Discussion: Old Testament Dietary Law and Why They No Longer Apply to Us

Here is a discussion with a good friend of mine, who, from my knowledge, used to be a 7-Day Adventist, and is currently a non-denominational Protestant. He still has some 7-Day Adventist influence in regards to Sabbath, OT Law, and Soul sleep. He is also a fantastic person and friend.

Leonard Goenaga

It’s always Jorge’s fault.

PS: Rodney I’m waiting for a discussion on Old Testament levitical law. A professor of mine tore the chains of such laws to shreds the other day, and I oh so affectionately thought of you and Jorge.

Rodney Castillo

lets start with something small. What thoughts do you have on God telling Noah to put in the ark X amount of “clean” animals and X amount of “unclean” animals if this is way before Levitical law.

Leonard Goenaga

1. Usage: Clean Animals have an extended use over ‘unclean’ animals, given the nature of sacrifices (Gen 8:20). More than one purpose for collecting the animals.

2. Context: The idea of a Sabbath and ‘Clean/Unclean’ animals, predates Moses in being observed. It was standardized in Lv 11 and Dt 14. The Sabbath was also normalized with Moses’ commands (Ex 16:23-29).

3. Holiness: Regarding Clean and Unclean animals, two things are straightforward: 1) These were instructions specific to the Israelites, 2) The commands of clean vs. unclean regarded Holiness, with a secondary byproduct of any health-related issues being simply beneficial. One once remember that, according to Exodus, the laws were given as a form of punishment against the Israelites for not going up the mountain with Moses, due to their fear (the opposite of fear being faith). God promised to make them a “nation of priests”, and as punishment for their unfaithfulness, made them a nation with priests (Exo 19).

So, as I mentioned above.

1. These were commands specific to the Israelites, not us. They no longer apply, for two reasons (the latter which we’ll get into later): A. You’re not a descendent/Israelite [that I know of], 2. Jesus came and fulfilled the law. As I said earlier, we read Levi 11 and find this specific language: “Tell the Israelites: You may eat...” The importance here is Israelite-specific commandments. He was not addressing the world as a whole; rather, just His chosen people. Again, this would nullify us.

2.  The main purpose of such laws was to separate them from the surrounding nations; give an identity to aid in the coming Messiah. Very importance to notice, as I see 7-Day Adv. speaking of the health benefits of such laws, was that cleanliness was based on the commands of God; in other words, His commands issue holiness, and holiness is what made it clean or unclean. Health benefits did not make it holy, rather God’s establishment of it as such. 

All four sources where this cleanliness is mentioned is based off of holiness:  

• “so must you consecrate yourselves and be holy because I am holy…you must be holy because I am holy,” (this following a direct mentioning of unclean animals, and showing the foundation of keeping such laws was holiness, not health. ‘you must be healthy because I am healthy’ obviously makes no sense in relation to God, Lev 11:44-45),

• “I have set these apart as unclean for you. You are to be holy to Me becase I, the Lord, am holy,” (Lev. 20:25-26).

• PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THIS ONE: “You are not to eat any carcass; you may give it to a resident alien within your gates, and he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner,” (Deut. 14:21). Notice, these rules of clean and unclean do not apply to foreigners and non-israeltie neighbors. They ARE culture specific, as this verse makes evident, and they were given to the Israelites as a form of punishment and identity. If they applied to us as well, why not the foreigners?

They do not apply to you because they are culturally specific to the Israelites, and they are given on the basis of what God deems to be holiness for His chosen people (who needed to be holy as God commanded, as punishment for their sin of fear and lack of faith). In addition, they no longer even apply to the Israelites, as it only occurred until the coming of the Messiah, which has already happened (which we affirm in our faith). This is perhaps the greatest proof for you and I, as Christians, besides a study of the OT texts on what it says.

God chooses which animals to be worthy of sacrifice, so theologically we can assume His ‘holy people’ would be restricted to the same sacrificial ‘diet’ as God, since their job was to be Holy, even allowing Israelites to sell it to neighbors whom it didn’t apply (Dt. 14:21). Again, specific to Israelites.

In conclusion, and most authoritative:

4. Removal of Distinctions: The best evidence that health was not the primary factor, was that clean and unclean distinctions are removed in the NT. Jesus spoke in Mk 7:14-23 of something much more important. “Nothing that goes into a person from the outside can defile him, but the things that come out of a person,”. Following, “For it doesn’t go into his heart but into the stomach and is eliminated. (As a result, He made all foods clean).” (Mark 7:19).

This is profoundly clear on how null such laws were, but we even have a further explanation in Acts, to clearly cast all doubts aside.

“In it were all the four-footed animals and reptiles of the earth…Then a voice said to him, ‘Get up, Peter; kill and eat!’…What God has made clean, you must not call common’.” (Acts 10:12-15).

 Taken within the previous teaching of Jesus, we have affirmation.

1. (A) They were specific to the nation of Israelites.

2. (B) They were for the purpose of Holiness amongst His Holy People, as punishment, until the coming of the Messiah, whom would come from amongst this chosen people (thus expressing the need to separate from other nations).

3. (C) They no longer applied after the coming of the Messiah, as affirmed in the teachings of Jesus, and the ‘Good News for Gentiles’ in Acts 10. Jesus Christ’ coming freed them and us from this punishment.

A Feminist Concept of Marriage vs. the Godly Alternative. Continuation of Facebook Marriage Discussion

Justin McNealy ./sigh…”No man ever believes that the Bible means what 

it says; he is always convinced that it says what he means.”

–George Bernard Shaw

And that’s really all I have to say about that.

Sat at 1:24am

 

Søren Stidsen That one is too easy.

It can actually be a tough one, when you realise, that you disagree 

with the bible and then have to adjust your own position.

Sat at 1:46am

 

Leonard Goenaga Oh Justin, come on now, that was entirely not even 

appropriate. If you surround yourself with such assumptions, that every 

man merely takes what he wishes from scripture, than you will 

oh-so-conveniently cast it aside.

The wonderful thing about being a protestant is that scripture is the 

final authority. You can place it within its historical, cultural, and 

literal setting and get a very straightforward answer.

Your quote will apply tremendously to liberal protestant scholarship, 

but hardly would that apply to an actual examination of what it says.

 

The conservative protestant would agree with you, that individ

uals warp 

scripture to theological justify certain beliefs. They take scripture 

to support a point, starting from their assumption, rather than 

starting from scripture.

 

Also, your quote had nothing to do with the issue of social 

generational responsibility, and the importance of the institution of 

marriage. It was merely an appropriate way to fan your presuppositions.

Sat at 2:47pm

 

Female Friend: Before you go around quoting feminist scholarly lit. READ 

the entire book. When you quote one line or two, you can make ANYTHING 

and ANYONE look bad.

