James White to Debate Bob Enyart on Open Theism

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
I do remember and I don't judge you as unsaved either....only pretentious, and unaware that most of what you say is nothing but Greek to me. I had a neighbor lady from Mexico who didn't speak a word of English. We would sit out on the patio and smile at each other, and I would try to offer her coffee (called it java) and she'd smile. That was as far as we ever got. It just seems a pity that you act like everyone else is so far below you. That's just wrong...in any language.

I neither think, speak, nor act like everyone else is below me, or any other such equivalent.

That's inference as the inevitable product of puffed up gnosis (present and fragmentary experiential) knowledge in response to epignosis (clear and exact experiential) knowledge that abounds from agape love (Phi. 1:9).

And it largely comes from language-patterned high-context thought and heart content. It's actually maddening to be down here at the foundation with all the gnosis floating by overhead, and others presuming I'm puffed up.

The simple point that is often nearly impossible to get across is that one's native first language being a high-context type means concepts drive ALL "knowledge" and alleged understanding in deference to the depth, breadth, and height of individual semantics from terms/words themselves.

People think and speak continuously without ever realizing their very fundamental thinking patterns are fallacious to a great degree.

Language is one of the preeminent devices of the enemy that we're not to be ignorant of. And it's predominantly passive, which is why it goes undetected and unnoticed as everyone blythely continues in a foundational high-context mode of thought and speech as their logos.

What's really amazing is that I'm also a volunteer prison Chaplain, and I teach two groups of inmates at two different facilities. Within 6-8 2-hour sessions, they understand the Greek semantics, definitions, and grammar to enough of an extent for it to change their lives and comprehend the ontological Gospel and begin developing low-context patterns of thought according to God's Rhema instead of English nebulosity and ambiguity.

I think most here are more spiritually adept than most convicted murderers, rapists, thieves, and other malcontents. So despite the learning curve and unfamiliar vocab, it shouldn't be that difficult with all the language resources available for those with stewardship to learn.

It does little good to build another high-context parallel to high-context English. Infusing and interspersing low-context Greek either drives someone to blow it all off in pride, or allows them the opportunity to have a renewed mind at the language level.

Just redefining English words a different way does little or nothing to enable high-context thought to escape concept-driven understanding. Individual words aren't the impetus for high-context thought, so it's just a differenct plug-n-play of little importance compared to one's overall pre-conceived concept.

The few that put in any effort whatsoever are always glad they did. Most don't or won't. Their engrained conceptual perceptions are easier.

That's why most won't budge off their gnosis. And that's why I'm the one presumed to be prideful, etc. All I want is for everyone to have access to some information and tools to divest themselves of high-context dependency and redundancy.
 
Last edited:

S0ZO

New member
PP... you are an arrogant turd, that most likely no one you know listens to or cares what you have to say. And that, I completely "understand".
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
PP... you are an arrogant turd, that most likely no one you know listens to or cares what you have to say. And that, I completely "understand".

Yeah, that must be it. Or at least that's what clueless gnostifiers say.:salute:

Conceptualize away. Nothing will stop you.

But on the contrary, there is a significant group of those who hear God's Rhema and have Jesus Christ formed in them. They've set aside their own "seem-right" logos. For God's Rhema.

Meanwhile, the majority are just putting new wine in old wineskins. Just because they haven't all burst yet, it doesn't mean it isn't assuredly coming. It is.
 

S0ZO

New member
btw...pp, could you provide a source for the term gnostifiers, just in case someone else, in the entire world, during my lifetime, should ever possibly use it?

:chuckle:
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
btw...pp, could you provide a source for the term gnostifiers, just in case someone else, in the entire world, during my lifetime, should ever possibly use it?

:chuckle:

I suppose it could be a confluence of gnostic and pacifier, all in one handy term.

THAT was easy. :D
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
I suppose when you have your OWN language and your OWN religion, your OWN world appears very "easy".

It reminds me of the kid who brings a ball to the playground, and complains when the other kids aren't using the ball "correctly". He can't actually explain what "correct" is, nor can he handle the ball in a way they can see what "correct" is. He can only say, no that's not correct. I know what's correct, but what you're doing isn't correct. So, I win and you lose.
 

S0ZO

New member
It reminds me of the kid who brings a ball to the playground, and complains when the other kids aren't using the ball "correctly". He can't actually explain what "correct" is, nor can he handle the ball in a way they can see what "correct" is. He can only say, no that's not correct. I know what's correct, but what you're doing isn't correct. So, I win and you lose.
Perfect! :D
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
I suppose when you have your OWN language

Nyah. All English conformed to low-context, with Koine Greek.

and your OWN religion,

Nyah, again. The ontological Gospel of Paul, entrusted to him by God. It's the Christian faith, without dilution and perversion.

your OWN world appears very "easy".

