Undeception - Latest Comments

Re: TIL #3: The Orphans of God

Elquesefue — Thu, 13 Sep 2018 13:37:28 -0000

Wonderful. Greetings, Sister and fellow Heard hearer, fellow Herd eschewer. Also, just wrapped my head around "Nobody's Looking". It's actually fantastic and I was worried that it was pessimistic and cynical. It's actually an affirmation of: God sees all! Should make any Dylan listener take note. Your journey sounds profound, very real in just the few words that I catch here. Hope He gives you the Grace to always keep coming back to the words of eternal life that only He possesses.

Re: TIL #3: The Orphans of God

Mary Powell — Mon, 07 May 2018 15:53:24 -0000

I see this :)

Re: TIL #3: The Orphans of God

Elquesefue — Mon, 07 May 2018 14:40:19 -0000

Tremendous post Mary. Would love to sit and talk, but alas, you probably will never see this. But yes, THIS TUNE :)

Re: The Sheep, the Goats, and the Judgment

sheckyshabaz — Tue, 30 Jan 2018 09:01:11 -0000

So the entire point of Christ going through what he went through and the entire purpose of life and creation was for the ability to go to heaven once you die rather than waiting? Sadly the bible does not teach that method. Beyond that, not a single person can explain the spirit or spiritual blessings. You've been duped.

Re: On placing God inside and outside of boxes

dennis richardson — Wed, 24 Jan 2018 22:59:51 -0000

Freemasonry inside Christianity perverting the gospel. The Southern Baptist Convention, so wrapped up in "abused" minorities that Russell Moore has lead the SBC to becoming the Revelation church of Sardis, "of having a reputation of being alive, but it is dead". I have seen Free masonry in the work place become militant against any employees to resist their conversion efforts. Jesuit Pope Francis, his Protestant allies will be exposed as Freemasons. Copeland's ministry will fall 2018?

Re: Lord of the Sabbath: a pun of apocalyptic proportions?

Steve Douglas — Tue, 16 Jan 2018 08:38:02 -0000

I will point out that the LXX does use the term κύριος σαβαωθ in Isaiah 1.9.

But a more striking objection you point out would be that the Pharisees are not shown reacting to it. Still, they didn't erupt in anger when he used the term "Son of Man" of himself, and that role was as the explicit agent of God in Daniel, acting as a commander of armies--the lord of hosts. So I'm not certain the pun, even if apprehended by the Pharisees, would have engendered any more of a negative reaction than they were already giving him about the Sabbath.

All that said, I'm not sold on it. I think there's a link there, but I can't figure out where it starts.

Re: Lord of the Sabbath: a pun of apocalyptic proportions?

Robert Atwood — Sun, 24 Dec 2017 14:00:14 -0000

I ran across this posting by means of an internet search keyword "saboath". My search was prompted by the curious fact that Origen in Contra Celsum consistently refers to the Jewish God as "Saboath", following the lead of Celsius. From my readings in Hellenistic Egyptian magical texts I recall a prominence of this term. Why such prominence? Given that the languages were primarily spoken and heard, the possibility of a pun in this text seems plausible. Unfortunately we do not know exactly what spoken Hebrew sounded like in 1st century Galilee (Galileans probably spoke Hebrew with an accent somewhat different from Jerusalem Hebrew, so it seems pointless to decide the matter by appeal to "different letters" in written Hebrew. As a pun, it would "make sense" in Hebrew, but it would be difficult to produce in Hellenistic Greek. The sound of Hebrew at this point in time and in this place (Galilee) was probably phonetically interacting with both Aramaic and Hellenistic Greek. The LXX translates the Hebrew "Lord of Hosts" as ὁ βασιλεὺς τῆς δόξης. Given the NT's general dependence on the LXX one can see the problem of associating "Lord of the Sabbath" with the common Greek translation (which is really an Interpretation). Perhaps the real problem with the hypothesis is that the Pharisees do not react to it (in the text) -- but clearly we do not have a verbatim transcript but an edited text.

Re: The agitators and the pillars: a hypothesis

Richard Fellows — Mon, 04 Dec 2017 19:14:27 -0000

Thanks for the comments, Steve.

Paul would not want to explicitly state that he circumcised Timothy, for that would play into the agitators hands. However, I agree that he would want to address his circumcision of Timothy in some way. He does so in 2:4-5. In 2:5 he lets the Galatians know that the circumcision of Timothy was not because he (Paul) had come over the agitators' point of view. In 2:4 he makes it clear that the circumcision happened only because the agitators told everyone in Galatia that Timothy was uncircumcised, which fact they learned by dishonourable spying into a private meeting in Jerusalem. Tertullian realized that 2:4-5 concerns Timothy, even though he did not realise that Titus was Timothy's praenomen.