 

I agree with Servia, I pity you. Further more, I actually pity your 

wife for being subjected to this because how you think projects on how 

you treat her. I don’t care if you buy her a BMW and a house on by the 

beach, a woman made to “submit” is not a woman loved. I don’t care how 

you sugar coat it. It’s an indentured servant.

 

“SUBMIT: to defer to another’s judgment, opinion, decision, etc.: I 

submit to your superior judgment.

 

to place (oneself) under the control of another,” from L. submittere 

“to yield, lower, let down, put under, reduce,”

 

DO YOU KNOW, that those words described above are also used to describe 

PSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE on the 5 branches of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?!?

24 minutes ago

 

Female Friend: Further more, yes, there are gender diffrences, our organs 

hang inwards, while yours hang outwards. It gives us GREATER=2

0mind 

control because we think with our minds rather then our penises. AND 

psychologically speaking (proven by research), women reach rational 

thinking before men do.

 

YES, you can bench press more, WOW. Do you know that medically proven, 

women have great pain tolerence?!? And higher endurance?!? So I don’t 

give a damn about what you say about “gender diffrences,” it has not 

grounds on why we must “submit” to you besides you not wanting to grow 

up and be a man. Your mommy made your bed and cooked for you. Now your 

wife does it for you. Stop hiding behind your laziness and grow up. It 

has nothing to do with “natural order’ because if you look at nature, 

it is OFTEN the female in numerous specaies that is in charge.

18 minutes ago

 

Female Friend: And don’t hide behind “i take care of my wife so she cooks 

for me.” The majority of college grads ARE women. She doesn’t need you 

to pay bills, unless she’s to lazy to go out and get a job.

 

Do you know that wives that “submit” to their husbands live 5 years 

less then single women or women in feminist relationships and have 

higher depression? While men like you who have submitted wives live 5 

years longer then single men?!? Good for you! But it speaks about the 

stress on the wives who have such lives!

 

Do you know that research shows that women in feminist relatiionships 

are up to 70% happier then “submitted” wives?!? And 

husbands in such 

relationships have more sex a week then men in relationships like yours?

 

Feminisism did not do anything to divorce rates. Divorce rates have 

been increasing EVERY year since divorce was an option. Do your 

research. It had nothing to do with feminism.

 

Feminism HELPED with divorce rates. WOW. Do you know why?!? WOMEN 

STARTED WORKING!!! They didn’t

12 minutes ago

 

Leonard Goenaga For one who goes on claiming how blatantly in error I am 

for not reading them in full, you are quick to make assumptions on how 

I treat her. It would be best for you to ask yourself how she feels 

about the condition of her marriage; how she feels about the roles we 

both actively, and supportively, carry out.

 

The Church has to submit to Christ. If marriage is a mere finite 

expression of this submission, are you to suggest that the Church 

Body’s submission to Christ, as God had designed such a relationship to 

be, something as unloving?

 

The condition of a rebellious heart is made clear: you have problems 

submitting, to God and to anyone in general. The marital relationship 

God designed is absolutely beautiful. A woman submits to her husband’s 

leadership, and a man lays his life on the line and devotes himself to 

his wife as Christ devoted himself to the death.

 

If you disagree with this design, what then on your idea of Jesus’ and 

the bride of the Church?

5 minutes ago

 

Female Friend: They didn’t ave to stay with scum bags because they had an 

income. When women weren’t allowed to work, they had NO choice! It was 

either be homeless, or deal with the husbands ill behavior. Having an 

income gave them the option to not tolerate ill and lazy behavior from 

husbands. It helped marriages by sending a message to terrible husbands 

that they better get their act together.

 

Vivian Gorn made the quoted statement in your post about marrying men 

like you and Soren. She did NOT oppose marriage. She opposed sick 

marriages. There IS a difference.

 

A woman is not a child, she does not need to submit to you. We are ALL 

equal in the eyes of God, so twist it however you like. Submitting is 

not Gods will. The bible has been editing by MEN in their favor, and 

the many of the text hidden.

 

On another note, 86.2% of the population is Christian according to USA 

Census while less the 37% of American Women are Feminist. THAT IS NOT 

ENOUGH to cause the divorce problem happening in the united

3 minutes ago

 

Leonard Goenaga: Furthermore, a rebellious heart is a wicked heart. Why was Israel exiled? Because they rebelled against God.

 

You offered me a rant on the superiority of woman. Man, nor woman, are superior. Rather, we are lowly vile creations. We are absolutely equal in our depravity. One is no greater than the other. Both are made in the image of God, and are thus equal. Equal in our access to Salvation, and equal in our worth before God. You overtly have pride in your gender, I do not. I wonder why you must tell yourself your gender is somehow superior, but I will guess it to be a condition of the heart.

 

Listen, as you do not understand how this relationship works. God is the Father, Jesus is the Son, and then we have the spirit. Jesus came to us under the Father, and Jesus sent to us the Spirit. A hierarchy of the trinity exists, but one cannot be greater than the other; it is merely a relationship of hierarchy.

 

The president is higher than you in terms of hierarchy, but his value as a human is

about an hour ago · Delete

 

Leonard Goenaga: equal to yours. He can sign an executive order and you cannot, although your relationship to him is respected. However, his humanity is not greater than yours. Legally, if he murders someone, and you murder someone, you are both murderers. Your humanity is equal, but the hierarchy is the same.

 

Perhaps this will help you understand. Ever more, I force no one into submission. Rather, my wife chooses to submit willingly, as we both willingly choose to submit to Jesus.

 

You will have a hard time in any relationship, specifically with men, if you believe yourself to be somehow superior (as you obviously need to tell yourself you are, i.e. above comments). A relationship will only ever work if it is in submission; if it is in servitude to one another. 

 

The servitude in marriage is reflective of a greater more important and spiritual servitude to Christ. If you cannot accept, nor learn, how to serve your spouse, how than can you possibly understand to serve your God? How then, can you

about an hour ago · Delete

 

Leonard Goenaga: become a slave unto Christ? 

 

“The one who boasts must boast in the Lord.” (1 Cor. 1:31).

 

“For to those who are perishing the message of the cross is foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is God’s power.” (1:18)

 

“God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength.” (1:25).

 

In addition, you tell me not to quote these feminists, yet you do nothing to explain these quotes to me. A simple way to cast them aside.

 

The spiritual significance is great. You greatly despise a vision of Men as posing themselves as greater than woman, as more powerful (things I not once did in my above comments, where I discuss marriage, not male supremacy). 

 

Although, how you commit the very sin you complain against, by going on a tirade of the superiority of woman. Do you not see a conflict here? A sort of hypocrisy?

about an hour ago · Delete

 

Leonard Goenaga: Why, must your convince yourself of such a superiority? Do you feel such a weakness? Have you been injured by wordly men?

 

I can tell you there is a man who can show you the value of submission. His name is Jesus, and he will show you how beautiful servitude can be. If there is any pity to be passed, and by all means you can judge my relationship however you wish, it is I who may not stop myself from pity.

