[geocentrism] Re: Saul of Tarsus
- From: "Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 01:43:57 +0100 (BST)
"Niemann, Nicholas K." <NNiemann@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Neville,
Thank you for your follow up. A couple questions:
1. Why can you say with a very clear and certain "yes" that God could make me
always speak correctly when I speak about mathematics, but you give the
extended, unclear answer below when asked if God could make me always speak
correctly when I speak about religious faith and morals. It's simply a
different topic. Why the contradiction?
Because mathematics is nothing more than a set of rules and the "correct"
answer is achieved by doing nothing more than applying those rules to the
particular problem. It requires nothing more than what our subconscience does
every second of our physical existence. Scriptures and morals are different.
They cannot be answered simply by applying rules (hence the Jews annoyance and
confusion when Yeshuwa' allowed his disciples to eat the ears of corn on
Shabbat, or when King David allowed his men to eat the bread reserved for the
High Priest). It requires a heart condition that we do not presently have
(unlike our subconscience). Even Yeshuwa' asked, "Why do you call me good?
There is none good but Our Father."
You are saying God can make man infallible in math (apparently without
contradicting Scripture), but then you say "Man cannot therefore be made
infallible without consequently contradicting scripture." [regarding the faith
and morals question]. So, no, I don't see why you "can't answer the question".
Do you see your own contradiction?
Hopefully I have now explained the difference.
2. But then you do go on and apparently answer the question. You say God can
"speak through" a man. Given your Bible quotes, I understand your answer to
mean that when God does this, He would be speaking infallibly through that man.
Correct? Yes.
(In other words, this answer is good enough for my line of inquiry and logic,
since I don't want to lose the point through minor semantics---It's fine with
me to say that God can make the man infallible on matters of religious faith
and morals by speaking through him---Are you ok with this?). Yes.
3. Will you consider this question. Assume you had a close family member
(let's say, your son) who was critically sick and expected to die in six months
on account of the sickness. You were told no one knows for sure what the
sickness is or how to treat it. A lot of people offered some potentially
dangerous therapies or drugs which they thought might be a cure, although they
all admitted they could be wrong and maybe their treatment would kill him
sooner (i.e. they admitted, like you, that they were fallible). Okay.
Along came an institution which claimed to infallibly know what the sickness is
and that it's treatment would cure it (and in fact that it had proof it had
cured it many times before). However, for whatever reason, a lot of people
told you this organization was no good (and you had even read some of the stuff
these people wrote and up till now agreed with the others). Okay.
Since your son's life is on the line, do you take their opinions (and your
present opinion) and give him the potentially bad medicine or do you diligently
inquire into the actual first hand writings of that organization to study its
actual claim (i.e. not what the other people say is its claim or the basis for
its claim)? In other words, the time will never be more right to know the
right answer. Okay. I admire you for the way that you have made this point and
I accept it.
Regards,
Nick. Neville.
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PCcalling worldwide with voicemail
Other related posts:
