknesses, if you think that would be something we could both profit from.

Chuck Stamford
john w <j@yahoo.com>
2008-07-02 18:44:06 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 09:40:27 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
<shell-***@cox.net> wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 17:45:01 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
John, just wanted to point out that there are many theories about the
spiritual state of children who die before they reach the age of reason.
I agree. And I don't know why. I believe scripture-- though
obscure-- if you find the right passages, is quite clear.
I believe the scripture on this issue is very clear.
If you read the passage about the death of King David's infant son, I
don't see how the text could be any more clear.
You mean 2 Samuel 12:15:23? If so, you'll have to explain to me how you see
this as "clear" as to the spiritual state of the child, because I don't see
a word in this text concerning that.
Certainly. It's certainly not my original thinking. And--
admittedly-- you must do a little " 2 + 2 = 4".


2SA 12:15 After Nathan had gone home, the LORD struck the child
that Uriah's wife had borne to David, and he became ill. 16 David
pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and went into his house and
spent the nights lying on the ground. 17 The elders of his household
stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he
would not eat any food with them.

2SA 12:18 On the seventh day the child died. David's servants were
afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, "While
the child was still living, we spoke to David but he would not listen
to us. How can we tell him the child is dead? He may do something
desperate."

2SA 12:19 David noticed that his servants were whispering among
themselves and he realized the child was dead. "Is the child dead?" he
asked.
"Yes," they replied, "he is dead."

2SA 12:20 Then David got up from the ground. After he had washed,
put on lotions and changed his clothes, he went into the house of the
LORD and worshiped. Then he went to his own house, and at his request
they served him food, and he ate.

2SA 12:21 His servants asked him, "Why are you acting this way?
While the child was alive, you fasted and wept, but now that the child
is dead, you get up and eat!"
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
2SA 12:22 He answered, "While the child was still alive,
I fasted and wept. I thought, `Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to
me and let the child live.'
23 But now that he is dead, why should I fast?

Can I bring him back again? ["No" ]
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
I will go to him, but he will not return to me."
[[[[ This last 10 (or so ) words are the key. If we believe (as I
do, as you MUST), that King David is-- today-- in Heaven with all the
other FAITHFUL Jews (scripture calls him a "man after God's own heart)
If we believe that David is-- today-- in Heaven, and I do...
And if David was told (by God in this passage), "I WILL GO TO him! [
his son./ IOW, I will one day to go him where he went [ heaven]; he
will not RETURN to me (here on earth)

We KNOW David's destination. He's in heaven. If he's going where his
son has gone, and we KNOW David went to heaven, then that's where his
son MUST be.

Now if David's 7 day old child went to heaven (he was innocent/ he
wasn't old enough to have committed even his first sin),

Why would God condemn other infants if He didn't condemn David's
infant child?

Answer: God doesn't condemn infants. That notion (you may well have
gotten from Calvin) is not true.

I believe / you say you believe / in a merciful God. A merciful God
doesn't cast infants into hell merely because they didn't live long
enough to hear the gospel and respond.

Even if David's baby HAD lived long enough, he was a few CENTURIES
before Jesus!
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
Some of them seem to me more reasonable than others, as I'm sure they would
for you too, but that's hardly where our hope lies. Our hope and trust
reside, when all is said and done, in the love of God, a absolute love
guided in everything it does by an absolute power controlled perfectly by an
absolutely perfect Mind!
Ok. However, I see no problem with using the text that is there,
when we find it, and when it "speaks to us very clearly."
Neither do I. I've just never found such a text. I'm anxious for you to
show me what you've found.
I am glad that you are anxious, and I hope my explanation satisfies.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Next to that the best of the theories pales into
Post by Chuck Stamford
insignificance.
I don't consider my "position" on this issue "theoretical."
Ah...that's a dangerous attitude.
It can be. On the other hand, I have been told that my absolutely
certain conviction that I am born again and Heaven bound is dangerous.
That such a delusion will keep me from bringing others the truth.

It hasn't yet!

In my thirty years as a Christian I've
Post by Chuck Stamford
watched literally scores of people take that attitude and walk right over
the crazy cliff with it.
Well, granted, I probably don't see MANY things exactly the same way
you see them. That's fine. I'm in a different place, and I minister
to a different crowd than you.

I am not in the same place today that *I* was in 30 years ago!

I was raised to be a tee- totaler. Imagine my surprise a few years
back, when the Lord showed me that the 1st century Christians were
DRINKING alcohol in CHURCH and getting drunk!

Imagine my total exasperation to find POLYGAMY in the first century
church!

^ ^ ^^ That was a wake-up call!

At best it tends to stunt any periodic and
Post by Chuck Stamford
objective re-examination of our beliefs (not to mention the belief our
belief is not subject to error is false on it's face, since we are not
omniscient),
I disagree.

Try to not measure everyone by the cloth used to measure you.

Not only are we different people, we've been to different places, we
are headed in different directions (in this world), and we likely have
different ministries.

I was apologizing to a Muslim friend a year ago for "being crude" in
my use of language.

He laughed. He said, "that's what makes you BELIEVABLE, John. You're
HUMAN."


and at worst it leads us into areas of judgment God has
Post by Chuck Stamford
specifically warned us to stay out of.
Well, concerning that, you perhaps believe in the "holiness"
program; I do not.

I believe we are (as Jesus put it) FREE.

As long as I don't hurt myself or my fellow man, I am free to ENJOY
life.

I don't see how I can be "an example" if I'm the guy who never
smiles, the guy who never goes to movies, the guy who doesn't own a
TV, the guy who never tells jokes, and he never laughs when YOU tell a
joke.

I want people to come to me and say, "John, every time I see you,
you make me laugh. What's all that joy about?"
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
We can discuss and debate these various theories all day long, and even come
to some conclusion about which one is most likely the truth (or as close to
the truth as we're ever likely to get this side of Heaven), and this can be
profitable for us to some extent.
My point is that, when a person you know loses a very young child
(let's say the child is 6 months old, and dies)
I believe it's proper to comfort that family as best we can.
So do I, but I temper "best we can" with keeping to the truth. For me,
"best we can" doesn't include telling them something is for sure true that I
don't know, and can't know is for sure true.
Let's stop here. I suggest you read my comment on how I know that
David's child went to heaven.

(You just suggested that I would LIE)

I understand where you're coming from; try to understand where I'm
coming from.

Try to open that bright mind a bit and at least be RECEPTIVE.


"Til then!"

john w

I know God is loving and
Post by Chuck Stamford
merciful toward us for sure. I know God is trustworthy, and that all
judgment belongs to Him, for sure. I don't know, for sure, the spiritual
state of ANYONE, and I"m warned by God not to pretend I do. So I can't, in
good conscious, comfort anyone with anything but the truth, for a lie is
poor comfort.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
If I believe I have a SOLID answer on "Can we be CERTAIN that our 6
month old daughter REALLY IS in heaven now, and not burning in the
pit?"
I believe we CAN say, "Absolutely!"
I understand, John. I'm just waiting to hear from you what your
justification is for that belief.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
The God I believe in doesn't punish 6 month old babies who die
without ever having had the chance to "believe" and be baptized.
I believe such belief (and supporting text) is VITAL to our
credibility to the world.
"Well, the way I hear it, you stupid &)(&)*& &&()&)*(& Christians
believe that if a 3-month old baby dies, it goes to the PIT! Because
it "didn't have time to accept Jesus as its savior." < That's why
I'm not a Christian, you (*&)*&)*(& SLOB!"
^ ^ ^ ^ typical rhetoric.
But you and I know that no one ever goes to hell because they "didn't have
time to repent", don't we? The idea presupposes that if God had just let
them have more time, they would have repented, and that God, by taking them
before the time He knew they'd repent and be saved, is the CAUSE of their
eternal punishment!
What's typical about this thinking is the desire to make it God's fault that
people end up in hell. Skeptics have a hundred different rhetorical
arguments, but they all boil down to "God is responsible, not me". I didn't
ask to be born. If God knew me from all eternity, and knew I'd reject Jesus
and end up in hell, then God is morally responsible for my sins because He
went ahead and created me anyway. And on and on and on. The human desire
not to be responsible for the evil we all do is incredibly strong. It
subverts otherwise strong intellects; warps every perception of reality; and
even causes Christians to waver in their faith in God. We have to KNOW
certain people are in heaven, and that we'll be with them again, or we begin
to doubt God. We sometimes find we can't just trust God to do what is
perfectly right concerning someone we love with all of our hearts...as if
we've forgotten God loves them infinitely more and long before we were ever
born! What we need to understand is that brutal honesty is what we need
here, and we need to realize this is SIN in US when we begin to think like
this, not "insight" into the love of God! It's nothing more or less than a
failure of faith in us, and it's CERTAINLY not us being more loving than
God!
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
No, we DON'T believe that! And any time I see a Christian spouting
such NONSENSE, I LEAP to correct him / her!
That's pure, unadulterated Calvinism, mixed with mis-interpreted
Roman Catholicism.
It's right out of the pit of hell.
Well, I'll wait to see the Scripture you've found, and, hopefully, for you
to find some way to engage here on a less emotional basis than you seem to
be using at the moment. I'm not a Calvinist nor a Roman Catholic (nor do I
view those terms as repositories for the dispicable perspective on biblical
soteriology you've described above!), but I also can't say with certainty
that any given infant who dies is in heaven anymore than I can say any given
adult who dies is in heaven. We're all sinners from the womb, John, and God
is not willing that any perish, but many do according to the Son of God,
Jesus Christ. This is what I know "for sure". What it all means as far as
your infant son (when he was still an infant) or mine, or anyone else's is
something I can kick around with my fellow Christian brothers and sisters in
the hope of finding some insight and enlightenment from God, but I can't
"know". Thus my use of the term "theory" here.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
But you should never let not knowing
Post by Chuck Stamford
which is the truth get under your skin, or allow anyone else to do it using
one or another of these theories...because we really already know all the
truth we need to know when we have Jesus Christ as our Lord, don't we?
Well, sorry. On that, I have to say "Yes, and no."
I likewise don't believe that some Australian bushman who dies when
he's 15 and he's never heard the name "Jesus", and he's never heard of
/ or seen a Bible... he doesn't go to hell, simply for being born at
the wrong place and time.
I believe there's a better answer.
I do too, John, but I don't believe it includes us saying "Yes and no" when
it comes to knowing we have all we need when we have Jesus Christ as our
Lord. How can a good answer here, or any where, include NOT having Jesus
Christ as our Lord???
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
No matter how much you love your son, God loves him infinitely more, and has
loved him infinitely more from all eternity. There was never an instant
throughout all eternity when God didn't love your son (and every son!) as
much as He loved His own. No matter what happens to your son now or in the
future, there is nothing that can separate him from God's love; "...neither
death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present
nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing"
^ ^ ^ ^ On this, we agree.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Regardless of which theory about the disposition of young children we think
is pretty,
we have plenty of reason to trust God with our children.
^ ^ ^ ^ There, you go!
I know we're in basic agreement on the love of God, John. I'd still like to
see the Scripture you've found that makes it so clear for you that all
infants who die go to heaven, and why you see that biblical passage as so
clearly saying this. I'd also be willing to discuss further some of these
various "theories" (for lack of a more precise term), their merits and
weaknesses, if you think that would be something we could both profit from.
Chuck Stamford
Chuck Stamford
2008-07-02 20:17:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 09:40:27 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 17:45:01 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
John, just wanted to point out that there are many theories about the
spiritual state of children who die before they reach the age of reason.
I agree. And I don't know why. I believe scripture-- though
obscure-- if you find the right passages, is quite clear.
I believe the scripture on this issue is very clear.
If you read the passage about the death of King David's infant son, I
don't see how the text could be any more clear.
You mean 2 Samuel 12:15:23? If so, you'll have to explain to me how you see
this as "clear" as to the spiritual state of the child, because I don't see
a word in this text concerning that.
Before we get into this or anything else, I want to address your
understanding that I suggested you would lie to comfort someone who had lost
a small child by telling them something you knew wasn't true. That's not
what I had in mind at all, John. I don't want to go into a whole big
explanation here, but there are a lot of things you don't know about me,
just as there are a lot of things I don't know about you, and one of the
things you don't know about me is how much time I've spent studying
epistemology; especially the modern Christian philosophers, such as
Plantinga and Alston. So when I say you would go beyond what you know to be
true, I'm not talking about you saying something other than what you believe
to be the case, which would be lying. I'm saying you believe you know, what
you don't actually "know" in the epistemological sense of "know".

I may be wrong in saying it, but I'm not suggesting you lie.

Now onto what you've got here for an argument for your position that all
small children go to heaven...
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Certainly. It's certainly not my original thinking. And--
admittedly-- you must do a little " 2 + 2 = 4".
I assume by that you mean I'll need to apply a few self-evidently true
premises to what's actually given? If so, that's not a problem.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
2SA 12:15 After Nathan had gone home, the LORD struck the child
that Uriah's wife had borne to David, and he became ill. 16 David
pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and went into his house and
spent the nights lying on the ground. 17 The elders of his household
stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he
would not eat any food with them.
2SA 12:18 On the seventh day the child died. David's servants were
afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, "While
the child was still living, we spoke to David but he would not listen
to us. How can we tell him the child is dead? He may do something
desperate."
2SA 12:19 David noticed that his servants were whispering among
themselves and he realized the child was dead. "Is the child dead?" he
asked.
"Yes," they replied, "he is dead."
2SA 12:20 Then David got up from the ground. After he had washed,
put on lotions and changed his clothes, he went into the house of the
LORD and worshiped. Then he went to his own house, and at his request
they served him food, and he ate.
2SA 12:21 His servants asked him, "Why are you acting this way?
While the child was alive, you fasted and wept, but now that the child
is dead, you get up and eat!"
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
2SA 12:22 He answered, "While the child was still alive,
I fasted and wept. I thought, `Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to
me and let the child live.'
23 But now that he is dead, why should I fast?
Can I bring him back again? ["No" ]
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
I will go to him, but he will not return to me."
[[[[ This last 10 (or so ) words are the key. If we believe (as I
do, as you MUST), that King David is-- today-- in Heaven with all the
other FAITHFUL Jews (scripture calls him a "man after God's own heart)
If we believe that David is-- today-- in Heaven, and I do...
And if David was told (by God in this passage), "I WILL GO TO him! [
his son./ IOW, I will one day to go him where he went [ heaven]; he
will not RETURN to me (here on earth)
We KNOW David's destination. He's in heaven. If he's going where his
son has gone, and we KNOW David went to heaven, then that's where his
son MUST be.
Okay, I'm going to break in here, because what follows uses your conclusion
here as a true premise in your further argumentation below (i.e., the "Now
if David's 7 day old child went to heaven...etc.). That further argument
then would be invalid if this premise were not true, or couldn't be shown to
be true. So the question at this point is, have you shown it to be true,
and I would suggest you haven't. Here's why:

We have two kinds of statements from David in Scripture: the words he wrote
under the inspiration of God (i.e. the Psalms, and perhaps one or two of his
recorded utterances in his personal history (basically 2 Samuel and 1
Chronicles, once we get past the genealogies of chapters 1-9 in 1 Chron.),
and the words of other inspired authors (the author of 1 Samuel and 1
Chronicles) recording the words he uttered in life. There is no question at
all from me that the former are inerrant, because they are inspired by God
according to my belief that all Scripture is inspired. The second category,
though, is not inspired, anymore than Moses was inspired to argue with God
that he couldn't go to Pharaoh and tell him to let God's people go, because
he was slow of speech. The examples of people in the Bible we are certain
are in heaven, saying things we know are wrong are quite numerous. Jesus
called Peter "Satan" for what he once said, and I've NO DOUBTS about Peter's
present spiritual state of being!

So it's POSSIBLE that when David said he would go to be with his son, he was
simply wrong. I'm not saying he was wrong. I don't have to. All I need
here for a defeater for your argument thus far is the "possibility" that
David was wrong, and that's being the case (that David was POSSIBLY wrong)
clearly has a great deal of biblical support.

So what your argument above boils down to is taking David's word for it that
his child was in heaven, and I've no more reason to do that than I have to
take your word for it that someone is in heaven. Even if I AGREE with you,
and believe someone is in heaven that you also believe is in heaven, I won't
have that belief based on your say so. Likewise, if you're wise, you won't
believe someone is in heaven on my say so. David was just as big a sinner,
and just as much in need of salvation by the grace of God as you or me.
Therefore, we would be foolish to grant his word an authority here it
simply doesn't have,and for which we have biblical example after example is
untrustworty.

If you can find for me somewhere in the Psalms that Daivd says his son went
to heaven, either expressly and directly, or implicitly (so long as it's a
LOGICAL implication, and thus necessarily true), then THAT would be proof,
because THAT is the inspired word of God given through David. I believe we
can stand upon the inspired word of God to make our arguments, but we can't
stand on the word of man to do it...not even a man like David. He was
clearly a "man after" God's own heart, but whatever that means it can't mean
David was never wrong. If David CAN be wrong, we can't say with any
certainly he was right to say his son was in heaven.

And this brings me to the second weakness in your argument above: since
David only says he will go to the place his son went when he died, just how
sure are we David meant heaven? We are, after all, talking about the same
man who wrote:

Return, O LORD, deliver me! Oh, save me for Your mercies' sake! 5 For in
death there is no remembrance of You; In the grave who will give You thanks?
Psalms 6:4-5

My eye wastes away because of affliction. LORD, I have called daily upon
You; I have stretched out my hands to You. 10 Will You work wonders for the
dead? Shall the dead arise and praise You? Selah 11 Shall Your
lovingkindness be declared in the grave? Or Your faithfulness in the place
of destruction? 12 Shall Your wonders be known in the dark? And Your
righteousness in the land of forgetfulness? Psalms 88:9-12

Whatever the other theological and soteriological issues are here, clearly
David, as he writes the above, is at least entertaining the belief that he
will go to the grave when he dies, for that is what he is asking God to
rescue him from. So it may be the case that any belief David had that he
would go to heaven immediately when he died is something we project back
upon him from our vantage point in the history of God's salvation that he
didn't really have himself. If that's even partially true, then it follows
that David may well have been thinking of the grave when he said he would go
to his dead son, but his dead son would never return to him.

In any case, John, I think you can see why I can't agree with you that your
argument above is as sound as "2 + 2 = 4". You may be right for all I know,
but I also know that your justification isn't necessarily true, as are
self-evident propositions like "2 + 2 = 4" or "all bachelors are
unmarried", etc. And it follows, since your premise above is not
necessarily true, that your argument below that uses it is leads to a
conclusion that is likewise not necessarily true.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Now if David's 7 day old child went to heaven (he was innocent/ he
wasn't old enough to have committed even his first sin),
Why would God condemn other infants if He didn't condemn David's
infant child?
Answer: God doesn't condemn infants. That notion (you may well have
gotten from Calvin) is not true.
I believe / you say you believe / in a merciful God. A merciful God
doesn't cast infants into hell merely because they didn't live long
enough to hear the gospel and respond.
Even if David's baby HAD lived long enough, he was a few CENTURIES
before Jesus!
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
Some of them seem to me more reasonable than others, as I'm sure they would
for you too, but that's hardly where our hope lies. Our hope and trust
reside, when all is said and done, in the love of God, a absolute love
guided in everything it does by an absolute power controlled perfectly
by
an
absolutely perfect Mind!
Ok. However, I see no problem with using the text that is there,
when we find it, and when it "speaks to us very clearly."
Neither do I. I've just never found such a text. I'm anxious for you to
show me what you've found.
I am glad that you are anxious, and I hope my explanation satisfies.
It did. I just don't see it as the strong argument you do, and for the
reasons I went into at length above. It's AN argument, and it's not
incoherent, which means it's a valid argument; it's just not a "sound"
argument in the technical meaning of that term. If it were a sound
argument, then we would be rational and wise to rely upon it's conclusion,
but since it's only a valid argument, doing that is risky.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Next to that the best of the theories pales into
Post by Chuck Stamford
insignificance.
I don't consider my "position" on this issue "theoretical."
Ah...that's a dangerous attitude.
It can be. On the other hand, I have been told that my absolutely
certain conviction that I am born again and Heaven bound is dangerous.
That such a delusion will keep me from bringing others the truth.
It hasn't yet!
Could not be happier to hear it.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
In my thirty years as a Christian I've
Post by Chuck Stamford
watched literally scores of people take that attitude and walk right over
the crazy cliff with it.
Well, granted, I probably don't see MANY things exactly the same way
you see them. That's fine. I'm in a different place, and I minister
to a different crowd than you.
I am not in the same place today that *I* was in 30 years ago!
I was raised to be a tee- totaler. Imagine my surprise a few years
back, when the Lord showed me that the 1st century Christians were
DRINKING alcohol in CHURCH and getting drunk!
Imagine my total exasperation to find POLYGAMY in the first century
church!
^ ^ ^^ That was a wake-up call!
Hey, as long as you see the danger, you probably won't be hurt by it, which
is my only concern here. What you're discribing above I'd call maturing in
the Lord. My point was there's a difference between growing in the Lord and
going out of one's way to dance on the edge of a cliff just because you can.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
At best it tends to stunt any periodic and
Post by Chuck Stamford
objective re-examination of our beliefs (not to mention the belief our
belief is not subject to error is false on it's face, since we are not
omniscient),
I disagree.
Try to not measure everyone by the cloth used to measure you.
I wasn't aware I was measuring anyone.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Not only are we different people, we've been to different places, we
are headed in different directions (in this world), and we likely have
different ministries.
I was apologizing to a Muslim friend a year ago for "being crude" in
my use of language.
He laughed. He said, "that's what makes you BELIEVABLE, John. You're
HUMAN."
Believe me, I understand about being human.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
and at worst it leads us into areas of judgment God has
Post by Chuck Stamford
specifically warned us to stay out of.
Well, concerning that, you perhaps believe in the "holiness"
program; I do not.
I don't even know what that is!
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I believe we are (as Jesus put it) FREE.
As long as I don't hurt myself or my fellow man, I am free to ENJOY
life.
That idea may need some narrowing down. Clearly we are not under the Law of
Moses, but God is the transcendent source of all morality, and that didn't
change with Jesus.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I don't see how I can be "an example" if I'm the guy who never
smiles, the guy who never goes to movies, the guy who doesn't own a
TV, the guy who never tells jokes, and he never laughs when YOU tell a
joke.
I want people to come to me and say, "John, every time I see you,
you make me laugh. What's all that joy about?"
Sounds to me as if being glum and being holy are very nearly the same thing
in your mind today. It's not the smile, it's what makes you smile. It's
not going to the movies, it's the movies you go to. It's not the TV you
own, it's what you watch on it. It's not telling the joke, it's what's
supposed to be funny about it.

John, there are very few things in life that are pure evil. In fact, if
your theory of "evil" is that it is the absence of good, then nothing that
actually exists could ever be pure evil. Paul said that he was convinced by
the Spirit of God that there is nothing unclean of itself, and so long as
we're not talking about abstract concepts that can probably be generalized
to almost everything, even though he was talking about food at the time.

However, if you're saying Jesus died simply so we could enjoy life, I'll
have to disagree with you. The liberty He gave us by His shed blood was the
liberty from our selfish concerns, and the liberty from the just
consequences of our failures in love, past, present, and future. He opened
the door of our prison of self-concern, and us able to give our lives away
to the needs of others, secure in the knowledge we cannot out give God, who
promises to give them back abundantly to us as we do.

So there's no reason we cannot be selflessly loving as we laugh and smile,
as we attend a movie or watch something on TV, or tell a joke, but we need
to be aware of our motivations, for that is the demarcation line between sin
and holiness. Most of our actions in life are either sinful or righteous by
what our reason is for doing them, rather than in and of themselves.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
We can discuss and debate these various theories all day long, and even come
to some conclusion about which one is most likely the truth (or as close to
the truth as we're ever likely to get this side of Heaven), and this can be
profitable for us to some extent.
My point is that, when a person you know loses a very young child
(let's say the child is 6 months old, and dies)
I believe it's proper to comfort that family as best we can.
So do I, but I temper "best we can" with keeping to the truth. For me,
"best we can" doesn't include telling them something is for sure true that I
don't know, and can't know is for sure true.
Let's stop here. I suggest you read my comment on how I know that
David's child went to heaven.
(You just suggested that I would LIE)
Nothing could be further from the truth! I'm sorry that you took it that
way.

All I'm suggesting is that you would go beyond what you actually "know" to
be true, and people do that everyday (including myself!) without giving it
the requisite thought to be considering "lying".

I hope you understand I never meant to suggest you lie, even for a good
cause.

Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I understand where you're coming from; try to understand where I'm
coming from.
Try to open that bright mind a bit and at least be RECEPTIVE.
"Til then!"
john w
I know God is loving and
Post by Chuck Stamford
merciful toward us for sure. I know God is trustworthy, and that all
judgment belongs to Him, for sure. I don't know, for sure, the spiritual
state of ANYONE, and I"m warned by God not to pretend I do. So I can't, in
good conscious, comfort anyone with anything but the truth, for a lie is
poor comfort.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
If I believe I have a SOLID answer on "Can we be CERTAIN that our 6
month old daughter REALLY IS in heaven now, and not burning in the
pit?"
I believe we CAN say, "Absolutely!"
I understand, John. I'm just waiting to hear from you what your
justification is for that belief.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
The God I believe in doesn't punish 6 month old babies who die
without ever having had the chance to "believe" and be baptized.
I believe such belief (and supporting text) is VITAL to our
credibility to the world.
"Well, the way I hear it, you stupid &)(&)*& &&()&)*(& Christians
believe that if a 3-month old baby dies, it goes to the PIT! Because
it "didn't have time to accept Jesus as its savior." < That's why
I'm not a Christian, you (*&)*&)*(& SLOB!"
^ ^ ^ ^ typical rhetoric.
But you and I know that no one ever goes to hell because they "didn't have
time to repent", don't we? The idea presupposes that if God had just let
them have more time, they would have repented, and that God, by taking them
before the time He knew they'd repent and be saved, is the CAUSE of their
eternal punishment!
What's typical about this thinking is the desire to make it God's fault that
people end up in hell. Skeptics have a hundred different rhetorical
arguments, but they all boil down to "God is responsible, not me". I didn't
ask to be born. If God knew me from all eternity, and knew I'd reject Jesus
and end up in hell, then God is morally responsible for my sins because He
went ahead and created me anyway. And on and on and on. The human desire
not to be responsible for the evil we all do is incredibly strong. It
subverts otherwise strong intellects; warps every perception of reality; and
even causes Christians to waver in their faith in God. We have to KNOW
certain people are in heaven, and that we'll be with them again, or we begin
to doubt God. We sometimes find we can't just trust God to do what is
perfectly right concerning someone we love with all of our hearts...as if
we've forgotten God loves them infinitely more and long before we were ever
born! What we need to understand is that brutal honesty is what we need
here, and we need to realize this is SIN in US when we begin to think like
this, not "insight" into the love of God! It's nothing more or less than a
failure of faith in us, and it's CERTAINLY not us being more loving than
God!
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
No, we DON'T believe that! And any time I see a Christian spouting
such NONSENSE, I LEAP to correct him / her!
That's pure, unadulterated Calvinism, mixed with mis-interpreted
Roman Catholicism.
It's right out of the pit of hell.
Well, I'll wait to see the Scripture you've found, and, hopefully, for you
to find some way to engage here on a less emotional basis than you seem to
be using at the moment. I'm not a Calvinist nor a Roman Catholic (nor do I
view those terms as repositories for the dispicable perspective on biblical
soteriology you've described above!), but I also can't say with certainty
that any given infant who dies is in heaven anymore than I can say any given
adult who dies is in heaven. We're all sinners from the womb, John, and God
is not willing that any perish, but many do according to the Son of God,
Jesus Christ. This is what I know "for sure". What it all means as far as
your infant son (when he was still an infant) or mine, or anyone else's is
something I can kick around with my fellow Christian brothers and sisters in
the hope of finding some insight and enlightenment from God, but I can't
"know". Thus my use of the term "theory" here.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
But you should never let not knowing
Post by Chuck Stamford
which is the truth get under your skin, or allow anyone else to do it using
one or another of these theories...because we really already know all the
truth we need to know when we have Jesus Christ as our Lord, don't we?
Well, sorry. On that, I have to say "Yes, and no."
I likewise don't believe that some Australian bushman who dies when
he's 15 and he's never heard the name "Jesus", and he's never heard of
/ or seen a Bible... he doesn't go to hell, simply for being born at
the wrong place and time.
I believe there's a better answer.
I do too, John, but I don't believe it includes us saying "Yes and no" when
it comes to knowing we have all we need when we have Jesus Christ as our
Lord. How can a good answer here, or any where, include NOT having Jesus
Christ as our Lord???
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
No matter how much you love your son, God loves him infinitely more, and has
loved him infinitely more from all eternity. There was never an instant
throughout all eternity when God didn't love your son (and every son!) as
much as He loved His own. No matter what happens to your son now or in the
future, there is nothing that can separate him from God's love; "...neither
death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present
nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing"
^ ^ ^ ^ On this, we agree.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Regardless of which theory about the disposition of young children we think
is pretty,
we have plenty of reason to trust God with our children.
^ ^ ^ ^ There, you go!
I know we're in basic agreement on the love of God, John. I'd still like to
see the Scripture you've found that makes it so clear for you that all
infants who die go to heaven, and why you see that biblical passage as so
clearly saying this. I'd also be willing to discuss further some of these
various "theories" (for lack of a more precise term), their merits and
weaknesses, if you think that would be something we could both profit from.
Chuck Stamford
john w <j@yahoo.com>
2008-07-03 03:06:45 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 13:17:57 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
<shell-***@cox.net> wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 09:40:27 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 17:45:01 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
John, just wanted to point out that there are many theories about the
spiritual state of children who die before they reach the age of reason.
I agree. And I don't know why. I believe scripture-- though
obscure-- if you find the right passages, is quite clear.
I believe the scripture on this issue is very clear.
If you read the passage about the death of King David's infant son, I
don't see how the text could be any more clear.
You mean 2 Samuel 12:15:23? If so, you'll have to explain to me how you see
this as "clear" as to the spiritual state of the child, because I don't see
a word in this text concerning that.
Before we get into this or anything else, I want to address your
understanding that I suggested you would lie to comfort someone who had lost
a small child by telling them something you knew wasn't true. That's not
what I had in mind at all, John. I don't want to go into a whole big
explanation here, but there are a lot of things you don't know about me,
just as there are a lot of things I don't know about you, and one of the
things you don't know about me is how much time I've spent studying
epistemology; especially the modern Christian philosophers, such as
Plantinga and Alston. So when I say you would go beyond what you know to be
true, I'm not talking about you saying something other than what you believe
to be the case, which would be lying. I'm saying you believe you know, what
you don't actually "know" in the epistemological sense of "know".
I may be wrong in saying it, but I'm not suggesting you lie.
Now onto what you've got here for an argument for your position that all
small children go to heaven...
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Certainly. It's certainly not my original thinking. And--
admittedly-- you must do a little " 2 + 2 = 4".
I assume by that you mean I'll need to apply a few self-evidently true
premises to what's actually given? If so, that's not a problem.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
2SA 12:15 After Nathan had gone home, the LORD struck the child
that Uriah's wife had borne to David, and he became ill. 16 David
pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and went into his house and
spent the nights lying on the ground. 17 The elders of his household
stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he
would not eat any food with them.
2SA 12:18 On the seventh day the child died. David's servants were
afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, "While
the child was still living, we spoke to David but he would not listen
to us. How can we tell him the child is dead? He may do something
desperate."
2SA 12:19 David noticed that his servants were whispering among
themselves and he realized the child was dead. "Is the child dead?" he
asked.
"Yes," they replied, "he is dead."
2SA 12:20 Then David got up from the ground. After he had washed,
put on lotions and changed his clothes, he went into the house of the
LORD and worshiped. Then he went to his own house, and at his request
they served him food, and he ate.
2SA 12:21 His servants asked him, "Why are you acting this way?
While the child was alive, you fasted and wept, but now that the child
is dead, you get up and eat!"
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
2SA 12:22 He answered, "While the child was still alive,
I fasted and wept. I thought, `Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to
me and let the child live.'
23 But now that he is dead, why should I fast?
Can I bring him back again? ["No" ]
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
I will go to him, but he will not return to me."
[[[[ This last 10 (or so ) words are the key. If we believe (as I
do, as you MUST), that King David is-- today-- in Heaven with all the
other FAITHFUL Jews (scripture calls him a "man after God's own heart)
If we believe that David is-- today-- in Heaven, and I do...
And if David was told (by God in this passage), "I WILL GO TO him! [
his son./ IOW, I will one day to go him where he went [ heaven]; he
will not RETURN to me (here on earth)
We KNOW David's destination. He's in heaven. If he's going where his
son has gone, and we KNOW David went to heaven, then that's where his
son MUST be.
Okay, I'm going to break in here, because what follows uses your conclusion
here as a true premise in your further argumentation below (i.e., the "Now
if David's 7 day old child went to heaven...etc.). That further argument
then would be invalid if this premise were not true, or couldn't be shown to
be true. So the question at this point is, have you shown it to be true,
under the inspiration of God (i.e. the Psalms, and perhaps one or two of his
recorded utterances in his personal history (basically 2 Samuel and 1
Chronicles, once we get past the genealogies of chapters 1-9 in 1 Chron.),
and the words of other inspired authors (the author of 1 Samuel and 1
Chronicles) recording the words he uttered in life. There is no question at
all from me that the former are inerrant, because they are inspired by God
according to my belief that all Scripture is inspired. The second category,
though, is not inspired, anymore than Moses was inspired to argue with God
that he couldn't go to Pharaoh and tell him to let God's people go, because
he was slow of speech. The examples of people in the Bible we are certain
are in heaven, saying things we know are wrong are quite numerous. Jesus
called Peter "Satan" for what he once said, and I've NO DOUBTS about Peter's
present spiritual state of being!
So it's POSSIBLE that when David said he would go to be with his son, he was
simply wrong. I'm not saying he was wrong. I don't have to. All I need
here for a defeater for your argument thus far is the "possibility" that
David was wrong, and that's being the case (that David was POSSIBLY wrong)
clearly has a great deal of biblical support.
^ ^ ^^ "clearly has a great deal of biblical support..."
^ ^ ^ I disagree.

I've just heard too many scholars say this: Unless other scripture
CLEARLY says OTHERWISE, we must take the text "at face value."

Many could argue, "well, there's FAR too much "SCIENCE" for us to
believe LITERALLY the Adam and Eve account. BUT, if we consider A & E
a "nice story" , a "metaphor", that "resolves a lot of questions."

^ ^ For a Christian, that "solution" creates more issues than it
resolves.
I won't go into that; it goes to far afield from MY Point.

Unless you can show me overwhelming evidence that newborns DON'T go
to heaven AUTOMATICALLY [ and you can't/ my mind is as closed as a
bear trap here: I WILL NOT believe that God would cast a 5-day old
infant into the pit!!]
There in fact is no further point in debating. I personally (me)
don't believe in endless debating.
I believe your view is QUITE Calvinistic. One thing I DON'T do is
get into LONG discussions (debates) with atheists, Calvinists, and
others of a "set in concrete" mindset.
Not intended for a "put-down."
I believe there are a vast number (more than I can count) of areas
where we Christians can sincerely DISAGREE.

We'll agreed to disagree on this one.

You have your reasons (you will call it "scripture") for why God
would ABSOLUTELY CAST A 5-DAY OLD INTO THE PIT FOR ETERNITY.

I have my reasons for believing He would not.

Without going into detail, an aunt of mine (dad's older sister) was
essentially "still-born". She lived-- I believe-- about 3 days. Don't
recall exactly how long she was "among us." But dad had a big sister
who "didn't make it." He ended up being the oldest child who survived.

It's been the family's hope (we're all Christians, at some level)
that dad's big sis is in Heaven. He obviously never knew his big
sister, and he refused to ever say much about her, other than what
he'd heard from his momma and daddy (deep South). But of what he'd
heard, he was deeply enamored of his "big sissy."

You're suggesting " she didn't necessarily get to Heaven."
Pardon me for not even entertaining that possibility.
Post by Chuck Stamford
So what your argument above boils down to is taking David's word for it that
his child was in heaven, and I've no more reason to do that than I have to
take your word for it that someone is in heaven.
If that works for you, I have no problem with that idea FOR you.

It doesn't work for me.

Even if I AGREE with you,
Post by Chuck Stamford
and believe someone is in heaven that you also believe is in heaven, I won't
have that belief based on your say so.
It's not "my say so."


Likewise, if you're wise, you won't
Post by Chuck Stamford
believe someone is in heaven on my say so. David was just as big a sinner,
and just as much in need of salvation by the grace of God as you or me.
He was likewise a prophet of God, and God "authorized him" to write
that into a book that has been preserved for the ages.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Therefore, we would be foolish to grant his word an authority here it
simply doesn't have,and for which we have biblical example after example is
untrustworty.
"Ok." I hereby give you permission [ tap of sword on your noggin ]
to believe as it makes sense to you.

;-)
please see the friendly humor.
Post by Chuck Stamford
If you can find for me somewhere in the Psalms that Daivd says his son went
to heaven, either expressly and directly, or implicitly (so long as it's a
LOGICAL implication, and thus necessarily true), then THAT would be proof,
What I have showed you is sufficient for me.

I'm sorry if it doesn't work for you. One of our pastors (one of
the "Drs") pointed that out; I've been to so many churches, I can't
tell you which Dr pointed it out. Take your pick: Dr Carpenter, Dr
Pegg, Dr Fickett, Dr Wilson, Dr Moody, Dr Stringfellow...

The "non-Calvinists".
Post by Chuck Stamford
because THAT is the inspired word of God given through David. I believe we
can stand upon the inspired word of God to make our arguments, but we can't
stand on the word of man to do it...not even a man like David.
What I see, Chuck, is that you feel quite free to discard/ disregard
those passages you find "uncomfortable, ugly, disagreeable, or those
that take you where you don't wish to go."

Likewise, I'm going to feel free to disregard Paul's prohibitions on
adultery and fornication, and Jesus' prohibition on polygamy. I
personally think it would be a kick, if I had 100 Million dollars a
year income, to have at LEAST 5 wives!


He was
Post by Chuck Stamford
clearly a "man after" God's own heart, but whatever that means it can't mean
David was never wrong.
ok.

I just don't find nearly as much justification as others do to
disregard stuff we see in there that we don't like.

So I'm at LEAST going to discard any passages that forbid
fornication.

I've also decided now, that I'm going to take up bank robbery and
embezzling, and internet bank "cracking" as my new livelihoods.