Acts says that Paul circumcised Timothy because he wanted him to accompany him on the journey. Luke's audience, who knew their culture better then us, evidently took it for granted that Paul's partners had to be circumcised (or at least pass as circumcised) to be effective missionaries. The Galatians would therefore have also taken it for granted. Neither Luke, in Acts, or Paul, in Galatians, need to state this fact, for it was understood.

I may not have understood your second point entirely, however, I can point out that there is much in Galatians that seems overwrought. Paul must emphasise his emotions to convince his audience that he is not just writing to please the Jerusalem apostles while secretly approving of the developments in Galatia. Thus he says that he wishes castration on the agitators (5:12); he insults his audience (3:1); and, as you say, he expresses shock and incredulity. To convince the Galatians of his sincere opposition to circumcision, Paul must express emotions that it would be hard for a supporter of circumcision to fake.

Does that help?

Re: The agitators and the pillars: a hypothesis

Steve Douglas — Mon, 04 Dec 2017 15:01:25 -0000

Hi Richard, glad you circled back here.

Your alternative scenario is possible, but it seems this approach would fall under a similar criticism of a missed opportunity: surely Paul wouldn't have left the incident that the agitators were using as their coup de grace completely unanswered. His best approach would have been to make an explanation for Timothy's circumcision head-on. And the fact of Paul's undeniable involvement in Timothy's circumcision would make his seeming utter shock and incredulity at the Galatians' "back-sliding" appear more than a little overwrought. I'm not convinced.

Re: The agitators and the pillars: a hypothesis

Richard Fellows — Thu, 19 Oct 2017 14:51:03 -0000

Hello again, Steve. I've been rethinking things a little, as a result of thoughts such as your penultimate paragraph. I no longer think we need to suppose that the Galatians were thinking that Paul had always believed in circumcision. I now think that the agitators were saying that Paul had come around to their position by the time he circumcised Timothy. It may be that everyone agreed that Paul had been a sincere champion of gentile liberty when he argued with the Judaizers in Acts 15:1-2, for example. The misunderstanding was about why Paul delivered the decisions of the decree after circumcising Timothy (Acts 16:3-4): the agitators claimed that he did it to please Jerusalem and that he now believed in circumcision, but he actually did it because he still believed in gentile liberty, in spite of having just circumcised Timothy. All we need suppose is that the agitators had as much difficulty reconciling Paul's apparently contradictory actions as modern commentators do. Does that make better sense?

Re: A video chat with “Hellbound?” director Kevin Miller

Nelia Stevenson — Tue, 29 Aug 2017 03:58:20 -0000

Nice video chat. Thanks for sharing it.

Re: Pilate and the modern Christian (Mondays with MacDonald)

Steve Douglas — Sun, 28 May 2017 11:27:33 -0000

Thanks, Mark! There was an explosion of this kind of thinking in the latter part of the nineteenth century, it seems. I'm not sure how literally to take the redemption of Satan language in this poem, but as a picture of the redeemability of the most vile of sinners it is certainly suggestive and picturesque. Even the esteemed St. Gregory of Nyssa believed that the originator of evil would be reconciled, but over the centuries it's been rather an unpopular opinion to say the least!

Re: Pilate and the modern Christian (Mondays with MacDonald)

Steve Douglas — Sun, 28 May 2017 11:14:07 -0000

Sorry I missed this comment. I'm not really doing much writing of any kind in recent years, but I have lately been missing it. I've been reading through my old blog posts and hoping to kindle something again. I hope you're doing well also!

Re: Pilate and the modern Christian (Mondays with MacDonald)

mark45ful — Mon, 01 May 2017 23:57:25 -0000

Probably not part of the current discussion but I haven't been on site for some years. Heard this poem at a Richard Rohr Conference and began to weep. God wins! Interesting date! Mark Chapman

The Fullness of Time
By James Stephens (b. 1882)

ON a rusty iron throne
Past the furthest star of space
I saw Satan sit alone,
Old and haggard was his face;
For his work was done and he 5
Rested in eternity.

And to him from out the sun
Came his father and his friend
Saying, now the work is done
Enmity is at an end: 10
And he guided Satan to
Paradises that he knew.

Gabriel without a frown,
Uriel without a spear,
Raphael came singing down 15
Welcoming their ancient peer,
And they seated him beside
One who had been crucified.

Re: Inerrantists who ignore Scripture: who killed biblical synergism?

aviya — Wed, 25 Jan 2017 12:03:59 -0000

synergism is all over the bible!! Jesus said that by Your faith be it done unto you and come unto me all you who labor and are heavy laden and I will give your rest; Do you believe I am able to do this Jesus want us to cooperate with him!!

