No such action

From Kristos Vocabulary Booster

The action specified by the URL is not recognized by the wiki

Return to Main Page.

If Terri Schiavo dies, Bush's career might die with her
________________________________________________________________________________




A new poll shows that the biggest drop in Bush support is among conservative churchgoers.

There's no big surprise in this.

Conservative churchgoers are the people who put Bush back in the White House last November.
They expect Bush to deliver.

They know Bush could issue an Executive Order re Terri Schiavo.

But Bush isn't doing any such thing.
At least not so far.

If Terri Schiavo dies, Bush's career might die with her

________________________________________________________________________________


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

In article <129.16.19.05.668571000@srcbs.org>, lsenders@hotmail.com says...

>Matthew Johnson wrote:

>> >> >He does so by means of his idea of negative theology (Matthew's
>> >> >version in particular evidences this paradigm).

>> >> No, that is NOT what he does with negative theology.

>> >Well, technically, yes. However, in practice, no.

>> How would you know about the practice, Loren?

>Easy. You exhibit it for us in every post of yours.

Hardly. You don't understand my posts well enough to know what I
exhibit and what I don't. You don't understand them because you are
too busy admiring your own worthless words to think about what people
have said to you. You prove this below by admitting you missed where
Steve replied to you.

> Again, you fail to appreciate presuppositional evidence.

No, not 'again'. Rather, again, you make a meaningless accusation.

>> This was wrong the first time you said it, and it is wrong now.
>> Really, Loren. Then why is it that the people in this NG who have
>> advanced degrees

>Op! Ya, that settles it. Call in the "experts."

S-o-o-o much better than YOUR method, which seems to be IGNORE the
'experts', unless they appear to agree with the uninformed opinion you
formed when still a child.

>Has this not been my point.

Point? Such diffuse writing _has_ a 'point'?

>It is part of the paradigm of those "churches" which dismiss
>sola scriptura.

And most people would think that that paradigm is _better_ than your
brand of 'sola scriptura'. RIghtly so, too.

>> disagree both with you and with your assessment of
>> me?

>You keep on doing this.

Really? I do it only occasionally. Hardly enough to justify your 'keep
on doing'.

>What is it with your fixation with "birds of a
>feather flock together?"

It is not. That is your prejudicial spin.

>> And why is it that you are the one who writes like a heedless
>> student who never listened to anything they teach in high-school
>> composition classes, who then dabbled in a seminary but never
>> earned a divinity degree?

>sola ecclesia!

An irrelevant outburst does not constitute a rejoinder, Loren.

>Contrary to this mindset however, the scriptures teach that all
>Christians are saints and priests (Eph 1L1; 1 Pet 2:9) not your
>"traditions of men" who would have us believe that there is some sort
>of divine elite, making saints and priest to be some sort of special
>castes withing the Christian assemblies.

>What your reply evidences is what I often witnessed in my formal
>debates with RC clergy. It is the same elitism which is often
>exhibited at university creationism vs evolutionism debates.

It is not 'elitism'. Rather, your _accusation_ of 'elitism' is naked
anti-intellectualism.

>Like you RC brethren, you throw aside the testimony of the
>scriptures

No, I do no such thing. It is you, not I, who tosses aside the
testimony of the scriptures by denying the Church.

>and setup your own little kingdom rules, crying "sacerdos
>universalis!"

>> You, not I, are the one whose writing is bloated with many marks of
>> uneducated thinking. You continually pass judgment on things you know
>> nothing about, you make wildly off-the-mark claims and then run and
>> hide when pressed for evidence, quote out of context and without
>> attribution. You even misuse fancy language like a college sophomore
>> putting on airs.

>> These, Loren, are the marks of uneducated thinking. And they are
>> abundant in your writing, not in mine. People who live in glass
>> houses shouldn't throw stones; you should not write like an
>> ignoramus and then accuse others of it.

>unlearned?

Yep.

>unread?

I didn't say that. You are putting words in my mouth. This too, is a
symptom of unlearned writing.

>Like Paul, I care not to boast in the flesh and so
>have always just passed by your remarks which so often descend to this
>level.

No, you do no such thing. You boast in the flesh all the time.

>Yet I would put up my breadth of reading against any seminarian.

Well, perhaps you would. But that would only put you in the same
company of the many other fools who disregard the Scriptural warning:

The mouth of the righteous teaches many;
But fools die for lack of wisdom (Prv 10:21)

For you turn your back on teaching, and insist on dwelling in that
lack of wisdom.

