Ask Mr. Religion

No big change, here. I just rarely talk politics. Here is the greater influence on my thinking. You can blame John Robbins, rather than CL.

Please read this blog:

http://godshammer.wordpress.com/2014/08/11/holy-war-or-ungodly-mess/#more-4206

I HAVE changed my tact in regards to addressing Theology Proper. I've spent many years "leading" with the topic, and it's a grueling path to take because so few people have any understanding beyond a concept from high-context patterns of English thought. In live teaching, I've transitioned to "backing into" Theology Proper by leading through an examination and exposure of high-context thought and then concentrating on the ontological Gospel. You'd likely find the it all at least fascinating, if not enlightening. And it should be obvious by now I'm not a wholesale heretic type just because of a Trinity reformulaic.

Wut? You misread that post, possibly due to the long sentence. NO. I haven't and won't EVER move away from the singular sentient consciousness and volition of the one true and living God. My issues are with alleged professing Trinitarians' ignorant and erroneous conceptual assertions to the contrary. I posted a clarification in that thread. (A singular hypostasis wouldn't have multiple wills. That's only a conceptual problem for many who adhere to multiple hypostases.)

Thanks. :e4e:

Man, from Major Dad to generally psychotic.

Although we disagree about certain areas of doctrine, I want
you to know that, I respect you and your civil way of
communicating with your fellow posters! You're a true
gentleman, and that makes you a part of the minority
around these parts! Blessings to you!

Longmire...was that the season finale? I have to admit I didn't see it coming and I can't believe that Branch's father is the sociopathic center of Longmire's nightmare quest for revenge.

I disagree. I am not casting pearls. I am putting a stop to being bullied by an atheist.

Decided against dredging and altered my response. I just don't understand her, honestly.

I typically only visit a profile page if someone has been gone a while. Mostly I use the first contact to then speak through the "view conversation" bit. But she's been mostly unpleasant where I'm concerned for a long time and so I've mostly left her to it. I was more concerned with sola getting off on the wrong foot, but I'm not sure she wants to hear it either, so I think I'm going to bed.

Completely having a go with the popular misconception.

Sending a PM.

I come here just to get smacked down. It's good for the soul. :chuckle:

Having fun yet?

But I'm not sure why I attempt to have one-sided conversations, since you won't really converse while doing Rep or PM drive-bys. At least they're not Neg-Reps, so I guess that's good. (And you wouldn't even flinch at Greek low-context semantics interspersed with English high-context if you weren't still constrained in your mind by the latter. This is included in "being renewed in the spirit of your mind".)

And this affects Theology Proper, since God has Logos, and it became flesh. If that Logos was a distinct hypostasis, then God had no literal actual Logos for Father and Holy Spirit. The Logos becoming flesh would mean that the entire Logos was the Son hypostasis. And there wouldn't be ANY application whatsoever for God's Rhema relative to His literal Logos. The ONLY solution is the Monohypostatic formulaic, which is both the lowest common denominator of proper hermeneutics, AND the only means of reconciling every paradox and all other historical heretical God-models. You don't yet even begin to comprehend the far-reaching need for all of this in the church at large.

The ONLY effective means of attempting to adapt hearts and minds from high-context patterning of their logos to low-context patterning to truly hear God's Rhema is TO intersperse low-context semantics that aren't glossed by the mind. The most practical way to do that is to utilize Greek semantics from the inspired low-context language of post-resurrection scripture. It forces others to either stay in their stupor or attempt to understand any expression based on semantics that are introduced as stand-alone low-context definers. It subtly enables someone's logos to "hear" beyond and beneath the subliminal influence of skimming semantics for context to develop concepts. It's the best and only way to incrementally penetrate the hypnotic results of high-context language. Evidently you don't understand the importance of God's Rhema from its true meaning, which is NOT "the spoken word" as opposed to "the written word" being the logos.

So that's Freelight huh? Yikes!

Struggling with feelings of fraudulence; would appreciate prayer.

Thanks for the rep... I think. Apart from the quantity of hypostases for God, I'd think you would agree with my posts on Open Theism fallaciously never even considering the core issue of God's essence versus God's energies. Maybe that smacks too much of Eastern Orthodoxy to you, but everything they pontificate about has nothing whatsoever to do with God's immutable essence or substance (substances, per your preference). It's not even an argument. The best they could do is attempt to impugn the scope of noumenological potentiality of existence of all creation in God's Logos; but that just minimizes God and demands a knowing of God's essence, making man's logos superior to God's.