 

You place your bet on the wisdom of the world, which is foolishness to God. What i pity, is that you must convince yourself about something. You must have been hurt by a man, or men, and you must now find strength in your gender; exaggerating such gender hatred to find some type of foundation.

 

However to do so is to build a house on sinking sand. Humanity’s wisdom is weak, and you will find no joy nor salvation in the knowledge of any gender-focused argument is greater than another. Only God can show you such, and you will only make it that much more difficult to submit.

about an hour ago · Delete

 

Leonard Goenaga: Btw, you’re in error with some of the things you’ve stated as factual. Brain studies have shown men and woman to be entirely different in their approaches to thinking and relationships via brain scan studies. The intellectual and scientific idea that woman and men are the same except for reproductive organs is archaic at best.

about an hour ago · Delete

 

Leonard Goenaga: “I believe both parties need to Submit to God and God ALONE.”

 

And finally, if you believe we must submit to God, than are you submitting to Him when he asks you to submit to your husband? Jesus is not inferior to God. The Spirit is not inferior to Jesus. It is called a relationship.

 

You also have no understanding of how our relationship functions. Their is no I and Her. there is no Katrina and Leonard. Your problem is that you view your relationship as two people, where God has established it as a union of one flesh. No identity outside the other exists. 

 

It is foolishness to pity someone for assuming, while your pity rests on assumptions themselves.

56 minutes ago · Delete

 

Leonard Goenaga: It was a simple question. Anyone can morph text however they wish. However, God’s truth is objective. He is rather straightforward in his truths. 

 

A Christian is someone who submits and follows Christ. As such you follow his commands and designs for marriage. You do not take such, and mold it to surround feminism, or ideology, or whatever other foolish philosophies of man.

 

It is simple. God offers this truth: wife’s submit to your husbands. God is asking you to submit to your husband. The idea to you gets polluted by whatever assumptions you make about men, or about this idea of servitude. It is polluted to you; some hateful relationship of man’s control over woman. It is an unwarranted assumption: you need to understand the Church’s loving role in submission to Christ, and then you would willingly wish to do the same.

 

In other words, if you care to call yourself a Christian, how are you approaching such a verse? Do you see it, and move to your feminism for an answer, or do you

51 minutes ago · Delete

 

Leonard Goenaga: allow God to speak for himself.

 

You cannot follow God and also follow militant feminism. One obviously has the greatest authority. To filter God’s truths through any ideology is to poison truth with presuppositions. With man as flawed as we are, why in the world would we want to filter His truth through our observations?

 

Again, what do you do with such a verse? How do you explain it? Do you just skip it, and look away, because your feminism tells you otherwise? If that is the case, I would highlight where your priority thus lies. In the world, or in the word?

49 minutes ago · Delete

 

Leonard Goenaga: So it is the men editing who do so? So instead of taking it as God’s word, you explain it away as Men editing. How is that not feminism poisoning understand of scripture? 

 

If you look over it as the editing of men, why take anything the bible says as truth, let alone our understanding of Jesus and God? The whole thing could just be a work of editing correct?

 

Fortunately that is as far-fetched as an understanding of scripture can come. 

 

Until you learn how to submit to Miguel, and Miguel learns how to do the same, a relationship will never be successful. 

 

Romance dies. Feelings die. What matters is the covenant, the promise. You do not get married for eachother, but for God. Marriage supports love, not love supports marriage. 

 

You’re not understanding how this marital relationship works: You’re seeing it in the modern romanticism version, not God’s intended design.

 

I want you to understand that your feminism is clouding your understanding of scripture. You say it is edited by men,

39 minutes ago · Delete

 

Leonard Goenaga: as your feminism assumes, instead of seeing scripture as scripture. Can you understand now what I am trying to highlight? Your Christianity is filtered through your feminism, and not the other way around. 

 

Study in depth how marriage works in bible. You will be surprised by its beauty. Read John Piper’s This Momentary Marriage (a really short read), and you will discover how incredible this relationship is. This Union. 

 

Again, I cannot stress it enough. Scripture speaks for itself. To filter it through any worldview whatsoever, is to poison God’s Word with human foolishness.

36 minutes ago · Delete

 

Katrina Goenaga: Friend, I am still unsure of why I need to be pitied, but I will respond with this.

I am a highly educated woman who graduated cum laude from a well-regarded private institution. I spent three years studying women’s rights and at one point would have probably considered myself to be a feminist. After years of rigorous study I have come to the conclusion that the only thing I am proud to be called is a God-fearing woman and a servant of CHRIST. I have only one master and his name is God. Before you go and assume you know everything about the other side of your argument you probably should have consulted me first.

27 minutes ago · Delete

 

Katrina Goenaga: The Bible clearly says in Ephesians 5:21, “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” It doesn’t say that men are meant to be slave drivers in charge of women nor does it say that women are meant to be in charge of men. It clearly states that we, men and women alike, are meant to submit to one another out of respect for our creator. I’ll give you a perfect example: a police officer is put in place to protect his city and community, right? Does that mean because I am not a police officer that he is somehow better than me? Or that he is more intelligent or stronger? No, it merely means that he was placed in a role of authority. He has been given a job to protect and guard his community. Just as police officers are meant to protect and guard their cities, men, as prescribed by the Bible, are meant to provide for, protect and support their wives.

27 minutes ago · Delete

 

Katrina Goenaga: Does that mean that Lenny is somehow better than me? Absolutely not! Lenny and I were created equal in the eyes of God. I merely have a different role than him. Does that make me stupid or naïve? No! I am just as educated as Leonard, when we both had jobs I made just as much money as he did, if not more, I am free to do what I please when I please as long as it is respectful to myself, to God and my marriage. 

 

I am not Leonard’s slave, I am his wife and if you cannot understand this than I pity you because you will never know the love of a Godly man if you continue to hold on to these preconceived notions of what a biblical, God-centered marriage really is. It is obvious from your statements that YOU have never READ the Bible from which we receive our truths.

27 minutes ago · Delete

 

Katrina Goenaga: Ephesians 5:22-33 says, “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.”

26 minutes ago · Delete

 

Katrina Goenaga: My husband treats me with more respect and love than I could have ever imaged and that’s because he has God as his source of reference. The best way that my husband could ever show me how he loves me is through following the truths that God has placed for us in the Bible. I could not imagine how our marriage would be if Christ was not at the center of our relationship and we were merely married for our own selfish desires, which is what you basically follow. You seem to be unhappy because you are not able to get your way. Once you realize that marriage is not about yourself and is about a union with God and your husband you will begin to understand where we are coming from, but until then your views of submission are going to be skewed.