Just more lashing out. It's a limbic response because of your gnosis, which has puffed up.:think:

Maybe you should just gnash on me with your teeth. That would make you feel much better, I'm sure.:salute:
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
It reminds me of the kid who brings a ball to the playground, and complains when the other kids aren't using the ball "correctly". He can't actually explain what "correct" is, nor can he handle the ball in a way they can see what "correct" is. He can only say, no that's not correct. I know what's correct, but what you're doing isn't correct. So, I win and you lose.

Ummm... nope. It's like an adult going to the playground to get other alleged adults to quit playing and learn the truth of their faith beyond the incomplete concepts of their minds that they're blind to because of their high-context native language.


LOL. Teleios?

Nope........Robin. You're really not very good at ad hominem, either.:crackup:
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Essence versus energies, even though you don't evidently like those terms.
I like them when defined beforehand so I can understand exactly what I may be agreeing or disagreeing with. I mean, have you not spent enough time in Freelight's moonbeam threads, or some unsettled theist threads to know how words can be used in entirely odd ways. ;)

AMR
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
I like them when defined beforehand so I can understand exactly what I may be agreeing or disagreeing with. I mean, have you not spent enough time in Freelight's moonbeam threads, or some unsettled theist threads to know how words can be used in entirely odd ways. ;)

AMR

Fair enough.:surf:

What is meant by "essence" and "energies" is ousia and energia of the hypostasis/es (plural for you).

Ontology is static, while economy is action. The ousia doesn't act, so there is no movement for expression by which we can know His essence (ousia) or essential being. We can only know Him as His substance/s (hypostasis/es) takes action to create and be revealed relative to creation (by the prosopon of Christ, the divine Logos made flesh as Theanthropos).

"By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth." -Psalm 33:6

God doesn't "do" to "be". He "does" FROM His "being". "Doing" is His hypostasis/es in action relative to movement for creation. "Being" is His ousia, which is unmoved by the economy of His hypostasis/es.

The hypostasis/es underlies the ousia, providing the stasis. Since there is no economy of action relative to the ontology of the ousia, it's only by His hypostasis/es that we can ever know God.

His ontological essence (ousia) is revealed outwardly by/through His economic substance/s (hypostasis/es).

The Easterns postulate that to encounter God in His essence would bring either destruction or divinity. If either, I think it would be the former. A human ousia cannot become divine, regardless what the Word of Faithers insist. LOL.
 

Delmar

Patron Saint of SMACK
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Your implications have no part to play.

All because you say so?

The bible teaches that God humbled Himself and took on humanity. What better way to do that than to be a baby in a manger?


When Jesus was in the manger, He was not somewhere else.

There is nothing wrong with it.

And there was nothing about that baby in a manger that was not fully divine. Any theologian who claims otherwise needs to revise their definition of divine.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
I like them when defined beforehand so I can understand exactly what I may be agreeing or disagreeing with. I mean, have you not spent enough time in Freelight's moonbeam threads, or some unsettled theist threads to know how words can be used in entirely odd ways. ;)

AMR
Look who's talking, Mr. "all" does not mean "all."
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
And there was nothing about that baby in a manger that was not fully divine. Any theologian who claims otherwise needs to revise their definition of divine.
If He was fully divine then while He was in the manger He was also somewhere else.

AMR
 

Christian Liberty

Well-known member
Look who's talking, Mr. "all" does not mean "all."

I had this discussion on another forum awhile back

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...Does-Not-Mean-WORLD&highlight=Bible+exception

Another poster asked me this (Taken from page 14):

I've acknowledged that "world" doesn't mean "every single person without exception" every time it's used. At the same time, I don't believe that "world" never means "every single person without exception." If God wanted to get across to people that Christ only died for the elect, using words like "world" and "all" seems like a very strange way to do it. Why isn't there verse after verse in the Bible which states that Jesus died for "the elect?" Why doesn't the Bible just use that actual wording rather than repeatedly using the words "world" and "all?"

And my answer was this:

The reason why relates back to 1st century culture. The Jews believed in election, it wasn't really disputed at the time, but the Jews believed they were the only ones who were elect. So, if you take terms like "all" and "world" in the cultural context that they were written in, its easy to see why the Bible writers would use this terminology. The point was to convey that all nations were covered by the atonement, not just the Israeli nation. And using the terms that way would have been completely normal in that culture.

BTW: I could ask the same question about this passage. If Jesus meant unbelievers why not say so? Why say "world"? If Jesus wanted to convey the idea that "world" meant every single person without exception in that passage, how could he do so?


Decide for yourself.
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
I had this discussion on another forum awhile back

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...Does-Not-Mean-WORLD&highlight=Bible+exception

Another poster asked me this (Taken from page 14):

And my answer was this:

Decide for yourself.

You forget that most people don't care about heremeneutics and other legitimate factors relative to scripture translation and application for meaning.:idea:

Most are just looking for validation of shallow pre-conceived concepts that fit their already-entrenched views.:readthis:

:surf::cigar::banana:
 
Top