;-)


If David CAN be wrong, we can't say with any
Post by Chuck Stamford
certainly he was right to say his son was in heaven.
And this brings me to the second weakness in your argument above: since
David only says he will go to the place his son went when he died, just how
sure are we David meant heaven? We are, after all, talking about the same
Well, then, you are suggesting that David (who was, after all HUMAN)
didn't go to Heaven! You believe he's in Hell!

"Gotcha!"
Post by Chuck Stamford
Return, O LORD, deliver me! Oh, save me for Your mercies' sake! 5 For in
death there is no remembrance of You; In the grave who will give You thanks?
Psalms 6:4-5
There is an opinion circulating among some scholars that David--
and his famous wise son, were both bi-polar.

David wrote both from the mountaintop, and from his visions of the
grave during his "depression" phases.

One can't enjoy the "mountaintop " view if one hasn't likewise
experienced the grave through David's eyes.
Post by Chuck Stamford
My eye wastes away because of affliction. LORD, I have called daily upon
You; I have stretched out my hands to You. 10 Will You work wonders for the
dead? Shall the dead arise and praise You? Selah 11 Shall Your
lovingkindness be declared in the grave? Or Your faithfulness in the place
of destruction? 12 Shall Your wonders be known in the dark? And Your
righteousness in the land of forgetfulness? Psalms 88:9-12
Whatever the other theological and soteriological issues are here, clearly
David, as he writes the above, is at least entertaining the belief that he
will go to the grave when he dies,
I actually never saw it that way.

Go back and re-read, and see this as a vivid, very personal
introspection of David having a "depression " episode as a bi-polar.

You may not relate to that, but -- being bi-polar myself -- I
relate.

I have had days when I SOARED, and Earth was FAR beneath my feet.
I've had days when I was so low, I couldn't see the soles of your
shoes!

for that is what he is asking God to
Post by Chuck Stamford
rescue him from. So it may be the case that any belief David had that he
would go to heaven immediately when he died is something we project back
upon him from our vantage point in the history of God's salvation that he
didn't really have himself.
I think sometimes, we must project. I believe at other times, when
we project, we "get in the way " of what God's trying to say to us.

It has been by laying aside ALL my "understanding" of what scripture
actually SAYS that I was able to see WHAT SCRIPTURE ACTUALLY SAYS.



If that's even partially true, then it follows
Post by Chuck Stamford
that David may well have been thinking of the grave when he said he would go
to his dead son, but his dead son would never return to him.
Well, I can certainly see a real NEGATIVITY to your thinking.

I'll be happy to pray with you over that.
Post by Chuck Stamford
In any case, John, I think you can see why I can't agree with you that your
argument above is as sound as "2 + 2 = 4".
Actually, I can't. I understand where you're coming from, but I
can't / won't "go there."

And-- beyond that, AGAIN, "my view works for me." And you've
actually given me no reason to adopt your view on things.


You may be right for all I know,
Post by Chuck Stamford
but I also know that your justification isn't necessarily true, as are
self-evident propositions like "2 + 2 = 4" or "all bachelors are
unmarried", etc.
I guess I should have prefaced all this with, "this works for ME."

Which is the criteria Paul gave us. "Let each of you be[come]
convinced in his own mind, and live in peace, if that's at all
possible."
^ ^ ^^ That's actually a "combined teaching" taken from SEVERAL
verses.

You're convinced. God bless you. You're convinced that "you just
don't know."

I can live with your uncertainty.

I am likewise convinced of my POV. (I believe it's self-evident that
I wouldn't have presented it, if I hadn't been confident.)

And it follows, since your premise above is not
Post by Chuck Stamford
necessarily true, that your argument below that uses it is leads to a
conclusion that is likewise not necessarily true.
"Fair enough." not true for you/ true as gold for me.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Now if David's 7 day old child went to heaven (he was innocent/ he
wasn't old enough to have committed even his first sin),
Why would God condemn other infants if He didn't condemn David's
infant child?
Answer: God doesn't condemn infants. That notion (you may well have
gotten from Calvin) is not true.
I believe / you say you believe / in a merciful God. A merciful God
doesn't cast infants into hell merely because they didn't live long
enough to hear the gospel and respond.
Even if David's baby HAD lived long enough, he was a few CENTURIES
before Jesus!
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
Some of them seem to me more reasonable than others, as I'm sure they would
for you too, but that's hardly where our hope lies. Our hope and trust
reside, when all is said and done, in the love of God, a absolute love
guided in everything it does by an absolute power controlled perfectly
by
an
absolutely perfect Mind!
Ok. However, I see no problem with using the text that is there,
when we find it, and when it "speaks to us very clearly."
Neither do I. I've just never found such a text. I'm anxious for you to
show me what you've found.
I am glad that you are anxious, and I hope my explanation satisfies.
It did. I just don't see it as the strong argument you do, and for the
reasons I went into at length above. It's AN argument, and it's not
incoherent, which means it's a valid argument; it's just not a "sound"
argument in the technical meaning of that term.
"Oh, boy! You're one of THEM!" ;-)


If it were a sound
Post by Chuck Stamford
argument, then we would be rational and wise to rely upon it's conclusion,
but since it's only a valid argument, doing that is risky.
On a totally different subject, if you will allow me to correct your
grammar?

You've done something wrong above. Let me show you.

The word "it's" is ALWAYS, ONLY a contraction of the two words, "it"
and "is". So, every time you say "it's", you are actually saying "it
is".
In the above,

If it were a sound argument, then we would be rational and wise to
rely upon it's conclusion, but since it's only a valid argument, doing
that is risky.

You used "it's" wrong the first time ( rely upon it is conclusion),
and right the 2nd time ( but since it is only a valid argument..)

I hope that doesn't upset you, and I hope you have learned something.

English is a language I LOVE. Knowing it and being able to apply it
correctly in MOST cases has been my livelihood, and I've made a LOT of
$$$.

If you don't appreciate that, I'm sorry in advance.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Next to that the best of the theories pales into
Post by Chuck Stamford
insignificance.
I don't consider my "position" on this issue "theoretical."
Ah...that's a dangerous attitude.
It can be. On the other hand, I have been told that my absolutely
certain conviction that I am born again and Heaven bound is dangerous.
That such a delusion will keep me from bringing others the truth.
It hasn't yet!
Could not be happier to hear it.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
In my thirty years as a Christian I've
Post by Chuck Stamford
watched literally scores of people take that attitude and walk right over
the crazy cliff with it.
Well, granted, I probably don't see MANY things exactly the same way
you see them. That's fine. I'm in a different place, and I minister
to a different crowd than you.
I am not in the same place today that *I* was in 30 years ago!
I was raised to be a tee- totaler. Imagine my surprise a few years
back, when the Lord showed me that the 1st century Christians were
DRINKING alcohol in CHURCH and getting drunk!
Imagine my total exasperation to find POLYGAMY in the first century
church!
^ ^ ^^ That was a wake-up call!
Hey, as long as you see the danger, you probably won't be hurt by it, which
is my only concern here. What you're discribing above I'd call maturing in
the Lord. My point was there's a difference between growing in the Lord and
going out of one's way to dance on the edge of a cliff just because you can.
^ ^ ^ ^ ^Been there, done that, I'm writing a book about it. (Isn't
everybody? )

One thing God showed me about 5 years ago, is, "John, all this
freedom you're enjoying could get you turned into "road kill."
Yes, you're "FREE", but let's be INTELLIGENT about it, shall we?"



If you haven't been there, "Trust me on that."

[ I will have to hope you'll forgive me. I wrote this MUCH longer,
then realized it was good enough for my auto/bio. Since I can't put it
here and there, I chopped this.

I hope you'll understand. Certainly, if you'd like to go to e-mail
(that would suit me), we can continue ]
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
At best it tends to stunt any periodic and
Post by Chuck Stamford
objective re-examination of our beliefs (not to mention the belief our
belief is not subject to error is false on it's face, since we are not
omniscient),
I disagree.
Try to not measure everyone by the cloth used to measure you.
I wasn't aware I was measuring anyone.
Ok. Put it this way. I believe you were giving me a "universal rule"
you've learned.
I believe (a Dr pastor taught me this ) that God gives a rich,
powerful, influential man one set of rules; he gives others other
rules.
He'll tell the rich man, "I want you to give $10 million to that
charity tomorrow! And if you don't, you WILL regret it."
God would never give me that rule, because I don't have $10 million.
A man who is VERY happily married won't have the "temptations" a
single, or unhappily married man has.
I'm an artist. I probably have the most "rule-free" existence there
is. I simply MUST "explore" to CREATE.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Not only are we different people, we've been to different places, we
are headed in different directions (in this world), and we likely have
different ministries.
I was apologizing to a Muslim friend a year ago for "being crude" in
my use of language.
He laughed. He said, "that's what makes you BELIEVABLE, John. You're
HUMAN."
Believe me, I understand about being human.
LOL. "No further comment THERE."
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
and at worst it leads us into areas of judgment God has
Post by Chuck Stamford
specifically warned us to stay out of.
Well, concerning that, you perhaps believe in the "holiness"
program; I do not.
I don't even know what that is!
Otherwise known as "The 5,000 Thou Shalt Not"s.

The "Holiness" folks tell you that there are 5 things you "may do."
They don't include
TV
movies
music
etc.
There are an infinite number of "You May NOT"s.
Think of ANYTHING fun. It's FORBIDDEN.

^ ^ ^ ^ The "Holiness Crowd." I know you've seen them. They wear
black sack dresses. Black suits. Black, VERY pegged-leg pants, white
socks.
(black or brown socks are a sin of "being modern" < evil
They don't smile. Smiling is a sin. They don't "do their hair."
They simply CUT it and tie it down.
NO facial hair (unless you're female) < eeeeeww!
( After all, Jesus had short hair, and he was clean-shaven)
The only -- THE ONLY -- book you're allowed to read is the KJV.
(frankly, if I could only read the KJV, I wouldn't have a Bible I
could read. I'm one of that vast number for whom the KJV is gibberish/
literally)

^ ^ ^ ^ The holiness crowd.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I believe we are (as Jesus put it) FREE.
As long as I don't hurt myself or my fellow man, I am free to ENJOY
life.
That idea may need some narrowing down. Clearly we are not under the Law of
Moses, but God is the transcendent source of all morality, and that didn't
change with Jesus.
I think you may need to acquaint yourself with some "Christian
artists." Jonnie Earickson (I've met her) the mouth painter
quadriplegic. Introduce yourself to some Christian musicians. (they
generally have long hair)
I'm betting if you talked with a Christian musician for a few hours
(with a totally open mind), and then you relayed that information
(anonymously) to a KJV-Only Holiness person, you'd hear 100 "tsk
tsk"s.

I can find (won't show it to you, but you'll probably look) a place
where some disciples came to the Master and whined, "Lord! We were
[out and about] and we came across these... people! Lord.. they were
preaching, pretty much same as you.. but we didn't know them, Lord!
And they were saying some things we'd never heard before!"
Jesus smiled with amusement. "Well, what did you do?"

We told them to shut the H* up, Lord!" What should we do next time?"

Jesus answered, "Next time you see them, or someone else "" preaching
the Kingdom of God in THEIR words, you are to LEAVE THEM BE!"

He didn't believe He was the only One with The Message. He was the
Only One Who Was God In Flesh. And He knew that eventually, those who
"weren't of His little band" WOULD come to Him.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I don't see how I can be "an example" if I'm the guy who never
smiles, the guy who never goes to movies, the guy who doesn't own a
TV, the guy who never tells jokes, and he never laughs when YOU tell a
joke.
I want people to come to me and say, "John, every time I see you,
you make me laugh. What's all that joy about?"
Sounds to me as if being glum and being holy are very nearly the same thing
in your mind today. It's not the smile, it's what makes you smile.
I'm not saying that. I am saying that there are people who believe
that.

Because I have had a BOUNCING, BUMPING "good time" with the wife
the night before doesn't make me "impure" the next morning when it's
time to minister to my boss, or my employee.

We can have a ROCKING good time with this or that and still be God's
Holy children.

I read
where Jesus sat down with pimps and whores and tax collectors and bank
robbers and ate a meal and drank a beer or two and shared the Kingdom
of God.

He probably laughed at a dirty joke or two (didn't tell any, but if
it was "FUNNY", it was funny)

The Holiness crowd stood at the door of that tavern with their 50
pound KJV Bibles tucked under their armpits (excuse the mixed
metaphor/ I believe your IQ is high enough to follow)
and they watched The Master relate to PEOPLE and they snickered and
tsk tskd. "Look at that Jesus fellow! I wouldn't shake HIS hand after
he touched that SLUT!

Jesus came here because God loves HUMAN BEINGS. He didn't say, "when
you grow to the place where you can meet this MARK here, I will wash
you in my blood."

He came here, found us in the s* stew we'd made ourselves, and He
climbed up on a cross and died for us, JUST THE WAY WE ARE.

As hard as we try, some of us will NEVER overcome. We don't have to.
We have to change INSIDE. He's "done all the work."


It's
Post by Chuck Stamford
not going to the movies, it's the movies you go to. It's not the TV you
own, it's what you watch on it. It's not telling the joke, it's what's
supposed to be funny about it.
I don't tell many "filthy jokes", but if someone comes on to me and
tells me a RAUNCHY joke that I find HILARIOUS, I'm gonna laugh.

As for movies, I don't look at the rating; I look at the content.

For example. One of the most interesting murder mysteries I ever
watched (had no idea what was going to happen in the film) was a Meg
Ryan movie, "In The Cut."
Thirty minutes into the movie, there's EXPLICIT SEX.
The movie wasn't popular. You've likely never heard of it.
But that SEX scene was POWERFUL, and the entire movie turned on that
30 seconds.
I wondered "what's the point?" But I finished watching, and I was
shaken.
There actually had been a reason for that "BJ" scene.
To say, I watch "Director's Cuts" and I watch "UnRated" movies,
simply because
I want to see the movie as the director and the writer intended
it.
BEFORE the censors hack it to pieces for the "mass market."

I believe we Christian ADULTS can handle things (it's not going to
KILL me, and I don't have to imitate ugly behavior/ fornication and
MURDER)
The STORY was moving. For me. And that's all I need. "I enjoyed it."
I consider it some of Meg Ryan's best work, and I'm a HUGE Meg Ryan
fan. Jane Campion. the director ALSO did "The Piano." Nicole Kidman
produced it. It was a film involving some "MAJOR PLAYERS."
Post by Chuck Stamford
John, there are very few things in life that are pure evil. In fact, if
your theory of "evil" is that it is the absence of good, then nothing that
actually exists could ever be pure evil.
I personally believe "evil" is anything that's hurtful. I could
probably go past that, but I think that's a good "starting place."

Paul said that he was convinced by
Post by Chuck Stamford
the Spirit of God that there is nothing unclean of itself, and so long as
we're not talking about abstract concepts that can probably be generalized
to almost everything, even though he was talking about food at the time.
^ ^ ^^ Yep. I'm a HUGE fan of Paul. He hated the Pharisees (I call
them "bean counters") as much as Jesus did.
(By "bean counter" I mean the guy who stands besides you
(metaphorically) and counts the "sins" you commit each day " just
living your life.")
Post by Chuck Stamford
However, if you're saying Jesus died simply so we could enjoy life, I'll
have to disagree with you.
No. Not at all.
That's one "side benefit." I said, "Jesus died so we could be
"Free." Free from sin. Free from the "spectra" of death. Free from
illness (in some cases), free from the burden of sorrow (we give that
to HIM).
He didn't simply say, " I came to set men FREE." He actually gave us
a small list. "sin" "worry" ("Let not your heart be troubled") etc.



