Sabido

From Kristos Vocabulary Booster

Spanish

Adjective

sabido m sabida f

1. well-known

   Es un persona sabida, es como una estrella. - "He is a well-known person, like a star."

matthew_member@newsguy.com wrote:


>>This is not a logical contradiction. You're using an
>>axiom which says "A being can responsible only if he has
>>freedom." I don't agree that the axiom is a good one.
>
> True. But if you did accept it, as Gary and many lurkers do, then it
> IS a contradiction.

So? Who really cares if one's doctrine contradicts someone
else's contradictory doctrine? If Bob holds to predetermination,
and Gary holds to free will, then does it score any points
against Bob that Gary's doctrine contradicts him? And vv?


> Besides: we _know_ you don't accept it. What we
> don't understand is why you think this is a good idea.

Here's why it's a good idea (not to accept it.) First,
it leads to excuse making. A person can sin and when he
contemplates his action, he might discover that he didn't
commit the action "willfully" and therefore it wasn't a
sin and he's not guilty of it. (Does that remind you
of Harold a bit?) Our only answer to sin is Christ's blood.
It can never be "I didn't mean to" or "I didn't know better"
or "I tried as hard as I could".

If I sin accidentally, (meaning I harmed someone without
freely willing to) I don't get to call it "not a sin" or
claim that God won't count me guilty by dint of my ignorance.
The _only_ way we get counted "not guilty" is by Christ's
blood.


>>I can't think of any reason why it ought to be true,
>
> I can.

> "...Haec eis excusatio tollitur, quando
> praeceptum datur, vel scientia non peccandi manifestatur.

Very strange that you cite something that says "no one has
an excuse" when "your" side of the argument is proposing
that we can, indeed, excuse ourselves.


>>and I can think of several examples of a person who doesn't have
>>control but are still considered to be responsible.
>
> In _what_ legal or ethical system? Perhaps only in one that is badly
> in need of reform, such as the Texan system;)

Pretty much any legal system holds people guilty for
acts which they didn't commit by exercise of free will.
If my tree by my cabin on Lake Winnepesaki rots and
falls over on my neighbor's cabin, then I'm responsible
for not taking care of the tree, even though I haven't
been to the cabin for three years, had no idea the tree
was dying, and had had financial difficulties so that
it was impossible for me to get from Texas to New Hampshire
and check on my property, but had been trying in vain
to sell it for several years.

I'm walking in a supermarket and a lady behind me drops a
jar of pickles. Without willing to, but simply because
I'm startled, I turn around. In doing so, I cease to
watch what's in front of me and I crash into a kid and
knock him down and make him cry. No freedom here, but
I'm still responsible.

We're born responsible for our sins. That's why be
baptize babies.

>>And yet, you said almost the same thing. Something like
>>"God is the ultimate cause but not the immediate cause."
>
> No, what Gary said was what St. Augustine and St. Basil said: God is
> not the cause of any evil, not even that sinners are lost.

That's not what Gary is saying.

Bart

((( 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. )))