26 minutes ago · Delete

 

Katrina Goenaga: My husband does not need to buy me a BMW or a house, because I am complacent with nothing. All I desire is a Godly man, a man who is willing to treat me the way Christ loved the church and because you cannot comprehend the love that Christ had for his church you will never be able to comprehend the amount of love that Leonard has for me. I submit because I know that Leonard’s sacrifice was much greater than mine. He submits himself to me daily and for that I am eternally grateful. 

Tania, I have no problem submitting to my husband because I have submitted myself fully to Christ.

26 minutes ago · Delete

 

Female Friend: Okay, I have a question for you. Do you asks your wifes opinion on certain decisions? Or do you just do what you want to do? because if you consider her opinion or meet her half way, that’s not submission.

 

Also, not every man wants a woman to submit. Miguel asks for my opinion for every decision, and he WANTS to meet half-way, not just do whatever he wants and have me submit to his “authority”. Miguel wants an equal. Furthermore, he even wants me to manage the money once we get married. 

 

To me, submission=doormat, I guess you don’t see it that way, But I do, Miguel does too. And I know some other guys who do too. MOST men think like you, and I wouldn’t date someone who thinks like wise, because othere wise, it would be war. And Miguel has dumped all of his sex’s, because they submit, rather then be his equal. So it works perfectly for us. Not everyone wants what you have. and vice-versa of course.

22 minutes ago · Delete

 

Katrina Goenaga: I can answer that question. 

Yes, he does ask my opinion about EVERYTHING! Because Leonard is not an individual, he is only one half of our marriage. He cannot stand on his own. 

Submission does not mean that you ask for opinions or that you ask for permission. 

Submission is humbling yourself before God and your spouse. It is not making yourself a doormat, but opening up your heart and your love. If I was not able to submit to Leonard openly and if he was not able to submit to me openly our marriage would have a TON of problems because we would only be looking out for ourselves and not each other. You don’t get married to make yourself happy, you get married because you love the man you’re with, right? So why is it that every question you’ve asked has to do with you getting your way? 

Tania, my husband is not in charge of everything, nor am I. We have an equal partnership that is based on the truths that God has set out for us in the Bible.

14 minutes ago · Delete

 

Katrina Goenaga: Friend, I think it’s funny that you can judge us like you know us. Or at least like you know me, because you don’t. And you need to understand that. 

Leonard is my equal just as I am his. I live my life in a way that supports him and he lives his life in a way that supports me. That is what you are not understanding. I take care of my husband to the best of my ability, which does mean cleaning, cooking, etc and he takes care of me to the best of his ability, which means providing and protecting me. But this is not where our roles end. I also take care of him emotionally, spiritually, and physically, just as he does those same things for me in return, if not more.

8 minutes ago · Delete

 

Katrina Goenaga: I guess it worked out for you that you found someone who does not want you to be a Godly woman because that’s obviously not who you want to be. But you need to understand that submission does not equal doormat, it merely means letting go of your own personally selfishness and living for God’s truth.

5 minutes ago · Delete

 

Leonard Goenaga: In addition to what Katrina said, God did something incredibly genius with our relationship with men and woman. Men, being biologically stronger, as well as their mentality, have a greater ability to abuse.

 

As such, God designed his marriage, founded under equality, yet with the headship of the man, yet under the submission to God, to prevent a solution to the VERY abuse you’re arguing against! Man has a vast capacity to hurt, and to abuse, and to take advantage of. As such, God designed a form of marriage, that humbled before God, would counteract that very dilemma! It is a beautiful solution. He designs marriage in such a way, that a Godly man, would product women from the abuse against men.

 

It is beyond words in its beauty, and as such you understand the idea of a protector male figure, in the authoritative role that Kat mentioned (police officer). 

 

Even greater it is when understood within the biblical times it occurred.

2 seconds ago · Delete

 

Marriage and the Family Foundations: Part 2, Denmark & Spain.

A continuation of yesterdays facebook conversation with a good Danish friend of mine. He’s a seminary student at a Lutheran Evangelical seminary in Denmark, and overall a good guy. Here is the exchange:

 

Søren

Wow. This is as long as some of the comments I made on my brothers status sometimes.
I agree with you on most of it, Leonard, but as I live in one of those terrible European countries, Denmark, I think I can nuance some of it a bit.
What I experience in the danish debate is that concept of marriage is actually defended by both sides. Homosexuals actually wants to be able to marry and live togehter for the rest of their lives. In Denmark the divorcerate is actually lower for homosexuals than for heterosexuals. I think it is because it is still a bigger thing to marry and not just live together for homosexuals than for heterosexuals.
The problem is, that marriage is far more than that. 

Marriage, seen from a humanistic point of view, is a civil and legal construction in which two persons choose to live together, have a shared economy, perhaps raise children, and support each other in different ways. How this is done is subject to changes due to culture and change of time.
Conservative christians do however see marriage differently. Even though we accept the humanistic view, we do not find it sufficient. We believe, that God laid into marriage a fixed pattern, that does not change. This are for instance that the man is the head of the wife, who are subordinate to him, while he is to prioritize her wellbeing above his own.

The result of this difference in viewsmakes the two sides in the debate misunderstand each other very often.
Two men cannot live together in marriage simply because they do not meet the requirements no matter how much they love each other.
Claiming that they can is to try to reduce marriage even if you do not know, that you are doing that.

As a christian I can live with the model used in Denmark even though I do not like it.
As it is, only heterosexuals can marry. Homosexuals can enter into what is called a Registered Partnership, which gives them the same rights and possibilities as married people.
That, I think, is an acceptable solution in a democracy. 
In a theocracy things would have been different, but religion cannot dictate the order of a democracy.

Leonard Goenaga

The civil union/registered partnership still approaches the same dilemma: does it still de-construct the concept of marriage? Whether you’re a humanistic, or a christian, or a plain citizen, the question to be asked is how important is the institution of marriage? It is shocking to see how quickly our concept of sex has changed in the last 40 years, versus the last thousands. 

Society rests upon the shoulders of a healthy family. As such, regardless of religious conviction, healthy citizens want to support policies that protect healthy families. And healthy families are founded upon healthy marriages. And marriages are founded upon the institution of marriage. If you remove the structure of an institution, it is no longer an institution, but a simple word. What is being attempted is the removal of what makes marriage marriage, and instead the usage of the word. 

It is not so much the issue of gays getting married, as the pursuit for the right of marriage. An affirmation by the law and

 

 the public that their lifestyle is natural, and moral. I know this is a massive statement. There is the rhetoric we find in those movements (we want to marry) and then there is the results.  

We are those results? We’re learning that in countries which have legalized gay marriage, homosexual couples are not really getting married. An example is Spain, which has full fledged gay marriage (no difference with heterosexual marriage): “On 27 June 2007, the Ministry of Justice announced 3,340 same-sex marriages had taken place in the last two years.” In a country with 40.5 million people, with one of the highest gay populations in the world, this is a shockingly LOW number [.0000000835% of the total population]. Why? Because it wasn’t about getting married, but about the right to, the affirmation and legitimization of their immoral unnatural behavior.