The liberty He gave us by His shed blood was the
Post by Chuck Stamford
liberty from our selfish concerns, and the liberty from the just
consequences of our failures in love, past, present, and future.
~~~~~~~ eeeeeee.
I still prefer MY version to yours.
You keep yours; I'll keep mine!

He opened
Post by Chuck Stamford
the door of our prison of self-concern, and us able to give our lives away
to the needs of others, secure in the knowledge we cannot out give God, who
promises to give them back abundantly to us as we do.
So there's no reason we cannot be selflessly loving as we laugh and smile,
as we attend a movie or watch something on TV, or tell a joke, but we need
to be aware of our motivations,
And, see? I just will "let my hair down, put my baggies on (;-)/ I
don't WEAR "" baggies""), and "kick my feet up" and just go out and
have me one HELL of a good time!"
My measure of "a good time" and "is everything ok? ("is everything
"" good"" ")
am I alive? Am I in one piece? Is everybody else ok and in one
piece?"
Yep? Then it was a good time! Am I about to get arrested? No? Is
someone's husband/ boyfriend lookin' fer me with a shotgun? No? Then
we had a good time!


for that is the demarcation line between sin
Post by Chuck Stamford
and holiness. Most of our actions in life are either sinful or righteous by
what our reason is for doing them, rather than in and of themselves.
Beyond that thought....

Are you aware? (I've seen this in the Bible/ I promise you. But I
have seen it like TWICE, and I can't find it lately; I'm pretty sure
it's in Proverbs)

" It's wiser to seek FORGIVENESS than it is to seek PERMISSION."

Or, "the wise man seeks forgiveness; the fool seeks PERMISSION."

The lesson I got from that is, "go have a good time. You can always
repent later."
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
We can discuss and debate these various theories all day long, and even come
to some conclusion about which one is most likely the truth (or as close to
the truth as we're ever likely to get this side of Heaven), and this can be
profitable for us to some extent.
My point is that, when a person you know loses a very young child
(let's say the child is 6 months old, and dies)
I believe it's proper to comfort that family as best we can.
So do I, but I temper "best we can" with keeping to the truth. For me,
"best we can" doesn't include telling them something is for sure true that I
don't know, and can't know is for sure true.
Let's stop here. I suggest you read my comment on how I know that
David's child went to heaven.
(You just suggested that I would LIE)
Nothing could be further from the truth! I'm sorry that you took it that
way.
Then I'm sorry. That's how I took it.
Post by Chuck Stamford
All I'm suggesting is that you would go beyond what you actually "know" to
be true, and people do that everyday (including myself!) without giving it
the requisite thought to be considering "lying".
Actually, I wouldn't. If I am not quite sure, I keep my mouth
shut.
HOWEVER, I can be 10,000 % positive, and still be wrong.

^ ^ Where we must be OPEN to be corrected. Always.
Post by Chuck Stamford
I hope you understand I never meant to suggest you lie, even for a good
cause.
ok.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I understand where you're coming from; try to understand where I'm
coming from.
Try to open that bright mind a bit and at least be RECEPTIVE.
"Til then!"
john w
I know God is loving and
Post by Chuck Stamford
merciful toward us for sure. I know God is trustworthy, and that all
judgment belongs to Him, for sure. I don't know, for sure, the spiritual
state of ANYONE, and I"m warned by God not to pretend I do. So I can't, in
good conscious, comfort anyone with anything but the truth, for a lie is
poor comfort.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
If I believe I have a SOLID answer on "Can we be CERTAIN that our 6
month old daughter REALLY IS in heaven now, and not burning in the
pit?"
I believe we CAN say, "Absolutely!"
I understand, John. I'm just waiting to hear from you what your
justification is for that belief.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
The God I believe in doesn't punish 6 month old babies who die
without ever having had the chance to "believe" and be baptized.
I believe such belief (and supporting text) is VITAL to our
credibility to the world.
"Well, the way I hear it, you stupid &)(&)*& &&()&)*(& Christians
believe that if a 3-month old baby dies, it goes to the PIT! Because
it "didn't have time to accept Jesus as its savior." < That's why
I'm not a Christian, you (*&)*&)*(& SLOB!"
^ ^ ^ ^ typical rhetoric.
But you and I know that no one ever goes to hell because they "didn't have
time to repent", don't we? The idea presupposes that if God had just let
them have more time, they would have repented, and that God, by taking them
before the time He knew they'd repent and be saved, is the CAUSE of their
eternal punishment!
What's typical about this thinking is the desire to make it God's fault that
people end up in hell. Skeptics have a hundred different rhetorical
arguments, but they all boil down to "God is responsible, not me". I didn't
ask to be born. If God knew me from all eternity, and knew I'd reject Jesus
and end up in hell, then God is morally responsible for my sins because He
went ahead and created me anyway. And on and on and on. The human desire
not to be responsible for the evil we all do is incredibly strong. It
subverts otherwise strong intellects; warps every perception of reality; and
even causes Christians to waver in their faith in God. We have to KNOW
certain people are in heaven, and that we'll be with them again, or we begin
to doubt God. We sometimes find we can't just trust God to do what is
perfectly right concerning someone we love with all of our hearts...as if
we've forgotten God loves them infinitely more and long before we were ever
born! What we need to understand is that brutal honesty is what we need
here, and we need to realize this is SIN in US when we begin to think like
this, not "insight" into the love of God! It's nothing more or less than a
failure of faith in us, and it's CERTAINLY not us being more loving than
God!
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
No, we DON'T believe that! And any time I see a Christian spouting
such NONSENSE, I LEAP to correct him / her!
That's pure, unadulterated Calvinism, mixed with mis-interpreted
Roman Catholicism.
It's right out of the pit of hell.
Well, I'll wait to see the Scripture you've found, and, hopefully, for you
to find some way to engage here on a less emotional basis than you seem to
be using at the moment. I'm not a Calvinist nor a Roman Catholic (nor do I
view those terms as repositories for the dispicable perspective on biblical
soteriology you've described above!), but I also can't say with certainty
that any given infant who dies is in heaven anymore than I can say any given
adult who dies is in heaven. We're all sinners from the womb, John, and God
is not willing that any perish, but many do according to the Son of God,
Jesus Christ. This is what I know "for sure". What it all means as far as
your infant son (when he was still an infant) or mine, or anyone else's is
something I can kick around with my fellow Christian brothers and sisters in
the hope of finding some insight and enlightenment from God, but I can't
"know". Thus my use of the term "theory" here.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
But you should never let not knowing
Post by Chuck Stamford
which is the truth get under your skin, or allow anyone else to do it using
one or another of these theories...because we really already know all the
truth we need to know when we have Jesus Christ as our Lord, don't we?
Well, sorry. On that, I have to say "Yes, and no."
I likewise don't believe that some Australian bushman who dies when
he's 15 and he's never heard the name "Jesus", and he's never heard of
/ or seen a Bible... he doesn't go to hell, simply for being born at
the wrong place and time.
I believe there's a better answer.
I do too, John, but I don't believe it includes us saying "Yes and no" when
it comes to knowing we have all we need when we have Jesus Christ as our
Lord. How can a good answer here, or any where, include NOT having Jesus
Christ as our Lord???
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
No matter how much you love your son, God loves him infinitely more, and has
loved him infinitely more from all eternity. There was never an instant
throughout all eternity when God didn't love your son (and every son!) as
much as He loved His own. No matter what happens to your son now or in the
future, there is nothing that can separate him from God's love; "...neither
death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present
nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing"
^ ^ ^ ^ On this, we agree.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Regardless of which theory about the disposition of young children we think
is pretty,
we have plenty of reason to trust God with our children.
^ ^ ^ ^ There, you go!
I know we're in basic agreement on the love of God, John. I'd still like to
see the Scripture you've found that makes it so clear for you that all
infants who die go to heaven, and why you see that biblical passage as so
clearly saying this. I'd also be willing to discuss further some of these
various "theories" (for lack of a more precise term), their merits and
weaknesses, if you think that would be something we could both profit from.
Chuck Stamford
<Kelly>
2008-07-03 04:43:57 UTC
Permalink
  Unless you can show me overwhelming evidence that newborns DON'T go
to heaven AUTOMATICALLY [ and you can't/ my mind is as closed as a
bear trap here: I WILL NOT believe that God would cast a 5-day old
infant into the pit!!]
   There in fact is no further point in debating. I personally (me)
don't believe in endless debating.
  I believe your view is QUITE Calvinistic.
Calvinists believe in predestination, John. If he believes that
infants that die don't go to Heaven, then that view is not Calvinist.
  Without going into detail, an aunt of mine (dad's older sister) was
essentially "still-born". She lived-- I believe-- about 3 days.
Stillborn is stillborn, John. No baby is "stilborn" and lives three
days.
   I'm sorry if it doesn't work for you. One of our pastors (one of
the "Drs") pointed that out; I've been to so many churches, I can't
tell you which Dr pointed it out. Take your pick: Dr Carpenter, Dr
Pegg, Dr Fickett, Dr Wilson, Dr Moody, Dr Stringfellow...
  The "non-Calvinists".
Dwight Moody was a modified Calvinist. Stringfellow believed in four
of the five TULIP principles, so he was also a Calvinist of sorts.
The rest were all Calvinists to a degree, John. And I challenge you
to prove otherwise.
because THAT is the inspired word of God given through David.  I believe we
can stand upon the inspired word of God to make our arguments, but we can't
stand on the word of man to do it...not even a man like David.
  What I see, Chuck, is that you feel quite free to discard/ disregard
those passages you find "uncomfortable, ugly, disagreeable, or those
that take you where you don't wish to go."
Then he's just like you, John.
   There is an opinion circulating among some scholars that David--
and his famous wise son, were both bi-polar.
Really? Which "scholars", John?
  Go back and re-read, and see this as a vivid, very personal
introspection of David having a "depression " episode as a bi-polar.
   You may not relate to that, but -- being bi-polar myself -- I
relate.
Youseriously think that David was bi-polar? Now that's some serious
projecting, John.
 Which is the criteria Paul gave us.  "Let each of you be[come]
convinced in his own mind, and live in peace, if that's at all
possible."
  ^ ^ ^^  That's actually a "combined teaching" taken from SEVERAL
verses.
Which verses, John? Can you provide an actual reference for once and
show yourself a "workman that need not be ashamed"?
  I am likewise convinced of my POV.
That's typical of those who are frequently delusional like yourself.

(I believe it's self-evident that
I wouldn't have presented it, if I hadn't been confident.)
 I was raised to be a tee- totaler.  Imagine my surprise a few years
back, when the Lord showed me that the 1st century Christians were
DRINKING alcohol in CHURCH and getting drunk!
And you have yet to show us all where you found that tid-bit that no
one else knows about, John...
  I'm an artist. I probably have the most "rule-free" existence there
is. I simply MUST "explore" to CREATE.
Is that how you describe someone who frequently calls women "bi**h" or
"slut" and others "as*h**e" or penis-breath" or "sh*t-for-brains"?
  Otherwise known as "The 5,000 Thou Shalt Not"s.
  The "Holiness" folks tell you that there are 5 things you "may do."
They don't include
  TV
  movies
  music
  etc.
Wrong.
  There are an infinite number of "You May NOT"s.
  Think of ANYTHING fun. It's FORBIDDEN.
Wrong again.
  ^ ^ ^ ^  The "Holiness Crowd."  I know you've seen them. They wear
black sack dresses.  Black suits. Black, VERY pegged-leg pants, white
socks.
  (black or brown socks are a sin of "being modern" < evil
   They don't smile. Smiling is a sin. They don't "do their hair."
    They simply CUT it and tie it down.
   NO facial hair (unless you're female) < eeeeeww!
     ( After all, Jesus had short hair, and he was clean-shaven)
   The only -- THE ONLY -- book you're allowed to read is the KJV.
    (frankly, if I could only read the KJV, I wouldn't have a Bible I
could read. I'm one of that vast number for whom the KJV is gibberish/
literally)
   ^ ^ ^ ^ The holiness crowd.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, John.
Obviously, your idea of someone in the Holiness movement is the
standard from 30-50 years ago. There have been many, many changes
amongst those who consider themselves holiness. Sheesh.
   I think you may need to acquaint yourself with some "Christian
artists."  Jonnie Earickson (I've met her)  
Yeah, I've met her to, John (played music for her once at an intimate
dinner, actually) and her name isn't "Jonnie", it's Joni Eareckson-
Tada .
the mouth painter quadriplegic.  
"The mouth painter quadriplegic (sic)"? She's much, much more than
that, John.
Introduce yourself to some Christian musicians. (they
generally have long hair)
Oh, baloney. They do not "generally have long hair".
  I can find (won't show it to you, but you'll probably look)
No, no, no. *You* need to come up with the verse address, John. For
once, can you please give the Scripture reference and not just your
lousy, inaccurate paraphrase?
a place
where some disciples came to the Master and whined, "Lord!  We were
[out and about] and we came across these... people!  Lord.. they were
preaching, pretty much same as you.. but we didn't know them, Lord!
And they were saying some things we'd never heard before!"
  Jesus smiled with amusement. "Well, what did you do?"
  We told them to shut the H* up, Lord!" What should we do next time?"
 Jesus answered, "Next time you see them, or someone else "" preaching
the Kingdom of God in THEIR words, you are to LEAVE THEM BE!"
Have you found it yet, John? Where is this story found?
   Because I have had a BOUNCING, BUMPING "good time" with the wife
the night before doesn't make me "impure" the next morning when it's
time to minister to my boss, or my employee.
You are totally disgusting, John.
 We can have a ROCKING good time with this or that and still be God's
Holy children.
  I read
where Jesus sat down with pimps and whores and tax collectors and bank
robbers
"Bank robbers"? Where in the Bible does it say specifically "bank
robbers"? Have you been watching too many westerns lately, John?
and ate a meal and drank a beer or two and shared the Kingdom
of God.
 He probably laughed at a dirty joke or two
I sincerely doubt it, John. I see you are still trying to conform
Jesus into your image.
 The Holiness crowd stood at the door of that tavern with their 50
pound KJV Bibles tucked under their armpits (excuse the mixed
metaphor/ I believe your IQ is high enough to follow)
  and they watched The Master relate to PEOPLE and they snickered and
tsk tskd.  "Look at that Jesus fellow! I wouldn't shake HIS hand after
he touched that SLUT!
 Jesus came here because God loves HUMAN BEINGS.  
But later in this post you say that Jesus hated the Pharisees. So
which is it? Does God love human beings or just love some of them and
hate others?
He didn't say, "when
you grow to the place where you can meet this MARK here, I will wash
you in my blood."
  I don't tell many "filthy jokes", but if someone comes on to me and
tells me a RAUNCHY joke that I find HILARIOUS, I'm gonna laugh.
You don't tell raunchy jokes but you write and read and view porn.
Well, I guess you gotta draw the line somewhere.
 As for movies, I don't look at the rating; I look at the content.
Except when it comes to "Rated X", right? Then you trade the rating
for the content. Or maybe you like both the rating and the content.
  For example.  One of the most interesting murder mysteries I ever
watched (had no idea what was going to happen in the film) was a Meg
Ryan movie, "In The Cut."
  Thirty minutes into the movie, there's EXPLICIT SEX.
Well, now we know why you liked it so much.
  The movie wasn't popular. You've likely never heard of it.
  But that SEX scene was POWERFUL,
I don't even *want* to know what you mean by that comment...
and the entire movie turned on that
30 seconds.
  I wondered "what's the point?" But I finished watching, and I was
shaken.
   There actually had been a reason for that "BJ" scene.
You just couldn't resist being too explicit, could you?
   To say, I watch "Director's Cuts" and I watch "UnRated" movies,
simply because
    I want to see the movie as the director and the writer intended
it.
  BEFORE the censors hack it to pieces for the "mass market."
   I believe we Christian ADULTS can handle things (it's not going to
KILL me, and I don't have to imitate ugly behavior/ fornication and
MURDER)
  The STORY was moving. For me. And that's all I need. "I enjoyed it."
I consider it some of Meg Ryan's best work, and I'm a HUGE Meg Ryan
fan. Jane Campion. the director ALSO did "The Piano."  Nicole Kidman
produced it. It was a film involving some "MAJOR PLAYERS."
Not so many "major players", really. There were maybe four.
  I personally believe "evil" is anything that's hurtful. I could
probably go past that, but I think that's a good "starting place."
How very interesting...
  Paul said that he was convinced by
the Spirit of God that there is nothing unclean of itself, and so long as
we're not talking about abstract concepts that can probably be generalized
to almost everything, even though he was talking about food at the time.
  ^ ^ ^^ Yep. I'm a HUGE fan of Paul. He hated the Pharisees
No, he hated their behaviors, not *them*.
(I call
them "bean counters")
Ah...I see your anti-Semitism showing again, John.
as much as Jesus did.
Jesus may have hated their actions, He didn't hate *them*.
  (By "bean counter" I mean the guy who stands besides you
(metaphorically) and counts the "sins" you commit each day " just
living your life.")
I don't think that's what you meant at all, John. I think you meant
that they were picky, long-nosed Jews, didn't you?
  Are you aware? (I've seen this in the Bible/ I promise you. But I
have seen it like TWICE, and I can't find it lately; I'm pretty sure
it's in Proverbs)
  " It's wiser to seek FORGIVENESS than it is to seek PERMISSION."
  Or, "the wise man seeks forgiveness; the fool seeks PERMISSION."
  The lesson I got from that is, "go have a good time. You can always
repent later."
How about you do something differant and unusual for a change, John -
how about *you* look the verse up and see if you are quoting it
correctly or if you are paraphrasing incorrectly (again).
   Actually, I wouldn't.  If I am not quite sure, I keep my mouth
shut.
No you don't.
 HOWEVER, I can be 10,000 % positive, and still be wrong.
Frequently.
  ^ ^ Where we must be OPEN to be corrected.  Always.
Then why aren't you (always)?
Chuck Stamford
2008-07-03 08:23:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 13:17:57 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 09:40:27 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 17:45:01 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
John, just wanted to point out that there are many theories about the
spiritual state of children who die before they reach the age of reason.
I agree. And I don't know why. I believe scripture-- though
obscure-- if you find the right passages, is quite clear.
I believe the scripture on this issue is very clear.
If you read the passage about the death of King David's infant son, I
don't see how the text could be any more clear.
You mean 2 Samuel 12:15:23? If so, you'll have to explain to me how you see
this as "clear" as to the spiritual state of the child, because I don't see
a word in this text concerning that.
Before we get into this or anything else, I want to address your
understanding that I suggested you would lie to comfort someone who had lost
a small child by telling them something you knew wasn't true. That's not
what I had in mind at all, John. I don't want to go into a whole big
explanation here, but there are a lot of things you don't know about me,
just as there are a lot of things I don't know about you, and one of the
things you don't know about me is how much time I've spent studying
epistemology; especially the modern Christian philosophers, such as
Plantinga and Alston. So when I say you would go beyond what you know to be
true, I'm not talking about you saying something other than what you believe
to be the case, which would be lying. I'm saying you believe you know, what
you don't actually "know" in the epistemological sense of "know".
I may be wrong in saying it, but I'm not suggesting you lie.
Now onto what you've got here for an argument for your position that all
small children go to heaven...
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Certainly. It's certainly not my original thinking. And--
admittedly-- you must do a little " 2 + 2 = 4".
I assume by that you mean I'll need to apply a few self-evidently true
premises to what's actually given? If so, that's not a problem.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
2SA 12:15 After Nathan had gone home, the LORD struck the child
that Uriah's wife had borne to David, and he became ill. 16 David
pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and went into his house and
spent the nights lying on the ground. 17 The elders of his household
stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he
would not eat any food with them.
2SA 12:18 On the seventh day the child died. David's servants were
afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, "While
the child was still living, we spoke to David but he would not listen
to us. How can we tell him the child is dead? He may do something
desperate."
2SA 12:19 David noticed that his servants were whispering among
themselves and he realized the child was dead. "Is the child dead?" he
asked.
"Yes," they replied, "he is dead."
2SA 12:20 Then David got up from the ground. After he had washed,
put on lotions and changed his clothes, he went into the house of the
LORD and worshiped. Then he went to his own house, and at his request
they served him food, and he ate.
2SA 12:21 His servants asked him, "Why are you acting this way?
While the child was alive, you fasted and wept, but now that the child
is dead, you get up and eat!"
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
2SA 12:22 He answered, "While the child was still alive,
I fasted and wept. I thought, `Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to
me and let the child live.'
23 But now that he is dead, why should I fast?
Can I bring him back again? ["No" ]
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
I will go to him, but he will not return to me."
[[[[ This last 10 (or so ) words are the key. If we believe (as I
do, as you MUST), that King David is-- today-- in Heaven with all the
other FAITHFUL Jews (scripture calls him a "man after God's own heart)
If we believe that David is-- today-- in Heaven, and I do...
And if David was told (by God in this passage), "I WILL GO TO him! [
his son./ IOW, I will one day to go him where he went [ heaven]; he
will not RETURN to me (here on earth)
We KNOW David's destination. He's in heaven. If he's going where his
son has gone, and we KNOW David went to heaven, then that's where his
son MUST be.
Okay, I'm going to break in here, because what follows uses your conclusion
here as a true premise in your further argumentation below (i.e., the "Now
if David's 7 day old child went to heaven...etc.). That further argument
then would be invalid if this premise were not true, or couldn't be shown to
be true. So the question at this point is, have you shown it to be true,
under the inspiration of God (i.e. the Psalms, and perhaps one or two of his
recorded utterances in his personal history (basically 2 Samuel and 1
Chronicles, once we get past the genealogies of chapters 1-9 in 1 Chron.),
and the words of other inspired authors (the author of 1 Samuel and 1
Chronicles) recording the words he uttered in life. There is no question at
all from me that the former are inerrant, because they are inspired by God
according to my belief that all Scripture is inspired. The second category,
though, is not inspired, anymore than Moses was inspired to argue with God
that he couldn't go to Pharaoh and tell him to let God's people go, because
he was slow of speech. The examples of people in the Bible we are certain
are in heaven, saying things we know are wrong are quite numerous. Jesus
called Peter "Satan" for what he once said, and I've NO DOUBTS about Peter's
present spiritual state of being!
So it's POSSIBLE that when David said he would go to be with his son, he was
simply wrong. I'm not saying he was wrong. I don't have to. All I need
here for a defeater for your argument thus far is the "possibility" that
David was wrong, and that's being the case (that David was POSSIBLY wrong)
clearly has a great deal of biblical support.
^ ^ ^^ "clearly has a great deal of biblical support..."
^ ^ ^ I disagree.
I've just heard too many scholars say this: Unless other scripture
CLEARLY says OTHERWISE, we must take the text "at face value."
Many could argue, "well, there's FAR too much "SCIENCE" for us to
believe LITERALLY the Adam and Eve account. BUT, if we consider A & E
a "nice story" , a "metaphor", that "resolves a lot of questions."
^ ^ For a Christian, that "solution" creates more issues than it
resolves.
I won't go into that; it goes to far afield from MY Point.
Unless you can show me overwhelming evidence that newborns DON'T go
to heaven AUTOMATICALLY [ and you can't/ my mind is as closed as a
bear trap here: I WILL NOT believe that God would cast a 5-day old
infant into the pit!!]
There in fact is no further point in debating. I personally (me)
don't believe in endless debating.
I believe your view is QUITE Calvinistic. One thing I DON'T do is
get into LONG discussions (debates) with atheists, Calvinists, and
others of a "set in concrete" mindset.
Not intended for a "put-down."
I believe there are a vast number (more than I can count) of areas
where we Christians can sincerely DISAGREE.
So do I, John, and I've no problem with us disagreeing on this issue.
However, I must say that since I haven't even given you the theory I think
is best here, I don't understand how you can reach any conclusions about it,
as you seem to have done in comparing it to Calvinism, etc. above.

I also don't understand how what we're doing here can correctly be
characterized as a "debate". You obviously have a solid pov here that
you're willing to defend by formal argument (as opposed to the heated, loud
kind), but I STARTED all this by saying I didn't.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
We'll agreed to disagree on this one.
You have your reasons (you will call it "scripture") for why God
would ABSOLUTELY CAST A 5-DAY OLD INTO THE PIT FOR ETERNITY.
I have my reasons for believing He would not.
Again, I want to stress I don't have any dog in this hunt, John. All I've
been doing it trying to show you the weakness in your argument. That
doesn't mean I know your conclusion from it is wrong. I don't. How could
I? It is certainly possible to arrive at a belief that is true using an
invalid argument.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Without going into detail, an aunt of mine (dad's older sister) was
essentially "still-born". She lived-- I believe-- about 3 days. Don't
recall exactly how long she was "among us." But dad had a big sister
who "didn't make it." He ended up being the oldest child who survived.
I'm not sure how your families personal history relates to whether or not
your argument in support of your belief is strong or weak, but I'm
interested anyway, so say on...
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
It's been the family's hope (we're all Christians, at some level)
that dad's big sis is in Heaven. He obviously never knew his big
sister, and he refused to ever say much about her, other than what
he'd heard from his momma and daddy (deep South). But of what he'd
heard, he was deeply enamored of his "big sissy."
You're suggesting " she didn't necessarily get to Heaven."
Pardon me for not even entertaining that possibility.
Hey, I'll go even farther, and tell you I'm not sure I'M going to get to
Heaven! That should settle for you whether or not I'm a Calvinist! ;-)

And I'm not asking you to do anything but let your God given intellect work
here unhindered by your emotions, because feelings are never the path to
truth. Maybe that makes me a "cold fish", I don't know.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
So what your argument above boils down to is taking David's word for it that
his child was in heaven, and I've no more reason to do that than I have to
take your word for it that someone is in heaven.
If that works for you, I have no problem with that idea FOR you.
It doesn't work for me.
Well let's just drop the discussion about children who die, and what happens
to them, and focus in on what I was just trying to bring out. Answer me
this: Excluding where an inspired author of Scripture quotes the Father,
Son, or Spirit (or a hevenly angelic messanger, or God speaking through one
of His prophets), can we rely on what a biblical personage says to the same
extent we can rely on what an author of Scripture writes?
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Even if I AGREE with you,
Post by Chuck Stamford
and believe someone is in heaven that you also believe is in heaven, I won't
have that belief based on your say so.
It's not "my say so."
Likewise, if you're wise, you won't
Post by Chuck Stamford
believe someone is in heaven on my say so. David was just as big a sinner,
and just as much in need of salvation by the grace of God as you or me.
He was likewise a prophet of God, and God "authorized him" to write
that into a book that has been preserved for the ages.
But John, we don't know that David wrote that book, and there's absolutely
no evidence he did. That's my whole point. Only when David is speaking as
an inspired prophet of God can we truly rely on what he says to be true.
David said many things recorded in Scripture:

Remember when the Amalakite slew Saul out of mercy, because Saul lay
mortally wounded, and asked him to put him out of his misery? When the man
came and told David (which he didn't have to do; he had the gold crown right
in his hand, and could have just made off with it and become rich, but
instead he brought it, and the news of Saul's death to David), David said:
"Your blood is on your own head, for your own mouth has testified against
you, saying, 'I have killed the LORD s anointed."2 Sam 1:16

Well, there's some truth in that, but come on! The man had mercy on Saul!
He was forthright enough about it to bring Saul's royal crown and bracelet
to David, even recognizing God's chosen and anointed successor. Was it
really true that his blood was upon his own head, as David said? Or was
David acting on emotion, and overreacting?

Let's jump right to the famous BIGGY, shall we?

"Thus you shall say to Joab: 'Do not let this thing displease you, for the
sword devours one as well as another. 2 Sam 11:25

It was a bald-faced lie that David thought Uriah had been killed because
"the sword devours one as well as another", for it was by the plan of David,
with the aid of Joab, that Uriah had been killed in the battle. Uriah
didn't die as other men die in battle. He died as the result of a
successful murder plot hatched by David, and carried out by David's right
hand, Joab.

Since we have at least one example of an inspired author of Scripture
(probably Samuel, btw, but no one knows for sure) recording David telling a
lie, and perhaps another of him making a poor judgment and giving a
problematic verdict in the case of the Amalakite man, it's beyond plausible
disputation that David is capable of lying or being mistaken when he speaks,
because we have clear examples of him doing just that!
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
Therefore, we would be foolish to grant his word an authority here it
simply doesn't have,and for which we have biblical example after example is
untrustworty.
"Ok." I hereby give you permission [ tap of sword on your noggin ]
to believe as it makes sense to you.
;-)
please see the friendly humor.
Yeah, I do, John, but I think you're using it to avoid what you can see, but
don't want to.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
If you can find for me somewhere in the Psalms that Daivd says his son went
to heaven, either expressly and directly, or implicitly (so long as it's a
LOGICAL implication, and thus necessarily true), then THAT would be proof,
What I have showed you is sufficient for me.
I'm sorry if it doesn't work for you. One of our pastors (one of
the "Drs") pointed that out; I've been to so many churches, I can't
tell you which Dr pointed it out. Take your pick: Dr Carpenter, Dr
Pegg, Dr Fickett, Dr Wilson, Dr Moody, Dr Stringfellow...
The "non-Calvinists".
You're just convinced I'm a Calvinist, aren't you! Tell me, is there
anything I can say that will convince you I'm not? ;-)
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
because THAT is the inspired word of God given through David. I believe we
can stand upon the inspired word of God to make our arguments, but we can't
stand on the word of man to do it...not even a man like David.
What I see, Chuck, is that you feel quite free to discard/ disregard
those passages you find "uncomfortable, ugly, disagreeable, or those
that take you where you don't wish to go."
Well then here is where we're going to have our first serious disagreement,
because nothing could be farther from the truth, and I resent the
implication. I'm not one of those who starts with a belief, and then spends
a lifetime scurrying around trying to find some good reason to have it. I
go wherever the evidence leads, and ONLY where the evidence leads. I'm
interested only in knowing what's true; not what makes me feel good, or
comfortable, or secure. I'd rather spend my life terrified by what true,
than cozy and warm with what's false. And I take your suggestion about my
motivation (since you DON'T know me at all yet!), as a way to deflect a
defeater I've shown you that you'd, by your own admission, rather not see.

You forget yourself, John. YOU'RE the only one here with a positon to
protect. The rest is your imagination. I'd be perfectly happy for you to
be right. I'm just not going to shut off the mind God gave me to grant it
to you. I've asked you to show me, and I would have been happier if you
did. I don't get more joy out of not knowing, but I can't say you did
something I understand all too well you didn't just to feel better.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Likewise, I'm going to feel free to disregard Paul's prohibitions on
adultery and fornication, and Jesus' prohibition on polygamy. I
personally think it would be a kick, if I had 100 Million dollars a
year income, to have at LEAST 5 wives!
He was
Post by Chuck Stamford
clearly a "man after" God's own heart, but whatever that means it can't mean
David was never wrong.
ok.
I just don't find nearly as much justification as others do to
disregard stuff we see in there that we don't like.
You keep assuming the only reason I'd reject your use of 2 Samuel 12 is
because I "don't like it". Why? Why would you think that?
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
So I'm at LEAST going to discard any passages that forbid
fornication.
I've also decided now, that I'm going to take up bank robbery and
embezzling, and internet bank "cracking" as my new livelihoods.
;-)
Ah, this isn't you being funny afaic; in case you're interested.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
If David CAN be wrong, we can't say with any
Post by Chuck Stamford
certainly he was right to say his son was in heaven.
And this brings me to the second weakness in your argument above: since
David only says he will go to the place his son went when he died, just how
sure are we David meant heaven? We are, after all, talking about the same
Well, then, you are suggesting that David (who was, after all HUMAN)
didn't go to Heaven! You believe he's in Hell!
"Gotcha!"
I'm not suggesting any such thing! If you've studied any of those men whose
names you dropped above to anything like a significant degree, you must have
run across the fact that in David's time the Israelities had a concept of
"sheol" that we don't; that they had some sort of belief that when a person
died, they remained in the grave, or "sheol". So...

Then David spoke to the LORD the words of this song...I will call upon the
LORD, who is worthy to be praised; So shall I be saved from my enemies. 5
'When the waves of death surrounded me, The floods of ungodliness made me
afraid. 6 The sorrows of Sheol surrounded me; The snares of death confronted
me. 7 In my distress I called upon the LORD, And cried out to my God; He
heard my voice from His temple, And my cry entered His ears. 2 Sam 22:1-7

Return, O LORD, deliver me! Oh, save me for Your mercies' sake! 5 For in
death there is no remembrance of You; In the grave who will give You thanks?
Psalms 6:4-5 (NKJV - note here the word "grave" is the English translation
of the Hebrew "sheol")

That He would show you the secrets of wisdom! For they would double your
prudence. Know therefore that God exacts from you Less than your iniquity
deserves. 7 "Can you search out the deep things of God? Can you find out the
limits of the Almighty? 8 They are higher than heaven--what can you do?
Deeper than Sheol--what can you know? 9 Their measure is longer than the
earth And broader than the sea. Job 11:6-9 (NKJV; clearly the speaker thinks
of "sheol" as a real place for the dead)

My days are past, My purposes are broken off, Even the thoughts of my heart.
12 They change the night into day; 'The light is near,' they say, in the
face of darkness. 13 If I wait for the grave as my house, If I make my bed
in the darkness, 14 If I say to corruption, 'You are my father,' And to the
worm, 'You are my mother and my sister,' 15 Where then is my hope? As for my
hope, who can see it? 16 Will they go down to the gates of Sheol? Shall we
have rest together in the dust?" Job 17:11-16 (NKJV)

Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoices; My flesh also will rest
in hope. 10 For You will not leave my soul in Sheol, Nor will You allow Your
Holy One to see corruption.Psalms 16:9-10 (NKJV)

I will praise you, O Lord my God, with all my heart; I will glorify your
name forever. 13 For great is your love toward me; you have delivered me
from the depths of the grave.Psalms 86:12-13 (NIV, which provides a footnote
citing the fact they've translated "sheol" as "grave")

The cords of death entangled me, the anguish of the grave came upon me; I
was overcome by trouble and sorrow. 4 Then I called on the name of the LORD:
"O LORD, save me!" Psalms 116:3-4 (NIV' same thing here)

Therefore Sheol has enlarged itself And opened its mouth beyond measure;
Their glory and their multitude and their pomp, And he who is jubilant,
shall descend into it. Isaiah 5:14 (NKJV)

I said, In the noontide of my days I shall go into the gates of Sheol: I am
deprived of the residue of my years. Isaiah 38:10 (ASV)

John, there's about 63 uses of sheol in the OT, and at least 31 of them
refer to the "grave" as a place where the dead rest. David himself uses
this idea. Therefore, I'm not so much as stretching a biblical concept when
I say David could have very well meant he would go to his son in the grave
when he said he would go to his dead son, but his dead son wouldn't come to
him.

I'm truly sorry if that fact causes you concern, but it is what it is I'm
afraid.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
Return, O LORD, deliver me! Oh, save me for Your mercies' sake! 5 For in
death there is no remembrance of You; In the grave who will give You thanks?
Psalms 6:4-5
There is an opinion circulating among some scholars that David--
and his famous wise son, were both bi-polar.
David wrote both from the mountaintop, and from his visions of the
grave during his "depression" phases.
One can't enjoy the "mountaintop " view if one hasn't likewise
experienced the grave through David's eyes.
Sorry, but I don't agree with any of this. I don't agree with those
"scholars", whoever they are, that we can say with any degree of certainty
David and Solomon were bi-polar. I don't agree that David wrote while
clinically depressed, or from the midst of religious ecstasy. Nor do I
believe one must first have a "mountaintop" experience before one can
experience the depths of the human state.

I don't believe any of this, because I have no evidence to support any of
it.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
My eye wastes away because of affliction. LORD, I have called daily upon
You; I have stretched out my hands to You. 10 Will You work wonders for the
dead? Shall the dead arise and praise You? Selah 11 Shall Your
lovingkindness be declared in the grave? Or Your faithfulness in the place
of destruction? 12 Shall Your wonders be known in the dark? And Your
righteousness in the land of forgetfulness? Psalms 88:9-12
Whatever the other theological and soteriological issues are here, clearly
David, as he writes the above, is at least entertaining the belief that he
will go to the grave when he dies,
I actually never saw it that way.
Go back and re-read, and see this as a vivid, very personal
introspection of David having a "depression " episode as a bi-polar.
Give me a reason why I should think David bi-polar and I will.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
You may not relate to that, but -- being bi-polar myself -- I
relate.
I have had days when I SOARED, and Earth was FAR beneath my feet.
I've had days when I was so low, I couldn't see the soles of your
shoes!
I'm sorry to hear that. I'm not bi-polar, nor do I have radical emotional
swings as things change.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
for that is what he is asking God to
Post by Chuck Stamford
rescue him from. So it may be the case that any belief David had that he
would go to heaven immediately when he died is something we project back
upon him from our vantage point in the history of God's salvation that he
didn't really have himself.
I think sometimes, we must project. I believe at other times, when
we project, we "get in the way " of what God's trying to say to us.
It has been by laying aside ALL my "understanding" of what scripture
actually SAYS that I was able to see WHAT SCRIPTURE ACTUALLY SAYS.
Sorry, but that's a little to "Zen" for me. One of my pet peeves concerning
Eastern philosophies (I'm not sure it's correct to call Buddhism and Taoism,
etc. "religions") is their absolute joy in contradictions.

If you want me to understand a premise you're using, it would be best if
it's not a self-refuting one. I'm not impressed by sayings like, "I never
really understood how bachelors could be married until I saw that they
sometimes were" Stuff like that carries zero weight with me.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
If that's even partially true, then it follows
Post by Chuck Stamford
that David may well have been thinking of the grave when he said he would go
to his dead son, but his dead son would never return to him.
Well, I can certainly see a real NEGATIVITY to your thinking.
I'll be happy to pray with you over that.
Why do you say my thinking is negative?
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
In any case, John, I think you can see why I can't agree with you that your
argument above is as sound as "2 + 2 = 4".
Actually, I can't. I understand where you're coming from, but I
can't / won't "go there."
And-- beyond that, AGAIN, "my view works for me." And you've
actually given me no reason to adopt your view on things.
Obviously, since I've not given you any view to adopt! John, it begins to
appear to me as if a lot of what I do as far as you're concerned resides
mainly in your assumptions about me, rather than in what I've actually done.
You think I'm a Calvinist. I'm not. I'm a non-denominational, evangelical
Christian. You think I prejudge evidence, and cherry-pick it to suit what I
believe. I've never done that in my life, and I'm sixty! You think I
believe God sends babies to hell. I don't. You think my thinking is warped
by negativity, when all I've done here is construct a defeater argument to
show you the weaknesses in yours. Where I come from, that's doing someone a
favor!

These assumptions you're making about me are beginning to pile up, John, and
pretty soon they're going to become a real obstacle to any further
communication, because eventually you're going to be responding to someone
entirely different than I am!
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
You may be right for all I know,
Post by Chuck Stamford
but I also know that your justification isn't necessarily true, as are
self-evident propositions like "2 + 2 = 4" or "all bachelors are
unmarried", etc.
I guess I should have prefaced all this with, "this works for ME."
Which is the criteria Paul gave us. "Let each of you be[come]
convinced in his own mind, and live in peace, if that's at all
possible."
^ ^ ^^ That's actually a "combined teaching" taken from SEVERAL
verses.
That's what I call putting the best face on it. It's also belaboring the
obvious when you're talking to me.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
You're convinced. God bless you. You're convinced that "you just
don't know."
I can live with your uncertainty.
I am likewise convinced of my POV. (I believe it's self-evident that
I wouldn't have presented it, if I hadn't been confident.)
And it follows, since your premise above is not
Post by Chuck Stamford
necessarily true, that your argument below that uses it is leads to a
conclusion that is likewise not necessarily true.
"Fair enough." not true for you/ true as gold for me.
I hope you understand that what you're doing here is retreating into
subjectivity from a valid argument that's been presented to you for
analysis. And that when you're not retreating into this haze of subjective
"truth", you're analyzing ME, instead of the argument I gave you. Neither
of which is what I had in mind in doing this with you, so perhaps the best
thing to do here is simply end the discussion.

I'm sorry if I've disturbed you in any way.

God bless

Chuck Stamford

PS - about the grammar lesson that comes next; it was a typo, John. It came
after I'd typed "it's" about six times just prior, which makes me wonder why
you'd jump to the conclusion I didn't know the difference between "its" and
"it's". I guess jumping to conclusions is just a tendency you have. You
certainly seem to do it a lot.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Now if David's 7 day old child went to heaven (he was innocent/ he
wasn't old enough to have committed even his first sin),
Why would God condemn other infants if He didn't condemn David's
infant child?
Answer: God doesn't condemn infants. That notion (you may well have
gotten from Calvin) is not true.
I believe / you say you believe / in a merciful God. A merciful God
doesn't cast infants into hell merely because they didn't live long
enough to hear the gospel and respond.
Even if David's baby HAD lived long enough, he was a few CENTURIES
before Jesus!
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
Some of them seem to me more reasonable than others, as I'm sure they would
for you too, but that's hardly where our hope lies. Our hope and trust
reside, when all is said and done, in the love of God, a absolute love
guided in everything it does by an absolute power controlled perfectly
by
an
absolutely perfect Mind!
Ok. However, I see no problem with using the text that is there,
when we find it, and when it "speaks to us very clearly."
Neither do I. I've just never found such a text. I'm anxious for you to
show me what you've found.
I am glad that you are anxious, and I hope my explanation satisfies.
It did. I just don't see it as the strong argument you do, and for the
reasons I went into at length above. It's AN argument, and it's not
incoherent, which means it's a valid argument; it's just not a "sound"
argument in the technical meaning of that term.
"Oh, boy! You're one of THEM!" ;-)
If it were a sound
Post by Chuck Stamford
argument, then we would be rational and wise to rely upon it's conclusion,
but since it's only a valid argument, doing that is risky.
On a totally different subject, if you will allow me to correct your
grammar?
You've done something wrong above. Let me show you.
The word "it's" is ALWAYS, ONLY a contraction of the two words, "it"
and "is". So, every time you say "it's", you are actually saying "it
is".
In the above,
If it were a sound argument, then we would be rational and wise to
rely upon it's conclusion, but since it's only a valid argument, doing
that is risky.
You used "it's" wrong the first time ( rely upon it is conclusion),
and right the 2nd time ( but since it is only a valid argument..)
I hope that doesn't upset you, and I hope you have learned something.
English is a language I LOVE. Knowing it and being able to apply it
correctly in MOST cases has been my livelihood, and I've made a LOT of
$$$.
If you don't appreciate that, I'm sorry in advance.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Next to that the best of the theories pales into
Post by Chuck Stamford
insignificance.
I don't consider my "position" on this issue "theoretical."
Ah...that's a dangerous attitude.
It can be. On the other hand, I have been told that my absolutely
certain conviction that I am born again and Heaven bound is dangerous.
That such a delusion will keep me from bringing others the truth.
It hasn't yet!
Could not be happier to hear it.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
In my thirty years as a Christian I've
Post by Chuck Stamford
watched literally scores of people take that attitude and walk right over
the crazy cliff with it.
Well, granted, I probably don't see MANY things exactly the same way
you see them. That's fine. I'm in a different place, and I minister
to a different crowd than you.
I am not in the same place today that *I* was in 30 years ago!
I was raised to be a tee- totaler. Imagine my surprise a few years
back, when the Lord showed me that the 1st century Christians were
DRINKING alcohol in CHURCH and getting drunk!
Imagine my total exasperation to find POLYGAMY in the first century
church!
^ ^ ^^ That was a wake-up call!
Hey, as long as you see the danger, you probably won't be hurt by it, which
is my only concern here. What you're discribing above I'd call maturing in
the Lord. My point was there's a difference between growing in the Lord and
going out of one's way to dance on the edge of a cliff just because you can.
^ ^ ^ ^ ^Been there, done that, I'm writing a book about it. (Isn't
everybody? )
One thing God showed me about 5 years ago, is, "John, all this
freedom you're enjoying could get you turned into "road kill."
Yes, you're "FREE", but let's be INTELLIGENT about it, shall we?"
If you haven't been there, "Trust me on that."
[ I will have to hope you'll forgive me. I wrote this MUCH longer,
then realized it was good enough for my auto/bio. Since I can't put it
here and there, I chopped this.
I hope you'll understand. Certainly, if you'd like to go to e-mail
(that would suit me), we can continue ]
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
At best it tends to stunt any periodic and
Post by Chuck Stamford
objective re-examination of our beliefs (not to mention the belief our
belief is not subject to error is false on it's face, since we are not
omniscient),
I disagree.
Try to not measure everyone by the cloth used to measure you.
I wasn't aware I was measuring anyone.
Ok. Put it this way. I believe you were giving me a "universal rule"
you've learned.
I believe (a Dr pastor taught me this ) that God gives a rich,
powerful, influential man one set of rules; he gives others other
rules.
He'll tell the rich man, "I want you to give $10 million to that
charity tomorrow! And if you don't, you WILL regret it."
God would never give me that rule, because I don't have $10 million.
A man who is VERY happily married won't have the "temptations" a
single, or unhappily married man has.
I'm an artist. I probably have the most "rule-free" existence there
is. I simply MUST "explore" to CREATE.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Not only are we different people, we've been to different places, we
are headed in different directions (in this world), and we likely have
different ministries.
I was apologizing to a Muslim friend a year ago for "being crude" in
my use of language.
He laughed. He said, "that's what makes you BELIEVABLE, John. You're
HUMAN."
Believe me, I understand about being human.
LOL. "No further comment THERE."
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
and at worst it leads us into areas of judgment God has
Post by Chuck Stamford
specifically warned us to stay out of.
Well, concerning that, you perhaps believe in the "holiness"
program; I do not.
I don't even know what that is!
Otherwise known as "The 5,000 Thou Shalt Not"s.
The "Holiness" folks tell you that there are 5 things you "may do."
They don't include
TV
movies
music
etc.
There are an infinite number of "You May NOT"s.
Think of ANYTHING fun. It's FORBIDDEN.
^ ^ ^ ^ The "Holiness Crowd." I know you've seen them. They wear
black sack dresses. Black suits. Black, VERY pegged-leg pants, white
socks.
(black or brown socks are a sin of "being modern" < evil
They don't smile. Smiling is a sin. They don't "do their hair."
They simply CUT it and tie it down.
NO facial hair (unless you're female) < eeeeeww!
( After all, Jesus had short hair, and he was clean-shaven)
The only -- THE ONLY -- book you're allowed to read is the KJV.
(frankly, if I could only read the KJV, I wouldn't have a Bible I
could read. I'm one of that vast number for whom the KJV is gibberish/
literally)
^ ^ ^ ^ The holiness crowd.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I believe we are (as Jesus put it) FREE.
As long as I don't hurt myself or my fellow man, I am free to ENJOY
life.
That idea may need some narrowing down. Clearly we are not under the Law of
Moses, but God is the transcendent source of all morality, and that didn't
change with Jesus.
I think you may need to acquaint yourself with some "Christian
artists." Jonnie Earickson (I've met her) the mouth painter
quadriplegic. Introduce yourself to some Christian musicians. (they
generally have long hair)
I'm betting if you talked with a Christian musician for a few hours
(with a totally open mind), and then you relayed that information
(anonymously) to a KJV-Only Holiness person, you'd hear 100 "tsk
tsk"s.
I can find (won't show it to you, but you'll probably look) a place
where some disciples came to the Master and whined, "Lord! We were
[out and about] and we came across these... people! Lord.. they were
preaching, pretty much same as you.. but we didn't know them, Lord!
And they were saying some things we'd never heard before!"
Jesus smiled with amusement. "Well, what did you do?"
We told them to shut the H* up, Lord!" What should we do next time?"
Jesus answered, "Next time you see them, or someone else "" preaching
the Kingdom of God in THEIR words, you are to LEAVE THEM BE!"
He didn't believe He was the only One with The Message. He was the
Only One Who Was God In Flesh. And He knew that eventually, those who
"weren't of His little band" WOULD come to Him.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I don't see how I can be "an example" if I'm the guy who never
smiles, the guy who never goes to movies, the guy who doesn't own a
TV, the guy who never tells jokes, and he never laughs when YOU tell a
joke.
I want people to come to me and say, "John, every time I see you,
you make me laugh. What's all that joy about?"
Sounds to me as if being glum and being holy are very nearly the same thing
in your mind today. It's not the smile, it's what makes you smile.
I'm not saying that. I am saying that there are people who believe
that.
Because I have had a BOUNCING, BUMPING "good time" with the wife
the night before doesn't make me "impure" the next morning when it's
time to minister to my boss, or my employee.
We can have a ROCKING good time with this or that and still be God's
Holy children.
I read
where Jesus sat down with pimps and whores and tax collectors and bank
robbers and ate a meal and drank a beer or two and shared the Kingdom
of God.
He probably laughed at a dirty joke or two (didn't tell any, but if
it was "FUNNY", it was funny)
The Holiness crowd stood at the door of that tavern with their 50
pound KJV Bibles tucked under their armpits (excuse the mixed
metaphor/ I believe your IQ is high enough to follow)
and they watched The Master relate to PEOPLE and they snickered and
tsk tskd. "Look at that Jesus fellow! I wouldn't shake HIS hand after
he touched that SLUT!
Jesus came here because God loves HUMAN BEINGS. He didn't say, "when
you grow to the place where you can meet this MARK here, I will wash
you in my blood."
He came here, found us in the s* stew we'd made ourselves, and He
climbed up on a cross and died for us, JUST THE WAY WE ARE.
As hard as we try, some of us will NEVER overcome. We don't have to.
We have to change INSIDE. He's "done all the work."
It's
Post by Chuck Stamford
not going to the movies, it's the movies you go to. It's not the TV you
own, it's what you watch on it. It's not telling the joke, it's what's
supposed to be funny about it.
I don't tell many "filthy jokes", but if someone comes on to me and
tells me a RAUNCHY joke that I find HILARIOUS, I'm gonna laugh.
As for movies, I don't look at the rating; I look at the content.
For example. One of the most interesting murder mysteries I ever
watched (had no idea what was going to happen in the film) was a Meg
Ryan movie, "In The Cut."
Thirty minutes into the movie, there's EXPLICIT SEX.
The movie wasn't popular. You've likely never heard of it.
But that SEX scene was POWERFUL, and the entire movie turned on that
30 seconds.
I wondered "what's the point?" But I finished watching, and I was
shaken.
There actually had been a reason for that "BJ" scene.
To say, I watch "Director's Cuts" and I watch "UnRated" movies,
simply because
I want to see the movie as the director and the writer intended
it.
BEFORE the censors hack it to pieces for the "mass market."
I believe we Christian ADULTS can handle things (it's not going to
KILL me, and I don't have to imitate ugly behavior/ fornication and
MURDER)
The STORY was moving. For me. And that's all I need. "I enjoyed it."
I consider it some of Meg Ryan's best work, and I'm a HUGE Meg Ryan
fan. Jane Campion. the director ALSO did "The Piano." Nicole Kidman
produced it. It was a film involving some "MAJOR PLAYERS."
Post by Chuck Stamford
John, there are very few things in life that are pure evil. In fact, if
your theory of "evil" is that it is the absence of good, then nothing that
actually exists could ever be pure evil.
I personally believe "evil" is anything that's hurtful. I could
probably go past that, but I think that's a good "starting place."
Paul said that he was convinced by
Post by Chuck Stamford
the Spirit of God that there is nothing unclean of itself, and so long as
we're not talking about abstract concepts that can probably be generalized
to almost everything, even though he was talking about food at the time.
^ ^ ^^ Yep. I'm a HUGE fan of Paul. He hated the Pharisees (I call
them "bean counters") as much as Jesus did.
(By "bean counter" I mean the guy who stands besides you
(metaphorically) and counts the "sins" you commit each day " just
living your life.")
Post by Chuck Stamford
However, if you're saying Jesus died simply so we could enjoy life, I'll
have to disagree with you.
No. Not at all.
That's one "side benefit." I said, "Jesus died so we could be
"Free." Free from sin. Free from the "spectra" of death. Free from
illness (in some cases), free from the burden of sorrow (we give that
to HIM).
He didn't simply say, " I came to set men FREE." He actually gave us
a small list. "sin" "worry" ("Let not your heart be troubled") etc.
The liberty He gave us by His shed blood was the
Post by Chuck Stamford
liberty from our selfish concerns, and the liberty from the just
consequences of our failures in love, past, present, and future.
~~~~~~~ eeeeeee.
I still prefer MY version to yours.
You keep yours; I'll keep mine!
He opened
Post by Chuck Stamford
the door of our prison of self-concern, and us able to give our lives away
to the needs of others, secure in the knowledge we cannot out give God, who
promises to give them back abundantly to us as we do.
So there's no reason we cannot be selflessly loving as we laugh and smile,
as we attend a movie or watch something on TV, or tell a joke, but we need
to be aware of our motivations,
And, see? I just will "let my hair down, put my baggies on (;-)/ I
don't WEAR "" baggies""), and "kick my feet up" and just go out and
have me one HELL of a good time!"
My measure of "a good time" and "is everything ok? ("is everything
"" good"" ")
am I alive? Am I in one piece? Is everybody else ok and in one
piece?"
Yep? Then it was a good time! Am I about to get arrested? No? Is
someone's husband/ boyfriend lookin' fer me with a shotgun? No? Then
we had a good time!
for that is the demarcation line between sin
Post by Chuck Stamford
and holiness. Most of our actions in life are either sinful or righteous by
what our reason is for doing them, rather than in and of themselves.
Beyond that thought....
Are you aware? (I've seen this in the Bible/ I promise you. But I
have seen it like TWICE, and I can't find it lately; I'm pretty sure
it's in Proverbs)
" It's wiser to seek FORGIVENESS than it is to seek PERMISSION."
Or, "the wise man seeks forgiveness; the fool seeks PERMISSION."
The lesson I got from that is, "go have a good time. You can always
repent later."
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
We can discuss and debate these various theories all day long, and
even
come
to some conclusion about which one is most likely the truth (or as
close
to
the truth as we're ever likely to get this side of Heaven), and this
can
be
profitable for us to some extent.
My point is that, when a person you know loses a very young child
(let's say the child is 6 months old, and dies)
I believe it's proper to comfort that family as best we can.
So do I, but I temper "best we can" with keeping to the truth. For me,
"best we can" doesn't include telling them something is for sure true
that
I
don't know, and can't know is for sure true.
Let's stop here. I suggest you read my comment on how I know that
David's child went to heaven.
(You just suggested that I would LIE)
Nothing could be further from the truth! I'm sorry that you took it that
way.
Then I'm sorry. That's how I took it.
Post by Chuck Stamford
All I'm suggesting is that you would go beyond what you actually "know" to
be true, and people do that everyday (including myself!) without giving it
the requisite thought to be considering "lying".
Actually, I wouldn't. If I am not quite sure, I keep my mouth
shut.
HOWEVER, I can be 10,000 % positive, and still be wrong.
^ ^ Where we must be OPEN to be corrected. Always.
Post by Chuck Stamford
I hope you understand I never meant to suggest you lie, even for a good
cause.
ok.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I understand where you're coming from; try to understand where I'm
coming from.
Try to open that bright mind a bit and at least be RECEPTIVE.
"Til then!"
john w
I know God is loving and
Post by Chuck Stamford
merciful toward us for sure. I know God is trustworthy, and that all
judgment belongs to Him, for sure. I don't know, for sure, the spiritual
state of ANYONE, and I"m warned by God not to pretend I do. So I can't, in
good conscious, comfort anyone with anything but the truth, for a lie is
poor comfort.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
If I believe I have a SOLID answer on "Can we be CERTAIN that our 6
month old daughter REALLY IS in heaven now, and not burning in the
pit?"
I believe we CAN say, "Absolutely!"
I understand, John. I'm just waiting to hear from you what your
justification is for that belief.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
The God I believe in doesn't punish 6 month old babies who die
without ever having had the chance to "believe" and be baptized.
I believe such belief (and supporting text) is VITAL to our
credibility to the world.
"Well, the way I hear it, you stupid &)(&)*& &&()&)*(& Christians
believe that if a 3-month old baby dies, it goes to the PIT! Because
it "didn't have time to accept Jesus as its savior." < That's why
I'm not a Christian, you (*&)*&)*(& SLOB!"
^ ^ ^ ^ typical rhetoric.
But you and I know that no one ever goes to hell because they "didn't have
time to repent", don't we? The idea presupposes that if God had just let
them have more time, they would have repented, and that God, by taking them
before the time He knew they'd repent and be saved, is the CAUSE of their
eternal punishment!
What's typical about this thinking is the desire to make it God's fault that
people end up in hell. Skeptics have a hundred different rhetorical
arguments, but they all boil down to "God is responsible, not me". I didn't
ask to be born. If God knew me from all eternity, and knew I'd reject Jesus
and end up in hell, then God is morally responsible for my sins because He
went ahead and created me anyway. And on and on and on. The human desire
not to be responsible for the evil we all do is incredibly strong. It
subverts otherwise strong intellects; warps every perception of reality; and
even causes Christians to waver in their faith in God. We have to KNOW
certain people are in heaven, and that we'll be with them again, or we begin
to doubt God. We sometimes find we can't just trust God to do what is
perfectly right concerning someone we love with all of our hearts...as if
we've forgotten God loves them infinitely more and long before we were ever
born! What we need to understand is that brutal honesty is what we need
here, and we need to realize this is SIN in US when we begin to think like
this, not "insight" into the love of God! It's nothing more or less
than
a
failure of faith in us, and it's CERTAINLY not us being more loving than
God!
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
No, we DON'T believe that! And any time I see a Christian spouting
such NONSENSE, I LEAP to correct him / her!
That's pure, unadulterated Calvinism, mixed with mis-interpreted
Roman Catholicism.
It's right out of the pit of hell.
Well, I'll wait to see the Scripture you've found, and, hopefully, for you
to find some way to engage here on a less emotional basis than you seem to
be using at the moment. I'm not a Calvinist nor a Roman Catholic (nor
do
I
view those terms as repositories for the dispicable perspective on biblical
soteriology you've described above!), but I also can't say with certainty
that any given infant who dies is in heaven anymore than I can say any given
adult who dies is in heaven. We're all sinners from the womb, John, and God
is not willing that any perish, but many do according to the Son of God,
Jesus Christ. This is what I know "for sure". What it all means as far as
your infant son (when he was still an infant) or mine, or anyone else's is
something I can kick around with my fellow Christian brothers and
sisters
in
the hope of finding some insight and enlightenment from God, but I can't
"know". Thus my use of the term "theory" here.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
But you should never let not knowing
Post by Chuck Stamford
which is the truth get under your skin, or allow anyone else to do it using
one or another of these theories...because we really already know all the
truth we need to know when we have Jesus Christ as our Lord, don't we?
Well, sorry. On that, I have to say "Yes, and no."
I likewise don't believe that some Australian bushman who dies when
he's 15 and he's never heard the name "Jesus", and he's never heard of
/ or seen a Bible... he doesn't go to hell, simply for being born at
the wrong place and time.
I believe there's a better answer.
I do too, John, but I don't believe it includes us saying "Yes and no" when
it comes to knowing we have all we need when we have Jesus Christ as our
Lord. How can a good answer here, or any where, include NOT having Jesus
Christ as our Lord???
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
No matter how much you love your son, God loves him infinitely more,
and
has
loved him infinitely more from all eternity. There was never an instant
throughout all eternity when God didn't love your son (and every son!) as
much as He loved His own. No matter what happens to your son now or
in
the
future, there is nothing that can separate him from God's love; "...neither
death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present
nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing"
^ ^ ^ ^ On this, we agree.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Regardless of which theory about the disposition of young children we think
is pretty,
we have plenty of reason to trust God with our children.
^ ^ ^ ^ There, you go!
I know we're in basic agreement on the love of God, John. I'd still
like
to
see the Scripture you've found that makes it so clear for you that all
infants who die go to heaven, and why you see that biblical passage as so
clearly saying this. I'd also be willing to discuss further some of these
various "theories" (for lack of a more precise term), their merits and
weaknesses, if you think that would be something we could both profit from.
Chuck Stamford
john w <j@yahoo.com>
2008-07-03 12:18:16 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 01:23:58 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
<shell-***@cox.net> wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 13:17:57 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 09:40:27 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 17:45:01 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
John, just wanted to point out that there are many theories about the
spiritual state of children who die before they reach the age of reason.
I agree. And I don't know why. I believe scripture-- though
obscure-- if you find the right passages, is quite clear.
I believe the scripture on this issue is very clear.
If you read the passage about the death of King David's infant son, I
don't see how the text could be any more clear.
You mean 2 Samuel 12:15:23? If so, you'll have to explain to me how you see
this as "clear" as to the spiritual state of the child, because I don't see
a word in this text concerning that.
Before we get into this or anything else, I want to address your
understanding that I suggested you would lie to comfort someone who had lost
a small child by telling them something you knew wasn't true. That's not
what I had in mind at all, John. I don't want to go into a whole big
explanation here, but there are a lot of things you don't know about me,
just as there are a lot of things I don't know about you, and one of the
things you don't know about me is how much time I've spent studying
epistemology; especially the modern Christian philosophers, such as
Plantinga and Alston. So when I say you would go beyond what you know to be
true, I'm not talking about you saying something other than what you believe
to be the case, which would be lying. I'm saying you believe you know, what
you don't actually "know" in the epistemological sense of "know".
I may be wrong in saying it, but I'm not suggesting you lie.
Now onto what you've got here for an argument for your position that all
small children go to heaven...
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Certainly. It's certainly not my original thinking. And--
admittedly-- you must do a little " 2 + 2 = 4".
I assume by that you mean I'll need to apply a few self-evidently true
premises to what's actually given? If so, that's not a problem.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
2SA 12:15 After Nathan had gone home, the LORD struck the child
that Uriah's wife had borne to David, and he became ill. 16 David
pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and went into his house and
spent the nights lying on the ground. 17 The elders of his household
stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he
would not eat any food with them.
2SA 12:18 On the seventh day the child died. David's servants were
afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, "While
the child was still living, we spoke to David but he would not listen
to us. How can we tell him the child is dead? He may do something
desperate."
2SA 12:19 David noticed that his servants were whispering among
themselves and he realized the child was dead. "Is the child dead?" he
asked.
"Yes," they replied, "he is dead."
2SA 12:20 Then David got up from the ground. After he had washed,
put on lotions and changed his clothes, he went into the house of the
LORD and worshiped. Then he went to his own house, and at his request
they served him food, and he ate.
2SA 12:21 His servants asked him, "Why are you acting this way?
While the child was alive, you fasted and wept, but now that the child
is dead, you get up and eat!"
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
2SA 12:22 He answered, "While the child was still alive,
I fasted and wept. I thought, `Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to
me and let the child live.'
23 But now that he is dead, why should I fast?
Can I bring him back again? ["No" ]
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
I will go to him, but he will not return to me."
[[[[ This last 10 (or so ) words are the key. If we believe (as I
do, as you MUST), that King David is-- today-- in Heaven with all the
other FAITHFUL Jews (scripture calls him a "man after God's own heart)
If we believe that David is-- today-- in Heaven, and I do...
And if David was told (by God in this passage), "I WILL GO TO him! [
his son./ IOW, I will one day to go him where he went [ heaven]; he
will not RETURN to me (here on earth)
We KNOW David's destination. He's in heaven. If he's going where his
son has gone, and we KNOW David went to heaven, then that's where his
son MUST be.
Okay, I'm going to break in here, because what follows uses your conclusion
here as a true premise in your further argumentation below (i.e., the "Now
if David's 7 day old child went to heaven...etc.). That further argument
then would be invalid if this premise were not true, or couldn't be shown to
be true. So the question at this point is, have you shown it to be true,
under the inspiration of God (i.e. the Psalms, and perhaps one or two of his
recorded utterances in his personal history (basically 2 Samuel and 1
Chronicles, once we get past the genealogies of chapters 1-9 in 1 Chron.),
and the words of other inspired authors (the author of 1 Samuel and 1
Chronicles) recording the words he uttered in life. There is no question at
all from me that the former are inerrant, because they are inspired by God
according to my belief that all Scripture is inspired. The second category,
though, is not inspired, anymore than Moses was inspired to argue with God
that he couldn't go to Pharaoh and tell him to let God's people go, because
he was slow of speech. The examples of people in the Bible we are certain
are in heaven, saying things we know are wrong are quite numerous. Jesus
called Peter "Satan" for what he once said, and I've NO DOUBTS about Peter's
present spiritual state of being!
So it's POSSIBLE that when David said he would go to be with his son, he was
simply wrong. I'm not saying he was wrong. I don't have to. All I need
here for a defeater for your argument thus far is the "possibility" that
David was wrong, and that's being the case (that David was POSSIBLY wrong)
clearly has a great deal of biblical support.
^ ^ ^^ "clearly has a great deal of biblical support..."
^ ^ ^ I disagree.
I've just heard too many scholars say this: Unless other scripture
CLEARLY says OTHERWISE, we must take the text "at face value."
Many could argue, "well, there's FAR too much "SCIENCE" for us to
believe LITERALLY the Adam and Eve account. BUT, if we consider A & E
a "nice story" , a "metaphor", that "resolves a lot of questions."
^ ^ For a Christian, that "solution" creates more issues than it
resolves.
I won't go into that; it goes to far afield from MY Point.
Unless you can show me overwhelming evidence that newborns DON'T go
to heaven AUTOMATICALLY [ and you can't/ my mind is as closed as a
bear trap here: I WILL NOT believe that God would cast a 5-day old
infant into the pit!!]
There in fact is no further point in debating. I personally (me)
don't believe in endless debating.
I believe your view is QUITE Calvinistic. One thing I DON'T do is
get into LONG discussions (debates) with atheists, Calvinists, and
others of a "set in concrete" mindset.
Not intended for a "put-down."
I believe there are a vast number (more than I can count) of areas
where we Christians can sincerely DISAGREE.
So do I, John, and I've no problem with us disagreeing on this issue.
However, I must say that since I haven't even given you the theory I think
is best here, I don't understand how you can reach any conclusions about it,
[ sincerely, "my bad!" I actually thought you HAD summarized your
POV.]
I believe it's enough that you seemed to suggest,
"I don't believe that ALL infants that die go to heaven."
^ on that STATEMENT, I just simply don't wish to / choose to hear
"more."
Not intending to "chop you off at the knees." But -- between two
Grown, Christian men who seem friendly, it's not a subject I wish to
get into.
I've said my peace. You have said you disagree. "Enough said."
Call it one of my "sorer points."
Post by Chuck Stamford
as you seem to have done in comparing it to Calvinism, etc. above.
While you may not relate to Calvinism personally, in my years (60
now), I have run into WAY too many Calvinists. John H is one. He rides
my back with spurs and bridle daily. While I'm not "hurt", it's not
something I CHOOSE to deal with.