"Breadth of reading" is no substitute for _quality_ of reading! If you
read a great work carelessly, you might be better off not reading it
at all. But with your repeated out-of-context quotes and monstruous
misinterpretations of Augustine and Dionysius, you have shown that you
_regularly_ read great works carelessly.

>Also, outside of the normal company I keep, Reformed and
>Dispensational,

Aha! So that is your problem! And you dare accuse _me_ of 'fixation
with "birds of a feather flock together"'?

>I have found seminary graduates to have little to no Biblical
>training.

Knowing your deep biases as I do, (from your many exhibitions of them
in this NG), I have to doubt your word here. Rather, I think you deny
that they _have_ "biblical training" because their hermeneutical
method is so different from yours.

>Many are trained in the traditions and doctrines of
>their own denomination.

As are you. You _think_ you are applying Scripture when you are really
applying the "traditions and doctrines" of your own "normal company",
Reformed and Dispensational 'theologians'.

>More than once I have commented that I know several graduates from RC
>seminaries which never once had to take a course which involved
>Biblical exegesis. So what? This only evidences what sets the
>Protestant mindset apart from the "Catholic" mindset. As the
>Reformers protested, it is the Scriptures which stand judge of all
>teaching, not some band of "experts."

>Also, I have often noted that there is NO theological school which is
>devoid of error, including my own. And, though you conviently fail to
>remember it, I have noted that over the years I have made drastic
>changes in my theological conclusions. I do purchase and read opposing
>positions.

Then why are you still resisting reading Lossky and Pelikan? Why do
you instead follow such blind guides as Clendenin and Sontag when making
assertions about the Orthodox?

>But when it is all said and done, I rely not on any one author or
>any one theological school to determine my own understanding of the
>truth, rather, I rely upon the witness of the Spirit. And I'm sure
>you will find fault with that.

Well, if I could really _believe_ you were "relying upon the witness
of the Spirit", I might not "find fault" with it. But you probably
realize by now that I do NOT believe you "rely upon the witness of
the Spirit". If you did, you would not babble on incessantly.

>But then, you are not my judge.

Well, no, I am not. But you are not either. Yet to judge from your
fanatical self-reliance, _thinly_ disguised as "relying upon the witness of
the Spirit", I would say that you still believe you are.

>> >I DON"T mean to imply any personal detriment.

>> A cheap disclaimer. And pretty meaningless. It does not absolve you
>> from the responsibility you have abused.

>Matthew, again you reflect little understanding of presuppositional
>thinking.

Loren, again you reflect no understanding of what gibberish you post
when you make this accusation against me. I understand somthing much
_better_ than "presuppositional thinking". Why, for me to stoop down
to such nonsensical language would be as foolish as insisting on using
wooden wheels on my car instead of pneumatic ones.

>"As a man thinketh, so he is." Not everyone thinks like
>you, Matthew.

And even more important, not everyone thinks like you. This is a good
thing.

> So don't presume to think that my disclaimer was "cheap"
>and "meaningless."

You do not understand why I think that. So it is you, not I, who is
guilty of the mistake (of thinking others think like o.s).

>This reflects your mindset, not mine. This is the
>way you view others, not me. Your replies, as many others have noted,
>are often bare acridity.

Those so-called "many others", were not so many. And as is often the
case with lurkers, they didn't read all that closely before making
their snap judgment.

My posts are sometimes harsh, but they are _never_ "bare acridity".

>And I have sought to point out to you that if
>"faith without works is dead" (even as you interpret it to mean), then
>your works evidence the flesh, not the spirit as evidenced by the
>Pauline listings.

And everytime you misquote Paul this way, you show yourself a
hypocrite. For your posts are at least as lacking -- if not much more
so.

>On this evidence alone, you total lack of charity,

"Total lack of charity", you say?

> I have paused to wonder whether you are a true brother or just a
>professing brother.

Well, Loren, I don't wonder. I know. And I know better than to be
fooled by your wondering.

>The evidence would have one thinking the worse.

No, it would have _you_ "thinking the worse". And it would have those
who have fallen into similar error "thinking the worse".

>And I do pray about it.

>> >Rather, I mean that you continually evidence the fact that you
>> >have never taken your arguments to fruition.

>> No, this is patently false. You don't know what fruition really is.
>> So you raise this groundless and false accusation every time I
>> refuse to agree to your false version of what that fruition is.

>> What is more, this is a perfect example of your sophomoric putting
>> on airs. Why are you using 'evidence' as a verb here? It is
>> entirely inappropriate, and gives a pretentious air to your
>> words. You must really _like_ that pretentious air. But this is
>> nothing other than a mark of an uneducated man.

>"airs" I don't seek such things. This reflects your disposition, not
>mine.

No, it reflects your disposition, even as you deny it.

>This reflects how you think of the world, not me. Before God I
>can honestly say I don't think that way.

All this shows is how poorly you know yourself.

>I really don't care whether
>anyone thinks of me as being sophisticated or not.

I don't believe you. I already know from my private correspondence
that several other regulars in the NG also do not believe you.

Whether you believe us or not, Loren, this should be evidence enough
to you that you have a SERIOUS need to rethink they way you operate in
this NG.

>I really, honestly couldn't care less. When I went to graduate
>school, I didn't go to get a sheep skin. I went and took the course
>that interested me. I am who I am. I did not design "me." Things
>of this world have little hold on me, including a sheep skin. I
>would rather actually learn things which interest me and have
>application to my calling than the herd mentality.

>> >I'm not talking about extremism either. Negation in the context
>> >makes Scripture an illusion.

>> No, it does no such thing. You reveal your fundamental ignorance of
>> the apophatic method when you make this irresponsible claim. The
>> apophatic method _removes_ illusions, it does not make them. Nor
>> does it turn anything else, much less Scripture, into an illusion.

>Again, you exhibit no appreciation of presuppositionalism. And that
>this was my point to begin with, that you have missed it or dismissed
>only further establishes the fact.

Not if I 'dismissed' it. You are showing a peculiar degree of illogic
here, Loren.

>> >Your position comes close to this in both your bringing along side
>> >of scripture your traditions and your allegorism. Negation is the
>> >seed of gnosticism.

>> Nonsense. Gnosticism has already disappeared into a small dark
>> corner of the world when Dionysius's writings emerged. What is
>> more, the apophatic theology of Origen and the Cappadocians was
>> -key- to forcing the Gnostics into this retreat.

>And, like many others, I feel Origen did more damage than good.

But so what? Who _cares_ what you 'feel'?

>> >Your school of thought has made its bed with non-Biblical
>> >presuppositions.

>> No, it is YOUR over-literalism that is in bed with non-Biblical
>> presuppositions, as Steve already pointed out.

>I guess I must have missed that.

How _could_ you miss it? Don't you read when people reply to you?
There is NO EXCUSE for droning on and on without reading the replies
to your posts. Solomon condemns this practice as sinful in many
Proverbs, not the least of which is:

He that giveth answer before he heareth,
it is folly and confusion unto him. (Pro 18:13 JPS)

>But just what is "over-literalism?"

YOUR 'literalism'.

>I would suppose you would mean "over-literalism" includes God making
>the heaven and the earth in 6 literal days. Ya. Can't believe that.

I know you can't believe that. It is your loss. And it is a very
serious loss.

>Rather, you would take literally the authoritative counsel of a bunch
>of secular "scientist." Again, no one has presented a single negation
>of the examples I have given for a young, very young, earth.

Not true. Your pseudo-science has been refuted many times over. You
are just looking in the wrong places for the refutation.

>I would suppose I'm a ""over-literalist" when I understand the
>covenants made with Israel as non-conditioned when we only read of God
>saying, "I will."

And that _is_ ignorant, Loren. For Hebrew of that time did not even
have a future tense. It had only an imperfect. So the expression
translated (somewhat mechanically) as "I will" really only means that
the action is not complete yet. It is NO guarantee that He will do it.

>Is it any wonder you don't believe in irresistable grace as well.

>sorry,

Don't be. Be sorry you spent your time so badly. Be sorry that you
spent your time weaving wicked words when you should have been
meditating what you say:

The mouth of the wise meditates wisdom;
and his tongue speaks judgment (Prv 37:30)

But you prefer to blurt out, just like the fool in:

A fool hath no delight in understanding, but only that his heart
may lay itself bare. (Pro 18:2 JPS)

For you have no patience for education, no patience for careful
reading. The only thing you have the 'patience' for is speaking your
own uninformed mind. But that is _exactly_ what this Proverb condemnds
as "laying his heart bare".

>this is all I have time for.

Did you even have that time? You should have spent that time in
righteousness instead of ignorant bluster.


--
---------------------------
Subudcat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))