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/sociedad/3300/parejas/homosexuales/han/casado/Espana/ultimos/anos/elpepusoc/20070627elpepusoc_5/Tes

 

More so, the pattern continues in other countries as well.  

Besides that follows other interesting statistics. Divorce rate amongst heterosexual couples, children out of wedlock, couples choosing co-habitation over marriage, and decreased children born within marriages seems to have skyrocketed as a result.

Why is this? Because the structure of an institution was removed, watering if not removing its intended natural meaning, and thus removing its usage and viability within society. Then, it broods more of itself. 

I’ll be posting the stats on some of that later on this week.

mange tak.

Marriage, Family Foundations, and De-Constructionism Exchange.

Short facebook exchange. Thought I’d put it up here for future personal reference. If it may have the additional benefit of helping you with the important question of what is marriage, then I will consider it an additional blessing. Short discussion regarding the De-Construction of Marriage by militant feminist and homosexual ideologies. 

Leonard Goenaga 

just got out of his Marriage and Family foundations course. Wow. Blown away at how good it and Dr. Heimbach were. The narrative of the de-construction movement, and how the feminist and homosexual ideological movements wish to use it to deconstruct marriages to further legitimize immoral behavior/lifestyle was a great way to get the class started.

Individual 1 feminism is immoral?

Individual 2 You can’t be serious…

Leonard Goenaga

Matters on what we mean by feminism. If we are talking about the idea that gender identity doesn’t exist, and that man and woman are the same accept for sexual reproductive organs, than yes, I would say it is inherently sin-driven/sinful/immoral. A rejection of the natural order, which being devised by God, would make it immoral (immoral being anything in opposition to God’s design and law). 

Now if we talk about feminism as the idea that men and woman are equal in worth, than that it overtly not immoral, as God designed us and intended us to be equal before him. We both were made in His image, affirming our equality. However, this does not mean we deny our gender-based differences, as well as the corresponding roles.

And yes, I am serious. As serious as Vivian Gorni when she stated that “Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession… The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn’t be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that.” and the 1971 “Declaration of Feminism” that states “Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned
method of control over women . . . . [I]t is the institution that has failed us and we
must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary
condition for the liberation of women”. 

It makes sense that two ideological movements, which seek an affirmation of their lifestyles as being normative, would find themselves in direct contrast with an ancient social institution that blatantly speaks and contrasts the immorality of such unnatural directives. 

Sex literally becomes deified, and the two movements, which once blatantly blasted this institution of marriage (1960-1991), seek instead to deconstruct their enemy in marriage, and thus legitimize their practice and convictions.

This ignores the natural and beneficial nature of marriage itself, and how needed it is to a healthy

society, let alone civilization. There was a reason why we find the deconstructive of marriage to be a precursor to the fall of many a powerful civilization.

Sociology itself affirms the necessity of healthy marriages. Children born of biological parents who do not separate in divorce score betters test scores, live happier lives, etc., whereas children born of divorce homes or out of wedlock are monumentally more susceptible to future divorce, abuse relationships, adultery, theft, depression, poverty, abuse, murder, and a host of other ills.

Society literally rests upon the foundations of healthy marriages, as they are a primal system to pass down social responsibility, as well as order, character, and virtues. 

These two ideological movements attempts to deconstruct marriage, by removing the structures that make up the very institution, and thus leave it as nothing more than an empty word, also attempt to unnaturally remove the meaning and importance of this very important

social institution. This in turn is dangerous to society. as such, it is immoral. Selfish ambition, the deification of sex and their associated world view, the relative individualistic nature that craves acceptance of immoral behavior as norm, in turn deconstruct an ancient institution that precedes any healthy society. The question is an ancient spiritual one: sinful individualism versus social responsibility.

Worse of all, the deconstructed purpose of marriage, as found in this terrible social decline, broods only more of itself. Removing the structure of marriage, and its natural intention, removes the structure itself, replacing it instead with a word, which gives way to a relative concept.

Divorce homes produce more divorced homes. Children of wedlock produce more of the same. This further breeds citizens who are more inclined, sociologically speaking, to cast upon more social ills, thus producing somewhat of a cancer.

Without the concrete structure of marriage in its natural form, the incentives against it grow, and such behavior outside of marriages prove hardly beneficial. The individual follows their desires, as relative as they wish them to be, because man is sinful, and desires himself. Perhaps he may not see it as such, but it broods more of its fruit. 

Individualism in place of social responsibility. Unnatural in place of natural. Relative in place of absolute.

Individual 2 No, Lenny.

1) Feminists are not seeking to destroy anything except patriarchy. 

2) Gays do not want to destroy marriages and families. In fact, they want nothing more than the ability to have both. They’re fighting tooth and nail for that, actually.

You may want to go out and meet a few of these individuals before you make assumptions about their agenda.

Leonard Goenaga

1) If God designed marriages to be Patriarchal, and this marital system is natural, and marriage functions in accordance to a specific system (“Wives submit to your husbands… Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church…”), then an attempt to dislodge the very nature of marriage, in opposition of natural, would be immoral. Not to justify an abusive marriage with a dictator husband (as that itself defies the natural design of marriage, making it too immoral). I’m speaking more of militant feminism and homosexuality, as those two traditions inspired such movements, and have in their goals the destruction of patriarchal marriages, which if those are their natural conditions, would leave the same critique stated above. 

2) The homosexual ideological movement does not straight-forward state they want to destroy marriages. They instead want to legitimize their behavior and condition as not being immoral, but amoral. They wish acceptance of immoral actions by the public, and one way this goes about is by deconstructing the things that provides the contrasts which expose such immorality. By deconstructing the structure and institution of marriage, and sapping from it its meaning, they are in turn destroying marriage. There is a reason why an interesting pattern has developed in nations which legalized gay marriage in Europe: Gays are not getting marriaged in legitimate numbers, and the above-mentioned social ills are skyrocketing. The purpose was not outright straight-forward destruction, but the results of such deconstruction centered on legitimization of immorality had the same such affect.

The homosexual ideological movement at first outright attacked marriages in intellectual and political thought (see Franklin Kameny, Michael Swift, James Nelson, and Eugene Rogers), and it wasn’t until 1991 that the approach (obviously failing in its viciousness) changed, and sought instead to grab unto the de-constructionalist movement by attempting to not remove marriage, but deconstruct and re-define it out of its very natural existence. 

I also have met many, as have talked to them, with kindness, respect, and passion (could find them on my friends list and ask them). You’re statement to not make assumptions is grounded on a wrongly make assumption.

Whether they state they outright want to remove it (as some prominent founders and thinkers of the homosexual movement have done), or whether they use de-constructive language draped with flowery language, the result is still the same: a dangerous de-construction of the natural order, and a vital social institution. Radical, hyper-intentioned unhealthy social change.