Your expressed POV is WAY too close to Calvin's in my estimation.
Post by Chuck Stamford
I also don't understand how what we're doing here can correctly be
characterized as a "debate".
Ok. Perhaps not a "formal debate." I was of the impression that in
Usenet, people can come in, state a point of view, and "defend it."
I will state my point of view; sometimes I'll state it twice. One or
two have been "crafty enough" to entrap me into re-stating and
restating. However, it's not something I choose to do. I have things
I'd prefer to save my energy for.

I'm still creating. I have probably a dozen projects right now,
dangling, waiting for my creative energy. I don't choose to "shoot ALL
my bullets in here." And I still get dragged in here for FAR too
long.
(I come in "for a peek", and next time I look at the clock, it's
been 4 - 5 - 6 HOURS)


You obviously have a solid pov here that
Post by Chuck Stamford
you're willing to defend by formal argument
OOps.! Actually, while I have solid points of view, I am NOT
"willing to defend."
I state my POV. It's a "take-it-or-leave it."
That I will re-state, and CLARIFY, is not my way of saying, "Hey,
let's DEBATE this for a month." (which in here is quite possible)

I've been "debating " (discussing, defending, EXPLAINING) my belief
that there are 1st and 6th C churches for about 7 YEARS now. I'm no
further ahead today than I was 6 years ago.

I've convinced no one And today, when the topic comes up (it has
recently), as many people curl their lips and say, "Oh, Weatherly's
lying about those CHURCHES again!"

(as opposed to the heated, loud
Post by Chuck Stamford
kind), but I STARTED all this by saying I didn't.
You mis-understood me. My beliefs on this and other topics are
carved in granite. But I'm not willing to "go at it" in this area.

If you are sincere in your beliefs that God casts 5-day olds into
hell, "ok."

I don't.

Next topic.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
We'll agreed to disagree on this one.
You have your reasons (you will call it "scripture") for why God
would ABSOLUTELY CAST A 5-DAY OLD INTO THE PIT FOR ETERNITY.
I have my reasons for believing He would not.
Again, I want to stress I don't have any dog in this hunt, John. All I've
been doing it trying to show you the weakness in your argument.
"Got it."

That
Post by Chuck Stamford
doesn't mean I know your conclusion from it is wrong.
Got it. I'm not saying I have "the strongest argument there is."
Paul said, "let each of you be convinced [of his own POV in his own
mind]. I am. He also said, "strive to get along."
As long as you're willing to take me as your friend, bs and all,
I'm going to return the favor.
I see NOTHING to be gained by "discussing" a topic that I
personally find painful.



I don't. How could
Post by Chuck Stamford
I? It is certainly possible to arrive at a belief that is true using an
invalid argument.
ok.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Without going into detail, an aunt of mine (dad's older sister) was
essentially "still-born". She lived-- I believe-- about 3 days. Don't
recall exactly how long she was "among us." But dad had a big sister
who "didn't make it." He ended up being the oldest child who survived.
I'm not sure how your families personal history relates to whether or not
your argument in support of your belief is strong or weak, but I'm
interested anyway, so say on...
All I intended to say is I have a personal stake in believing young
children aren't condemned merely because they didn't live long enough
to become aware and "believe in Jesus."

On a PERSONAL note, my dad's big sister died shortly after birth,
and because of my beliefs, I believe she's in heaven. She was born to
a Christian family, and I believe had she lived 10 years, she would
have been born again.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
It's been the family's hope (we're all Christians, at some level)
that dad's big sis is in Heaven. He obviously never knew his big
sister, and he refused to ever say much about her, other than what
he'd heard from his momma and daddy (deep South). But of what he'd
heard, he was deeply enamored of his "big sissy."
You're suggesting " she didn't necessarily get to Heaven."
Pardon me for not even entertaining that possibility.
Hey, I'll go even farther, and tell you I'm not sure I'M going to get to
Heaven! That should settle for you whether or not I'm a Calvinist! ;-)
LOL!!! Roll on floor laughing. (< I know there's an acronym; when
I'm feeling friendly, I like to type it out, in some form.
Post by Chuck Stamford
And I'm not asking you to do anything but let your God given intellect work
here unhindered by your emotions, because feelings are never the path to
truth. Maybe that makes me a "cold fish", I don't know.
What you're not getting is that I HAVE worked it out so that it
works in my "intellect." No other "solution" "makes sense --- to ME."

Make no mistake. I don't believe any two people NECESSARILY use
their gray cells and synapses to go through PRECISELY the same
processes to get from point A to point B.

If my "solution" didn't make "Absolutely Crystal Clear Sense" TO ME,
I wouldn't hold those beliefs. I never say, "Just Cuz."

My "process" ONLY needs to make sense TO ME.

DO PLEASE "get" that there are an infinite # of ways the human brain
can be wired.

I continue to baffle my psychiatrists and therapists (Licensed
Clinical Psychologists) with my INSIGHTS into human behavior.

And how the brain works (or doesn't)

I heard for YEARS (and my therapist agrees) that the IQ is STATIC.
Well, I've been measured 3 times now, and the numbers went UP by at
least 10 points (I won't give #s) each time.
"That's not possible", but I have "the paperwork."

I'm now goading my son to "grow his brain."

Many have curled the lip and laughed (sneered) at me when I tell
them I've been advised over and over again to write my own "manual" on
bi-polar disorder."

I've given it some thought, and if it doesn't interfere with other
writing, I'm prepared to "nibble at the edges of that."
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
So what your argument above boils down to is taking David's word for it that
his child was in heaven, and I've no more reason to do that than I have to
take your word for it that someone is in heaven.
If that works for you, I have no problem with that idea FOR you.
It doesn't work for me.
Well let's just drop the discussion about children who die, and what happens
to them, and focus in on what I was just trying to bring out. Answer me
Excluding where an inspired author of Scripture quotes the Father,
Post by Chuck Stamford
Son, or Spirit (or a hevenly angelic messanger, or God speaking through one
of His prophets),
can we rely on what a biblical personage says to the same
Post by Chuck Stamford
extent we can rely on what an author of Scripture writes?
If you want an answer, You need to restate that. I FRANKLY (this
is going to cause 5 pages of """ comments""") have no CLUE what you
just asked me. WAY too many "provisos".
Boil it down to say, 10 words. Or 15.

This MIGHT be one for e-mail.

Let me take a STAB.

I have been taught that, unless at face value, the passage is
OBVIOUSLY NOT true.

"Why are you avoiding that tree? If you eat the fruit, you really
WON'T die!" < what was that not True at face value? Because God had
just said OTHERWISE.

Next example:
Sol opens Ecclesiastes with : Vanity (vain) Vanity! (vain)
There is NOTHING that is not totally VAIN (without merit)

^ ^ ^ THAT comment is very obviously-- on its surface-- not TRUE.
Our lives are precious. Our lives are not "vain."
Jesus' life, His life's blood, is precious; His life, His blood,
are not vain.

It is true that Sol said this, and this is one of those comments he
made during an apparent DEEP DEPRESSION.

Barring that, barring OBVIOUS "untruths", we need to take scripture
AT FACE VALUE until other scripture contradicts it.

^ ^ ^ ^General rule.

Now, you may be saying that you don't give Scripture The Same Weight
Of Truth I do. That's a different discussion. And that may be where
you're leading me.

See above.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Even if I AGREE with you,
Post by Chuck Stamford
and believe someone is in heaven that you also believe is in heaven, I won't
have that belief based on your say so.
It's not "my say so."
Likewise, if you're wise, you won't
Post by Chuck Stamford
believe someone is in heaven on my say so. David was just as big a sinner,
and just as much in need of salvation by the grace of God as you or me.
He was likewise a prophet of God, and God "authorized him" to write
that into a book that has been preserved for the ages.
But John, we don't know that David wrote that book, and there's absolutely
no evidence he did.
Oh oh! We're now discussing which writings, which PORTIONS, are
"inspired" and which aren't.

"Gotcha."

That's my whole point. Only when David is speaking as
Post by Chuck Stamford
an inspired prophet of God can we truly rely on what he says to be true.
It's my view that God preserved "His Inspired Word."

Why are so many of the KNOWN OF writings NOT available? They
weren't inspired. IF they had been inspired (necessary for us), they
would have been preserved and included.

We today have probably 100 (round #s) books that aren't in the
Bible! Would we have put them all in if we'd had them at the time?

Very probably NOT.

If you understand how the Bible was complied... (i know part of it,
some of the RULES for inclusion)... I don't know all of it.

I trust the "compiling, "canonizing" committee" You don't.

I don't know how many of the translators, how many scholars you
know.
I know probably 20 or 30 scholars who are qualified to translate, and
quite a few (half-dozen) who have.

I believe the Bible is absolutely trustworthy.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Remember when the Amalakite slew Saul out of mercy, because Saul lay
mortally wounded, and asked him to put him out of his misery? When the man
came and told David (which he didn't have to do; he had the gold crown right
in his hand, and could have just made off with it and become rich, but
"Your blood is on your own head, for your own mouth has testified against
you, saying, 'I have killed the LORD s anointed."2 Sam 1:16
Well, there's some truth in that, but come on! The man had mercy on Saul!
He was forthright enough about it to bring Saul's royal crown and bracelet
to David, even recognizing God's chosen and anointed successor. Was it
really true that his blood was upon his own head, as David said? Or was
David acting on emotion, and overreacting?
"Don't know, and it's not a situation (problem) I need to worry
myself about."

That was THOUSANDS of years ago. I have enough on my plate TODAY.

Or we can focus on the good stuff.

--- I've chopped AGAIN.

We need to take this to e-mail.

Agreed?

I believe one difference between us is this:

You seem to be "searching for some profound answers."

I seem to have found those answers; for myself if not for you.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Let's jump right to the famous BIGGY, shall we?
"Thus you shall say to Joab: 'Do not let this thing displease you, for the
sword devours one as well as another. 2 Sam 11:25
It was a bald-faced lie that David thought Uriah had been killed because
"the sword devours one as well as another", for it was by the plan of David,
with the aid of Joab, that Uriah had been killed in the battle. Uriah
didn't die as other men die in battle. He died as the result of a
successful murder plot hatched by David, and carried out by David's right
hand, Joab.
Since we have at least one example of an inspired author of Scripture
(probably Samuel, btw, but no one knows for sure) recording David telling a
lie, and perhaps another of him making a poor judgment and giving a
problematic verdict in the case of the Amalakite man, it's beyond plausible
disputation that David is capable of lying or being mistaken when he speaks,
because we have clear examples of him doing just that!
Does it not ENCOURAGE you that the Bible is honest enough to give
you a blow-by-blow of Israel's "signature King?" Sins and all?

We need to take these "indepth" discussions to e-mail.
I've just chopped like 5 paragraphs of response.

But... thanks! You're now speaking to ME!"
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
Therefore, we would be foolish to grant his word an authority here it
simply doesn't have,and for which we have biblical example after example is
untrustworty.
"Ok." I hereby give you permission [ tap of sword on your noggin ]
to believe as it makes sense to you.
;-)
please see the friendly humor.
Yeah, I do, John, but I think you're using it to avoid what you can see, but
don't want to.
ok. Then, again, we agree to not agree.

I will tell you this: I don't say things I don't mean, and I don't
"avoid" usually.

And now you SEEM to be saying: If you understood where I'm coming
from, you'd agree.

Not necessarily.

Again, we haven't come from the same places; there's no reason to
believe we'll end up at the same place.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
If you can find for me somewhere in the Psalms that Daivd says his son went
to heaven, either expressly and directly, or implicitly (so long as it's a
LOGICAL implication, and thus necessarily true), then THAT would be proof,
What I have showed you is sufficient for me.
I'm sorry if it doesn't work for you. One of our pastors (one of
the "Drs") pointed that out; I've been to so many churches, I can't
tell you which Dr pointed it out. Take your pick: Dr Carpenter, Dr
Pegg, Dr Fickett, Dr Wilson, Dr Moody, Dr Stringfellow...
The "non-Calvinists".
You're just convinced I'm a Calvinist, aren't you!
No, I'm not. I'm thinking you believe some Calvinist ideas.

One things you HAVE said is that you know right NOW that you're
saved. No Calvinist would say that.


Tell me, is there
Post by Chuck Stamford
anything I can say that will convince you I'm not? ;-)
You already did.

Try to not be hyper-sensitive.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
because THAT is the inspired word of God given through David. I believe we
can stand upon the inspired word of God to make our arguments, but we can't
stand on the word of man to do it...not even a man like David.
What I see, Chuck, is that you feel quite free to discard/ disregard
those passages you find "uncomfortable, ugly, disagreeable, or those
that take you where you don't wish to go."
Well then here is where we're going to have our first serious disagreement,
because nothing could be farther from the truth, and I resent the
implication.
oh oh!! Try to not be offended when no offense was intended.

No offense was intended. If I wish to offend you, I have this Book
of Insults I'll happily open. "You _________________."


I'm not one of those who starts with a belief, and then spends
Post by Chuck Stamford
a lifetime scurrying around trying to find some good reason to have it.
Didn't say that. I was suggesting that once you have formed an
opinion, if another verse/ passage pops up and pokes a hole in your
balloon, SEEMS TO ME, you tend to sweep the verse aside.

"But, HEY! That's me." Feel free to disregard.

I
Post by Chuck Stamford
go wherever the evidence leads, and ONLY where the evidence leads. I'm
interested only in knowing what's true; not what makes me feel good, or
comfortable, or secure.
ok. Perhaps you don't communicate really well WITH me.

Also PLEASE do a little study (on-line) about bi-polar disorder. We
don't communicate all that well.
So I'll accept 200 % of the blame for any mis-communication.

I'd rather spend my life terrified by what true,
Post by Chuck Stamford
than cozy and warm with what's false.
Glad to hear it.

And I take your suggestion about my
Post by Chuck Stamford
motivation (since you DON'T know me at all yet!), as a way to deflect a
defeater I've shown you that you'd, by your own admission, rather not see.
Now you are deliberately accusing me.

So we're going to stop here. I apologized, and now, you're accusing
ME for like the 3rd or 4th time, after I'd explained myself.