Re: My love affair with theology

Peter Smith — Sat, 24 Dec 2016 15:42:09 -0000

Virgil - if you're stil around? - read 'The Private Memoirs and Confessions of A Justified Sinner' by James Hogg written 1822 and answers your question/Peter

Re: My love affair with theology

Peter Smith — Tue, 14 Jun 2016 15:35:30 -0000

Steve - Yes. I believe your approach to be the sensible one - and the practical one - Peter

Re: The Truth Project and critical thinking

hgb — Wed, 25 Nov 2015 04:33:12 -0000

You posted a response to TTP 5 years ago but I just read it. Your right. there is a lot of deception going on. Example: Jesus said "They were acting like children of the devil." Not that people were children of the devil.

Re: How golden is that rule after all?

Beau Quilter — Fri, 18 Sep 2015 20:13:15 -0000

Yes, some point out that the Golden Rule long predates Jesus in other religious and philosophical writings, and that includes the positive rendering of the Golden Rule. Perhaps the reason this is pointed out is the plethora of Christians whose interpretation of the Rule is to impose their religion on those who don't share it.

Re: TIL #3: The Orphans of God

Mary Powell — Thu, 30 Jul 2015 00:33:35 -0000

So....I know this is old...and truly hope this blog is still going strong because....hello...killer idea. Anyway...this is one of my all time favorite songs. Ever. The lyrics are still stunning everytime I read them...and sing them. I lost my faith in 97' and never recovered from the pain of that loss. I didn't want to lose my faith...it simply didn't withstand my own scrutiny of it. I found that there weren't many people that could comprehend the profound loss that I suffered, rather, could only comprehend their own loss (my friends and family...in their grief at my new found atheism) This tune was a huge comfort to me in a weird way. I felt orphaned....I didn't want to lose my belief but it just left. The end of the story is that I recently, after 17 years, have returned to my faith. it looks so different on this side. It's lucid and reckless. I still struggle so much with doubt and unbelief...but something else is there and it's amazing and unexpected. This tune. THIS TUNE!!

Re: DBH and the necessity of universalism

Alex C Smith — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 07:53:39 -0000

Excellent!

Re: What the forgiveness in Charleston requires of us

Nancy Janisch — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 17:59:19 -0000

Yes! Thanks for this.

Re: Roger Olson and David Bentley Hart on universalism

Steve Douglas — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 12:27:36 -0000

Christopher,

I'm not going to be able to speak for DBH, for obvious reasons. But here are a couple thoughts where you may be having difficulty.

For one thing, persuasion - that is, intentional influence - of any kind ("Repent!") amounts to a coercion of the will: anyone who takes one step beyond merely explaining without any regard for whether the idea is accepted into actually arguing for something and seeking to persuade is attempting to force another's will to conform. So even if He merely persuaded all of His creatures into true freedom through impassioned pleas, He would be in a very real sense overriding their will with His own. The "coercion" factor needs to be brought into perspective, it seems to me.

But in a very real sense it's much less a matter of coercion as of healing. "Coercion" implies a violation of the will; in DBH's view, there is no violation, but a repair. If a baseball crashes through my window, we wouldn't say that the window's repair was "forced", although technically it did of course require effort to get it back to the state it was intended to be in before being destroyed by outside interference. If God created us to be oriented in one way and our will points another, somewhere along the way our will has broken down and is in need of healing. That's DBH's point about true freedom: if we grant that God had the right to make us willful creatures in the first place, surely He is doing nothing unforgivably coercive if He uses any method necessary to get our wills back on track after being tainted and corrupted. The idea that there is an objectivity to goodness and wholeness is foundational here; it also explains why we do as much as we can to prevent suicidal people from following through with their wills -- we generally recognize that true health would not seek its own destruction.

I hope I'm not talking past you here and answering objections you haven't raised (but others have raised them, I assure you).

Re: Roger Olson and David Bentley Hart on universalism

Christopher — Sun, 14 Jun 2015 23:15:57 -0000

I've toyed around with universalism over the years, and I'm a huge fan of Hart's, but I was actually kinda puzzled by passage you quoted above.

Is Hart's argument that God *can* in some rightful way coerce creatures' will in the right direction? Would he say that God can "force" creatures into true freedom (i.e. inability to sin) in the eschaton? Is that what you're saying?

I feel like I must be sorely misunderstanding something, but I can't figure out where I've gone wrong.

Re: I got published on Theologues!

James F. McGrath — Wed, 13 May 2015 22:02:17 -0000

Congrats!