 

Facebook e-Evangelism? Sure.

Below is a copy of a conversation upon Shany Wong’s facebook status, involving an exchange of ideas amongst myself and two individuals. Posts were arranged to reflect the timeline of responses. Enjoy, and God’s Blessings, as well as to keep them in your prayers. All for His glory:

Shany Wong Faith > Reason

Steven Guarin its sayings like these that get twisted inside peoples minds, causing them to blow up abortion clinics with the upmost justification. I’ve been thru hell and back, and ive seen DEATH face to face, and none of you have been thru what ive been thru. Im a man of REASON, because in life i’ve learned only the weak incapable of reasoning choose faith as a means of escape.

Leonard Goenaga Faith is no means of escape. Your reasoning sounds way too introspective. Although I have no understanding of your pains and sufferings, there are many who have suffered more who have come to this understanding of faith. Reasoning is only a tool God has given us to further understand his character and creation. Man perverts reason by using it and his creativity to support whatever his desires, by creating subjective systems that justify his amoral actions.

I bet whatever death you have witnessed, and whatever pain experience, those dealing the death and dishing the pain may cite reason as the source of their action. Reason drove Stalin to murder tens of millions of his people. Reason drove Hitler to attempt extinguishing the jews. 

The association of faith and weakness, is weak. Many a stronger men are there who would argue you otherwise. If anything, it takes genuine REAL strength to accept faith, as it is the great step of acknowledging your weakness, and sacrificing your cravings. Reasoning itself is flawed without Faith. Sure, you can understand certain segments of reality with it, and how it functions, but reason will not tell you WHY, merely HOW. 

Aquinas knew this well. Reason can hint you the truth of natural law, but Faith in revelation is what will get you there, and ever more important, who put it there.

Adrian Rivera God exists? prove it

Leonard Goenaga

With our finite minds? You want me to prove the Creator exist on a text-based social media site with a question two words long? That’s hardly a way you even get started. Scripture says “now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, in order to know what has been freely given to us by God…the natural man does not welcome what comes from God’s Spirit, because it is foolishness to him.” (1 Cor. 2:12, 14).

To speak of the things of the spirit, we would need to use a vocabulary of the spirit, which may not do us any good due to the difference in our perspectives. Would you walk to a mathematician and ask him to explain botany, or ask a farmer to explain physics? Hardly, and even if you ask a physicist to explain a black-hole, if you do not have the background in physics, would it do much good?

You put God on the dock, on the questioning bored, but it is our reason that should be put on the dock. If you expect me to use the medium of the world, and worldly things, to prove to you a spiritual all-powerful God exists, than you must see how unreasonable that appears. A spiritual being would need spiritual explanation, as a physicist needs the language of mathematics and science to explain physics. How far then can we get, if you will most likely cast aside an explanation of God for using spiritual language?

If you would like me to explain the morality of man, and the situation of sin, I would be glad to. I can explain how man lives in depravity, and how man has two fundamental cravings: identity and fulfillment. Man seeks to be someone, and man seeks fulfillment. He identifies with groups, with cults, with clubs, with fraternities, with work, with families, with cultures. It is evident in all humanity; a simple observation. He goes through great lengths to have an identity. We see it in the social fragmentation in highschool; a goth, a rocker, a nerd, a jock. It continues as he ages.

Secondly, he seeks fulfillment. He spends his entire life trying to find things that make him happy. Women, philosophy, partying, money, work, hobbies, sex, drugs, and the list continues. He tries to find something, or someone, to fill a vacuum in his heart, in his very being. Things, however, do not fit this vacancy. As such, he continues to search things out to feed his happiness, to give him completeness, only to find nothing fits.

God designed us to find identity in His son, and to find completion in Him. He created us to love him, and to have a relationship with him, and this vacancy and need for identity exists to help us pursue such in Him. It was our intended purpose: as is a car to drive, and an oven to bake. What good is a car to cook, and an oven to drive?

In order to love, God gives us free will and intellect, which allows us reason and creativity. Rejecting God, for the sake of loving ourselves (i.e. sin), we use this creativity and intellect to try to find other forms of selfish-driven fulfillment and identity, only to further flame the very problem, ourselves, and to come up empty. 

A greater question is to ask whether you are a person, or a simple body. Are you merely a makeup of cells, and limbs, and organs, which reacts to outter stimulus? If such, reason would be hardly possible, as it is not an instictual reaction, but the ability to take knowledge, and weight it with opinion. Who is Adrian than? Is he a person of likes and dislikes, opinions, concerns, love? If so, all those concepts (which are vital to who we really are), are things not provable.

You cannot prove to me that you are Adrian, a person, not just a body, without describing to me your wants, desires, opinions, concerns, and all that is done in the language of will and reason. We can no more open you up and read your passions than we can use finite science to prove the things of the spirit. Hope that helps.

Adrian Rivera and what is it that makes you right? the fact that someone told you all this since you were born and you read it somewhere? you tellin me all the buddhists got it wrong? all the jews got it wrong? all the muslims got it wrong? everything theyve believed for thousands of years is bullshit to all of you because some cattle sacrificing primitives a long time ago decided to write a story.

 

Leonard Goenaga Adrian, in the question of who is and is not right, you’re highlighting the very answer. Man is at fault. I am not right, nor are you. God is right. Because we have finite minds, creativity, will, and selfish desires, we create an assortment of problems. We are the source of suffering, because we are selfish beings. 

Truth is not relative. Black is not white, but rather a complete opposite of it. Cold is not hot. Right is not wrong. there is a very distinct difference in those things. Just because I walk up to you, point at black, and tell you its white doesn’t mean I’m right. Its black merely because its black, just as truth is truth merely because it is. 

Yes, I will tell you other religions get it wrong. You can’t just assume they’re all partially right when they contradict eachother. Either one is right, or all are wrong. The claim are too opposite (having studied religion, I learned this greatly: the nature of the soul, monotheism, deism, pantheism, polytheism themselves are all opposites).

As I said earlier, man’s creativity, and desire to find fulfilment and identity, lead him to create religions and cults and philosophies and groups. If anything, this hints at something greater; where then, did this very ability to reason and create come from? Obviously not simply nature, and nature possesses none of these characteristics; it is solely identifiable with God.

This then takes us down a path of reason, which is an incredibly long discussion to show why Christianity is right, not because I say it so, but because truth is not a relative set of principles.  

Also, to make the assumption that a bunch of people got together and wrote a story is incredibly simple. Man would make such an assumption to ignore what creater claims are centered in this narrative, which is hardly beneficial. I can assure you the bible is not a collective of musing from a small group of folk. 

Also, don’t assume I was raised in a christian home with the convenience of people telling me what was true since I was born. How I wish we all had that convenience.

Steven Guarin

Leonard, i admire your passion. BUT GUESS WHAT? you religious freaks contribute NOTHING to society except mind games. While us SCIENCE freaks contributed the great medicines that saved my life. Yup, im a cancer survivor, and i survived because of the wonderful DOCTORS who used REASON for many years to create powerful medicines against cancer. Jesus had no part in my success, and if you think he did, well, your just crazy.Oh wait i forgot, you guys LOOOOVE to blow up abortion clinics, so why dont you go do that and let us be man. I respect your views but start invading my space by telling me im WRONG.

We are BOTH RIGHT, isn’t that beautiful? Stop Hate mongering man!

Steven Guarin wow leonard, are you even aware your entire RELIGIOUS views was plagiarized, it was the Egyptians who wrote the Book of the dead, and the so called 10 commandments. Read your history man! Your religious views does nothing but spread HATE if you disagree. I disagree with you, yet i dont write essays on why your wrong. We are BOTH right!

Steven Guarin

most of my friends and family are religious. I have no problem with that, at all. Why does it bother you we have different sets of opinions man? We all live life differently, which is why we all have different views on life and we are both right. Please explain to me how i was able to survive a stage 4 cancer battle without the help of jesus. Was he secertly helping me out? Because if he did, he sure was sneaky. Why do you always have to praise jesus and not give thanks to man? i give thanks to my DOCTORS, and my friends for support. Ive read your bible, and honestly, you have one JEALOUS god. That old testamet shit is hilarious.

Leonard Goenaga Firstly Steven, calling anyone a freak will hardly do any good. To make the assumption I’m some type of freak, after having assumed anyone of Faith is weak, is poor poor reason. There are doctors who may have even treated you who are of such a faith, which would make your claim wildly of error. It would do you good not to assume such things, especially if we want to talk of things of reason. 

As for the abortion clinic, that is so ridiculous. You’re making the assumption that because some fanatical crazed individual blows up a clinic, all christians do. That is silly, honestly. Create a list of Christians who have blown up clinics, and then take the billions of Christians who have not, and provide me a percentage. That is rather scientific, correct? Would it be a majority? Would it even be a significant minority?

So, again, with reason, we can conclude your presuppositions to be in error. It’s as illogical as me saying, because some hispanics steal, all hispanics must steal, and what then, is the good of hispanics? You obviously can see the substantial error in this. Why? Because you’re reason is not perverted by your presuppositions (such as your desire to despise christianity). 

I don’t mean to insult you. I truely don’t Steven. I don’t even know you, but I love you none-the-less. If you wish to speak of things scientific and logical, at least use a reasonable approach to evaluate them. 

Steven, I also studied the egyptian texts. I minored in Biblical Archaeology, Judaism, and Early Christianity. I can tell you, assuredly, that making such a simple claim as Christianity and Judaism was plagiarized to be false. I can sit here and write pages why, providing archaeology finds, as well as reasonable evidences, although I doubt we would hardly all sit down and read them, seeing the approach you’ve taken (I would like to know if you have read what I’ve written in full). 

I can also honestly say Steven, that I think I may have read a bit more history than you, and I genuinely and lovingly mean that. I mean, I’ve read in full historical egyptian narratives that you may have never heard of, and have studied intensely on the different ages of the Egyptian kingdoms, as well as their believes.

But I do NOT wish to toot my own horn. I just want you to see you’ve commited some seriously unloving and un-reasonable assumptions, which are at serious fault, which should at least highlight how there is no perfection in this reason you’re quoting.

Leonard Goenaga

And we are not both right. That is silly. Being right is not relative. I mean, honestly, something cannot be right and wrong at the same time. A man raping a 10 year old girl is not right or wrong. It is blatantly wrong. We cannot be right and wrong in our assumptions that God does or does not exist; that makes NO reasonable sense WHATSOEVER, and if you wish to stick the route of a scienitific approach, you should see that lucidly. 

Also, medicine can only heal the wounds of the flesh, while Christianity, namely Jesus, heals something much more important. 

Steve, if you read ANYTHING, and there is a lot up there to read, I would want you to honestly read this. What good is science to heal you of cancer, if you are to live an unhappy life? Who wins Steve? The man who dies happy in the knowledge of Jesus and salvation, welcoming death itself as a triumphal opportunity, or the man who is cured of cancer and lives a meaningless life?

What then, is the greater of the two? That which prolongs physical life, or that which provides TRUE life?

I pray you think of that well. I would also love to give you an example where medicine and science failed miserably, and faith (namely Jesus), made a fool of it all, however that is a personal thing which I would share with you in a message.

I will also give you an open invitation Steve. Instead of tossing up here various broad assumptions, I invite you, at any time, to contact me and ask me a question. If you truely desire a response, and not seek to just provide an opinion, I will share with you answers to specific questions (Why is there evil, what of the egyptian dead documents, is the bible realiable, etc). It is an offer that will stand, and you can email me whenever (LeonardOoh@live.com), or contact me on facebook. I will be genuine in my answers.
 

Platonic and Christian Theology: A Paper Analyzing the Relationship between Platonic Thought and Christian Philosophy.

Leonard O Goenaga

Professor Boronat

POT3013

November 10, 2008

 Platonic and Christian Theology: A Paper Analyzing the Relationship between Platonic Thought and Christian Philosophy.

Being quite the intellectual, Augustine, having received a prestigious academic chair within the Latin world, was oddly in internal turmoil. Having been a devout follower of Manichaeism, Augustine was moving away from the religion on the basis of a theological disagreement. In its place, Augustine pursued skepticism, only to later fall under the sway of Neoplatonism. It was here that his vehicle to Christianity, that of reason under Neoplatonic influence, would take him into the embrace of Christianity.[1] Having arrived through this vehicle of reason, Augustine was to become one of the most inspirational thinkers in Western Christianity, and would be the father of thought further developed during the medieval era. It is no wonder then, that even now, Christians freely speak of his thought as common dogma: from his concept of original sin, to his ideas of just war. The interplay between reason, Augustine’s Christianity, and his Platonic influence thus begs the question: if Augustine found immeasurable value between these two schools, what could a comparison between Christianity and Platonism provide for modern readers and practitioners? What similarities and differences do these two invaluable schools of belief and thought hold? This paper will focus on detailing and comparing Christian Theology with Platonic Philosophy, underscoring the similarities and differences between the two, and concluding with an evaluation of this assessment.