john w

calm down, and I'll talk to you later. maybe.
Post by Chuck Stamford
You forget yourself, John. YOU'RE the only one here with a positon to
protect. The rest is your imagination. I'd be perfectly happy for you to
be right. I'm just not going to shut off the mind God gave me to grant it
to you. I've asked you to show me, and I would have been happier if you
did. I don't get more joy out of not knowing, but I can't say you did
something I understand all too well you didn't just to feel better.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Likewise, I'm going to feel free to disregard Paul's prohibitions on
adultery and fornication, and Jesus' prohibition on polygamy. I
personally think it would be a kick, if I had 100 Million dollars a
year income, to have at LEAST 5 wives!
He was
Post by Chuck Stamford
clearly a "man after" God's own heart, but whatever that means it can't mean
David was never wrong.
ok.
I just don't find nearly as much justification as others do to
disregard stuff we see in there that we don't like.
You keep assuming the only reason I'd reject your use of 2 Samuel 12 is
because I "don't like it". Why? Why would you think that?
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
So I'm at LEAST going to discard any passages that forbid
fornication.
I've also decided now, that I'm going to take up bank robbery and
embezzling, and internet bank "cracking" as my new livelihoods.
;-)
Ah, this isn't you being funny afaic; in case you're interested.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
If David CAN be wrong, we can't say with any
Post by Chuck Stamford
certainly he was right to say his son was in heaven.
And this brings me to the second weakness in your argument above: since
David only says he will go to the place his son went when he died, just how
sure are we David meant heaven? We are, after all, talking about the same
Well, then, you are suggesting that David (who was, after all HUMAN)
didn't go to Heaven! You believe he's in Hell!
"Gotcha!"
I'm not suggesting any such thing! If you've studied any of those men whose
names you dropped above to anything like a significant degree, you must have
run across the fact that in David's time the Israelities had a concept of
"sheol" that we don't; that they had some sort of belief that when a person
died, they remained in the grave, or "sheol". So...
Then David spoke to the LORD the words of this song...I will call upon the
LORD, who is worthy to be praised; So shall I be saved from my enemies. 5
'When the waves of death surrounded me, The floods of ungodliness made me
afraid. 6 The sorrows of Sheol surrounded me; The snares of death confronted
me. 7 In my distress I called upon the LORD, And cried out to my God; He
heard my voice from His temple, And my cry entered His ears. 2 Sam 22:1-7
Return, O LORD, deliver me! Oh, save me for Your mercies' sake! 5 For in
death there is no remembrance of You; In the grave who will give You thanks?
Psalms 6:4-5 (NKJV - note here the word "grave" is the English translation
of the Hebrew "sheol")
That He would show you the secrets of wisdom! For they would double your
prudence. Know therefore that God exacts from you Less than your iniquity
deserves. 7 "Can you search out the deep things of God? Can you find out the
limits of the Almighty? 8 They are higher than heaven--what can you do?
Deeper than Sheol--what can you know? 9 Their measure is longer than the
earth And broader than the sea. Job 11:6-9 (NKJV; clearly the speaker thinks
of "sheol" as a real place for the dead)
My days are past, My purposes are broken off, Even the thoughts of my heart.
12 They change the night into day; 'The light is near,' they say, in the
face of darkness. 13 If I wait for the grave as my house, If I make my bed
in the darkness, 14 If I say to corruption, 'You are my father,' And to the
worm, 'You are my mother and my sister,' 15 Where then is my hope? As for my
hope, who can see it? 16 Will they go down to the gates of Sheol? Shall we
have rest together in the dust?" Job 17:11-16 (NKJV)
Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoices; My flesh also will rest
in hope. 10 For You will not leave my soul in Sheol, Nor will You allow Your
Holy One to see corruption.Psalms 16:9-10 (NKJV)
I will praise you, O Lord my God, with all my heart; I will glorify your
name forever. 13 For great is your love toward me; you have delivered me
from the depths of the grave.Psalms 86:12-13 (NIV, which provides a footnote
citing the fact they've translated "sheol" as "grave")
The cords of death entangled me, the anguish of the grave came upon me; I
"O LORD, save me!" Psalms 116:3-4 (NIV' same thing here)
Therefore Sheol has enlarged itself And opened its mouth beyond measure;
Their glory and their multitude and their pomp, And he who is jubilant,
shall descend into it. Isaiah 5:14 (NKJV)
I said, In the noontide of my days I shall go into the gates of Sheol: I am
deprived of the residue of my years. Isaiah 38:10 (ASV)
John, there's about 63 uses of sheol in the OT, and at least 31 of them
refer to the "grave" as a place where the dead rest. David himself uses
this idea. Therefore, I'm not so much as stretching a biblical concept when
I say David could have very well meant he would go to his son in the grave
when he said he would go to his dead son, but his dead son wouldn't come to
him.
I'm truly sorry if that fact causes you concern, but it is what it is I'm
afraid.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
Return, O LORD, deliver me! Oh, save me for Your mercies' sake! 5 For in
death there is no remembrance of You; In the grave who will give You thanks?
Psalms 6:4-5
There is an opinion circulating among some scholars that David--
and his famous wise son, were both bi-polar.
David wrote both from the mountaintop, and from his visions of the
grave during his "depression" phases.
One can't enjoy the "mountaintop " view if one hasn't likewise
experienced the grave through David's eyes.
Sorry, but I don't agree with any of this. I don't agree with those
"scholars", whoever they are, that we can say with any degree of certainty
David and Solomon were bi-polar. I don't agree that David wrote while
clinically depressed, or from the midst of religious ecstasy. Nor do I
believe one must first have a "mountaintop" experience before one can
experience the depths of the human state.
I don't believe any of this, because I have no evidence to support any of
it.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
My eye wastes away because of affliction. LORD, I have called daily upon
You; I have stretched out my hands to You. 10 Will You work wonders for the
dead? Shall the dead arise and praise You? Selah 11 Shall Your
lovingkindness be declared in the grave? Or Your faithfulness in the place
of destruction? 12 Shall Your wonders be known in the dark? And Your
righteousness in the land of forgetfulness? Psalms 88:9-12
Whatever the other theological and soteriological issues are here, clearly
David, as he writes the above, is at least entertaining the belief that he
will go to the grave when he dies,
I actually never saw it that way.
Go back and re-read, and see this as a vivid, very personal
introspection of David having a "depression " episode as a bi-polar.
Give me a reason why I should think David bi-polar and I will.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
You may not relate to that, but -- being bi-polar myself -- I
relate.
I have had days when I SOARED, and Earth was FAR beneath my feet.
I've had days when I was so low, I couldn't see the soles of your
shoes!
I'm sorry to hear that. I'm not bi-polar, nor do I have radical emotional
swings as things change.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
for that is what he is asking God to
Post by Chuck Stamford
rescue him from. So it may be the case that any belief David had that he
would go to heaven immediately when he died is something we project back
upon him from our vantage point in the history of God's salvation that he
didn't really have himself.
I think sometimes, we must project. I believe at other times, when
we project, we "get in the way " of what God's trying to say to us.
It has been by laying aside ALL my "understanding" of what scripture
actually SAYS that I was able to see WHAT SCRIPTURE ACTUALLY SAYS.
Sorry, but that's a little to "Zen" for me. One of my pet peeves concerning
Eastern philosophies (I'm not sure it's correct to call Buddhism and Taoism,
etc. "religions") is their absolute joy in contradictions.
If you want me to understand a premise you're using, it would be best if
it's not a self-refuting one. I'm not impressed by sayings like, "I never
really understood how bachelors could be married until I saw that they
sometimes were" Stuff like that carries zero weight with me.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
If that's even partially true, then it follows
Post by Chuck Stamford
that David may well have been thinking of the grave when he said he would go
to his dead son, but his dead son would never return to him.
Well, I can certainly see a real NEGATIVITY to your thinking.
I'll be happy to pray with you over that.
Why do you say my thinking is negative?
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
In any case, John, I think you can see why I can't agree with you that your
argument above is as sound as "2 + 2 = 4".
Actually, I can't. I understand where you're coming from, but I
can't / won't "go there."
And-- beyond that, AGAIN, "my view works for me." And you've
actually given me no reason to adopt your view on things.
Obviously, since I've not given you any view to adopt! John, it begins to
appear to me as if a lot of what I do as far as you're concerned resides
mainly in your assumptions about me, rather than in what I've actually done.
You think I'm a Calvinist. I'm not. I'm a non-denominational, evangelical
Christian. You think I prejudge evidence, and cherry-pick it to suit what I
believe. I've never done that in my life, and I'm sixty! You think I
believe God sends babies to hell. I don't. You think my thinking is warped
by negativity, when all I've done here is construct a defeater argument to
show you the weaknesses in yours. Where I come from, that's doing someone a
favor!
These assumptions you're making about me are beginning to pile up, John, and
pretty soon they're going to become a real obstacle to any further
communication, because eventually you're going to be responding to someone
entirely different than I am!
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
You may be right for all I know,
Post by Chuck Stamford
but I also know that your justification isn't necessarily true, as are
self-evident propositions like "2 + 2 = 4" or "all bachelors are
unmarried", etc.
I guess I should have prefaced all this with, "this works for ME."
Which is the criteria Paul gave us. "Let each of you be[come]
convinced in his own mind, and live in peace, if that's at all
possible."
^ ^ ^^ That's actually a "combined teaching" taken from SEVERAL
verses.
That's what I call putting the best face on it. It's also belaboring the
obvious when you're talking to me.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
You're convinced. God bless you. You're convinced that "you just
don't know."
I can live with your uncertainty.
I am likewise convinced of my POV. (I believe it's self-evident that
I wouldn't have presented it, if I hadn't been confident.)
And it follows, since your premise above is not
Post by Chuck Stamford
necessarily true, that your argument below that uses it is leads to a
conclusion that is likewise not necessarily true.
"Fair enough." not true for you/ true as gold for me.
I hope you understand that what you're doing here is retreating into
subjectivity from a valid argument that's been presented to you for
analysis. And that when you're not retreating into this haze of subjective
"truth", you're analyzing ME, instead of the argument I gave you. Neither
of which is what I had in mind in doing this with you, so perhaps the best
thing to do here is simply end the discussion.
I'm sorry if I've disturbed you in any way.
God bless
Chuck Stamford
PS - about the grammar lesson that comes next; it was a typo, John. It came
after I'd typed "it's" about six times just prior, which makes me wonder why
you'd jump to the conclusion I didn't know the difference between "its" and
"it's". I guess jumping to conclusions is just a tendency you have. You
certainly seem to do it a lot.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Now if David's 7 day old child went to heaven (he was innocent/ he
wasn't old enough to have committed even his first sin),
Why would God condemn other infants if He didn't condemn David's
infant child?
Answer: God doesn't condemn infants. That notion (you may well have
gotten from Calvin) is not true.
I believe / you say you believe / in a merciful God. A merciful God
doesn't cast infants into hell merely because they didn't live long
enough to hear the gospel and respond.
Even if David's baby HAD lived long enough, he was a few CENTURIES
before Jesus!
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
Some of them seem to me more reasonable than others, as I'm sure they would
for you too, but that's hardly where our hope lies. Our hope and trust
reside, when all is said and done, in the love of God, a absolute love
guided in everything it does by an absolute power controlled perfectly
by
an
absolutely perfect Mind!
Ok. However, I see no problem with using the text that is there,
when we find it, and when it "speaks to us very clearly."
Neither do I. I've just never found such a text. I'm anxious for you to
show me what you've found.
I am glad that you are anxious, and I hope my explanation satisfies.
It did. I just don't see it as the strong argument you do, and for the
reasons I went into at length above. It's AN argument, and it's not
incoherent, which means it's a valid argument; it's just not a "sound"
argument in the technical meaning of that term.
"Oh, boy! You're one of THEM!" ;-)
If it were a sound
Post by Chuck Stamford
argument, then we would be rational and wise to rely upon it's conclusion,
but since it's only a valid argument, doing that is risky.
On a totally different subject, if you will allow me to correct your
grammar?
You've done something wrong above. Let me show you.
The word "it's" is ALWAYS, ONLY a contraction of the two words, "it"
and "is". So, every time you say "it's", you are actually saying "it
is".
In the above,
If it were a sound argument, then we would be rational and wise to
rely upon it's conclusion, but since it's only a valid argument, doing
that is risky.
You used "it's" wrong the first time ( rely upon it is conclusion),
and right the 2nd time ( but since it is only a valid argument..)
I hope that doesn't upset you, and I hope you have learned something.
English is a language I LOVE. Knowing it and being able to apply it
correctly in MOST cases has been my livelihood, and I've made a LOT of
$$$.
If you don't appreciate that, I'm sorry in advance.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Next to that the best of the theories pales into
Post by Chuck Stamford
insignificance.
I don't consider my "position" on this issue "theoretical."
Ah...that's a dangerous attitude.
It can be. On the other hand, I have been told that my absolutely
certain conviction that I am born again and Heaven bound is dangerous.
That such a delusion will keep me from bringing others the truth.
It hasn't yet!
Could not be happier to hear it.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
In my thirty years as a Christian I've
Post by Chuck Stamford
watched literally scores of people take that attitude and walk right over
the crazy cliff with it.
Well, granted, I probably don't see MANY things exactly the same way
you see them. That's fine. I'm in a different place, and I minister
to a different crowd than you.
I am not in the same place today that *I* was in 30 years ago!
I was raised to be a tee- totaler. Imagine my surprise a few years
back, when the Lord showed me that the 1st century Christians were
DRINKING alcohol in CHURCH and getting drunk!
Imagine my total exasperation to find POLYGAMY in the first century
church!
^ ^ ^^ That was a wake-up call!
Hey, as long as you see the danger, you probably won't be hurt by it, which
is my only concern here. What you're discribing above I'd call maturing in
the Lord. My point was there's a difference between growing in the Lord and
going out of one's way to dance on the edge of a cliff just because you can.
^ ^ ^ ^ ^Been there, done that, I'm writing a book about it. (Isn't
everybody? )
One thing God showed me about 5 years ago, is, "John, all this
freedom you're enjoying could get you turned into "road kill."
Yes, you're "FREE", but let's be INTELLIGENT about it, shall we?"
If you haven't been there, "Trust me on that."
[ I will have to hope you'll forgive me. I wrote this MUCH longer,
then realized it was good enough for my auto/bio. Since I can't put it
here and there, I chopped this.
I hope you'll understand. Certainly, if you'd like to go to e-mail
(that would suit me), we can continue ]
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
At best it tends to stunt any periodic and
Post by Chuck Stamford
objective re-examination of our beliefs (not to mention the belief our
belief is not subject to error is false on it's face, since we are not
omniscient),
I disagree.
Try to not measure everyone by the cloth used to measure you.
I wasn't aware I was measuring anyone.
Ok. Put it this way. I believe you were giving me a "universal rule"
you've learned.
I believe (a Dr pastor taught me this ) that God gives a rich,
powerful, influential man one set of rules; he gives others other
rules.
He'll tell the rich man, "I want you to give $10 million to that
charity tomorrow! And if you don't, you WILL regret it."
God would never give me that rule, because I don't have $10 million.
A man who is VERY happily married won't have the "temptations" a
single, or unhappily married man has.
I'm an artist. I probably have the most "rule-free" existence there
is. I simply MUST "explore" to CREATE.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Not only are we different people, we've been to different places, we
are headed in different directions (in this world), and we likely have
different ministries.
I was apologizing to a Muslim friend a year ago for "being crude" in
my use of language.
He laughed. He said, "that's what makes you BELIEVABLE, John. You're
HUMAN."
Believe me, I understand about being human.
LOL. "No further comment THERE."
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
and at worst it leads us into areas of judgment God has
Post by Chuck Stamford
specifically warned us to stay out of.
Well, concerning that, you perhaps believe in the "holiness"
program; I do not.
I don't even know what that is!
Otherwise known as "The 5,000 Thou Shalt Not"s.
The "Holiness" folks tell you that there are 5 things you "may do."
They don't include
TV
movies
music
etc.
There are an infinite number of "You May NOT"s.
Think of ANYTHING fun. It's FORBIDDEN.
^ ^ ^ ^ The "Holiness Crowd." I know you've seen them. They wear
black sack dresses. Black suits. Black, VERY pegged-leg pants, white
socks.
(black or brown socks are a sin of "being modern" < evil
They don't smile. Smiling is a sin. They don't "do their hair."
They simply CUT it and tie it down.
NO facial hair (unless you're female) < eeeeeww!
( After all, Jesus had short hair, and he was clean-shaven)
The only -- THE ONLY -- book you're allowed to read is the KJV.
(frankly, if I could only read the KJV, I wouldn't have a Bible I
could read. I'm one of that vast number for whom the KJV is gibberish/
literally)
^ ^ ^ ^ The holiness crowd.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I believe we are (as Jesus put it) FREE.
As long as I don't hurt myself or my fellow man, I am free to ENJOY
life.
That idea may need some narrowing down. Clearly we are not under the Law of
Moses, but God is the transcendent source of all morality, and that didn't
change with Jesus.
I think you may need to acquaint yourself with some "Christian
artists." Jonnie Earickson (I've met her) the mouth painter
quadriplegic. Introduce yourself to some Christian musicians. (they
generally have long hair)
I'm betting if you talked with a Christian musician for a few hours
(with a totally open mind), and then you relayed that information
(anonymously) to a KJV-Only Holiness person, you'd hear 100 "tsk
tsk"s.
I can find (won't show it to you, but you'll probably look) a place
where some disciples came to the Master and whined, "Lord! We were
[out and about] and we came across these... people! Lord.. they were
preaching, pretty much same as you.. but we didn't know them, Lord!
And they were saying some things we'd never heard before!"
Jesus smiled with amusement. "Well, what did you do?"
We told them to shut the H* up, Lord!" What should we do next time?"
Jesus answered, "Next time you see them, or someone else "" preaching
the Kingdom of God in THEIR words, you are to LEAVE THEM BE!"
He didn't believe He was the only One with The Message. He was the
Only One Who Was God In Flesh. And He knew that eventually, those who
"weren't of His little band" WOULD come to Him.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I don't see how I can be "an example" if I'm the guy who never
smiles, the guy who never goes to movies, the guy who doesn't own a
TV, the guy who never tells jokes, and he never laughs when YOU tell a
joke.
I want people to come to me and say, "John, every time I see you,
you make me laugh. What's all that joy about?"
Sounds to me as if being glum and being holy are very nearly the same thing
in your mind today. It's not the smile, it's what makes you smile.
I'm not saying that. I am saying that there are people who believe
that.
Because I have had a BOUNCING, BUMPING "good time" with the wife
the night before doesn't make me "impure" the next morning when it's
time to minister to my boss, or my employee.
We can have a ROCKING good time with this or that and still be God's
Holy children.
I read
where Jesus sat down with pimps and whores and tax collectors and bank
robbers and ate a meal and drank a beer or two and shared the Kingdom
of God.
He probably laughed at a dirty joke or two (didn't tell any, but if
it was "FUNNY", it was funny)
The Holiness crowd stood at the door of that tavern with their 50
pound KJV Bibles tucked under their armpits (excuse the mixed
metaphor/ I believe your IQ is high enough to follow)
and they watched The Master relate to PEOPLE and they snickered and
tsk tskd. "Look at that Jesus fellow! I wouldn't shake HIS hand after
he touched that SLUT!
Jesus came here because God loves HUMAN BEINGS. He didn't say, "when
you grow to the place where you can meet this MARK here, I will wash
you in my blood."
He came here, found us in the s* stew we'd made ourselves, and He
climbed up on a cross and died for us, JUST THE WAY WE ARE.
As hard as we try, some of us will NEVER overcome. We don't have to.
We have to change INSIDE. He's "done all the work."
It's
Post by Chuck Stamford
not going to the movies, it's the movies you go to. It's not the TV you
own, it's what you watch on it. It's not telling the joke, it's what's
supposed to be funny about it.
I don't tell many "filthy jokes", but if someone comes on to me and
tells me a RAUNCHY joke that I find HILARIOUS, I'm gonna laugh.
As for movies, I don't look at the rating; I look at the content.
For example. One of the most interesting murder mysteries I ever
watched (had no idea what was going to happen in the film) was a Meg
Ryan movie, "In The Cut."
Thirty minutes into the movie, there's EXPLICIT SEX.
The movie wasn't popular. You've likely never heard of it.
But that SEX scene was POWERFUL, and the entire movie turned on that
30 seconds.
I wondered "what's the point?" But I finished watching, and I was
shaken.
There actually had been a reason for that "BJ" scene.
To say, I watch "Director's Cuts" and I watch "UnRated" movies,
simply because
I want to see the movie as the director and the writer intended
it.
BEFORE the censors hack it to pieces for the "mass market."
I believe we Christian ADULTS can handle things (it's not going to
KILL me, and I don't have to imitate ugly behavior/ fornication and
MURDER)
The STORY was moving. For me. And that's all I need. "I enjoyed it."
I consider it some of Meg Ryan's best work, and I'm a HUGE Meg Ryan
fan. Jane Campion. the director ALSO did "The Piano." Nicole Kidman
produced it. It was a film involving some "MAJOR PLAYERS."
Post by Chuck Stamford
John, there are very few things in life that are pure evil. In fact, if
your theory of "evil" is that it is the absence of good, then nothing that
actually exists could ever be pure evil.
I personally believe "evil" is anything that's hurtful. I could
probably go past that, but I think that's a good "starting place."
Paul said that he was convinced by
Post by Chuck Stamford
the Spirit of God that there is nothing unclean of itself, and so long as
we're not talking about abstract concepts that can probably be generalized
to almost everything, even though he was talking about food at the time.
^ ^ ^^ Yep. I'm a HUGE fan of Paul. He hated the Pharisees (I call
them "bean counters") as much as Jesus did.
(By "bean counter" I mean the guy who stands besides you
(metaphorically) and counts the "sins" you commit each day " just
living your life.")
Post by Chuck Stamford
However, if you're saying Jesus died simply so we could enjoy life, I'll
have to disagree with you.
No. Not at all.
That's one "side benefit." I said, "Jesus died so we could be
"Free." Free from sin. Free from the "spectra" of death. Free from
illness (in some cases), free from the burden of sorrow (we give that
to HIM).
He didn't simply say, " I came to set men FREE." He actually gave us
a small list. "sin" "worry" ("Let not your heart be troubled") etc.
The liberty He gave us by His shed blood was the
Post by Chuck Stamford
liberty from our selfish concerns, and the liberty from the just
consequences of our failures in love, past, present, and future.
~~~~~~~ eeeeeee.
I still prefer MY version to yours.
You keep yours; I'll keep mine!
He opened
Post by Chuck Stamford
the door of our prison of self-concern, and us able to give our lives away
to the needs of others, secure in the knowledge we cannot out give God, who
promises to give them back abundantly to us as we do.
So there's no reason we cannot be selflessly loving as we laugh and smile,
as we attend a movie or watch something on TV, or tell a joke, but we need
to be aware of our motivations,
And, see? I just will "let my hair down, put my baggies on (;-)/ I
don't WEAR "" baggies""), and "kick my feet up" and just go out and
have me one HELL of a good time!"
My measure of "a good time" and "is everything ok? ("is everything
"" good"" ")
am I alive? Am I in one piece? Is everybody else ok and in one
piece?"
Yep? Then it was a good time! Am I about to get arrested? No? Is
someone's husband/ boyfriend lookin' fer me with a shotgun? No? Then
we had a good time!
for that is the demarcation line between sin
Post by Chuck Stamford
and holiness. Most of our actions in life are either sinful or righteous by
what our reason is for doing them, rather than in and of themselves.
Beyond that thought....
Are you aware? (I've seen this in the Bible/ I promise you. But I
have seen it like TWICE, and I can't find it lately; I'm pretty sure
it's in Proverbs)
" It's wiser to seek FORGIVENESS than it is to seek PERMISSION."
Or, "the wise man seeks forgiveness; the fool seeks PERMISSION."
The lesson I got from that is, "go have a good time. You can always
repent later."
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
We can discuss and debate these various theories all day long, and
even
come
to some conclusion about which one is most likely the truth (or as
close
to
the truth as we're ever likely to get this side of Heaven), and this
can
be
profitable for us to some extent.
My point is that, when a person you know loses a very young child
(let's say the child is 6 months old, and dies)
I believe it's proper to comfort that family as best we can.
So do I, but I temper "best we can" with keeping to the truth. For me,
"best we can" doesn't include telling them something is for sure true
that
I
don't know, and can't know is for sure true.
Let's stop here. I suggest you read my comment on how I know that
David's child went to heaven.
(You just suggested that I would LIE)
Nothing could be further from the truth! I'm sorry that you took it that
way.
Then I'm sorry. That's how I took it.
Post by Chuck Stamford
All I'm suggesting is that you would go beyond what you actually "know" to
be true, and people do that everyday (including myself!) without giving it
the requisite thought to be considering "lying".
Actually, I wouldn't. If I am not quite sure, I keep my mouth
shut.
HOWEVER, I can be 10,000 % positive, and still be wrong.
^ ^ Where we must be OPEN to be corrected. Always.
Post by Chuck Stamford
I hope you understand I never meant to suggest you lie, even for a good
cause.
ok.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I understand where you're coming from; try to understand where I'm
coming from.
Try to open that bright mind a bit and at least be RECEPTIVE.
"Til then!"
john w
I know God is loving and
Post by Chuck Stamford
merciful toward us for sure. I know God is trustworthy, and that all
judgment belongs to Him, for sure. I don't know, for sure, the spiritual
state of ANYONE, and I"m warned by God not to pretend I do. So I can't, in
good conscious, comfort anyone with anything but the truth, for a lie is
poor comfort.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
If I believe I have a SOLID answer on "Can we be CERTAIN that our 6
month old daughter REALLY IS in heaven now, and not burning in the
pit?"
I believe we CAN say, "Absolutely!"
I understand, John. I'm just waiting to hear from you what your
justification is for that belief.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
The God I believe in doesn't punish 6 month old babies who die
without ever having had the chance to "believe" and be baptized.
I believe such belief (and supporting text) is VITAL to our
credibility to the world.
"Well, the way I hear it, you stupid &)(&)*& &&()&)*(& Christians
believe that if a 3-month old baby dies, it goes to the PIT! Because
it "didn't have time to accept Jesus as its savior." < That's why
I'm not a Christian, you (*&)*&)*(& SLOB!"
^ ^ ^ ^ typical rhetoric.
But you and I know that no one ever goes to hell because they "didn't have
time to repent", don't we? The idea presupposes that if God had just let
them have more time, they would have repented, and that God, by taking them
before the time He knew they'd repent and be saved, is the CAUSE of their
eternal punishment!
What's typical about this thinking is the desire to make it God's fault that
people end up in hell. Skeptics have a hundred different rhetorical
arguments, but they all boil down to "God is responsible, not me". I didn't
ask to be born. If God knew me from all eternity, and knew I'd reject Jesus
and end up in hell, then God is morally responsible for my sins because He
went ahead and created me anyway. And on and on and on. The human desire
not to be responsible for the evil we all do is incredibly strong. It
subverts otherwise strong intellects; warps every perception of reality; and
even causes Christians to waver in their faith in God. We have to KNOW
certain people are in heaven, and that we'll be with them again, or we begin
to doubt God. We sometimes find we can't just trust God to do what is
perfectly right concerning someone we love with all of our hearts...as if
we've forgotten God loves them infinitely more and long before we were ever
born! What we need to understand is that brutal honesty is what we need
here, and we need to realize this is SIN in US when we begin to think like
this, not "insight" into the love of God! It's nothing more or less
than
a
failure of faith in us, and it's CERTAINLY not us being more loving than
God!
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
No, we DON'T believe that! And any time I see a Christian spouting
such NONSENSE, I LEAP to correct him / her!
That's pure, unadulterated Calvinism, mixed with mis-interpreted
Roman Catholicism.
It's right out of the pit of hell.
Well, I'll wait to see the Scripture you've found, and, hopefully, for you
to find some way to engage here on a less emotional basis than you seem to
be using at the moment. I'm not a Calvinist nor a Roman Catholic (nor
do
I
view those terms as repositories for the dispicable perspective on biblical
soteriology you've described above!), but I also can't say with certainty
that any given infant who dies is in heaven anymore than I can say any given
adult who dies is in heaven. We're all sinners from the womb, John, and God
is not willing that any perish, but many do according to the Son of God,
Jesus Christ. This is what I know "for sure". What it all means as far as
your infant son (when he was still an infant) or mine, or anyone else's is
something I can kick around with my fellow Christian brothers and
sisters
in
the hope of finding some insight and enlightenment from God, but I can't
"know". Thus my use of the term "theory" here.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
But you should never let not knowing
Post by Chuck Stamford
which is the truth get under your skin, or allow anyone else to do it using
one or another of these theories...because we really already know all the
truth we need to know when we have Jesus Christ as our Lord, don't we?
Well, sorry. On that, I have to say "Yes, and no."
I likewise don't believe that some Australian bushman who dies when
he's 15 and he's never heard the name "Jesus", and he's never heard of
/ or seen a Bible... he doesn't go to hell, simply for being born at
the wrong place and time.
I believe there's a better answer.
I do too, John, but I don't believe it includes us saying "Yes and no" when
it comes to knowing we have all we need when we have Jesus Christ as our
Lord. How can a good answer here, or any where, include NOT having Jesus
Christ as our Lord???
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
No matter how much you love your son, God loves him infinitely more,
and
has
loved him infinitely more from all eternity. There was never an instant
throughout all eternity when God didn't love your son (and every son!) as
much as He loved His own. No matter what happens to your son now or
in
the
future, there is nothing that can separate him from God's love; "...neither
death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present
nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing"
^ ^ ^ ^ On this, we agree.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Regardless of which theory about the disposition of young children we think
is pretty,
we have plenty of reason to trust God with our children.
^ ^ ^ ^ There, you go!
I know we're in basic agreement on the love of God, John. I'd still
like
to
see the Scripture you've found that makes it so clear for you that all
infants who die go to heaven, and why you see that biblical passage as so
clearly saying this. I'd also be willing to discuss further some of these
various "theories" (for lack of a more precise term), their merits and
weaknesses, if you think that would be something we could both profit from.
Chuck Stamford
Al Smith
2008-07-03 14:12:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
All I intended to say is I have a personal stake in believing young
children aren't condemned merely because they didn't live long enough
to become aware and "believe in Jesus."
On a PERSONAL note, my dad's big sister died shortly after birth,
and because of my beliefs, I believe she's in heaven. She was born to
a Christian family, and I believe had she lived 10 years, she would
have been born again.
I think you are correct, young children cannot be damned. Not for
what they did in their lives, since their lives were too brief and
new for them to commit sins.

However, extend this concept to the rest of the world, and to all
the good men and women in the past and the present who are not
Christians, but who have lived exemplary lives. Surely, they cannot
be damned, either?

-Al-
john w <j@yahoo.com>
2008-07-03 21:11:03 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:12:10 GMT, Al Smith <***@address.com>
wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Al Smith
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
All I intended to say is I have a personal stake in believing young
children aren't condemned merely because they didn't live long enough
to become aware and "believe in Jesus."
On a PERSONAL note, my dad's big sister died shortly after birth,
and because of my beliefs, I believe she's in heaven. She was born to
a Christian family, and I believe had she lived 10 years, she would
have been born again.
I think you are correct, young children cannot be damned. Not for
what they did in their lives, since their lives were too brief and
new for them to commit sins.
However, extend this concept to the rest of the world, and to all
the good men and women in the past and the present who are not
Christians, but who have lived exemplary lives. Surely, they cannot
be damned, either?
A "good man or woman" who hears about Jesus Christ, who hears the
gospel, and who says, "I'll let my """ good works """ "get me in", I
will not believe in, I will not submit to, I will not obey, this Jesus
Christ. I will not read His Bible, I will not worship Him. I will
worship myself."

^ ^ ^ ^ That person will not be saved. That person will not be
going to Heaven. One such WORLD-FAMOUS example of the above arrogance
that will keep "a good man or woman" out of Heaven, is

Oprah Winfrey.

"Jesus just CAN'T be, "The only way." He just CAN'T!"

--- Oprah Winfrey.

She REFUSES to believe; it's not like she "hasn't heard."
Post by Al Smith
-Al-
Sensi
2008-07-03 21:51:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Al Smith
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
All I intended to say is I have a personal stake in believing young
children aren't condemned merely because they didn't live long enough
to become aware and "believe in Jesus."
On a PERSONAL note, my dad's big sister died shortly after birth,
and because of my beliefs, I believe she's in heaven. She was born to
a Christian family, and I believe had she lived 10 years, she would
have been born again.
I think you are correct, young children cannot be damned. Not for
what they did in their lives, since their lives were too brief and
new for them to commit sins.
However, extend this concept to the rest of the world, and to all
the good men and women in the past and the present who are not
Christians, but who have lived exemplary lives. Surely, they cannot
be damned, either?
A "good man or woman" who hears about Jesus Christ, who hears the
gospel, and who says, "I'll let my """ good works """ "get me in", I
will not believe in, I will not submit to, I will not obey, this Jesus
Christ. I will not read His Bible, I will not worship Him. I will
worship myself."
^ ^ ^ ^ That person will not be saved. That person will not be
going to Heaven. One such WORLD-FAMOUS example of the above arrogance
that will keep "a good man or woman" out of Heaven, is
Oprah Winfrey.
"Jesus just CAN'T be, "The only way." He just CAN'T!"
--- Oprah Winfrey.
She REFUSES to believe; it's not like she "hasn't heard."
Post by Al Smith
-Al-
Sensi:
Oprah Winfrey is a talk show host she is not an evangelical
preacher. A good talk show host is open minded to all
possibilities. I've heard her say there are many paths to
God and I do not think for one second that she has ever said
"Jesus can't be, the only way. He just can't."

In following Jesus it's not the outer shell of his
physicalness you follow it's his inner heart where the
bounties of goodness exist such as tolerance, patience,
love, mercy etc. Those things are the WAY to heaven.
We cannot act like God didn't provide us with those
qualities to make life easier.

It's love thy neighbor as thyself
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Love God with all your mind, heart and soul.

That's following Jesus!

Sensi
john w <j@yahoo.com>
2008-07-04 06:44:46 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 16:51:38 -0500, Sensi <***@yahoo.com>
wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Sensi
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Al Smith
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
All I intended to say is I have a personal stake in believing young
children aren't condemned merely because they didn't live long enough
to become aware and "believe in Jesus."
On a PERSONAL note, my dad's big sister died shortly after birth,
and because of my beliefs, I believe she's in heaven. She was born to
a Christian family, and I believe had she lived 10 years, she would
have been born again.
I think you are correct, young children cannot be damned. Not for
what they did in their lives, since their lives were too brief and
new for them to commit sins.
However, extend this concept to the rest of the world, and to all
the good men and women in the past and the present who are not
Christians, but who have lived exemplary lives. Surely, they cannot
be damned, either?
A "good man or woman" who hears about Jesus Christ, who hears the
gospel, and who says, "I'll let my """ good works """ "get me in", I
will not believe in, I will not submit to, I will not obey, this Jesus
Christ. I will not read His Bible, I will not worship Him. I will
worship myself."
^ ^ ^ ^ That person will not be saved. That person will not be
going to Heaven. One such WORLD-FAMOUS example of the above arrogance
that will keep "a good man or woman" out of Heaven, is
Oprah Winfrey.
"Jesus just CAN'T be, "The only way." He just CAN'T!"
--- Oprah Winfrey.
She REFUSES to believe; it's not like she "hasn't heard."
Post by Al Smith
-Al-
Oprah Winfrey is a talk show host she is not an evangelical
preacher.
Please don't speak for Oprah Winfrey. I can give you my opinion of
her; you can't tell me what she is or isn't.

Oprah on the one hand CLAIMS to be a Christian. Then she flat
contradicts herself when she says (as she did recently), "I'm a
Christian who believes there are MANY ways to heaven."

She has most recently (no surprise) indicated (and done multiple
shows about ) her new-found belief in Re-Incarnation.

But, back to your point, she CLAIMS to be an evangelical preacher.
She has recently announced that she would just LOVE it if she earned
the title "America's pastor/preacher."

A good talk show host is open minded to all
Post by Sensi
possibilities.
A good talk show host who claims to be a Christian is not "open to
all possibilities."

Couldn't you be super-imposing YOUR views over Oprah's?

I've heard her say there are many paths to
Post by Sensi
God
Oh, good! Then you HAVE heard that!

and I do not think for one second that she has ever said
Post by Sensi
"Jesus can't be, the only way. He just can't."
Then you've missed that. She has said it on several shows.

If you'd like to go to YouTube.com, and type "Oprah " into the
search engine, you can hear it for yourself!

"Thank God for modern technology!

People who were either delighted or OUTRAGED at her flat DENIAL of
basic Christianity RECORDED it (evidently on palm-sized video
cameras), and POSTED it on YouTube. I've seen it multiple times.

"Educate yourself." In the meantime, you truly don't know what
you're talking about.
Post by Sensi
In following Jesus it's not the outer shell of his
physicalness you follow it's his inner heart where the
bounties of goodness exist such as tolerance, patience,
love, mercy etc.
"Oh, please! " Don't tell me who or what I follow.

Your "mind control techniques", your "Jedi power of suggestion"
bounces off me.


Those things are the WAY to heaven.
Post by Sensi
We cannot act like God didn't provide us with those
qualities to make life easier.
Don't tell me how I can and can't act.

Tell me how YOU can or can't act.

AGAIN, you are no Jedi knight, and you don't need to try your mind
control techniques HERE.
Post by Sensi
It's love thy neighbor as thyself
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Love God with all your mind, heart and soul.
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ And you don't!

Jesus also said, "Obey me!" You don't.

Jesus likewise said, "If you would follow me:

Go, sell EVERYTHING you own, give it ALL AWAY.
THEN, go get a cross (a 150 pounder) toss it over your shoulder, and
then come looking for me.

^ ^ ^ ^ You haven't done ANY of that yet!

^ ^ ^ ^ THAT IS Following the Lord Jesus!

You keep forgetting the KEY WORD: "Lord."
Post by Sensi
That's following Jesus!
Sensi
Al Smith
2008-07-03 22:28:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
On a PERSONAL note, my dad's big sister died shortly after birth,
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
and because of my beliefs, I believe she's in heaven. She was born to
a Christian family, and I believe had she lived 10 years, she would
have been born again.
I think you are correct, young children cannot be damned. Not for
what they did in their lives, since their lives were too brief and
new for them to commit sins.
However, extend this concept to the rest of the world, and to all
the good men and women in the past and the present who are not
Christians, but who have lived exemplary lives. Surely, they cannot
be damned, either?
A "good man or woman" who hears about Jesus Christ, who hears the
gospel, and who says, "I'll let my """ good works """ "get me in", I
will not believe in, I will not submit to, I will not obey, this Jesus
Christ. I will not read His Bible, I will not worship Him. I will
worship myself."
^ ^ ^ ^ That person will not be saved. That person will not be
going to Heaven. One such WORLD-FAMOUS example of the above arrogance
that will keep "a good man or woman" out of Heaven, is
Oprah Winfrey.
I don't see what hearing about Jesus, and refusing to worship him,
has to do with anything. It doesn't change the merits of the good
works. Perhaps the person refuses to follow Jesus because his has
his own cultural tradition. Would you expect a devout Buddhist to
suddenly declare himself a Christian? If he does not, why should he
be any more damned than if he had never heard of Jesus?

-Al-
john w <j@yahoo.com>
2008-07-04 06:45:54 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 22:28:25 GMT, Al Smith <***@address.com>
wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Al Smith
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
On a PERSONAL note, my dad's big sister died shortly after birth,
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
and because of my beliefs, I believe she's in heaven. She was born to
a Christian family, and I believe had she lived 10 years, she would
have been born again.
I think you are correct, young children cannot be damned. Not for
what they did in their lives, since their lives were too brief and
new for them to commit sins.
However, extend this concept to the rest of the world, and to all
the good men and women in the past and the present who are not
Christians, but who have lived exemplary lives. Surely, they cannot
be damned, either?
A "good man or woman" who hears about Jesus Christ, who hears the
gospel, and who says, "I'll let my """ good works """ "get me in", I
will not believe in, I will not submit to, I will not obey, this Jesus
Christ. I will not read His Bible, I will not worship Him. I will
worship myself."
^ ^ ^ ^ That person will not be saved. That person will not be
going to Heaven. One such WORLD-FAMOUS example of the above arrogance
that will keep "a good man or woman" out of Heaven, is
Oprah Winfrey.
I don't see what hearing about Jesus, and refusing to worship him,
has to do with anything.
I understand that. And that's why you and I have essentially
nothing to discuss.

But that statement essentially is why you call yourself "Christian,"
and I say you're not.

SNIP
john w <j@yahoo.com>
2008-07-03 12:23:19 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 01:23:58 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
<shell-***@cox.net> wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 13:17:57 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 09:40:27 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 17:45:01 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
John, just wanted to point out that there are many theories about the
spiritual state of children who die before they reach the age of reason.
I agree. And I don't know why. I believe scripture-- though
obscure-- if you find the right passages, is quite clear.
I believe the scripture on this issue is very clear.
If you read the passage about the death of King David's infant son, I
don't see how the text could be any more clear.
You mean 2 Samuel 12:15:23? If so, you'll have to explain to me how you see
this as "clear" as to the spiritual state of the child, because I don't see
a word in this text concerning that.
Before we get into this or anything else, I want to address your
understanding that I suggested you would lie to comfort someone who had lost
a small child by telling them something you knew wasn't true. That's not
what I had in mind at all, John. I don't want to go into a whole big
explanation here, but there are a lot of things you don't know about me,
just as there are a lot of things I don't know about you, and one of the
things you don't know about me is how much time I've spent studying
epistemology; especially the modern Christian philosophers, such as
Plantinga and Alston. So when I say you would go beyond what you know to be
true, I'm not talking about you saying something other than what you believe
to be the case, which would be lying. I'm saying you believe you know, what
you don't actually "know" in the epistemological sense of "know".
I may be wrong in saying it, but I'm not suggesting you lie.
Now onto what you've got here for an argument for your position that all
small children go to heaven...
Sorry. Now that I've read pretty much to the bottom of this (after
chopping ROUGHLY half-way through:

I say up front that I'm not the best communicator.

You say I have falsely accused you; perhaps it's better to say I
haven't understood you.

We also seem to have problems BOTH ways with COMMUNICATING.

Rather than there being hurt feelings both ways or either way (I've
said things that REALLY pissed you off/ and vice versa [ yeah, you got
me REALLY boiling a few times with YOUR ASSUMPTIONS]

I suggest a cooling off period.

It may also be good for us to not get into deep discussions.

The best!

^ ^ ^ ^ That's by way of me APOLOGIZING.


john w
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Certainly. It's certainly not my original thinking. And--
admittedly-- you must do a little " 2 + 2 = 4".
I assume by that you mean I'll need to apply a few self-evidently true
premises to what's actually given? If so, that's not a problem.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
2SA 12:15 After Nathan had gone home, the LORD struck the child
that Uriah's wife had borne to David, and he became ill. 16 David
pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and went into his house and
spent the nights lying on the ground. 17 The elders of his household
stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he
would not eat any food with them.
2SA 12:18 On the seventh day the child died. David's servants were
afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, "While
the child was still living, we spoke to David but he would not listen
to us. How can we tell him the child is dead? He may do something
desperate."
2SA 12:19 David noticed that his servants were whispering among
themselves and he realized the child was dead. "Is the child dead?" he
asked.
"Yes," they replied, "he is dead."
2SA 12:20 Then David got up from the ground. After he had washed,
put on lotions and changed his clothes, he went into the house of the
LORD and worshiped. Then he went to his own house, and at his request
they served him food, and he ate.
2SA 12:21 His servants asked him, "Why are you acting this way?
While the child was alive, you fasted and wept, but now that the child
is dead, you get up and eat!"
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
2SA 12:22 He answered, "While the child was still alive,
I fasted and wept. I thought, `Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to
me and let the child live.'
23 But now that he is dead, why should I fast?
Can I bring him back again? ["No" ]
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
I will go to him, but he will not return to me."
[[[[ This last 10 (or so ) words are the key. If we believe (as I
do, as you MUST), that King David is-- today-- in Heaven with all the
other FAITHFUL Jews (scripture calls him a "man after God's own heart)
If we believe that David is-- today-- in Heaven, and I do...
And if David was told (by God in this passage), "I WILL GO TO him! [
his son./ IOW, I will one day to go him where he went [ heaven]; he
will not RETURN to me (here on earth)
We KNOW David's destination. He's in heaven. If he's going where his
son has gone, and we KNOW David went to heaven, then that's where his
son MUST be.
Okay, I'm going to break in here, because what follows uses your conclusion
here as a true premise in your further argumentation below (i.e., the "Now
if David's 7 day old child went to heaven...etc.). That further argument
then would be invalid if this premise were not true, or couldn't be shown to
be true. So the question at this point is, have you shown it to be true,
under the inspiration of God (i.e. the Psalms, and perhaps one or two of his
recorded utterances in his personal history (basically 2 Samuel and 1
Chronicles, once we get past the genealogies of chapters 1-9 in 1 Chron.),
and the words of other inspired authors (the author of 1 Samuel and 1
Chronicles) recording the words he uttered in life. There is no question at
all from me that the former are inerrant, because they are inspired by God
according to my belief that all Scripture is inspired. The second category,
though, is not inspired, anymore than Moses was inspired to argue with God
that he couldn't go to Pharaoh and tell him to let God's people go, because
he was slow of speech. The examples of people in the Bible we are certain
are in heaven, saying things we know are wrong are quite numerous. Jesus
called Peter "Satan" for what he once said, and I've NO DOUBTS about Peter's
present spiritual state of being!
So it's POSSIBLE that when David said he would go to be with his son, he was
simply wrong. I'm not saying he was wrong. I don't have to. All I need
here for a defeater for your argument thus far is the "possibility" that
David was wrong, and that's being the case (that David was POSSIBLY wrong)
clearly has a great deal of biblical support.
^ ^ ^^ "clearly has a great deal of biblical support..."
^ ^ ^ I disagree.
I've just heard too many scholars say this: Unless other scripture
CLEARLY says OTHERWISE, we must take the text "at face value."
Many could argue, "well, there's FAR too much "SCIENCE" for us to
believe LITERALLY the Adam and Eve account. BUT, if we consider A & E
a "nice story" , a "metaphor", that "resolves a lot of questions."
^ ^ For a Christian, that "solution" creates more issues than it
resolves.
I won't go into that; it goes to far afield from MY Point.
Unless you can show me overwhelming evidence that newborns DON'T go
to heaven AUTOMATICALLY [ and you can't/ my mind is as closed as a
bear trap here: I WILL NOT believe that God would cast a 5-day old
infant into the pit!!]
There in fact is no further point in debating. I personally (me)
don't believe in endless debating.
I believe your view is QUITE Calvinistic. One thing I DON'T do is
get into LONG discussions (debates) with atheists, Calvinists, and
others of a "set in concrete" mindset.
Not intended for a "put-down."
I believe there are a vast number (more than I can count) of areas
where we Christians can sincerely DISAGREE.
So do I, John, and I've no problem with us disagreeing on this issue.
However, I must say that since I haven't even given you the theory I think
is best here, I don't understand how you can reach any conclusions about it,
as you seem to have done in comparing it to Calvinism, etc. above.
I also don't understand how what we're doing here can correctly be
characterized as a "debate". You obviously have a solid pov here that
you're willing to defend by formal argument (as opposed to the heated, loud
kind), but I STARTED all this by saying I didn't.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
We'll agreed to disagree on this one.
You have your reasons (you will call it "scripture") for why God
would ABSOLUTELY CAST A 5-DAY OLD INTO THE PIT FOR ETERNITY.
I have my reasons for believing He would not.
Again, I want to stress I don't have any dog in this hunt, John. All I've
been doing it trying to show you the weakness in your argument. That
doesn't mean I know your conclusion from it is wrong. I don't. How could
I? It is certainly possible to arrive at a belief that is true using an
invalid argument.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Without going into detail, an aunt of mine (dad's older sister) was
essentially "still-born". She lived-- I believe-- about 3 days. Don't
recall exactly how long she was "among us." But dad had a big sister
who "didn't make it." He ended up being the oldest child who survived.
I'm not sure how your families personal history relates to whether or not
your argument in support of your belief is strong or weak, but I'm
interested anyway, so say on...
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
It's been the family's hope (we're all Christians, at some level)
that dad's big sis is in Heaven. He obviously never knew his big
sister, and he refused to ever say much about her, other than what
he'd heard from his momma and daddy (deep South). But of what he'd
heard, he was deeply enamored of his "big sissy."
You're suggesting " she didn't necessarily get to Heaven."
Pardon me for not even entertaining that possibility.
Hey, I'll go even farther, and tell you I'm not sure I'M going to get to
Heaven! That should settle for you whether or not I'm a Calvinist! ;-)
And I'm not asking you to do anything but let your God given intellect work
here unhindered by your emotions, because feelings are never the path to
truth. Maybe that makes me a "cold fish", I don't know.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
So what your argument above boils down to is taking David's word for it that
his child was in heaven, and I've no more reason to do that than I have to
take your word for it that someone is in heaven.
If that works for you, I have no problem with that idea FOR you.
It doesn't work for me.
Well let's just drop the discussion about children who die, and what happens
to them, and focus in on what I was just trying to bring out. Answer me
this: Excluding where an inspired author of Scripture quotes the Father,
Son, or Spirit (or a hevenly angelic messanger, or God speaking through one
of His prophets), can we rely on what a biblical personage says to the same
extent we can rely on what an author of Scripture writes?
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Even if I AGREE with you,
Post by Chuck Stamford
and believe someone is in heaven that you also believe is in heaven, I won't
have that belief based on your say so.
It's not "my say so."
Likewise, if you're wise, you won't
Post by Chuck Stamford
believe someone is in heaven on my say so. David was just as big a sinner,
and just as much in need of salvation by the grace of God as you or me.
He was likewise a prophet of God, and God "authorized him" to write
that into a book that has been preserved for the ages.
But John, we don't know that David wrote that book, and there's absolutely
no evidence he did. That's my whole point. Only when David is speaking as
an inspired prophet of God can we truly rely on what he says to be true.
Remember when the Amalakite slew Saul out of mercy, because Saul lay
mortally wounded, and asked him to put him out of his misery? When the man
came and told David (which he didn't have to do; he had the gold crown right
in his hand, and could have just made off with it and become rich, but
"Your blood is on your own head, for your own mouth has testified against
you, saying, 'I have killed the LORD s anointed."2 Sam 1:16
Well, there's some truth in that, but come on! The man had mercy on Saul!
He was forthright enough about it to bring Saul's royal crown and bracelet
to David, even recognizing God's chosen and anointed successor. Was it
really true that his blood was upon his own head, as David said? Or was
David acting on emotion, and overreacting?
Let's jump right to the famous BIGGY, shall we?
"Thus you shall say to Joab: 'Do not let this thing displease you, for the
sword devours one as well as another. 2 Sam 11:25
It was a bald-faced lie that David thought Uriah had been killed because
"the sword devours one as well as another", for it was by the plan of David,
with the aid of Joab, that Uriah had been killed in the battle. Uriah
didn't die as other men die in battle. He died as the result of a
successful murder plot hatched by David, and carried out by David's right
hand, Joab.
Since we have at least one example of an inspired author of Scripture
(probably Samuel, btw, but no one knows for sure) recording David telling a
lie, and perhaps another of him making a poor judgment and giving a
problematic verdict in the case of the Amalakite man, it's beyond plausible
disputation that David is capable of lying or being mistaken when he speaks,
because we have clear examples of him doing just that!
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
Therefore, we would be foolish to grant his word an authority here it
simply doesn't have,and for which we have biblical example after example is
untrustworty.
"Ok." I hereby give you permission [ tap of sword on your noggin ]
to believe as it makes sense to you.
;-)
please see the friendly humor.
Yeah, I do, John, but I think you're using it to avoid what you can see, but
don't want to.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
If you can find for me somewhere in the Psalms that Daivd says his son went
to heaven, either expressly and directly, or implicitly (so long as it's a
LOGICAL implication, and thus necessarily true), then THAT would be proof,
What I have showed you is sufficient for me.
I'm sorry if it doesn't work for you. One of our pastors (one of
the "Drs") pointed that out; I've been to so many churches, I can't
tell you which Dr pointed it out. Take your pick: Dr Carpenter, Dr
Pegg, Dr Fickett, Dr Wilson, Dr Moody, Dr Stringfellow...
The "non-Calvinists".
You're just convinced I'm a Calvinist, aren't you! Tell me, is there
anything I can say that will convince you I'm not? ;-)
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
because THAT is the inspired word of God given through David. I believe we
can stand upon the inspired word of God to make our arguments, but we can't
stand on the word of man to do it...not even a man like David.
What I see, Chuck, is that you feel quite free to discard/ disregard
those passages you find "uncomfortable, ugly, disagreeable, or those
that take you where you don't wish to go."
Well then here is where we're going to have our first serious disagreement,
because nothing could be farther from the truth, and I resent the
implication. I'm not one of those who starts with a belief, and then spends
a lifetime scurrying around trying to find some good reason to have it. I
go wherever the evidence leads, and ONLY where the evidence leads. I'm
interested only in knowing what's true; not what makes me feel good, or
comfortable, or secure. I'd rather spend my life terrified by what true,
than cozy and warm with what's false. And I take your suggestion about my
motivation (since you DON'T know me at all yet!), as a way to deflect a
defeater I've shown you that you'd, by your own admission, rather not see.
You forget yourself, John. YOU'RE the only one here with a positon to
protect. The rest is your imagination. I'd be perfectly happy for you to
be right. I'm just not going to shut off the mind God gave me to grant it
to you. I've asked you to show me, and I would have been happier if you
did. I don't get more joy out of not knowing, but I can't say you did
something I understand all too well you didn't just to feel better.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Likewise, I'm going to feel free to disregard Paul's prohibitions on
adultery and fornication, and Jesus' prohibition on polygamy. I
personally think it would be a kick, if I had 100 Million dollars a
year income, to have at LEAST 5 wives!
He was
Post by Chuck Stamford
clearly a "man after" God's own heart, but whatever that means it can't mean
David was never wrong.
ok.
I just don't find nearly as much justification as others do to
disregard stuff we see in there that we don't like.
You keep assuming the only reason I'd reject your use of 2 Samuel 12 is
because I "don't like it". Why? Why would you think that?
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
So I'm at LEAST going to discard any passages that forbid
fornication.
I've also decided now, that I'm going to take up bank robbery and
embezzling, and internet bank "cracking" as my new livelihoods.
;-)
Ah, this isn't you being funny afaic; in case you're interested.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
If David CAN be wrong, we can't say with any
Post by Chuck Stamford
certainly he was right to say his son was in heaven.
And this brings me to the second weakness in your argument above: since
David only says he will go to the place his son went when he died, just how
sure are we David meant heaven? We are, after all, talking about the same
Well, then, you are suggesting that David (who was, after all HUMAN)
didn't go to Heaven! You believe he's in Hell!
"Gotcha!"
I'm not suggesting any such thing! If you've studied any of those men whose
names you dropped above to anything like a significant degree, you must have
run across the fact that in David's time the Israelities had a concept of
"sheol" that we don't; that they had some sort of belief that when a person
died, they remained in the grave, or "sheol". So...
Then David spoke to the LORD the words of this song...I will call upon the
LORD, who is worthy to be praised; So shall I be saved from my enemies. 5
'When the waves of death surrounded me, The floods of ungodliness made me
afraid. 6 The sorrows of Sheol surrounded me; The snares of death confronted
me. 7 In my distress I called upon the LORD, And cried out to my God; He
heard my voice from His temple, And my cry entered His ears. 2 Sam 22:1-7
Return, O LORD, deliver me! Oh, save me for Your mercies' sake! 5 For in
death there is no remembrance of You; In the grave who will give You thanks?
Psalms 6:4-5 (NKJV - note here the word "grave" is the English translation
of the Hebrew "sheol")
That He would show you the secrets of wisdom! For they would double your
prudence. Know therefore that God exacts from you Less than your iniquity
deserves. 7 "Can you search out the deep things of God? Can you find out the
limits of the Almighty? 8 They are higher than heaven--what can you do?
Deeper than Sheol--what can you know? 9 Their measure is longer than the
earth And broader than the sea. Job 11:6-9 (NKJV; clearly the speaker thinks
of "sheol" as a real place for the dead)
My days are past, My purposes are broken off, Even the thoughts of my heart.
12 They change the night into day; 'The light is near,' they say, in the
face of darkness. 13 If I wait for the grave as my house, If I make my bed
in the darkness, 14 If I say to corruption, 'You are my father,' And to the
worm, 'You are my mother and my sister,' 15 Where then is my hope? As for my
hope, who can see it? 16 Will they go down to the gates of Sheol? Shall we
have rest together in the dust?" Job 17:11-16 (NKJV)
Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoices; My flesh also will rest
in hope. 10 For You will not leave my soul in Sheol, Nor will You allow Your
Holy One to see corruption.Psalms 16:9-10 (NKJV)
I will praise you, O Lord my God, with all my heart; I will glorify your
name forever. 13 For great is your love toward me; you have delivered me
from the depths of the grave.Psalms 86:12-13 (NIV, which provides a footnote
citing the fact they've translated "sheol" as "grave")
The cords of death entangled me, the anguish of the grave came upon me; I
"O LORD, save me!" Psalms 116:3-4 (NIV' same thing here)
Therefore Sheol has enlarged itself And opened its mouth beyond measure;
Their glory and their multitude and their pomp, And he who is jubilant,
shall descend into it. Isaiah 5:14 (NKJV)
I said, In the noontide of my days I shall go into the gates of Sheol: I am
deprived of the residue of my years. Isaiah 38:10 (ASV)
John, there's about 63 uses of sheol in the OT, and at least 31 of them
refer to the "grave" as a place where the dead rest. David himself uses
this idea. Therefore, I'm not so much as stretching a biblical concept when
I say David could have very well meant he would go to his son in the grave
when he said he would go to his dead son, but his dead son wouldn't come to
him.
I'm truly sorry if that fact causes you concern, but it is what it is I'm
afraid.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
Return, O LORD, deliver me! Oh, save me for Your mercies' sake! 5 For in
death there is no remembrance of You; In the grave who will give You thanks?
Psalms 6:4-5
There is an opinion circulating among some scholars that David--
and his famous wise son, were both bi-polar.
David wrote both from the mountaintop, and from his visions of the
grave during his "depression" phases.
One can't enjoy the "mountaintop " view if one hasn't likewise
experienced the grave through David's eyes.
Sorry, but I don't agree with any of this. I don't agree with those
"scholars", whoever they are, that we can say with any degree of certainty
David and Solomon were bi-polar. I don't agree that David wrote while
clinically depressed, or from the midst of religious ecstasy. Nor do I
believe one must first have a "mountaintop" experience before one can
experience the depths of the human state.
I don't believe any of this, because I have no evidence to support any of
it.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
My eye wastes away because of affliction. LORD, I have called daily upon
You; I have stretched out my hands to You. 10 Will You work wonders for the
dead? Shall the dead arise and praise You? Selah 11 Shall Your
lovingkindness be declared in the grave? Or Your faithfulness in the place
of destruction? 12 Shall Your wonders be known in the dark? And Your
righteousness in the land of forgetfulness? Psalms 88:9-12
Whatever the other theological and soteriological issues are here, clearly
David, as he writes the above, is at least entertaining the belief that he
will go to the grave when he dies,
I actually never saw it that way.
Go back and re-read, and see this as a vivid, very personal
introspection of David having a "depression " episode as a bi-polar.
Give me a reason why I should think David bi-polar and I will.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
You may not relate to that, but -- being bi-polar myself -- I
relate.
I have had days when I SOARED, and Earth was FAR beneath my feet.
I've had days when I was so low, I couldn't see the soles of your
shoes!
I'm sorry to hear that. I'm not bi-polar, nor do I have radical emotional
swings as things change.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
for that is what he is asking God to
Post by Chuck Stamford
rescue him from. So it may be the case that any belief David had that he
would go to heaven immediately when he died is something we project back
upon him from our vantage point in the history of God's salvation that he
didn't really have himself.
I think sometimes, we must project. I believe at other times, when
we project, we "get in the way " of what God's trying to say to us.
It has been by laying aside ALL my "understanding" of what scripture
actually SAYS that I was able to see WHAT SCRIPTURE ACTUALLY SAYS.
Sorry, but that's a little to "Zen" for me. One of my pet peeves concerning
Eastern philosophies (I'm not sure it's correct to call Buddhism and Taoism,
etc. "religions") is their absolute joy in contradictions.
If you want me to understand a premise you're using, it would be best if
it's not a self-refuting one. I'm not impressed by sayings like, "I never
really understood how bachelors could be married until I saw that they
sometimes were" Stuff like that carries zero weight with me.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
If that's even partially true, then it follows
Post by Chuck Stamford
that David may well have been thinking of the grave when he said he would go
to his dead son, but his dead son would never return to him.
Well, I can certainly see a real NEGATIVITY to your thinking.
I'll be happy to pray with you over that.
Why do you say my thinking is negative?
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
In any case, John, I think you can see why I can't agree with you that your
argument above is as sound as "2 + 2 = 4".
Actually, I can't. I understand where you're coming from, but I
can't / won't "go there."
And-- beyond that, AGAIN, "my view works for me." And you've
actually given me no reason to adopt your view on things.
Obviously, since I've not given you any view to adopt! John, it begins to
appear to me as if a lot of what I do as far as you're concerned resides
mainly in your assumptions about me, rather than in what I've actually done.
You think I'm a Calvinist. I'm not. I'm a non-denominational, evangelical
Christian. You think I prejudge evidence, and cherry-pick it to suit what I
believe. I've never done that in my life, and I'm sixty! You think I
believe God sends babies to hell. I don't. You think my thinking is warped
by negativity, when all I've done here is construct a defeater argument to
show you the weaknesses in yours. Where I come from, that's doing someone a
favor!
These assumptions you're making about me are beginning to pile up, John, and
pretty soon they're going to become a real obstacle to any further
communication, because eventually you're going to be responding to someone
entirely different than I am!
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
You may be right for all I know,
Post by Chuck Stamford
but I also know that your justification isn't necessarily true, as are
self-evident propositions like "2 + 2 = 4" or "all bachelors are
unmarried", etc.
I guess I should have prefaced all this with, "this works for ME."
Which is the criteria Paul gave us. "Let each of you be[come]
convinced in his own mind, and live in peace, if that's at all
possible."
^ ^ ^^ That's actually a "combined teaching" taken from SEVERAL
verses.
That's what I call putting the best face on it. It's also belaboring the
obvious when you're talking to me.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
You're convinced. God bless you. You're convinced that "you just
don't know."
I can live with your uncertainty.
I am likewise convinced of my POV. (I believe it's self-evident that
I wouldn't have presented it, if I hadn't been confident.)
And it follows, since your premise above is not
Post by Chuck Stamford
necessarily true, that your argument below that uses it is leads to a
conclusion that is likewise not necessarily true.
"Fair enough." not true for you/ true as gold for me.
I hope you understand that what you're doing here is retreating into
subjectivity from a valid argument that's been presented to you for
analysis. And that when you're not retreating into this haze of subjective
"truth", you're analyzing ME, instead of the argument I gave you. Neither
of which is what I had in mind in doing this with you, so perhaps the best
thing to do here is simply end the discussion.
I'm sorry if I've disturbed you in any way.
God bless
Chuck Stamford
PS - about the grammar lesson that comes next; it was a typo, John. It came
after I'd typed "it's" about six times just prior, which makes me wonder why
you'd jump to the conclusion I didn't know the difference between "its" and
"it's". I guess jumping to conclusions is just a tendency you have. You
certainly seem to do it a lot.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Now if David's 7 day old child went to heaven (he was innocent/ he
wasn't old enough to have committed even his first sin),
Why would God condemn other infants if He didn't condemn David's
infant child?
Answer: God doesn't condemn infants. That notion (you may well have
gotten from Calvin) is not true.
I believe / you say you believe / in a merciful God. A merciful God
doesn't cast infants into hell merely because they didn't live long
enough to hear the gospel and respond.
Even if David's baby HAD lived long enough, he was a few CENTURIES
before Jesus!
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
Some of them seem to me more reasonable than others, as I'm sure they would
for you too, but that's hardly where our hope lies. Our hope and trust
reside, when all is said and done, in the love of God, a absolute love
guided in everything it does by an absolute power controlled perfectly
by
an
absolutely perfect Mind!
Ok. However, I see no problem with using the text that is there,
when we find it, and when it "speaks to us very clearly."
Neither do I. I've just never found such a text. I'm anxious for you to
show me what you've found.
I am glad that you are anxious, and I hope my explanation satisfies.
It did. I just don't see it as the strong argument you do, and for the
reasons I went into at length above. It's AN argument, and it's not
incoherent, which means it's a valid argument; it's just not a "sound"
argument in the technical meaning of that term.
"Oh, boy! You're one of THEM!" ;-)
If it were a sound
Post by Chuck Stamford
argument, then we would be rational and wise to rely upon it's conclusion,
but since it's only a valid argument, doing that is risky.
On a totally different subject, if you will allow me to correct your
grammar?
You've done something wrong above. Let me show you.
The word "it's" is ALWAYS, ONLY a contraction of the two words, "it"
and "is". So, every time you say "it's", you are actually saying "it
is".
In the above,
If it were a sound argument, then we would be rational and wise to
rely upon it's conclusion, but since it's only a valid argument, doing
that is risky.
You used "it's" wrong the first time ( rely upon it is conclusion),
and right the 2nd time ( but since it is only a valid argument..)
I hope that doesn't upset you, and I hope you have learned something.
English is a language I LOVE. Knowing it and being able to apply it
correctly in MOST cases has been my livelihood, and I've made a LOT of
$$$.
If you don't appreciate that, I'm sorry in advance.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Next to that the best of the theories pales into
Post by Chuck Stamford
insignificance.
I don't consider my "position" on this issue "theoretical."
Ah...that's a dangerous attitude.
It can be. On the other hand, I have been told that my absolutely
certain conviction that I am born again and Heaven bound is dangerous.
That such a delusion will keep me from bringing others the truth.
It hasn't yet!
Could not be happier to hear it.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
In my thirty years as a Christian I've
Post by Chuck Stamford
watched literally scores of people take that attitude and walk right over
the crazy cliff with it.
Well, granted, I probably don't see MANY things exactly the same way
you see them. That's fine. I'm in a different place, and I minister
to a different crowd than you.
I am not in the same place today that *I* was in 30 years ago!
I was raised to be a tee- totaler. Imagine my surprise a few years
back, when the Lord showed me that the 1st century Christians were
DRINKING alcohol in CHURCH and getting drunk!
Imagine my total exasperation to find POLYGAMY in the first century
church!
^ ^ ^^ That was a wake-up call!
Hey, as long as you see the danger, you probably won't be hurt by it, which
is my only concern here. What you're discribing above I'd call maturing in
the Lord. My point was there's a difference between growing in the Lord and
going out of one's way to dance on the edge of a cliff just because you can.
^ ^ ^ ^ ^Been there, done that, I'm writing a book about it. (Isn't
everybody? )
One thing God showed me about 5 years ago, is, "John, all this
freedom you're enjoying could get you turned into "road kill."
Yes, you're "FREE", but let's be INTELLIGENT about it, shall we?"
If you haven't been there, "Trust me on that."
[ I will have to hope you'll forgive me. I wrote this MUCH longer,
then realized it was good enough for my auto/bio. Since I can't put it
here and there, I chopped this.
I hope you'll understand. Certainly, if you'd like to go to e-mail
(that would suit me), we can continue ]
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
At best it tends to stunt any periodic and
Post by Chuck Stamford
objective re-examination of our beliefs (not to mention the belief our
belief is not subject to error is false on it's face, since we are not
omniscient),
I disagree.
Try to not measure everyone by the cloth used to measure you.
I wasn't aware I was measuring anyone.
Ok. Put it this way. I believe you were giving me a "universal rule"
you've learned.
I believe (a Dr pastor taught me this ) that God gives a rich,
powerful, influential man one set of rules; he gives others other
rules.
He'll tell the rich man, "I want you to give $10 million to that
charity tomorrow! And if you don't, you WILL regret it."
God would never give me that rule, because I don't have $10 million.
A man who is VERY happily married won't have the "temptations" a
single, or unhappily married man has.
I'm an artist. I probably have the most "rule-free" existence there
is. I simply MUST "explore" to CREATE.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Not only are we different people, we've been to different places, we
are headed in different directions (in this world), and we likely have
different ministries.
I was apologizing to a Muslim friend a year ago for "being crude" in
my use of language.
He laughed. He said, "that's what makes you BELIEVABLE, John. You're
HUMAN."
Believe me, I understand about being human.
LOL. "No further comment THERE."
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
and at worst it leads us into areas of judgment God has
Post by Chuck Stamford
specifically warned us to stay out of.
Well, concerning that, you perhaps believe in the "holiness"
program; I do not.
I don't even know what that is!
Otherwise known as "The 5,000 Thou Shalt Not"s.
The "Holiness" folks tell you that there are 5 things you "may do."
They don't include
TV
movies
music
etc.
There are an infinite number of "You May NOT"s.
Think of ANYTHING fun. It's FORBIDDEN.
^ ^ ^ ^ The "Holiness Crowd." I know you've seen them. They wear
black sack dresses. Black suits. Black, VERY pegged-leg pants, white
socks.
(black or brown socks are a sin of "being modern" < evil
They don't smile. Smiling is a sin. They don't "do their hair."
They simply CUT it and tie it down.
NO facial hair (unless you're female) < eeeeeww!
( After all, Jesus had short hair, and he was clean-shaven)
The only -- THE ONLY -- book you're allowed to read is the KJV.
(frankly, if I could only read the KJV, I wouldn't have a Bible I
could read. I'm one of that vast number for whom the KJV is gibberish/
literally)
^ ^ ^ ^ The holiness crowd.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I believe we are (as Jesus put it) FREE.
As long as I don't hurt myself or my fellow man, I am free to ENJOY
life.
That idea may need some narrowing down. Clearly we are not under the Law of
Moses, but God is the transcendent source of all morality, and that didn't
change with Jesus.
I think you may need to acquaint yourself with some "Christian
artists." Jonnie Earickson (I've met her) the mouth painter
quadriplegic. Introduce yourself to some Christian musicians. (they
generally have long hair)
I'm betting if you talked with a Christian musician for a few hours
(with a totally open mind), and then you relayed that information
(anonymously) to a KJV-Only Holiness person, you'd hear 100 "tsk
tsk"s.
I can find (won't show it to you, but you'll probably look) a place
where some disciples came to the Master and whined, "Lord! We were
[out and about] and we came across these... people! Lord.. they were
preaching, pretty much same as you.. but we didn't know them, Lord!
And they were saying some things we'd never heard before!"
Jesus smiled with amusement. "Well, what did you do?"
We told them to shut the H* up, Lord!" What should we do next time?"
Jesus answered, "Next time you see them, or someone else "" preaching
the Kingdom of God in THEIR words, you are to LEAVE THEM BE!"
He didn't believe He was the only One with The Message. He was the
Only One Who Was God In Flesh. And He knew that eventually, those who
"weren't of His little band" WOULD come to Him.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I don't see how I can be "an example" if I'm the guy who never
smiles, the guy who never goes to movies, the guy who doesn't own a
TV, the guy who never tells jokes, and he never laughs when YOU tell a
joke.
I want people to come to me and say, "John, every time I see you,
you make me laugh. What's all that joy about?"
Sounds to me as if being glum and being holy are very nearly the same thing
in your mind today. It's not the smile, it's what makes you smile.
I'm not saying that. I am saying that there are people who believe
that.
Because I have had a BOUNCING, BUMPING "good time" with the wife
the night before doesn't make me "impure" the next morning when it's
time to minister to my boss, or my employee.
We can have a ROCKING good time with this or that and still be God's
Holy children.
I read
where Jesus sat down with pimps and whores and tax collectors and bank
robbers and ate a meal and drank a beer or two and shared the Kingdom
of God.
He probably laughed at a dirty joke or two (didn't tell any, but if
it was "FUNNY", it was funny)
The Holiness crowd stood at the door of that tavern with their 50
pound KJV Bibles tucked under their armpits (excuse the mixed
metaphor/ I believe your IQ is high enough to follow)
and they watched The Master relate to PEOPLE and they snickered and
tsk tskd. "Look at that Jesus fellow! I wouldn't shake HIS hand after
he touched that SLUT!
Jesus came here because God loves HUMAN BEINGS. He didn't say, "when
you grow to the place where you can meet this MARK here, I will wash
you in my blood."
He came here, found us in the s* stew we'd made ourselves, and He
climbed up on a cross and died for us, JUST THE WAY WE ARE.
As hard as we try, some of us will NEVER overcome. We don't have to.
We have to change INSIDE. He's "done all the work."
It's
Post by Chuck Stamford
not going to the movies, it's the movies you go to. It's not the TV you
own, it's what you watch on it. It's not telling the joke, it's what's
supposed to be funny about it.
I don't tell many "filthy jokes", but if someone comes on to me and
tells me a RAUNCHY joke that I find HILARIOUS, I'm gonna laugh.
As for movies, I don't look at the rating; I look at the content.
For example. One of the most interesting murder mysteries I ever
watched (had no idea what was going to happen in the film) was a Meg
Ryan movie, "In The Cut."
Thirty minutes into the movie, there's EXPLICIT SEX.
The movie wasn't popular. You've likely never heard of it.
But that SEX scene was POWERFUL, and the entire movie turned on that
30 seconds.
I wondered "what's the point?" But I finished watching, and I was
shaken.
There actually had been a reason for that "BJ" scene.
To say, I watch "Director's Cuts" and I watch "UnRated" movies,
simply because
I want to see the movie as the director and the writer intended
it.
BEFORE the censors hack it to pieces for the "mass market."
I believe we Christian ADULTS can handle things (it's not going to
KILL me, and I don't have to imitate ugly behavior/ fornication and
MURDER)
The STORY was moving. For me. And that's all I need. "I enjoyed it."
I consider it some of Meg Ryan's best work, and I'm a HUGE Meg Ryan
fan. Jane Campion. the director ALSO did "The Piano." Nicole Kidman
produced it. It was a film involving some "MAJOR PLAYERS."
Post by Chuck Stamford
John, there are very few things in life that are pure evil. In fact, if
your theory of "evil" is that it is the absence of good, then nothing that
actually exists could ever be pure evil.
I personally believe "evil" is anything that's hurtful. I could
probably go past that, but I think that's a good "starting place."
Paul said that he was convinced by
Post by Chuck Stamford
the Spirit of God that there is nothing unclean of itself, and so long as
we're not talking about abstract concepts that can probably be generalized
to almost everything, even though he was talking about food at the time.
^ ^ ^^ Yep. I'm a HUGE fan of Paul. He hated the Pharisees (I call
them "bean counters") as much as Jesus did.
(By "bean counter" I mean the guy who stands besides you
(metaphorically) and counts the "sins" you commit each day " just
living your life.")
Post by Chuck Stamford
However, if you're saying Jesus died simply so we could enjoy life, I'll
have to disagree with you.
No. Not at all.
That's one "side benefit." I said, "Jesus died so we could be
"Free." Free from sin. Free from the "spectra" of death. Free from
illness (in some cases), free from the burden of sorrow (we give that
to HIM).
He didn't simply say, " I came to set men FREE." He actually gave us
a small list. "sin" "worry" ("Let not your heart be troubled") etc.
The liberty He gave us by His shed blood was the
Post by Chuck Stamford
liberty from our selfish concerns, and the liberty from the just
consequences of our failures in love, past, present, and future.
~~~~~~~ eeeeeee.
I still prefer MY version to yours.
You keep yours; I'll keep mine!
He opened
Post by Chuck Stamford
the door of our prison of self-concern, and us able to give our lives away
to the needs of others, secure in the knowledge we cannot out give God, who
promises to give them back abundantly to us as we do.
So there's no reason we cannot be selflessly loving as we laugh and smile,
as we attend a movie or watch something on TV, or tell a joke, but we need
to be aware of our motivations,
And, see? I just will "let my hair down, put my baggies on (;-)/ I
don't WEAR "" baggies""), and "kick my feet up" and just go out and
have me one HELL of a good time!"
My measure of "a good time" and "is everything ok? ("is everything
"" good"" ")
am I alive? Am I in one piece? Is everybody else ok and in one
piece?"
Yep? Then it was a good time! Am I about to get arrested? No? Is
someone's husband/ boyfriend lookin' fer me with a shotgun? No? Then
we had a good time!
for that is the demarcation line between sin
Post by Chuck Stamford
and holiness. Most of our actions in life are either sinful or righteous by
what our reason is for doing them, rather than in and of themselves.
Beyond that thought....
Are you aware? (I've seen this in the Bible/ I promise you. But I
have seen it like TWICE, and I can't find it lately; I'm pretty sure
it's in Proverbs)
" It's wiser to seek FORGIVENESS than it is to seek PERMISSION."
Or, "the wise man seeks forgiveness; the fool seeks PERMISSION."
The lesson I got from that is, "go have a good time. You can always
repent later."
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
We can discuss and debate these various theories all day long, and
even
come
to some conclusion about which one is most likely the truth (or as
close
to
the truth as we're ever likely to get this side of Heaven), and this
can
be
profitable for us to some extent.
My point is that, when a person you know loses a very young child
(let's say the child is 6 months old, and dies)
I believe it's proper to comfort that family as best we can.
So do I, but I temper "best we can" with keeping to the truth. For me,
"best we can" doesn't include telling them something is for sure true
that
I
don't know, and can't know is for sure true.
Let's stop here. I suggest you read my comment on how I know that
David's child went to heaven.
(You just suggested that I would LIE)
Nothing could be further from the truth! I'm sorry that you took it that
way.
Then I'm sorry. That's how I took it.
Post by Chuck Stamford
All I'm suggesting is that you would go beyond what you actually "know" to
be true, and people do that everyday (including myself!) without giving it
the requisite thought to be considering "lying".
Actually, I wouldn't. If I am not quite sure, I keep my mouth
shut.
HOWEVER, I can be 10,000 % positive, and still be wrong.
^ ^ Where we must be OPEN to be corrected. Always.
Post by Chuck Stamford
I hope you understand I never meant to suggest you lie, even for a good
cause.
ok.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I understand where you're coming from; try to understand where I'm
coming from.
Try to open that bright mind a bit and at least be RECEPTIVE.
"Til then!"
john w
I know God is loving and
Post by Chuck Stamford
merciful toward us for sure. I know God is trustworthy, and that all
judgment belongs to Him, for sure. I don't know, for sure, the spiritual
state of ANYONE, and I"m warned by God not to pretend I do. So I can't, in
good conscious, comfort anyone with anything but the truth, for a lie is
poor comfort.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
If I believe I have a SOLID answer on "Can we be CERTAIN that our 6
month old daughter REALLY IS in heaven now, and not burning in the
pit?"
I believe we CAN say, "Absolutely!"
I understand, John. I'm just waiting to hear from you what your
justification is for that belief.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
The God I believe in doesn't punish 6 month old babies who die
without ever having had the chance to "believe" and be baptized.
I believe such belief (and supporting text) is VITAL to our
credibility to the world.
"Well, the way I hear it, you stupid &)(&)*& &&()&)*(& Christians
believe that if a 3-month old baby dies, it goes to the PIT! Because
it "didn't have time to accept Jesus as its savior." < That's why
I'm not a Christian, you (*&)*&)*(& SLOB!"
^ ^ ^ ^ typical rhetoric.
But you and I know that no one ever goes to hell because they "didn't have
time to repent", don't we? The idea presupposes that if God had just let
them have more time, they would have repented, and that God, by taking them
before the time He knew they'd repent and be saved, is the CAUSE of their
eternal punishment!
What's typical about this thinking is the desire to make it God's fault that
people end up in hell. Skeptics have a hundred different rhetorical
arguments, but they all boil down to "God is responsible, not me". I didn't
ask to be born. If God knew me from all eternity, and knew I'd reject Jesus
and end up in hell, then God is morally responsible for my sins because He
went ahead and created me anyway. And on and on and on. The human desire
not to be responsible for the evil we all do is incredibly strong. It
subverts otherwise strong intellects; warps every perception of reality; and
even causes Christians to waver in their faith in God. We have to KNOW
certain people are in heaven, and that we'll be with them again, or we begin
to doubt God. We sometimes find we can't just trust God to do what is
perfectly right concerning someone we love with all of our hearts...as if
we've forgotten God loves them infinitely more and long before we were ever
born! What we need to understand is that brutal honesty is what we need
here, and we need to realize this is SIN in US when we begin to think like
this, not "insight" into the love of God! It's nothing more or less
than
a
failure of faith in us, and it's CERTAINLY not us being more loving than
God!
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
No, we DON'T believe that! And any time I see a Christian spouting
such NONSENSE, I LEAP to correct him / her!
That's pure, unadulterated Calvinism, mixed with mis-interpreted
Roman Catholicism.
It's right out of the pit of hell.
Well, I'll wait to see the Scripture you've found, and, hopefully, for you
to find some way to engage here on a less emotional basis than you seem to
be using at the moment. I'm not a Calvinist nor a Roman Catholic (nor
do
I
view those terms as repositories for the dispicable perspective on biblical
soteriology you've described above!), but I also can't say with certainty
that any given infant who dies is in heaven anymore than I can say any given
adult who dies is in heaven. We're all sinners from the womb, John, and God
is not willing that any perish, but many do according to the Son of God,
Jesus Christ. This is what I know "for sure". What it all means as far as
your infant son (when he was still an infant) or mine, or anyone else's is
something I can kick around with my fellow Christian brothers and
sisters
in
the hope of finding some insight and enlightenment from God, but I can't
"know". Thus my use of the term "theory" here.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
But you should never let not knowing
Post by Chuck Stamford
which is the truth get under your skin, or allow anyone else to do it using
one or another of these theories...because we really already know all the
truth we need to know when we have Jesus Christ as our Lord, don't we?
Well, sorry. On that, I have to say "Yes, and no."
I likewise don't believe that some Australian bushman who dies when
he's 15 and he's never heard the name "Jesus", and he's never heard of
/ or seen a Bible... he doesn't go to hell, simply for being born at
the wrong place and time.
I believe there's a better answer.
I do too, John, but I don't believe it includes us saying "Yes and no" when
it comes to knowing we have all we need when we have Jesus Christ as our
Lord. How can a good answer here, or any where, include NOT having Jesus
Christ as our Lord???
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
No matter how much you love your son, God loves him infinitely more,
and
has
loved him infinitely more from all eternity. There was never an instant
throughout all eternity when God didn't love your son (and every son!) as
much as He loved His own. No matter what happens to your son now or
in
the
future, there is nothing that can separate him from God's love; "...neither
death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present
nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing"
^ ^ ^ ^ On this, we agree.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Regardless of which theory about the disposition of young children we think
is pretty,
we have plenty of reason to trust God with our children.
^ ^ ^ ^ There, you go!
I know we're in basic agreement on the love of God, John. I'd still
like
to
see the Scripture you've found that makes it so clear for you that all
infants who die go to heaven, and why you see that biblical passage as so
clearly saying this. I'd also be willing to discuss further some of these
various "theories" (for lack of a more precise term), their merits and
weaknesses, if you think that would be something we could both profit from.
Chuck Stamford
john w <j@yahoo.com>
2008-07-03 12:28:05 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 01:23:58 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
<shell-***@cox.net> wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 13:17:57 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 09:40:27 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 17:45:01 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
John, just wanted to point out that there are many theories about the
spiritual state of children who die before they reach the age of reason.
I agree. And I don't know why. I believe scripture-- though
obscure-- if you find the right passages, is quite clear.
I believe the scripture on this issue is very clear.
If you read the passage about the death of King David's infant son, I
don't see how the text could be any more clear.
You mean 2 Samuel 12:15:23? If so, you'll have to explain to me how you see
this as "clear" as to the spiritual state of the child, because I don't see
a word in this text concerning that.
Before we get into this or anything else, I want to address your
understanding that I suggested you would lie to comfort someone who had lost
a small child by telling them something you knew wasn't true. That's not
what I had in mind at all, John. I don't want to go into a whole big
explanation here, but there are a lot of things you don't know about me,
just as there are a lot of things I don't know about you, and one of the
things you don't know about me is how much time I've spent studying
epistemology; especially the modern Christian philosophers, such as
Plantinga and Alston. So when I say you would go beyond what you know to be
true, I'm not talking about you saying something other than what you believe
to be the case, which would be lying. I'm saying you believe you know, what
you don't actually "know" in the epistemological sense of "know".
==== One more thing:

