Comments on: The Just VS. The Thorn-bearer (or – Does James contradict Paul?) http://thesynod.wordpress.com/2008/07/04/the-just-vs-the-thorn-bearer-or-does-james-contradict-paul/ /'si-nəd/ Fri, 10 Apr 2009 03:55:44 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Chris http://thesynod.wordpress.com/2008/07/04/the-just-vs-the-thorn-bearer-or-does-james-contradict-paul/#comment-168 Chris Tue, 22 Jul 2008 06:17:45 +0000 http://thesynod.wordpress.com/?p=28#comment-168 AND..., is it satisfied? AND…, is it satisfied?

]]> By: woodyhambrick http://thesynod.wordpress.com/2008/07/04/the-just-vs-the-thorn-bearer-or-does-james-contradict-paul/#comment-159 woodyhambrick Sat, 19 Jul 2008 02:58:00 +0000 http://thesynod.wordpress.com/?p=28#comment-159 Luuuuuuuuuuuke? Luuuuuuuuuuuke?

]]> By: helpthereisaplankinmyeye http://thesynod.wordpress.com/2008/07/04/the-just-vs-the-thorn-bearer-or-does-james-contradict-paul/#comment-152 helpthereisaplankinmyeye Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:46:33 +0000 http://thesynod.wordpress.com/?p=28#comment-152 good enough for me woody. i'm at work right now, but i will try to get back to the topic at hand when i go home. thanks for being sincere. good enough for me woody.

i’m at work right now, but i will try to get back to the topic at hand when i go home. thanks for being sincere.

]]> By: woodyhambrick http://thesynod.wordpress.com/2008/07/04/the-just-vs-the-thorn-bearer-or-does-james-contradict-paul/#comment-151 woodyhambrick Mon, 14 Jul 2008 08:24:41 +0000 http://thesynod.wordpress.com/?p=28#comment-151 Luke, I did take your words to heart. I hope that you are not offended by my words or deeds. The tediousness of Bo wares me down at times. At least I did not drive to Dallas and choke him. We have talked. Bo and I continued our debate for about 3 and 1/2 hours. Being out of sight of everyone else we were able to shout and call each other bad names without any offense. We talked about a lot of topics, and came to no real agreement. Well, there was one agreement, that is we both need to be more mindful of those we have invited into our discussion by virtue of this blog. I just wanted to share that with you. For the record, I do believe Bo to be a contrarian. I said so to him as well. I mean it as a matter of fact, not as a nasty attack. It is my desire to see all my beloved Christian brothers grow in Christlikeness, and in understanding. We can only correct a wrong behavior when we are made to see it. If I hide your faults from you, I am no friend. Proverbs says this many times and in many ways. Luke,
I did take your words to heart.
I hope that you are not offended by my words or deeds.
The tediousness of Bo wares me down at times.
At least I did not drive to Dallas and choke him.
We have talked.
Bo and I continued our debate for about 3 and 1/2 hours.
Being out of sight of everyone else we were able to shout and call each other bad names without any offense.
We talked about a lot of topics, and came to no real agreement.
Well, there was one agreement, that is we both need to be more mindful of those we have invited into our discussion by virtue of this blog.
I just wanted to share that with you.

For the record, I do believe Bo to be a contrarian.
I said so to him as well.
I mean it as a matter of fact, not as a nasty attack.
It is my desire to see all my beloved Christian brothers grow in Christlikeness, and in understanding.
We can only correct a wrong behavior when we are made to see it.
If I hide your faults from you, I am no friend. Proverbs says this many times and in many ways.

]]> By: helpthereisaplankinmyeye http://thesynod.wordpress.com/2008/07/04/the-just-vs-the-thorn-bearer-or-does-james-contradict-paul/#comment-150 helpthereisaplankinmyeye Mon, 14 Jul 2008 02:58:03 +0000 http://thesynod.wordpress.com/?p=28#comment-150 before i answer... <blockquote>"That would be absurd to everyone who is not a contrarian like Bo." </blockquote> how is this any less antagonistic then the things Bo does that frustrate you? it is deliberate, and you know it will get a rise out of him. woody, i'm disappointed. not joking. more later. before i answer…

“That would be absurd to everyone who is not a contrarian like Bo.”

how is this any less antagonistic then the things Bo does that frustrate you? it is deliberate, and you know it will get a rise out of him. woody, i’m disappointed.

not joking.

more later.

]]> By: woodyhambrick http://thesynod.wordpress.com/2008/07/04/the-just-vs-the-thorn-bearer-or-does-james-contradict-paul/#comment-149 woodyhambrick Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:38:23 +0000 http://thesynod.wordpress.com/?p=28#comment-149 It is to limit God. If he wants something told he will not contrive a situation to make it applicable to life, he would have aranged that life is not complete without daily examples of it. We need to create illustrations for us to express our views and points. How small is a God which has to do this. God is all relevance. He needs no "sideshow barker" to make Him, or any lesson of His, or any truth of His, relevant. God is not so small as to stoop to the devices we use to make ourselves relevant. This only displays that we only understand God in humanistic terms, and acting as a human. God is bigger than our imaginaton. How relevant would God be if he contrived a situation to illustrate His relevance? By virtue of the exercize he who endevoured so would prove to be irrelevant. God created the world as He saw fit. Which is to say, as it is best. And he can only opperate within the best. This means that what ever he said, or what ever lesson he is teaching us is immediately relevant to the one at the time of teaching thus will need no contrived event to make it more so. I did not say that it would come without example, or personal knowledge of other occurances. Not at all. But these situations would not have been contrived. Let me illustrate; (no need to point out the irony, I am not God) to teach a small child that a stove is hot and therefore to be avoided, we may mimic, or pretend to touch it and be injured. We are contriving a situation to teach a lesson. In that same lesson, God needs no contrived illustration. The stove is hot, and we learn not to touch it. It is a relevant lesson. God is not creating an imaginary situation to illustrate the lesson. Or did God drowned someone just to teach others to be careful around water? That would be absurd to everyone who is not a contrarian like Bo. So, as you see, for god to contrive an illustration, is to say that he had no relevant situation. It is the same as saying he HAD to... God only does what needs doing. If he didn't need to create a situation, he would not. If he did, then he had to. It is to limit God.
If he wants something told he will not contrive a situation to make it applicable to life, he would have aranged that life is not complete without daily examples of it.
We need to create illustrations for us to express our views and points. How small is a God which has to do this. God is all relevance. He needs no “sideshow barker” to make Him, or any lesson of His, or any truth of His, relevant.
God is not so small as to stoop to the devices we use to make ourselves relevant. This only displays that we only understand God in humanistic terms, and acting as a human. God is bigger than our imaginaton.
How relevant would God be if he contrived a situation to illustrate His relevance? By virtue of the exercize he who endevoured so would prove to be irrelevant. God created the world as He saw fit. Which is to say, as it is best. And he can only opperate within the best. This means that what ever he said, or what ever lesson he is teaching us is immediately relevant to the one at the time of teaching thus will need no contrived event to make it more so.
I did not say that it would come without example, or personal knowledge of other occurances. Not at all. But these situations would not have been contrived.
Let me illustrate; (no need to point out the irony, I am not God) to teach a small child that a stove is hot and therefore to be avoided, we may mimic, or pretend to touch it and be injured. We are contriving a situation to teach a lesson. In that same lesson, God needs no contrived illustration. The stove is hot, and we learn not to touch it. It is a relevant lesson. God is not creating an imaginary situation to illustrate the lesson. Or did God drowned someone just to teach others to be careful around water? That would be absurd to everyone who is not a contrarian like Bo.
So, as you see, for god to contrive an illustration, is to say that he had no relevant situation. It is the same as saying he HAD to… God only does what needs doing. If he didn’t need to create a situation, he would not. If he did, then he had to.

]]> By: helpthereisaplankinmyeye http://thesynod.wordpress.com/2008/07/04/the-just-vs-the-thorn-bearer-or-does-james-contradict-paul/#comment-147 helpthereisaplankinmyeye Sun, 13 Jul 2008 12:55:24 +0000 http://thesynod.wordpress.com/?p=28#comment-147 we aren't on the same page i think. i'm just trying to assert that i never said God HAD to do anything. God doesn't have to do anything except be God and all that entails. i would never say he HAD to "create a situation to teach a lesson or to give us an example," but some times i think He does. how would that be heresy? we aren’t on the same page i think. i’m just trying to assert that i never said God HAD to do anything. God doesn’t have to do anything except be God and all that entails. i would never say he HAD to “create a situation to teach a lesson or to give us an example,” but some times i think He does. how would that be heresy?

]]> By: woodyhambrick http://thesynod.wordpress.com/2008/07/04/the-just-vs-the-thorn-bearer-or-does-james-contradict-paul/#comment-144 woodyhambrick Sun, 13 Jul 2008 07:34:31 +0000 http://thesynod.wordpress.com/?p=28#comment-144 Your not the only one to suggest this. But it is not that anyone is suggesting it directly, but what ever term you use for it, that is what it is if God had to create a situation to teach a lesson or to give us an example that is what it is. If take off the ribbons and bows it is what it is. Your not the only one to suggest this. But it is not that anyone is suggesting it directly, but what ever term you use for it, that is what it is if God had to create a situation to teach a lesson or to give us an example that is what it is.

If take off the ribbons and bows it is what it is.

]]> By: helpthereisaplankinmyeye http://thesynod.wordpress.com/2008/07/04/the-just-vs-the-thorn-bearer-or-does-james-contradict-paul/#comment-143 helpthereisaplankinmyeye Sun, 13 Jul 2008 04:13:07 +0000 http://thesynod.wordpress.com/?p=28#comment-143 sorry. still thinking. i didn't mean to say that God would HAVE contrive a situation to teach us a lesson. i should have been more clear on that. sorry. still thinking.

i didn’t mean to say that God would HAVE contrive a situation to teach us a lesson. i should have been more clear on that.

]]> By: woodyhambrick http://thesynod.wordpress.com/2008/07/04/the-just-vs-the-thorn-bearer-or-does-james-contradict-paul/#comment-142 woodyhambrick Sun, 13 Jul 2008 03:43:48 +0000 http://thesynod.wordpress.com/?p=28#comment-142 Luke? Luke?

]]>