There ARE people in here (I won't name them so they aren't attacked
viciously by the local sharks)
with whom I communicate very well. They have "figured me out."

and they give me LOTS of slack. They also go to some trouble to
"figure me out." I'm not to be taken literally 100 % of the time.
You seem to be a "literalist." at least on occasion.

Like the bit about "its" and "it's". I tried to help. You weren't in
the mood. And you got pissed off.

"I'd think after I'd used it PROPERLY half a dozen times, you'd
realize it was a TYPO."

Well, I didn't realize, and you turned an attempt to HELP into an
insult.

I won't take responsibility for that.

So, I propose we communicate MUCH less.

We have finally had a HUGE spat.

Ok. It just means we're not going to be successfully communicating
much in the future.

john w
Glenn
2008-07-02 03:01:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Is there ANY Beauty in this world?
The morning I saw my baby son's face for the first time, I saw real
beauty.
May the God of Abraham grant eternal life to your child.
Amen.
Thank you.
Post by Glenn
Now, knowing your child will live with God, what will you do to be with
your child?
That's already taken care of for both of us.
John 3:16-17 / Romans 10:9-10
Well, those would apply to any person old enough to believe and confess,
Correct.
Post by Glenn
but do not actually apply to a child.
Says who?
What, you can't read the scripture for yourself?
If you want to converse with me, don't talk down.
If you want to talk scripture to me, read it first.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Glenn
16 ¶For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting
life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but
that the world through him might be saved.
As you say yourself, about David's son, "he was only a week old, so he
wasn't lost."
<clip>
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
You don't know ME, and you don't know my son.
You are right, I don't know you or your son.

You are wrong, that I made any comment specifically directed to you
about your son.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
And I am now going to stop. I'm getting into detail that I am planning
on putting in my autobiography.
"Sorry."
Yes, stoping this is a good idea.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Jesus did not need to die to save those who were not
Post by Glenn
lost. He did not die to save the innocent. He did not die to save
innocent children.
Are YOU the one who decides who is old enough and who is not?
Where did you get that silly idea? You asking the question is making a
false accusation.

<clip>
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Glenn
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the
mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be
ashamed.
Nor was Paul speaking to children, he was speaking to those who are
mature enough to comprehend that they have something to confess.
Don't lecture me about my son.
How do you get the silly idea I'm lecturing you about your son. I do't
know your son.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
You don't know me; and you don't know my son.
Exactly, how many times do I need to say that?
<clip>
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Glenn
That is why I said "I don't know how old you or your child is."
You said that, then you plunged right ahead and insisted that my
son was too young to "need to be saved."
No, your wrong assumption: I said nothing about your son.

<clip>
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Glenn
(Of course I don't know how old
you or your child is.)
^ ^ ^^ There you go.
<clip>
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Glenn
...and I think of those stories as a metaphor for the Lord and His
children who turn away.
I don't consider all those stories "metaphor.'
You don't think that any fact can be seen as a metaphor?
^ ^ Bulletin: (a friendly joke) Ding Ding! Ding! You win
this round! "Fair enough."
Some day, someone will probably label this post "a metaphor."
:-)
Post by Glenn
The problem is not seeing a father's sorrow over a lost child as a
metaphor for God's sorrow over His lost children -- the problem is
knowing when to see the scripture as fact and not to take it ONLY as
metaphor.
You know what? I've made my living MOST of my 60 years, and ^ ^ ^
I could not have put that better myself!
Darn you!
:-)
Too many want to "allegorize" every word of the Old Testament.
Certainly some stories could be handled as "sheer fantasy," told to
make a point (I'm not referring to any of them; I personally accept
the whole OT as "FACT.")
Of course it's FACT, and to translate it into metaphor or allegories is
to rob the Word of God of His intended meaning.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
And we can be raised in the church, but then turn our backs later.
I have siblings who were raised in church, but then got old enough,
and chose to not continue in the church.
Glenn
--
www.thelittlebookopened.org [Key words:] "The Little Book";
Glenn McClary, servitum, gaedhealic, oldwetdog
john w <j@yahoo.com>
2008-07-02 13:34:28 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 20:01:07 -0700, Glenn <***@spiritone.com>
wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Is there ANY Beauty in this world?
The morning I saw my baby son's face for the first time, I saw real
beauty.
May the God of Abraham grant eternal life to your child.
Amen.
Thank you.
Post by Glenn
Now, knowing your child will live with God, what will you do to be with
your child?
That's already taken care of for both of us.
John 3:16-17 / Romans 10:9-10
Well, those would apply to any person old enough to believe and confess,
Correct.
Post by Glenn
but do not actually apply to a child.
Says who?
What, you can't read the scripture for yourself?
If you want to converse with me, don't talk down.
If you want to talk scripture to me, read it first.
#1, I doubt seriously that you could quote a passage I'm not
familiar with.

#2, I personally have an aversion to the KJV. An aversion I've
expressed many times.
I find it stiff, I find it obscure, I find it "old" and QUITE "out
of date."

So, if you are going to quote the KJV to me, we simply won't
converse.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Glenn
16 ¶For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting
life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but
that the world through him might be saved.
As you say yourself, about David's son, "he was only a week old, so he
wasn't lost."
<clip>
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
You don't know ME, and you don't know my son.
You are right, I don't know you or your son.
You are wrong, that I made any comment specifically directed to you
about your son.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
And I am now going to stop. I'm getting into detail that I am planning
on putting in my autobiography.
"Sorry."
Yes, stoping this is a good idea.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Jesus did not need to die to save those who were not
Post by Glenn
lost. He did not die to save the innocent. He did not die to save
innocent children.
Are YOU the one who decides who is old enough and who is not?
Where did you get that silly idea? You asking the question is making a
false accusation.
<clip>
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Glenn
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the
mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be
ashamed.
Nor was Paul speaking to children, he was speaking to those who are
mature enough to comprehend that they have something to confess.
Don't lecture me about my son.
How do you get the silly idea I'm lecturing you about your son. I do't
know your son.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
You don't know me; and you don't know my son.
Exactly, how many times do I need to say that?
<clip>
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Glenn
That is why I said "I don't know how old you or your child is."
You said that, then you plunged right ahead and insisted that my
son was too young to "need to be saved."
No, your wrong assumption: I said nothing about your son.
<clip>
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Glenn
(Of course I don't know how old
you or your child is.)
^ ^ ^^ There you go.
<clip>
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Glenn
...and I think of those stories as a metaphor for the Lord and His
children who turn away.
I don't consider all those stories "metaphor.'
You don't think that any fact can be seen as a metaphor?
^ ^ Bulletin: (a friendly joke) Ding Ding! Ding! You win
this round! "Fair enough."
Some day, someone will probably label this post "a metaphor."
:-)
Post by Glenn
The problem is not seeing a father's sorrow over a lost child as a
metaphor for God's sorrow over His lost children -- the problem is
knowing when to see the scripture as fact and not to take it ONLY as
metaphor.
You know what? I've made my living MOST of my 60 years, and ^ ^ ^
I could not have put that better myself!
Darn you!
:-)
Too many want to "allegorize" every word of the Old Testament.
Certainly some stories could be handled as "sheer fantasy," told to
make a point (I'm not referring to any of them; I personally accept
the whole OT as "FACT.")
Of course it's FACT, and to translate it into metaphor or allegories is
to rob the Word of God of His intended meaning.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
And we can be raised in the church, but then turn our backs later.
I have siblings who were raised in church, but then got old enough,
and chose to not continue in the church.
Glenn
Glenn
2008-07-02 16:37:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Is there ANY Beauty in this world?
The morning I saw my baby son's face for the first time, I saw real
beauty.
May the God of Abraham grant eternal life to your child.
Amen.
Thank you.
Post by Glenn
Now, knowing your child will live with God, what will you do to be with
your child?
That's already taken care of for both of us.
John 3:16-17 / Romans 10:9-10
Well, those would apply to any person old enough to believe and confess,
Correct.
Post by Glenn
but do not actually apply to a child.
Says who?
What, you can't read the scripture for yourself?
If you want to converse with me, don't talk down.
If you want to talk scripture to me, read it first.
#1, I doubt seriously that you could quote a passage I'm not
familiar with.
Being "familiar" with a passage is in no way evidence that you
comprehend it in Truth, as evidenced by your lack of understanding and
misapplication of John 3:16 and Romans 9:9-10.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
#2, I personally have an aversion to the KJV. An aversion I've
expressed many times.
I find it stiff, I find it obscure, I find it "old" and QUITE "out
of date."
So, if you are going to quote the KJV to me, we simply won't
converse.
Bye bye.
--
www.thelittlebookopened.org [Key words:] "The Little Book";
Glenn McClary, servitum, gaedhealic, oldwetdog
Chuck Stamford
2008-07-02 18:31:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:07:56 -0700, Glenn
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Is there ANY Beauty in this world?
The morning I saw my baby son's face for the first time, I saw real
beauty.
May the God of Abraham grant eternal life to your child.
Amen.
Thank you.
Post by Glenn
Now, knowing your child will live with God, what will you do to be
with your child?
That's already taken care of for both of us.
John 3:16-17 / Romans 10:9-10
Well, those would apply to any person old enough to believe and confess,
Correct.
Post by Glenn
but do not actually apply to a child.
Says who?
What, you can't read the scripture for yourself?
If you want to converse with me, don't talk down.
If you want to talk scripture to me, read it first.
#1, I doubt seriously that you could quote a passage I'm not
familiar with.
Being "familiar" with a passage is in no way evidence that you comprehend
it in Truth, as evidenced by your lack of understanding and misapplication
of John 3:16 and Romans 9:9-10.
Considering the source of this sentiment...that's funny! I could get my
pants pressed with the irony!

Chuck Stamford
john w <j@yahoo.com>
2008-07-02 19:22:32 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 11:31:00 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
<shell-***@cox.net> wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:07:56 -0700, Glenn
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Is there ANY Beauty in this world?
The morning I saw my baby son's face for the first time, I saw real
beauty.
May the God of Abraham grant eternal life to your child.
Amen.
Thank you.
Post by Glenn
Now, knowing your child will live with God, what will you do to be
with your child?
That's already taken care of for both of us.
John 3:16-17 / Romans 10:9-10
Well, those would apply to any person old enough to believe and confess,
Correct.
Post by Glenn
but do not actually apply to a child.
Says who?
What, you can't read the scripture for yourself?
If you want to converse with me, don't talk down.
If you want to talk scripture to me, read it first.
#1, I doubt seriously that you could quote a passage I'm not
familiar with.
Being "familiar" with a passage is in no way evidence that you comprehend
it in Truth, as evidenced by your lack of understanding and misapplication
of John 3:16 and Romans 9:9-10.
Considering the source of this sentiment...that's funny! I could get my
pants pressed with the irony!
^ ^ ^ ^ LOL!!

Roll on the floor, laughing my ASS off!
Post by Chuck Stamford
Chuck Stamford
john w <j@yahoo.com>
2008-07-02 18:45:54 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 09:37:25 -0700, Glenn <***@spiritone.com>
wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Is there ANY Beauty in this world?
The morning I saw my baby son's face for the first time, I saw real
beauty.
May the God of Abraham grant eternal life to your child.
Amen.
Thank you.
Post by Glenn
Now, knowing your child will live with God, what will you do to be with
your child?
That's already taken care of for both of us.
John 3:16-17 / Romans 10:9-10
Well, those would apply to any person old enough to believe and confess,
Correct.
Post by Glenn
but do not actually apply to a child.
Says who?
What, you can't read the scripture for yourself?
If you want to converse with me, don't talk down.
If you want to talk scripture to me, read it first.
#1, I doubt seriously that you could quote a passage I'm not
familiar with.
Being "familiar" with a passage is in no way evidence that you
comprehend it in Truth
True.

On the flip side, you may not understand it yourself.

, as evidenced by your lack of understanding and
Post by Glenn
misapplication of John 3:16 and Romans 9:9-10.
???? ^ ^ ^ ^ I beg your pardon!
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
#2, I personally have an aversion to the KJV. An aversion I've
expressed many times.
I find it stiff, I find it obscure, I find it "old" and QUITE "out
of date."
So, if you are going to quote the KJV to me, we simply won't
converse.
Bye bye.
Ah! I caught me a KJV-Only kook!
<Kelly>
2008-07-02 19:24:14 UTC
Permalink
  Ah!  I caught me a KJV-Only kook!
You haven't "caught" anything recently, John - except maybe a illness.
NOSPAM
2008-07-03 16:55:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by <Kelly>
  Ah!  I caught me a KJV-Only kook!
You haven't "caught" anything recently, John - except maybe a illness.
I still believe he 'can't read' the KJV because of the demons
infesting him.
<Kelly>
2008-07-03 17:11:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by NOSPAM
Post by <Kelly>
  Ah!  I caught me a KJV-Only kook!
You haven't "caught" anything recently, John - except maybe a illness.
I still believe he 'can't read' the KJV because of the demons
infesting him.
Those who have accepted Christ as Lord ans Savior don't have "demons
infesting" them, Elaine. Demon possession is not something that you
joke about or even try to discuss unless you understand what you are
saying and know the subject.

If John is unable to understand the KJV, he isn't the only one. Many
people today can't understand the KJV and I seriously doubt that they
can't because they are "infested [with] demons", Elaine.
Al Smith
2008-07-03 20:06:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by <Kelly>
Post by NOSPAM
Post by <Kelly>
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Ah! I caught me a KJV-Only kook!
You haven't "caught" anything recently, John - except maybe a illness.
I still believe he 'can't read' the KJV because of the demons
infesting him.
Those who have accepted Christ as Lord ans Savior don't have "demons
infesting" them, Elaine. Demon possession is not something that you
joke about or even try to discuss unless you understand what you are
saying and know the subject.
If John is unable to understand the KJV, he isn't the only one. Many
people today can't understand the KJV and I seriously doubt that they
can't because they are "infested [with] demons", Elaine.
A distinction should be made between spirit possession and demon
possession. Demons, in the sense the word is used in Christianity,
are evil and malicious spirits intent on doing harm. They are the
minority among spirits, most of whom are not interested in doing
harm of any kind, and many of whom actively wish to do good. These
good spirits can possess human beings, and often do, but they do no
harm in the process. The person possessed merely experiences a lapse
of awareness, or on some cases, a graying or fogging out of
consciousness, so that they seem to move in a kind of waking dream
without volition.

-Al-
vernono
2008-07-03 21:00:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Smith
Post by <Kelly>
Post by NOSPAM
Post by <Kelly>
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Ah! I caught me a KJV-Only kook!
You haven't "caught" anything recently, John - except maybe a illness.
I still believe he 'can't read' the KJV because of the demons
infesting him.
Those who have accepted Christ as Lord ans Savior don't have "demons
infesting" them, Elaine. Demon possession is not something that you
joke about or even try to discuss unless you understand what you are
saying and know the subject.
Accepted?
Where is accepted Christ in the bible?
Post by Al Smith
Post by <Kelly>
If John is unable to understand the KJV, he isn't the only one. Many
people today can't understand the KJV and I seriously doubt that they
can't because they are "infested [with] demons", Elaine.
A distinction should be made between spirit possession and demon
possession. Demons, in the sense the word is used in Christianity, are
evil and malicious spirits intent on doing harm. They are the minority
among spirits, most of whom are not interested in doing harm of any kind,
and many of whom actively wish to do good. These good spirits can possess
human beings, and often do, but they do no harm in the process. The person
possessed merely experiences a lapse of awareness, or on some cases, a
graying or fogging out of consciousness, so that they seem to move in a
kind of waking dream without volition.
-Al-
NOSPAM
2008-07-03 20:13:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by <Kelly>
Post by NOSPAM
Post by <Kelly>
  Ah!  I caught me a KJV-Only kook!
You haven't "caught" anything recently, John - except maybe a illness.
I still believe he 'can't read' the KJV because of the demons
infesting him.
Those who have accepted Christ as Lord ans Savior don't have "demons
infesting" them, Elaine. Demon possession is not something that you
joke about or even try to discuss unless you understand what you are
saying and know the subject.
If John is unable to understand the KJV, he isn't the only one. Many
people today can't understand the KJV and I seriously doubt that they
can't because they are "infested [with] demons", Elaine.
I understand that, Kelly. BUT- johnnie insists that 'anyone who reads
and claims to understand the KJV are cultists, and most likely demon
infested'.


I truly believe he is LYING about his conversion to Christ, judging
from his behaviors here.
john w <j@yahoo.com>
2008-07-03 21:20:43 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 16:13:17 -0400, NOSPAM <***@nospam> wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by NOSPAM
Post by <Kelly>
Post by NOSPAM
Post by <Kelly>
  Ah!  I caught me a KJV-Only kook!
You haven't "caught" anything recently, John - except maybe a illness.
I still believe he 'can't read' the KJV because of the demons
infesting him.
Those who have accepted Christ as Lord ans Savior don't have "demons
infesting" them, Elaine. Demon possession is not something that you
joke about or even try to discuss unless you understand what you are
saying and know the subject.
If John is unable to understand the KJV, he isn't the only one. Many
people today can't understand the KJV and I seriously doubt that they
can't because they are "infested [with] demons", Elaine.
I understand that, Kelly.
No, you don't. You were being flip about my saying up front that I
find the KJV totally "gibberish."
And -- I've known many in the past who couldn't read the KJV. We
had NO BIBLE to read until the modern translations began to come out.

I've said many times-- and you've ridiculed me for it-- that the
first "Bible" I was able to read was the Living Bible.

The first actual translation I could read was the NASB. I bought ONE
of the first copies.
When the NIV came out, I read it in like 3 years.

I DEVOURED it.

No demon would allow me to read the whole Bible in some 3 years.

But you go right ahead and ridicule and mock and taunt.

^ ^ ^ ^ That goes to the kind of person you are.


BUT- johnnie insists that 'anyone who reads
Post by NOSPAM
and claims to understand the KJV are cultists,
I have said many times that there are any number of groups within
Christianity that go off on tangents.

I believe the KJV-Onlyists go off on tangents; I believe the
Calvinists do. I believe the Pentecostal "pretenders" go off so far,
many could be considered "non-Christians."

And YOU believe in "ghosts."

and most likely demon
Post by NOSPAM
infested'.
# 1 I have never called a "KJV-Onlyest "demon infested."

#2 I have never used the term "demon-infested."
Post by NOSPAM
I truly believe he is LYING about his conversion to Christ, judging
from his behaviors here.
^ ^ ^
#1 Why would i lie?
Anyone you talk with who ACTUALLY KNOWS me would tell you flatly,
John Weatherly is a born-again Christian.

I wonder if those who know you would say you are.

#2 Your behavior does not suggest that YOU are a Christian.

It DOES suggest that you are insane.
john w <j@yahoo.com>
2008-07-03 21:21:29 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 10:11:02 -0700 (PDT), "<Kelly>" <***@gmail.com>
wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by <Kelly>
Post by NOSPAM
Post by <Kelly>
  Ah!  I caught me a KJV-Only kook!
You haven't "caught" anything recently, John - except maybe a illness.
I still believe he 'can't read' the KJV because of the demons
infesting him.
Those who have accepted Christ as Lord ans Savior don't have "demons
infesting" them, Elaine. Demon possession is not something that you
joke about or even try to discuss unless you understand what you are
saying and know the subject.
It's something Elaine jokes about frequently.
Post by <Kelly>
If John is unable to understand the KJV, he isn't the only one. Many
people today can't understand the KJV and I seriously doubt that they
can't because they are "infested [with] demons", Elaine.
Robibnikoff
2008-07-03 22:53:32 UTC
Permalink
"john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> pissed & moaned..
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
If you can't be a good example....
You'll just have to be a horrible warning.
john w <j@yahoo.com>
2008-07-03 21:13:32 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 12:24:14 -0700 (PDT), "<Kelly>" <***@gmail.com>
wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by <Kelly>
  Ah!  I caught me a KJV-Only kook!
You haven't "caught" anything recently, John - except maybe a illness.
??? " ... a illness...?" ^ ^ ^ ^

Rule: "a" before consonants and consonant sounds : b d f

"an" before vowels and vowel sounds : illness
Chuck Stamford
2008-07-02 20:23:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:02:34 -0700, Glenn
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:07:56 -0700, Glenn
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Is there ANY Beauty in this world?
The morning I saw my baby son's face for the first time, I saw real
beauty.
May the God of Abraham grant eternal life to your child.
Amen.
Thank you.
Post by Glenn
Now, knowing your child will live with God, what will you do to be with
your child?
That's already taken care of for both of us.
John 3:16-17 / Romans 10:9-10
Well, those would apply to any person old enough to believe and confess,
Correct.
Post by Glenn
but do not actually apply to a child.
Says who?
What, you can't read the scripture for yourself?
If you want to converse with me, don't talk down.
If you want to talk scripture to me, read it first.
#1, I doubt seriously that you could quote a passage I'm not
familiar with.
Being "familiar" with a passage is in no way evidence that you
comprehend it in Truth
True.
On the flip side, you may not understand it yourself.
, as evidenced by your lack of understanding and
Post by Glenn
misapplication of John 3:16 and Romans 9:9-10.
???? ^ ^ ^ ^ I beg your pardon!
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
#2, I personally have an aversion to the KJV. An aversion I've
expressed many times.
I find it stiff, I find it obscure, I find it "old" and QUITE "out
of date."
So, if you are going to quote the KJV to me, we simply won't
converse.
Bye bye.
Ah! I caught me a KJV-Only kook!
You're half right ;-)

Let me introduce you to Glenn McClary in his (short) authorized biography
online:

http://www.thelittlebookopened.org/main/about/personal/story.html

After you finish, you decide which half you got right. ;-)

Chuck Stamford
john w <j@yahoo.com>
2008-07-03 01:20:27 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 13:23:47 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
<shell-***@cox.net> wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:02:34 -0700, Glenn
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:07:56 -0700, Glenn
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Is there ANY Beauty in this world?
The morning I saw my baby son's face for the first time, I saw real
beauty.
May the God of Abraham grant eternal life to your child.
Amen.
Thank you.
Post by Glenn
Now, knowing your child will live with God, what will you do to be with
your child?
That's already taken care of for both of us.
John 3:16-17 / Romans 10:9-10
Well, those would apply to any person old enough to believe and confess,
Correct.
Post by Glenn
but do not actually apply to a child.
Says who?
What, you can't read the scripture for yourself?
If you want to converse with me, don't talk down.
If you want to talk scripture to me, read it first.
#1, I doubt seriously that you could quote a passage I'm not
familiar with.
Being "familiar" with a passage is in no way evidence that you
comprehend it in Truth
True.
On the flip side, you may not understand it yourself.
, as evidenced by your lack of understanding and
Post by Glenn
misapplication of John 3:16 and Romans 9:9-10.
???? ^ ^ ^ ^ I beg your pardon!
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
#2, I personally have an aversion to the KJV. An aversion I've
expressed many times.
I find it stiff, I find it obscure, I find it "old" and QUITE "out
of date."
So, if you are going to quote the KJV to me, we simply won't
converse.
Bye bye.
Ah! I caught me a KJV-Only kook!
You're half right ;-)
Let me introduce you to Glenn McClary in his (short) authorized biography
http://www.thelittlebookopened.org/main/about/personal/story.html
After you finish, you decide which half you got right. ;-)
I choose "to remain in the dark" on this one.

If I'm going to spend that much time reading, it's going to be
poetry or the Bible, or a GOOD novel.

Since I don't recall "Glenn" ever using any version BUT the KJV, my
comment stands until I'm "corrected." "KJV-Only kook."

God bless!

And, Glenn, don't get yer knickers in a bunch!


We all gotta poke fun at something / somebody occasionally. You've
had a lip curl or two at me lately; I'll just "pass it back."

I haven't called you any "ugly names." I've called more than once
person in here what they are, which is "bitch."

I don't recall calling you that.

Good day to you, too!
Post by Chuck Stamford
Chuck Stamford
NOSPAM
2008-07-03 16:56:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I choose "to remain in the dark"
We know, johnnie- WE KNOW.
Glenn
2008-07-02 20:54:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Is there ANY Beauty in this world?
The morning I saw my baby son's face for the first time, I saw real
beauty.
May the God of Abraham grant eternal life to your child.
Amen.
Thank you.
Post by Glenn
Now, knowing your child will live with God, what will you do to be with
your child?
That's already taken care of for both of us.
John 3:16-17 / Romans 10:9-10
Well, those would apply to any person old enough to believe and confess,
Correct.
Post by Glenn
but do not actually apply to a child.
Says who?
What, you can't read the scripture for yourself?
If you want to converse with me, don't talk down.
If you want to talk scripture to me, read it first.
#1, I doubt seriously that you could quote a passage I'm not
familiar with.
Being "familiar" with a passage is in no way evidence that you
comprehend it in Truth
True.
On the flip side, you may not understand it yourself.
, as evidenced by your lack of understanding and
Post by Glenn
misapplication of John 3:16 and Romans 9:9-10.
???? ^ ^ ^ ^ I beg your pardon!
Those two scriptures have nothing to do with innocent children, but in
your blind need to argue, you pervert the word of God.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
#2, I personally have an aversion to the KJV. An aversion I've
expressed many times.
I find it stiff, I find it obscure, I find it "old" and QUITE "out
of date."
So, if you are going to quote the KJV to me, we simply won't
converse.
Bye bye.
Ah! I caught me a KJV-Only kook!
No, you complete hypocrite, you just revealed that you think you can
demand that I quote scripture out of a version you choose, while you
refuse to consider the version others feel comfortable with. I will
quote the KJV, and if you don't like it, play with Chuck and Kelly.

Plus, you revealed yourself to be a liar, in that you said you would not
converse with me.

Now your very reply to me just reveals your false face.

[KJV] II Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that
day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man
of sin be revealed, the son of perdition...


Glenn
--
www.thelittlebookopened.org [Key words:] "The Little Book";
Glenn McClary, servitum, gaedhealic, oldwetdog
john w <j@yahoo.com>
2008-07-03 01:22:41 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 13:54:56 -0700, Glenn <***@spiritone.com>
wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Is there ANY Beauty in this world?
The morning I saw my baby son's face for the first time, I saw real
beauty.
May the God of Abraham grant eternal life to your child.
Amen.
Thank you.
Post by Glenn
Now, knowing your child will live with God, what will you do to be with
your child?
That's already taken care of for both of us.
John 3:16-17 / Romans 10:9-10
Well, those would apply to any person old enough to believe and confess,
Correct.
Post by Glenn
but do not actually apply to a child.
Says who?
What, you can't read the scripture for yourself?
If you want to converse with me, don't talk down.
If you want to talk scripture to me, read it first.
#1, I doubt seriously that you could quote a passage I'm not
familiar with.
Being "familiar" with a passage is in no way evidence that you
comprehend it in Truth
True.
On the flip side, you may not understand it yourself.
, as evidenced by your lack of understanding and
Post by Glenn
misapplication of John 3:16 and Romans 9:9-10.
???? ^ ^ ^ ^ I beg your pardon!
Those two scriptures have nothing to do with innocent children, but in
your blind need to argue, you pervert the word of God.
I thank you, but let's put it this way: I prefer my understanding
of scripture to yours.

I've been at this a LONG time; I just don't see you as all that much
of a "scholar."

And my understanding "satisfies me."

Paul said, "be at peace." He also said, "let each of you decide,
and be content in your own mind." I am content in my own mind.

My view of it "works for me."
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
#2, I personally have an aversion to the KJV. An aversion I've
expressed many times.
I find it stiff, I find it obscure, I find it "old" and QUITE "out
of date."
So, if you are going to quote the KJV to me, we simply won't
converse.
Bye bye.
Ah! I caught me a KJV-Only kook!
No, you complete hypocrite, you just revealed that you think you can
demand that I quote scripture out of a version you choose, while you
refuse to consider the version others feel comfortable with. I will
quote the KJV, and if you don't like it, play with Chuck and Kelly.
Plus, you revealed yourself to be a liar, in that you said you would not
converse with me.
Now your very reply to me just reveals your false face.
[KJV] II Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that
day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man
of sin be revealed, the son of perdition...
Glenn
<Kelly>
2008-07-03 03:49:52 UTC
Permalink
  let's put it this way:  I prefer my understanding
of scripture to yours.
When do you *ever* prefer anything the way someone else does it, John?
  I've been at this a LONG time;
You've been at *what* a long time?
I just don't see you as all that much
of a "scholar."
Are you saying that you see yourself as a "scholar", John?
 And my understanding "satisfies me."
  Paul said, "be at peace."  
Are you at peace, John? So much of the time in here you don't seem to
be at peace at all.
He also said, "let each of you decide,
and be content in your own mind."  I am content in my own mind.
Are you content in your mind, John? So much of the time in here you
don't seem to be content at all.
  My view of it "works for me."
We're supposed to make sure that our understanding coincides with and
works for God - not us, John.
john w <j@yahoo.com>
2008-07-03 21:26:17 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 20:49:52 -0700 (PDT), "<Kelly>" <***@gmail.com>
wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by <Kelly>
  let's put it this way:  I prefer my understanding
of scripture to yours.
When do you *ever* prefer anything the way someone else does it, John?
I'm guessing you don't "snoop on me" quite enough to notice the
times IN HERE I get corrected, and I accept the correction.

I just am not going to accept "correction" from YOU when your life
is not up to what I consider "Christians standards."
Post by <Kelly>
  I've been at this a LONG time;
You've been at *what* a long time?
I just don't see you as all that much
of a "scholar."
Are you saying that you see yourself as a "scholar", John?
 And my understanding "satisfies me."
  Paul said, "be at peace."  
Are you at peace, John? So much of the time in here you don't seem to
be at peace at all.
I don't answer to you, Kelly.

I don't consider you a Christian. I don't consider you an elder. I
don't consider you a pastor. If you're a pastor, you're not MY pastor.

You aren't a person I can look up to in any way I can think of.

Though I do appreciate you standing up to Elaine over her accusing
me of demon possession.

Excuse me. "Demon infestation." She knows so little about it, she
can't even say it correctly.

"Thank you" for that.

However, I've noticed the times I've corrected you, and the times
I've "been on your side", you haven't thanked ME.

"What goes around..."

john w
Post by <Kelly>
He also said, "let each of you decide,
and be content in your own mind."  I am content in my own mind.
Are you content in your mind, John? So much of the time in here you
don't seem to be content at all.
  My view of it "works for me."
We're supposed to make sure that our understanding coincides with and
works for God - not us, John.
<Kelly>
2008-07-03 22:12:55 UTC
Permalink
   I'm guessing you don't "snoop on me" quite enough to notice the
times IN HERE I get corrected, and I accept the correction.
Hate to break it to ya, but reading your posts is not "snooping",
John. It's reading posts in a public, unmoderated forum. If you
don't want anyone to know what you're up to, don't post it for all the
world to see.
  I just am not going to accept "correction" from YOU when your life
is not up to what I consider "Christians standards."
You accept correction from no one - that much is plainly clear.
Post by <Kelly>
  I've been at this a LONG time;
You've been at *what* a long time?
I just don't see you as all that much
of a "scholar."
Are you saying that you see yourself as a "scholar", John?
I notice you avoided answering this question.
Post by <Kelly>
 And my understanding "satisfies me."
  Paul said, "be at peace."  
Are you at peace, John?  So much of the time in here you don't seem to
be at peace at all.
 I don't answer to you, Kelly.
You don't answer to anyone, John. You've made that clear with several
things you've said in here over thelast couple of days.

But my question wasn't trying to get you to "answer to [me]", I was
seriously asking the question. Are you at peace?
   I don't consider you a Christian. I don't consider you an elder. I
don't consider you a pastor. If you're a pastor, you're not MY pastor.
  You aren't a person I can look up to in any way I can think of.
You don't seriously think I care, do you?
  Though I do appreciate you standing up to Elaine over her accusing
me of demon possession.
  Excuse me.  "Demon infestation."  She knows so little about it, she
can't even say it correctly.
  "Thank you" for that.
  However, I've noticed the times I've corrected you, and the times
I've "been on your side", you  haven't thanked ME.
See below.
   "What goes around..."
I don't need your thanks, John - nor have I ever asked for them.

Oh, and BTW - when you do something for someone you're supposed to do
it just because it's the right thing to do, not because you expect
something in return. I know that's a foreign concept to you, but you
should really try it sometime.
john w <j@yahoo.com>
2008-07-04 06:47:11 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 15:12:55 -0700 (PDT), "<Kelly>" <***@gmail.com>
wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by <Kelly>
   I'm guessing you don't "snoop on me" quite enough to notice the
times IN HERE I get corrected, and I accept the correction.
Hate to break it to ya, but reading your posts is not "snooping",
You continue to nit-pick and to sidestep (and miss) the points
others make in your haste to make your own.

john w


SNIP

NOSPAM
2008-07-03 17:02:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I thank you, but let's put it this way: I prefer my understanding
of scripture to yours.
Understanding? WHAT understanding? You know nothing about the Bible,
or its contents.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I've been at this a LONG time; I just don't see you as all that much
of a "scholar."
You sure aren't any 'scholar' johnnie!
You're just a big mouthed, arrogant, lying weasel, fraudulently
trying to pass yourself off as 'an ordained Pastor' when you're not.
Scholar? You also got the boot from the seminary. Most likely, they
saw through what you really are and decided to put you out of their
misery.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
And my understanding "satisfies me."
Surrrrrrrrrrrrrre, it does, johnnie. You believe whatever your master,
Satan, feeds you.
You have no understanding of the Bible, and God's Word.
Your actions clearly prove that.
<Kelly>
2008-07-03 17:12:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by NOSPAM
 I thank you, but let's put it this way:  I prefer my understanding
of scripture to yours.
Understanding? WHAT understanding? You know nothing about the Bible,
or its contents.
 I've been at this a LONG time; I just don't see you as all that much
of a "scholar."
You sure aren't any 'scholar' johnnie!
 You're just a big mouthed, arrogant, lying weasel, fraudulently
trying to pass yourself off as 'an ordained Pastor' when you're not.
Scholar? You also got the boot from the seminary. Most likely, they
saw through what you really are and decided to put you out of their
misery.
And my understanding "satisfies me."
Surrrrrrrrrrrrrre, it does, johnnie. You believe whatever your master,
Satan, feeds you.
You have no understanding of the Bible, and God's Word.
Your actions clearly prove that.
You seem to be losing control over your words and emotions the last
few days, Elaine. Is there something going on with you?
NOSPAM
2008-07-03 20:15:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by <Kelly>
Post by NOSPAM
 I thank you, but let's put it this way:  I prefer my understanding
of scripture to yours.
Understanding? WHAT understanding? You know nothing about the Bible,
or its contents.
 I've been at this a LONG time; I just don't see you as all that much
of a "scholar."
You sure aren't any 'scholar' johnnie!
 You're just a big mouthed, arrogant, lying weasel, fraudulently
trying to pass yourself off as 'an ordained Pastor' when you're not.
Scholar? You also got the boot from the seminary. Most likely, they
saw through what you really are and decided to put you out of their
misery.
And my understanding "satisfies me."
Surrrrrrrrrrrrrre, it does, johnnie. You believe whatever your master,
Satan, feeds you.
You have no understanding of the Bible, and God's Word.
Your actions clearly prove that.
You seem to be losing control over your words and emotions the last
few days, Elaine. Is there something going on with you?
I'm losing no control, Kelly, but thank you for your concern. I am
merely telling it like it is where he is concerned.
WHAT real Christian would fraudulently try passing himself off one
minute as 'an ordained Pastor', then call others 'Gxx damned liars'
the next?
<Kelly>
2008-07-03 21:16:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by NOSPAM
Post by <Kelly>
Post by NOSPAM
 I thank you, but let's put it this way:  I prefer my understanding
of scripture to yours.
Understanding? WHAT understanding? You know nothing about the Bible,
or its contents.
 I've been at this a LONG time; I just don't see you as all that much
of a "scholar."
You sure aren't any 'scholar' johnnie!
 You're just a big mouthed, arrogant, lying weasel, fraudulently
trying to pass yourself off as 'an ordained Pastor' when you're not.
Scholar? You also got the boot from the seminary. Most likely, they
saw through what you really are and decided to put you out of their
misery.
And my understanding "satisfies me."
Surrrrrrrrrrrrrre, it does, johnnie. You believe whatever your master,
Satan, feeds you.
You have no understanding of the Bible, and God's Word.
Your actions clearly prove that.
You seem to be losing control over your words and emotions the last
few days, Elaine.  Is there something going on with you?
I'm losing no control, Kelly, but thank you for your concern. I am
merely telling it like it is where he is concerned.
 WHAT real Christian would fraudulently try passing himself off one
minute as 'an ordained Pastor', then call others 'Gxx damned liars'
the next?
Subjectively? Someone who isn't okay in the head at all.
Objectively? Someone who isn't okay in the head some of the time.

Demon posessed, though? Not. John has a testimony for when he asked
Christ into his heart - Christians don't become demon-posessed,
Elaine. Demon oppression, however, is possible for Christians.
john w <j@yahoo.com>
2008-07-03 21:28:44 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 16:15:09 -0400, NOSPAM <***@nospam> wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by NOSPAM
Post by <Kelly>
Post by NOSPAM
 I thank you, but let's put it this way:  I prefer my understanding
of scripture to yours.
Understanding? WHAT understanding? You know nothing about the Bible,
or its contents.
 I've been at this a LONG time; I just don't see you as all that much
of a "scholar."
You sure aren't any 'scholar' johnnie!
 You're just a big mouthed, arrogant, lying weasel, fraudulently
trying to pass yourself off as 'an ordained Pastor' when you're not.
Scholar? You also got the boot from the seminary. Most likely, they
saw through what you really are and decided to put you out of their
misery.
And my understanding "satisfies me."
Surrrrrrrrrrrrrre, it does, johnnie. You believe whatever your master,
Satan, feeds you.
You have no understanding of the Bible, and God's Word.
Your actions clearly prove that.
You seem to be losing control over your words and emotions the last
few days, Elaine. Is there something going on with you?
I'm losing no control, Kelly, but thank you for your concern. I am
merely telling it like it is where he is concerned.
You aren't "telling it like it is." You are ranting.
Post by NOSPAM
WHAT real Christian would fraudulently try passing himself off one
minute as 'an ordained Pastor', then call others 'Gxx damned liars'
the next?
The kind you don't understand.

There was a time, Cathy-- before she chose to sew her lips to your
ass-- would say,
"there are a LOT of concepts (some simple/some more complex) that
Elaine simply doesn't get.
Robibnikoff
2008-07-03 22:54:19 UTC
Permalink
"john w @yahoo.com>" <j<no> ranted & raved.....
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
If you can't be a good example....
You'll just have to be a horrible warning.
Sensi
2008-07-03 21:39:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by NOSPAM
Post by <Kelly>
Post by NOSPAM
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I thank you, but let's put it this way: I prefer my understanding
of scripture to yours.
Understanding? WHAT understanding? You know nothing about the Bible,
or its contents.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I've been at this a LONG time; I just don't see you as all that much
of a "scholar."
You sure aren't any 'scholar' johnnie!
You're just a big mouthed, arrogant, lying weasel, fraudulently
trying to pass yourself off as 'an ordained Pastor' when you're not.
Scholar? You also got the boot from the seminary. Most likely, they
saw through what you really are and decided to put you out of their
misery.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
And my understanding "satisfies me."
Surrrrrrrrrrrrrre, it does, johnnie. You believe whatever your master,
Satan, feeds you.
You have no understanding of the Bible, and God's Word.
Your actions clearly prove that.
You seem to be losing control over your words and emotions the last
few days, Elaine. Is there something going on with you?
I'm losing no control, Kelly, but thank you for your concern. I am
merely telling it like it is where he is concerned.
WHAT real Christian would fraudulently try passing himself off one
minute as 'an ordained Pastor', then call others 'Gxx damned liars'
the next?
Sensi:
Hand goes up at the back of the room waving with answer.....

Pastor Dave.
NOSPAM
2008-07-03 16:59:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Glenn
Is there ANY Beauty in this world?
The morning I saw my baby son's face for the first time, I saw real
beauty.
May the God of Abraham grant eternal life to your child.
Amen.
Thank you.
Post by Glenn
Now, knowing your child will live with God, what will you do to be with
your child?
That's already taken care of for both of us.
John 3:16-17 / Romans 10:9-10
Well, those would apply to any person old enough to believe and confess,
Correct.
Post by Glenn
but do not actually apply to a child.
Says who?
What, you can't read the scripture for yourself?
If you want to converse with me, don't talk down.
If you want to talk scripture to me, read it first.
#1, I doubt seriously that you could quote a passage I'm not
familiar with.
Being "familiar" with a passage is in no way evidence that you
comprehend it in Truth
True.
On the flip side, you may not understand it yourself.
, as evidenced by your lack of understanding and
Post by Glenn
misapplication of John 3:16 and Romans 9:9-10.
???? ^ ^ ^ ^ I beg your pardon!
Those two scriptures have nothing to do with innocent children, but in
your blind need to argue, you pervert the word of God.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
#2, I personally have an aversion to the KJV. An aversion I've
expressed many times.
I find it stiff, I find it obscure, I find it "old" and QUITE "out
of date."
So, if you are going to quote the KJV to me, we simply won't
converse.
Bye bye.
Ah! I caught me a KJV-Only kook!
No, you complete hypocrite, you just revealed that you think you can
demand that I quote scripture out of a version you choose, while you
refuse to consider the version others feel comfortable with. I will
quote the KJV, and if you don't like it, play with Chuck and Kelly.
Plus, you revealed yourself to be a liar, in that you said you would not
converse with me.
Now your very reply to me just reveals your false face.
[KJV] II Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that
day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man
of sin be revealed, the son of perdition...
Glenn
AMEN, Brother Glenn. A HUGE AMEN.
Personally, I have nothing against the KJV either, but I also read
other versions as well, for clarity and variety of biblical resource
material.

He claimed many times before that 'reading the KJV gives him a
headache'............ it sounds more like his eyes have been purposely
blinded to me. And he has also admitted that 'he chooses to remain in
the dark'.. That speaks volumes.
Glenn
2008-07-03 20:47:55 UTC
Permalink
<clip>
Post by NOSPAM
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
John 3:16-17 / Romans 10:9-10
Well, those would apply to any person old enough to believe and confess,
Correct.
Post by Glenn
but do not actually apply to a child.
Says who?
What, you can't read the scripture for yourself?
If you want to converse with me, don't talk down.
If you want to talk scripture to me, read it first.
#1, I doubt seriously that you could quote a passage I'm not
familiar with.
Being "familiar" with a passage is in no way evidence that you
comprehend it in Truth
True.
On the flip side, you may not understand it yourself.
, as evidenced by your lack of understanding and
Post by Glenn
misapplication of John 3:16 and Romans 9:9-10.
???? ^ ^ ^ ^ I beg your pardon!
Those two scriptures have nothing to do with innocent children, but in
your blind need to argue, you pervert the word of God.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Glenn
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
#2, I personally have an aversion to the KJV. An aversion I've
expressed many times.
I find it stiff, I find it obscure, I find it "old" and QUITE "out
of date."
So, if you are going to quote the KJV to me, we simply won't
converse.
Bye bye.
Ah! I caught me a KJV-Only kook!
No, you complete hypocrite, you just revealed that you think you can
demand that I quote scripture out of a version you choose, while you
refuse to consider the version others feel comfortable with. I will
quote the KJV, and if you don't like it, play with Chuck and Kelly.
Plus, you revealed yourself to be a liar, in that you said you would not
converse with me.
Now your very reply to me just reveals your false face.
[KJV] II Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that
day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man
of sin be revealed, the son of perdition...
Glenn
AMEN, Brother Glenn. A HUGE AMEN.
Personally, I have nothing against the KJV either, but I also read
other versions as well, for clarity and variety of biblical resource
material.
He claimed many times before that 'reading the KJV gives him a
headache'............ it sounds more like his eyes have been purposely
blinded to me. And he has also admitted that 'he chooses to remain in
the dark'.. That speaks volumes.
Thanks for your comments.

I was raised reading the KJV, and am comfortable with it, but read
several versions...

I have the Phillips, which I think is the best modern English NT
paraphrase, and regularly compare the KJV with the NAS. I have maybe 18
versions in a computer program.

What irritated me is John's quoting scripture (John 3:16, Rom 9:9-10) to
support his wrong idea, (these have NOTHING to do with innocent
children) then demanding that I not quote the KJV to him.

Glenn
--
www.thelittlebookopened.org [Key words:] "The Little Book";
Glenn McClary, servitum, gaedhealic, oldwetdog
Chuck Stamford
2008-07-01 06:31:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Glenn
Is there ANY Beauty in this world?
Not if you need to ask.

Chuck Stamford
john w <j@yahoo.com>
2008-07-01 11:20:13 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:31:18 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
<shell-***@cox.net> wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by Glenn
Is there ANY Beauty in this world?
Not if you need to ask.
How about pointing him to some beauty, Chuck?

I can't think of anything I've ever seen that I found MORE
beautiful than the face of my newborn babe the moment he emerged from
his mom.

And every time I see my son, I continue to think he's the most
beautiful sight I've ever laid my eyes on.

john w
Post by Chuck Stamford
Chuck Stamford
Chuck Stamford
2008-07-01 15:41:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:31:18 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by Glenn
Is there ANY Beauty in this world?
Not if you need to ask.
How about pointing him to some beauty, Chuck?
I can't think of anything I've ever seen that I found MORE
beautiful than the face of my newborn babe the moment he emerged from
his mom.
And every time I see my son, I continue to think he's the most
beautiful sight I've ever laid my eyes on.
john w
Beauty, like so many other abstract concepts, in truly in the eye of the
beholder. I know that's a cliche, but it's true. The identification of
"beauty" is a largely subjective act. I'm glad you feel the way you do
about your son, but what you or I find beautiful isn't going to do someone
who can ask that question any good. Especially since Glenn has had children
of his own, and still can ask.

Chuck Stamford
john w <j@yahoo.com>
2008-07-02 00:30:26 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 08:41:17 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
<shell-***@cox.net> wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:31:18 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by Glenn
Is there ANY Beauty in this world?
Not if you need to ask.
How about pointing him to some beauty, Chuck?
I can't think of anything I've ever seen that I found MORE
beautiful than the face of my newborn babe the moment he emerged from
his mom.
And every time I see my son, I continue to think he's the most
beautiful sight I've ever laid my eyes on.
john w
Beauty, like so many other abstract concepts, in truly in the eye of the
beholder. I know that's a cliche, but it's true. The identification of
"beauty" is a largely subjective act. I'm glad you feel the way you do
about your son, but what you or I find beautiful isn't going to do someone
who can ask that question any good. Especially since Glenn has had children
of his own, and still can ask.
I'm GENTLY suggesting that someone who is depressed, someone who is
down, has asked for a lifeline, a rope, a life preserver, to be
thrown.

He sees the world as "ugly", and has asked-- as pleaded-- someone,
show me some beauty.

I filled a simple request. "Our children are the most beautiful
thing in the world. Our mothers are a close second. Our wives would be
3rd.

Rather than pontificating, how about we just "toss the guy a life
line?"

Tell him what you find "most beautiful " in the world.

Your wife? Your daughter?
The guy's wife next door?

( friendly dig) ^ ^^
Post by Chuck Stamford
Chuck Stamford
Chuck Stamford
2008-07-02 01:37:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 08:41:17 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:31:18 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by Glenn
Is there ANY Beauty in this world?
Not if you need to ask.
How about pointing him to some beauty, Chuck?
I can't think of anything I've ever seen that I found MORE
beautiful than the face of my newborn babe the moment he emerged from
his mom.
And every time I see my son, I continue to think he's the most
beautiful sight I've ever laid my eyes on.
john w
Beauty, like so many other abstract concepts, in truly in the eye of the
beholder. I know that's a cliche, but it's true. The identification of
"beauty" is a largely subjective act. I'm glad you feel the way you do
about your son, but what you or I find beautiful isn't going to do someone
who can ask that question any good. Especially since Glenn has had children
of his own, and still can ask.
I'm GENTLY suggesting that someone who is depressed, someone who is
down, has asked for a lifeline, a rope, a life preserver, to be
thrown.
He sees the world as "ugly", and has asked-- as pleaded-- someone,
show me some beauty.
I filled a simple request. "Our children are the most beautiful
thing in the world. Our mothers are a close second. Our wives would be
3rd.
Rather than pontificating, how about we just "toss the guy a life
line?"
Tell him what you find "most beautiful " in the world.
Your wife? Your daughter?
The guy's wife next door?
( friendly dig) ^ ^^
I've experienced Glenn for years now, John. Believe me, nothing works...but
be my guest.

For my part, I'll just continue to use his posts to make points I think are
important.

Chuck Stamford
john w <j@yahoo.com>
2008-07-02 04:51:57 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 18:37:28 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
<shell-***@cox.net> wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 08:41:17 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:31:18 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by Glenn
Is there ANY Beauty in this world?
Not if you need to ask.
How about pointing him to some beauty, Chuck?
I can't think of anything I've ever seen that I found MORE
beautiful than the face of my newborn babe the moment he emerged from
his mom.
And every time I see my son, I continue to think he's the most
beautiful sight I've ever laid my eyes on.
john w
Beauty, like so many other abstract concepts, in truly in the eye of the
beholder. I know that's a cliche, but it's true. The identification of
"beauty" is a largely subjective act. I'm glad you feel the way you do
about your son, but what you or I find beautiful isn't going to do someone
who can ask that question any good. Especially since Glenn has had children
of his own, and still can ask.
I'm GENTLY suggesting that someone who is depressed, someone who is
down, has asked for a lifeline, a rope, a life preserver, to be
thrown.
He sees the world as "ugly", and has asked-- as pleaded-- someone,
show me some beauty.
I filled a simple request. "Our children are the most beautiful
thing in the world. Our mothers are a close second. Our wives would be
3rd.
Rather than pontificating, how about we just "toss the guy a life
line?"
Tell him what you find "most beautiful " in the world.
Your wife? Your daughter?
The guy's wife next door?
( friendly dig) ^ ^^
I've experienced Glenn for years now, John. Believe me, nothing works...but
be my guest.
For my part, I'll just continue to use his posts to make points I think are
important.
You know what?

I have now had him assault me several times when I simply tried to
"reach out."

I with draw my above negative advice, and I'm going to consider
taking yours!

In the short time we've known each other, you've been nothing but
kind.

I just slapped your hand, and you smiled and were patient, as in,
"John! You just aren't getting it."

I apologize for the slap, and I defer to you!

(let no one say I can't learn from a better example)

Thank you! Sir! < sincerely.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Chuck Stamford
Chuck Stamford
2008-07-02 15:19:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 18:37:28 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 08:41:17 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:31:18 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by Glenn
Is there ANY Beauty in this world?
Not if you need to ask.
How about pointing him to some beauty, Chuck?
I can't think of anything I've ever seen that I found MORE
beautiful than the face of my newborn babe the moment he emerged from
his mom.
And every time I see my son, I continue to think he's the most
beautiful sight I've ever laid my eyes on.
john w
Beauty, like so many other abstract concepts, in truly in the eye of the
beholder. I know that's a cliche, but it's true. The identification of
"beauty" is a largely subjective act. I'm glad you feel the way you do
about your son, but what you or I find beautiful isn't going to do someone
who can ask that question any good. Especially since Glenn has had children
of his own, and still can ask.
I'm GENTLY suggesting that someone who is depressed, someone who is
down, has asked for a lifeline, a rope, a life preserver, to be
thrown.
He sees the world as "ugly", and has asked-- as pleaded-- someone,
show me some beauty.
I filled a simple request. "Our children are the most beautiful
thing in the world. Our mothers are a close second. Our wives would be
3rd.
Rather than pontificating, how about we just "toss the guy a life
line?"
Tell him what you find "most beautiful " in the world.
Your wife? Your daughter?
The guy's wife next door?
( friendly dig) ^ ^^
I've experienced Glenn for years now, John. Believe me, nothing works...but
be my guest.
For my part, I'll just continue to use his posts to make points I think are
important.
You know what?
I have now had him assault me several times when I simply tried to
"reach out."
I with draw my above negative advice, and I'm going to consider
taking yours!
In the short time we've known each other, you've been nothing but
kind.
I just slapped your hand, and you smiled and were patient, as in,
"John! You just aren't getting it."
I apologize for the slap, and I defer to you!
(let no one say I can't learn from a better example)
Thank you! Sir! < sincerely.
Well, you're making more of this than there is to it on my end. I'm not as
sensitive to other's feelings as you seem to be (for me it's about true and
false above everything else, and most of the time I don't even stop to
consider what anyone "feels" about it), so my thick skin didn't so much as
register any "slap", and therefore I had nothing to "rise above" in my
response.

I just wanted you to know I wasn't jumping to any conclusions or making any
snap judgments concerning Glenn. However, I also don't presume to know that
just because I've never been able to drive any sense into him, and have by
now quit trying, the Lord can't use you or someone else to do it...which
accounts for the "be my guest".

Please don't treat other people differently than you feel led to on account
of anything I've said. We're all responsible to the same Lord.

Chuck Stamford
john w <j@yahoo.com>
2008-07-02 15:56:59 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 08:19:14 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
<shell-***@cox.net> wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 18:37:28 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 08:41:17 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:31:18 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by Glenn
Is there ANY Beauty in this world?
Not if you need to ask.
How about pointing him to some beauty, Chuck?
I can't think of anything I've ever seen that I found MORE
beautiful than the face of my newborn babe the moment he emerged from
his mom.
And every time I see my son, I continue to think he's the most
beautiful sight I've ever laid my eyes on.
john w
Beauty, like so many other abstract concepts, in truly in the eye of the
beholder. I know that's a cliche, but it's true. The identification of
"beauty" is a largely subjective act. I'm glad you feel the way you do
about your son, but what you or I find beautiful isn't going to do someone
who can ask that question any good. Especially since Glenn has had children
of his own, and still can ask.
I'm GENTLY suggesting that someone who is depressed, someone who is
down, has asked for a lifeline, a rope, a life preserver, to be
thrown.
He sees the world as "ugly", and has asked-- as pleaded-- someone,
show me some beauty.
I filled a simple request. "Our children are the most beautiful
thing in the world. Our mothers are a close second. Our wives would be
3rd.
Rather than pontificating, how about we just "toss the guy a life
line?"
Tell him what you find "most beautiful " in the world.
Your wife? Your daughter?
The guy's wife next door?
( friendly dig) ^ ^^
I've experienced Glenn for years now, John. Believe me, nothing works...but
be my guest.
For my part, I'll just continue to use his posts to make points I think are
important.
You know what?
I have now had him assault me several times when I simply tried to
"reach out."
I with draw my above negative advice, and I'm going to consider
taking yours!
In the short time we've known each other, you've been nothing but
kind.
I just slapped your hand, and you smiled and were patient, as in,
"John! You just aren't getting it."
I apologize for the slap, and I defer to you!
(let no one say I can't learn from a better example)
Thank you! Sir! < sincerely.
Well, you're making more of this than there is to it on my end. I'm not as
sensitive to other's feelings as you seem to be (for me it's about true and
false above everything else, and most of the time I don't even stop to
consider what anyone "feels" about it), so my thick skin didn't so much as
register any "slap", and therefore I had nothing to "rise above" in my
response.
Well, I certainly understand your point. And I wasn't quite being
LITERAL as I was using "metaphor" to make my point.
Which was, you gently corrected me, and I turned and corrected you.
You were right, and if I hadn't "fired from the hip", I'd have
figured that out pretty quickly.
I'm basically thanking you for not "biting my head off" for not
being receptive to another POV to begin with.
You-- like me-- are a seeker of The Truth.
We can agree on that.

I likewise, don't concern myself with "tact." If I bloody
someone's nose in my attempt to "straighten them out," so be it.
Too many want to do a dance while they "present." I present and skip
the dance. I am not trying to ENTERTAIN, so much as I am inform.
Post by Chuck Stamford
I just wanted you to know I wasn't jumping to any conclusions or making any
snap judgments concerning Glenn.
Got it!

However, I also don't presume to know that
Post by Chuck Stamford
just because I've never been able to drive any sense into him, and have by
now quit trying, the Lord can't use you or someone else to do it...which
accounts for the "be my guest".
Well, I jumped on YOU for suggesting that he wasn't worthy of my
energy. A post or two later... Oops! I think the light is breaking! I
spoke too soon!
Post by Chuck Stamford
Please don't treat other people differently than you feel led to on account
of anything I've said. We're all responsible to the same Lord.
Well, I'll put it this way. Too many (not you) are WAY too concerned
with "style"; I focus on SUBSTANCE.

I believe you do as well. If my style bothers some, "so be it."
Post by Chuck Stamford
Chuck Stamford
Chuck Stamford
2008-07-02 18:29:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 08:19:14 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 18:37:28 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 08:41:17 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:31:18 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by Glenn
Is there ANY Beauty in this world?
Not if you need to ask.
How about pointing him to some beauty, Chuck?
I can't think of anything I've ever seen that I found MORE
beautiful than the face of my newborn babe the moment he emerged from
his mom.
And every time I see my son, I continue to think he's the most
beautiful sight I've ever laid my eyes on.
john w
Beauty, like so many other abstract concepts, in truly in the eye of the
beholder. I know that's a cliche, but it's true. The identification of
"beauty" is a largely subjective act. I'm glad you feel the way you do
about your son, but what you or I find beautiful isn't going to do someone
who can ask that question any good. Especially since Glenn has had children
of his own, and still can ask.
I'm GENTLY suggesting that someone who is depressed, someone who is
down, has asked for a lifeline, a rope, a life preserver, to be
thrown.
He sees the world as "ugly", and has asked-- as pleaded-- someone,
show me some beauty.
I filled a simple request. "Our children are the most beautiful
thing in the world. Our mothers are a close second. Our wives would be
3rd.
Rather than pontificating, how about we just "toss the guy a life
line?"
Tell him what you find "most beautiful " in the world.
Your wife? Your daughter?
The guy's wife next door?
( friendly dig) ^ ^^
I've experienced Glenn for years now, John. Believe me, nothing works...but
be my guest.
For my part, I'll just continue to use his posts to make points I think are
important.
You know what?
I have now had him assault me several times when I simply tried to
"reach out."
I with draw my above negative advice, and I'm going to consider
taking yours!
In the short time we've known each other, you've been nothing but
kind.
I just slapped your hand, and you smiled and were patient, as in,
"John! You just aren't getting it."
I apologize for the slap, and I defer to you!
(let no one say I can't learn from a better example)
Thank you! Sir! < sincerely.
Well, you're making more of this than there is to it on my end. I'm not as
sensitive to other's feelings as you seem to be (for me it's about true and
false above everything else, and most of the time I don't even stop to
consider what anyone "feels" about it), so my thick skin didn't so much as
register any "slap", and therefore I had nothing to "rise above" in my
response.
Well, I certainly understand your point. And I wasn't quite being
LITERAL as I was using "metaphor" to make my point.
Which was, you gently corrected me, and I turned and corrected you.
You were right, and if I hadn't "fired from the hip", I'd have
figured that out pretty quickly.
I'm basically thanking you for not "biting my head off" for not
being receptive to another POV to begin with.
Then, basically, you're welcome. ;-)
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
You-- like me-- are a seeker of The Truth.
We can agree on that.
No reason I can see not to.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I likewise, don't concern myself with "tact." If I bloody
someone's nose in my attempt to "straighten them out," so be it.
Too many want to do a dance while they "present." I present and skip
the dance. I am not trying to ENTERTAIN, so much as I am inform.
I was speaking generally, and generally speaking, you seemed to me much more
sensitive to other's feelings than me. I'm not suggesting you don't
sometimes trod on them anyway, just that you're more likely to be aware of
them than I am. I very often hurt people's feelings without any intention
of doing so, just because I don't recognize what they are until after the
fact.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
I just wanted you to know I wasn't jumping to any conclusions or making any
snap judgments concerning Glenn.
Got it!
However, I also don't presume to know that
Post by Chuck Stamford
just because I've never been able to drive any sense into him, and have by
now quit trying, the Lord can't use you or someone else to do it...which
accounts for the "be my guest".
Well, I jumped on YOU for suggesting that he wasn't worthy of my
energy. A post or two later... Oops! I think the light is breaking! I
spoke too soon!
Not a problem.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
Please don't treat other people differently than you feel led to on account
of anything I've said. We're all responsible to the same Lord.
Well, I'll put it this way. Too many (not you) are WAY too concerned
with "style"; I focus on SUBSTANCE.
I believe you do as well. If my style bothers some, "so be it."
My style strikes a lot of people as arrogant, but I don't really think of
myself as anything special. There is, however, no point in beating a dead
horse, and there will always be people who WANT to think the worst of
others, and who JUMP at any little thing they can find as an excuse to do
it. So I've quit worrying about what anyone thinks of my "style" as well.
If I work hard, and manage to change it, what will I have accomplished
except to change from one group of people who find me offensive to another.
Substance is all that matters in the end.

Chuck Stamford
john w <j@yahoo.com>
2008-07-02 19:21:24 UTC
Permalink
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 11:29:26 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
<shell-***@cox.net> wrote:
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 08:19:14 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 18:37:28 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 08:41:17 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:31:18 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by Glenn
Is there ANY Beauty in this world?
Not if you need to ask.
How about pointing him to some beauty, Chuck?
I can't think of anything I've ever seen that I found MORE
beautiful than the face of my newborn babe the moment he emerged from
his mom.
And every time I see my son, I continue to think he's the most
beautiful sight I've ever laid my eyes on.
john w
Beauty, like so many other abstract concepts, in truly in the eye of the
beholder. I know that's a cliche, but it's true. The identification of
"beauty" is a largely subjective act. I'm glad you feel the way you do
about your son, but what you or I find beautiful isn't going to do someone
who can ask that question any good. Especially since Glenn has had children
of his own, and still can ask.
I'm GENTLY suggesting that someone who is depressed, someone who is
down, has asked for a lifeline, a rope, a life preserver, to be
thrown.
He sees the world as "ugly", and has asked-- as pleaded-- someone,
show me some beauty.
I filled a simple request. "Our children are the most beautiful
thing in the world. Our mothers are a close second. Our wives would be
3rd.
Rather than pontificating, how about we just "toss the guy a life
line?"
Tell him what you find "most beautiful " in the world.
Your wife? Your daughter?
The guy's wife next door?
( friendly dig) ^ ^^
I've experienced Glenn for years now, John. Believe me, nothing works...but
be my guest.
For my part, I'll just continue to use his posts to make points I think are
important.
You know what?
I have now had him assault me several times when I simply tried to
"reach out."
I with draw my above negative advice, and I'm going to consider
taking yours!
In the short time we've known each other, you've been nothing but
kind.
I just slapped your hand, and you smiled and were patient, as in,
"John! You just aren't getting it."
I apologize for the slap, and I defer to you!
(let no one say I can't learn from a better example)
Thank you! Sir! < sincerely.
Well, you're making more of this than there is to it on my end. I'm not as
sensitive to other's feelings as you seem to be (for me it's about true and
false above everything else, and most of the time I don't even stop to
consider what anyone "feels" about it), so my thick skin didn't so much as
register any "slap", and therefore I had nothing to "rise above" in my
response.
Well, I certainly understand your point. And I wasn't quite being
LITERAL as I was using "metaphor" to make my point.
Which was, you gently corrected me, and I turned and corrected you.
You were right, and if I hadn't "fired from the hip", I'd have
figured that out pretty quickly.
I'm basically thanking you for not "biting my head off" for not
being receptive to another POV to begin with.
Then, basically, you're welcome. ;-)
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
You-- like me-- are a seeker of The Truth.
We can agree on that.
No reason I can see not to.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I likewise, don't concern myself with "tact." If I bloody
someone's nose in my attempt to "straighten them out," so be it.
Too many want to do a dance while they "present." I present and skip
the dance. I am not trying to ENTERTAIN, so much as I am inform.
I was speaking generally, and generally speaking, you seemed to me much more
sensitive to other's feelings than me. I'm not suggesting you don't
sometimes trod on them anyway, just that you're more likely to be aware of
them than I am. I very often hurt people's feelings without any intention
of doing so, just because I don't recognize what they are until after the
fact.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
I just wanted you to know I wasn't jumping to any conclusions or making any
snap judgments concerning Glenn.
Got it!
However, I also don't presume to know that
Post by Chuck Stamford
just because I've never been able to drive any sense into him, and have by
now quit trying, the Lord can't use you or someone else to do it...which
accounts for the "be my guest".
Well, I jumped on YOU for suggesting that he wasn't worthy of my
energy. A post or two later... Oops! I think the light is breaking! I
spoke too soon!
Not a problem.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
Please don't treat other people differently than you feel led to on account
of anything I've said. We're all responsible to the same Lord.
Well, I'll put it this way. Too many (not you) are WAY too concerned
with "style"; I focus on SUBSTANCE.
I believe you do as well. If my style bothers some, "so be it."
My style strikes a lot of people as arrogant, but I don't really think of
myself as anything special. There is, however, no point in beating a dead
horse, and there will always be people who WANT to think the worst of
others, and who JUMP at any little thing they can find as an excuse to do
it. So I've quit worrying about what anyone thinks of my "style" as well.
If I work hard, and manage to change it, what will I have accomplished
except to change from one group of people who find me offensive to another.
Substance is all that matters in the end.
smirk. < a friendly one

Well said.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Chuck Stamford
Glenn
2008-07-02 21:02:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 11:29:26 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 08:19:14 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 18:37:28 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 08:41:17 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:31:18 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
© 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Post by Chuck Stamford
Post by Glenn
Is there ANY Beauty in this world?
Not if you need to ask.
How about pointing him to some beauty, Chuck?
I can't think of anything I've ever seen that I found MORE
beautiful than the face of my newborn babe the moment he emerged from
his mom.
And every time I see my son, I continue to think he's the most
beautiful sight I've ever laid my eyes on.
john w
Beauty, like so many other abstract concepts, in truly in the eye of the
beholder. I know that's a cliche, but it's true. The identification of
"beauty" is a largely subjective act. I'm glad you feel the way you do
about your son, but what you or I find beautiful isn't going to do someone
who can ask that question any good. Especially since Glenn has had children
of his own, and still can ask.
I'm GENTLY suggesting that someone who is depressed, someone who is
down, has asked for a lifeline, a rope, a life preserver, to be
thrown.
He sees the world as "ugly", and has asked-- as pleaded-- someone,
show me some beauty.
I filled a simple request. "Our children are the most beautiful
thing in the world. Our mothers are a close second. Our wives would be
3rd.
Rather than pontificating, how about we just "toss the guy a life
line?"
Tell him what you find "most beautiful " in the world.
Your wife? Your daughter?
The guy's wife next door?
( friendly dig) ^ ^^
I've experienced Glenn for years now, John. Believe me, nothing works...but
be my guest.
For my part, I'll just continue to use his posts to make points I think are
important.
You know what?
I have now had him assault me several times when I simply tried to
"reach out."
I with draw my above negative advice, and I'm going to consider
taking yours!
In the short time we've known each other, you've been nothing but
kind.
I just slapped your hand, and you smiled and were patient, as in,
"John! You just aren't getting it."
I apologize for the slap, and I defer to you!
(let no one say I can't learn from a better example)
Thank you! Sir! < sincerely.
Well, you're making more of this than there is to it on my end. I'm not as
sensitive to other's feelings as you seem to be (for me it's about true and
false above everything else, and most of the time I don't even stop to
consider what anyone "feels" about it), so my thick skin didn't so much as
register any "slap", and therefore I had nothing to "rise above" in my
response.
Well, I certainly understand your point. And I wasn't quite being
LITERAL as I was using "metaphor" to make my point.
Which was, you gently corrected me, and I turned and corrected you.
You were right, and if I hadn't "fired from the hip", I'd have
figured that out pretty quickly.
I'm basically thanking you for not "biting my head off" for not
being receptive to another POV to begin with.
Then, basically, you're welcome. ;-)
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
You-- like me-- are a seeker of The Truth.
We can agree on that.
No reason I can see not to.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I likewise, don't concern myself with "tact." If I bloody
someone's nose in my attempt to "straighten them out," so be it.
Too many want to do a dance while they "present." I present and skip
the dance. I am not trying to ENTERTAIN, so much as I am inform.
I was speaking generally, and generally speaking, you seemed to me much more
sensitive to other's feelings than me. I'm not suggesting you don't
sometimes trod on them anyway, just that you're more likely to be aware of
them than I am. I very often hurt people's feelings without any intention
of doing so, just because I don't recognize what they are until after the
fact.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
I just wanted you to know I wasn't jumping to any conclusions or making any
snap judgments concerning Glenn.
Got it!
However, I also don't presume to know that
Post by Chuck Stamford
just because I've never been able to drive any sense into him, and have by
now quit trying, the Lord can't use you or someone else to do it...which
accounts for the "be my guest".
Well, I jumped on YOU for suggesting that he wasn't worthy of my
energy. A post or two later... Oops! I think the light is breaking! I
spoke too soon!
Not a problem.
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
Post by Chuck Stamford
Please don't treat other people differently than you feel led to on account
of anything I've said. We're all responsible to the same Lord.
Well, I'll put it this way. Too many (not you) are WAY too concerned
with "style"; I focus on SUBSTANCE.
I believe you do as well. If my style bothers some, "so be it."
My style strikes a lot of people as arrogant, but I don't really think of
myself as anything special. There is, however, no point in beating a dead
horse, and there will always be people who WANT to think the worst of
others, and who JUMP at any little thing they can find as an excuse to do
it.
Considering the source of this sentiment...that's funny! I could get my
pants pressed with the irony!

LOL!
--
www.thelittlebookopened.org [Key words:] "The Little Book";
Glenn McClary, servitum, gaedhealic, oldwetdog
NOSPAM
2008-07-03 16:50:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by john w <***@yahoo.com>
I likewise, don't concern myself with "tact." If I bloody
someone's nose in my attempt to "straighten them out," so be it.
Too many want to do a dance while they "present." I present and skip
the dance. I am not trying to ENTERTAIN, so much as I am inform.
Dear God in Heaven- forgive johnnie for such ridiculous words.
In Jesus' name, AMEN.
Exodus 20:8-10
2008-07-01 06:33:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Glenn
Is there ANY Beauty in this world?
I'll have to admit that I spend (some will accuse, too much) time
looking at the bad coming on this world -- so much that the good and the
beauty seems hard to find.
So, when I discovered this,
http://youtu.be/vlO0ikRPZrc
I wanted to share...
Glenn
--
www.thelittlebookopened.org[Key words:] "The Little Book";
Glenn McClary, servitum, gaedhealic, oldwetdog
If there were no beauty you wouldn't have that concept.
Chuck Stamford
2008-07-01 06:40:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Glenn
Is there ANY Beauty in this world?
I'll have to admit that I spend (some will accuse, too much) time
looking at the bad coming on this world -- so much that the good and the
beauty seems hard to find.
So, when I discovered this,
http://youtu.be/vlO0ikRPZrc
I wanted to share...
Glenn
--
www.thelittlebookopened.org[Key words:] "The Little Book";
Glenn McClary, servitum, gaedhealic, oldwetdog
If there were no beauty you wouldn't have that concept.

Chuck:

Not really true. Human beings are able to conceptualize what doesn't
actually exist. It's called imagination. It's how the majority around here
interprets the Bible.
Exodus 20:8-10
2008-07-01 10:41:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Exodus 20:8-10
Post by Glenn
Is there ANY Beauty in this world?
I'll have to admit that I spend (some will accuse, too much) time
looking at the bad coming on this world -- so much that the good and the
beauty seems hard to find.
So, when I discovered this,
http://youtu.be/vlO0ikRPZrc
I wanted to share...
Glenn
--
www.thelittlebookopened.org[Keywords:] "The Little Book";
Glenn McClary, servitum, gaedhealic, oldwetdog
If there were no beauty you wouldn't have that concept.
Not really true. �Human beings are able to conceptualize what doesn't
actually exist. �It's called imagination. �It's how the majority around here
interprets the Bible.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You have it wrong. Imagination is based on reality.
Chuck Stamford
2008-07-01 15:43:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Exodus 20:8-10
Post by Glenn
Is there ANY Beauty in this world?
I'll have to admit that I spend (some will accuse, too much) time
looking at the bad coming on this world -- so much that the good and the
beauty seems hard to find.
So, when I discovered this,
http://youtu.be/vlO0ikRPZrc
I wanted to share...
Glenn
--
www.thelittlebookopened.org[Keywords:] "The Little Book";
Glenn McClary, servitum, gaedhealic, oldwetdog
If there were no beauty you wouldn't have that concept.
Not really true. ?Human beings are able to conceptualize what doesn't
actually exist. ?It's called imagination. ?It's how the majority around
here
interprets the Bible.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You have it wrong. Imagination is based on reality.

Chuck:

That's true, but "based on" doesn't salvage your premise.
Qadosh Stephanos
2008-07-01 16:08:50 UTC
Permalink
Genesis 10:6 (ASV)

And the sons of Ham: Cush, and Mizraim (Egypt), and Put, and Canaan.

Job 30:30 (ASV)

My skin is black, and falleth from me, And my bones are burned with
heat.

Song of Solomon 1:5 (ASV)

I am black, but comely, Oh ye daughters of Jerusalem, As the tents of
Kedar, As the curtains of Solomon.

Lametations 5:10 (ASV)

Our skin is black like an oven, Because of the burning heat of famine.
Matthew 5:36 (ASV)

Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, for thou canst not make one hair
white or black (or blonde).

Read the other stuff in the Bible book about Mozes and Abraham.

They were all black people, including Paul, the 13th Apostle.
Mary Hogan
2008-07-01 16:35:52 UTC
Permalink
"Qadosh Stephanos" <***@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...

Is this you, Richard?
Post by Qadosh Stephanos
Genesis 10:6 (ASV)
And the sons of Ham: Cush, and Mizraim (Egypt), and Put, and Canaan.
Ham was cursed because he revealed his father's nakedness and jested. The
curse was the color of the skin.

Nimrod was probably black. His skin was irrelevant in that he corupted his
own ways.

The curse is just a starting point, what a person does with his life is
rated to the extent that he raises himself from the curse.

Some could say that a great Rabbi the son of a great Rabbi's starting point
is different than the accursed above, but perhaps he is judged then what he
does with his life on a different scale.

Some sages say that a Baalei Tshuvah, (a person who gets himself out of
world and into Torah) is higher than the above Rabbi, the son of a great
Rabbi. There are differences like accumulated Torah, which the son has much
more than the Baalei Tshuvah. It's deep, because even the evil inclination
of the son is far greater than the Baalei Tshuvah, unless he reach tzaddik,
which has decimated the yetzer, the evil inclination.

So you take the son of a gonef, a thief and he passes an open purse on the
ground and he decides that he doesn't want to be that guy who steals
anymore. BIG MITZVAH!!!!!

You take the son of the Rabbi, who would never even think of taking anothers
belonging and he doesn't take, big deal no big mitzvah.

This is pretty deep, but the reason that people feel cursed, is because that
is their scenario. The job at hand is to raise yourself to the best of your
ability to a higher degree of sanctity. Then one mitzvah leads to the
desire for another, and before you know it, the curse is irrelevant.
Post by Qadosh Stephanos
Job 30:30 (ASV)
My skin is black, and falleth from me, And my bones are burned with
heat.
This is a completely different situation. My skin is blackened upon me, my
bones are heated by the fever. This is extreme disease, and very painful
but has nothing to do with the curse.
Post by Qadosh Stephanos
Song of Solomon 1:5 (ASV)
I am black, but comely, Oh ye daughters of Jerusalem, As the tents of
Kedar, As the curtains of Solomon.
Though I am black with sin, I am comely with virtue. [literally: I am black
but comely]\

Though my husband left me because of my sins, I still have the zchuss, the
merit of my forefathers which makes me comely.
Post by Qadosh Stephanos
They were all black people, including Paul, the 13th Apostle.
You are kidding, right?

This is what happens when a person tries to translate Torah himself.

Zipporah

Numbers 12:1 Miriam and Aaron spoke about Moses regarding the Cushite woman
he had married, for he had married a Cushite woman.

Note: Zipporah was a Midianite and her father was very prominent man who
gave up paganism. This wasn't derogatory about Zipporah. It was about the
fact that Moses stopped being a husband to Zipporah.

Cushite, to the darkness of a Cushite, meant that she was very beautiful It
is not derogatory. Everyone admitted to her beauty, and Miriam drew the
contamination of tzaaras, which was a leprous spot that appeared when one
spoke loshon hara. The Gematria and the relationship to beauty is how the
Rabbis, here Rashi determine, perhaps the whole meaning behind the passage.
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Mary Hogan
2008-07-01 16:39:21 UTC
Permalink
I meant that this ->> They were all black people, including Paul, the 13th
Apostle.<< is what happens when a person tries to translate Torah
themselves. Mistake after mistake.

Jews are from Shem.




----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
2008-07-02 01:32:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mary Hogan
I meant that this ->> They were all black people, including Paul, the 13th
Apostle.<< is what happens when a person tries to translate Torah
themselves. Mistake after mistake.
Jews are from Shem.
No, ISRAELITES are from Shem.

The "Jews who say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie" are from the
REJECTS, and INFILTRATED "Israel," just like Jesus, Paul, and John said...

Ike
Mary Hogan
2008-07-02 01:40:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Post by Mary Hogan
I meant that this ->> They were all black people, including Paul, the 13th
Apostle.<< is what happens when a person tries to translate Torah
themselves. Mistake after mistake.
Jews are from Shem.
No, ISRAELITES are from Shem.
The "Jews who say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie" are from the
REJECTS, and INFILTRATED "Israel," just like Jesus, Paul, and John said...
Ike
And the Israelites were what?

By the way, there is this little thing called DNA.


Jesus Paul and John were despicable men, rebels pure and simple. Paul was a
renegade and studied under an amazing teacher, Gamliel, but he didn't like
it. It was too hard. He wanted to be the head, and not just a little talmid.

Jesus put down his own people and said many reprehensible things about the
Rabbis of the time. What you call Pharisees are the most amazing men who
learned Torah night and day. When you see how they dissect ever iota of
Torah, and how they dissolve self-justification.

Now, watch Ikey implode and ask yourself, is this who I want to be?



You Ike, time and time again prove clearly why not to be an Xtian. You are
not atypical of the mindset of a people who act one way and talk another,
until you get them riled.

Keep talking Ikey, you will bury yourself over and over again.



----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
2008-07-02 05:30:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mary Hogan
Post by H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Post by Mary Hogan
I meant that this ->> They were all black people, including Paul, the
13th Apostle.<< is what happens when a person tries to translate Torah
themselves. Mistake after mistake.
Jews are from Shem.
No, ISRAELITES are from Shem.
The "Jews who say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie" are from the
REJECTS, and INFILTRATED "Israel," just like Jesus, Paul, and John said...
Ike
And the Israelites were what?
The tribes from the 12 sons of Jacob, who was son of Isaac, who was son of
Abraham.

This point Jesus made when He confessed that your Pharisee fathers were "of
Abraham," but NOT "of Abraham," as they were children of the Devil.
Post by Mary Hogan
By the way, there is this little thing called DNA.
Proving what?
Post by Mary Hogan
Jesus Paul and John were despicable men, rebels pure and simple.
No, your PHARISEE FATHERS were the "despicable men" who led what was left of
Israel astray, without a doubt.

[snip the rest of the Satanic false accusations]

Ike
Mary Hogan
2008-07-02 13:09:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Post by Mary Hogan
Post by H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Post by Mary Hogan
I meant that this ->> They were all black people, including Paul, the
13th Apostle.<< is what happens when a person tries to translate Torah
themselves. Mistake after mistake.
Jews are from Shem.
No, ISRAELITES are from Shem.
The "Jews who say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie" are from the
REJECTS, and INFILTRATED "Israel," just like Jesus, Paul, and John said...
Ike
And the Israelites were what?
The tribes from the 12 sons of Jacob, who was son of Isaac, who was son of
Abraham.
You think you have to teach me the basics why?

Because you are dealing a dirty hand.
Post by H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
This point Jesus made when He confessed that your Pharisee fathers were
"of Abraham," but NOT "of Abraham," as they were children of the Devil.
Post by Mary Hogan
By the way, there is this little thing called DNA.
Proving what?
If we take DNA from the cave of Macpelah and take the DNA from a Jew who has
a recorded pedigree with Rabbis, we will clearly find that the Jewish People
are definitely Klal Yisroel. You forget one thing, there is in some
instances a record history from Rabbi to Rabbi..a geneology, Ikey.
Post by H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Post by Mary Hogan
Jesus Paul and John were despicable men, rebels pure and simple.
No, your PHARISEE FATHERS were the "despicable men" who led what was left
of Israel astray, without a doubt.
Well, I know we will get the results sooner than we expect, Ike.
Post by H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
[snip the rest of the Satanic false accusations]
Ike
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Qadosh Stephanos
2008-07-03 00:47:50 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 20:32:39 -0500, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
Post by H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Post by Mary Hogan
I meant that this ->> They were all black people, including Paul, the 13th
Apostle.<< is what happens when a person tries to translate Torah
themselves. Mistake after mistake.
Jews are from Shem.
No, ISRAELITES are from Shem.
The "Jews who say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie" are from the
REJECTS, and INFILTRATED "Israel," just like Jesus, Paul, and John said...
Soldiers mistook Paul for an Egyptian person, from the tribe of Ham.

Acts 21:38 (ASV)

Art thou not then the Egyptian, who before these days stirred up to
sedition and led out into the wilderness the four thousand men of the
Assassins?

Genesis 10:6 (ASV)

And the sons of Ham: Cush, and Mizraim (Egypt), and Put, and Canaan.
Mary Hogan
2008-07-03 01:36:18 UTC
Permalink
I don't read the garbage they tacked on to the Torah anymore.
Post by Qadosh Stephanos
Art thou not then the Egyptian, who before these days stirred up to
sedition and led out into the wilderness the four thousand men of the
Assassins?
Genesis 10:6 (ASV)
And the sons of Ham: Cush, and Mizraim (Egypt), and Put, and Canaan.
I think this is a silly train of thought.

Period!

MH

I'm too darn tired for meaningless conceptualization stuff.




----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Linda Lee
2008-07-02 03:12:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mary Hogan
Is this you, Richard?
Post by Qadosh Stephanos
Genesis 10:6 (ASV)
And the sons of Ham: Cush, and Mizraim (Egypt), and Put, and Canaan.
Ham was cursed because he revealed his father's nakedness and jested. The
curse was the color of the skin.
You really are a bigot in many ways, aren't you? Black people are
not black because they're accursed, and white people are not 'better'
than other races. (And before you start with your guesses, I was born
a 'WASP' - white Anglo-Saxon Protestant.)


Better get back to your studies. GOD did NOT curse Ham because of
this incident. Ham was not cursed at all; his son Canaan was cursed.
And ***neither Ham nor Canaan were cursed by GOD,*** but Canaan was
'cursed' BY NOAH -- NOT by GOD, so no curse resulted in any miraculous
change in skin color.



Gen 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his
father, and told his two brethren without.
Gen 9:23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both
their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their
father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's
nakedness.
Gen 9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son
had done unto him.
Gen 9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall
he be unto his brethren.
Gen 9:26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan
shall be his servant.
Post by Mary Hogan
Nimrod was probably black. His skin was irrelevant in that he corupted his
own ways.
The curse is just a starting point, what a person does with his life is
rated to the extent that he raises himself from the curse.
Some could say that a great Rabbi the son of a great Rabbi's starting point
is different than the accursed above, but perhaps he is judged then what he
does with his life on a different scale.
Some sages say that a Baalei Tshuvah, (a person who gets himself out of
world and into Torah) is higher than the above Rabbi, the son of a great
Rabbi. There are differences like accumulated Torah, which the son has much
more than the Baalei Tshuvah. It's deep, because even the evil inclination
of the son is far greater than the Baalei Tshuvah, unless he reach tzaddik,
which has decimated the yetzer, the evil inclination.
So you take the son of a gonef, a thief and he passes an open purse on the
ground and he decides that he doesn't want to be that guy who steals
anymore. BIG MITZVAH!!!!!
You take the son of the Rabbi, who would never even think of taking anothers
belonging and he doesn't take, big deal no big mitzvah.
This is pretty deep, but the reason that people feel cursed, is because that
is their scenario. The job at hand is to raise yourself to the best of your
ability to a higher degree of sanctity. Then one mitzvah leads to the
desire for another, and before you know it, the curse is irrelevant.
Post by Qadosh Stephanos
Job 30:30 (ASV)
My skin is black, and falleth from me, And my bones are burned with
heat.
This is a completely different situation. My skin is blackened upon me, my
bones are heated by the fever. This is extreme disease, and very painful
but has nothing to do with the curse.
Post by Qadosh Stephanos
Song of Solomon 1:5 (ASV)
I am black, but comely, Oh ye daughters of Jerusalem, As the tents of
Kedar, As the curtains of Solomon.
Though I am black with sin, I am comely with virtue. [literally: I am black
but comely]\
Though my husband left me because of my sins, I still have the zchuss, the
merit of my forefathers which makes me comely.
Post by Qadosh Stephanos
They were all black people, including Paul, the 13th Apostle.
You are kidding, right?
This is what happens when a person tries to translate Torah himself.
Zipporah
Numbers 12:1 Miriam and Aaron spoke about Moses regarding the Cushite woman
he had married, for he had married a Cushite woman.
Note: Zipporah was a Midianite and her father was very prominent man who
gave up paganism. This wasn't derogatory about Zipporah. It was about the
fact that Moses stopped being a husband to Zipporah.
Cushite, to the darkness of a Cushite, meant that she was very beautiful It
is not derogatory. Everyone admitted to her beauty, and Miriam drew the
contamination of tzaaras, which was a leprous spot that appeared when one
spoke loshon hara. The Gematria and the relationship to beauty is how the
Rabbis, here Rashi determine, perhaps the whole meaning behind the passage.
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----http://www.pronews.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Al Smith
2008-07-01 16:48:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Qadosh Stephanos
Genesis 10:6 (ASV)
And the sons of Ham: Cush, and Mizraim (Egypt), and Put, and Canaan.
Job 30:30 (ASV)
My skin is black, and falleth from me, And my bones are burned with
heat.
Song of Solomon 1:5 (ASV)
I am black, but comely, Oh ye daughters of Jerusalem, As the tents of
Kedar, As the curtains of Solomon.
Lametations 5:10 (ASV)
Our skin is black like an oven, Because of the burning heat of famine.
Matthew 5:36 (ASV)
Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, for thou canst not make one hair
white or black (or blonde).
Read the other stuff in the Bible book about Mozes and Abraham.
They were all black people, including Paul, the 13th Apostle.
You've put a lot of thought into this, haven't you?

Some of the tribes of Israel were black, I believe, but not all of them.

Job was black because he spent too much time under the hot sun.

Solomon liked babes from Africa. He was into variety.

Paul wasn't the 13th apostle, because there were only 12 apostles. I
don't believe he was black, either.

-Al-
Chuck Stamford
2008-07-01 18:25:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Smith
Post by Qadosh Stephanos
Genesis 10:6 (ASV)
And the sons of Ham: Cush, and Mizraim (Egypt), and Put, and Canaan. Job
30:30 (ASV)
My skin is black, and falleth from me, And my bones are burned with
heat.
Song of Solomon 1:5 (ASV)
I am black, but comely, Oh ye daughters of Jerusalem, As the tents of
Kedar, As the curtains of Solomon. Lametations 5:10 (ASV)
Our skin is black like an oven, Because of the burning heat of famine.
Matthew 5:36 (ASV)
Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, for thou canst not make one hair
white or black (or blonde). Read the other stuff in the Bible book about
Mozes and Abraham.
They were all black people, including Paul, the 13th Apostle.
You've put a lot of thought into this, haven't you?
Some of the tribes of Israel were black, I believe, but not all of them.
Job was black because he spent too much time under the hot sun.
Solomon liked babes from Africa. He was into variety.
Paul wasn't the 13th apostle, because there were only 12 apostles. I don't
believe he was black, either.
Even a blind hog with a head cold will find a truffle every once and a
while...but does it follow from this he knows the way to the next?

Chuck Stamford
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...