First and foremost, a discussion of the similarities between Platonic Philosophy and Christian Theology necessitates a brief summary of the nature of God. To start, God is a perfect being, containing within himself the reason for His existence, and absolute freedom. In addition, the Christian God contains various Omni-traits, as have been agreed upon by the Christian theologians of the ages. He contains within himself absolute intelligence, power, goodness, freedom, and needs no external force for His continued existence. Within this absolute freedom, we find a will that wished creation into being, with no external or internal factors forcing the creation of this world. Rather, God created the world simply because He desired to.  In addition to these characteristics, God is also a reasonable and all knowing figure, allowing humans to understand him on a rational basis, and concerning himself greatly with man’s affairs. Upon creation, God desired man to find fulfillment and completion in a loving relationship with Him. However, man, containing a free will in the image of the freedom of God, yet not containing the all-knowingness of God, could choose between entering into a genuine relationship with God (as loving presupposes choice and free will), or rejecting him. It is from this rejection of God that sin and imperfection enters the world, and it is God’s redemptive plan, through the saving powers of Grace through the salvation and revealed self-expression found within Jesus Christ (the λογοσ), that God made manifest his plan to reconnect humanity to their primal purpose: intimacy with the Father. It is from this brief summary of the Nature of God and the purpose of humanity that we build upon.

After establishing the absolute freedom and power of the Judaic-Christian God, we can now establish the Creation, and humanities relation to God. The Christian God created the world ex nihilo, or ‘out of nothing’. His purpose for creating the world is his own, and is not dependent, like the Platonic Demiurgos, on any external or internal factor. The infinite God created simply because he had the power and freedom to do so, and in this we find his purpose for doing so. Within this creation, which he deemed Good, we find the creation of Man in His image (Genesis 1:26[2], 31[3]). With the character of the Christian God established, and a general summary of creation made, we can now move to Human Nature and Man’s intended purpose.

As earlier mentioned, man’s purpose is to enter into an intimate relationship with his Creator, for a flock without a Shepard is lost. Man is lost in the sense that by following himself, his own impulses and his selfishness, man is trapped in a life of sinfulness, and sinfulness stands in opposite to the goodness and relationship God intends for Humanity. God created man with the purpose of making him in His “image and likeness” (Gen 1:26). However, Man has the ability to dedicate himself to God, or to sinful materialism. To combat man’s sinfulness, God revealed his self-expression in his son, Jesus, whom man could emulate to fulfill the above-mentioned purpose (As the Father, the Son, and the Spirit exist in a loving trinity). Through loving Christ, and modeling oneself after Him, man could fulfill his created purpose (entering into relationship with God, and modeling oneself ‘in His image’). Jesus, the Logos, is the revealed knowledge of God, and represents a physical entity that individuals can learn to and follow, in order to enter into communion with and understand God’s expression and love. This purpose and idea is personified in the Christ, and made manifest in the form of Jesus’ teachings and His sacrifice and resurrection. Jesus is thus “God’s ‘definition’ of what humanity and the world are all about,” (Komonchak 28). Jesus is the Christ destined to save humanity from their self-imposed sinfulness, and steer them on a redemptive path towards their initial intended purpose.

Another important topic on the subject of Human Nature is the element of Grace. Grace can be defined in Christian terms as the “sphere of the freely offered love-relationship between the triune God and humans,” (Komonchak 711). This is somewhat similar, as a factor for motivating good, with the Platonic concept of Eros (developed in the Phraedrus and Symposium). According to this concept, “the impulse to philosophy arises when the soul recognizes the imperfect copies of ideas present in material reality, and with longing love (Eros) strives to transcend the corporeal and reach the purity of ideal forms,” (Brauer 664). The similarity is drawn with Christianity in this: The Christian understands God to be the source of Goodness and Completion (as to the Platonist the source of Goodness is the Good and the world of transcendent ideas/Forms), and through the divine Grace of God, man’s “desire for good and the freedom to pursue it is established,” (Komonchak 711). The force that motivates the Christian to do good is the divine grace given to him by God, and he is established in a general longing for completeness via a relationship with God through the saving Christ, whereas the motivating factor for the Platonist to do good is the longing love (eros) to reach the perfection of ideals, and thus share these ideas with humanity. The Christian concept of human nature desiring divine intimacy can is similar to the Platonic longing love (eros) to connect with the world of ideas/Forms. In addition, both, as found in Christian Charity, and as found in the Republic’s Philosopher Kings and knowledge of The Good, can be forces for moral good and love in the world.

A Conversation With a Mormon

Hello Friends,

I had a conversation with a Mormon today. I was defending Christianity within a chatroom, and he asked me for my denomination. I told him, and then he said he was Mormon, and after some discussion he asked me to explain to him why Mormonism is not part of Christianity (Christianity being Protestantism, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy). Here was the discussion. I’m going to skip down to the core of the discussion, starting after he mentioned Baptism of the dead.  After I touch on that, it really picks up. I post this in a humble spirit, and hope God uses it to reach out to Mormons, and equip fellow believers with some additional knowledge. Enjoy:

<Kannoth>: Actually, may I ask a simple question before we go further?

<Kannoth>: Since you mentioned baptism is needed to enter heaven.

<Lord`Saladin>: Go on then.

<Kannoth>: Answer yes or no, please: Is Baptism needed in order to go into heaven?

<Lord`Saladin>: Yes.

<Kannoth>: Is Baptism needed for salvation, which thus leads to heaven?: Yes or no.

<Lord`Saladin>: Understand, however, Baptism is not simply the act of immersion, but also the covenant that goes with it.

<Lord`Saladin>: Yes.

<Kannoth>: Alright, so you’re clarifying Baptism. Baptism is obviously asked upon by every Christian as a means of acknowledging one’s faith publicly. This is the traditional understanding of baptism. However, you’re saying that Baptism is needed to go itno heaven and have salvation.

<Kannoth>: In other words, you’re saying an ack of works is needed in order to get into heaven…

<Kannoth>: Since we’re talking about physical baptism (baptism of the dead), and not just some concept of spiritual baptism.

<Kannoth>: So the act of baptizing is then needed to enter heaven, correct?

<Lord`Saladin>: Yes.

<Kannoth>: Well we have a problem. This contradicts our source of Righteousness (Romans 1:16-17). “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — not by works, so that no one can boast,” (Eph. 2:8-9, NIV).

<Kannoth>: So no act of our own can mitigate whether we get into heaven (ex.: baptism), but it is only by the gift God gives to us.

<Lord`Saladin>: Again, however, it is the covenant of Baptism that also accompanies the physical act that makes it so important…

<Kannoth>: There is the problem with baptism needing to be a requirement to enter heaven: It is poor theology. No work leads to salvation. It is purely a gift from grace. Baptism is only a public declaration of faith. An act the Christian should do in obedience. However, it will not nullify one’s entrance into heaven.

<Lord`Saladin>: The immersion and subsequent upcoming from beneath the water represent a new life, and also an act of cleansing away any previous sin before that point.

<Kannoth>: That only touches into one of the main areas of Doctrine (salvation). Now, may I define the central Christian Doctrines that Mormonism will have to agree to to be considered Christian?

<Kannoth>: Saladin, the act of Baptism is only a public represntation of the TRUE baptism; that of the Spirit. The ‘born again’ Jesus tells Nicodemus. It is no physical requirement needed to get into heaven.

<Kannoth>: But I don’t want to go down that tangeant, I’d like to define Christianity.

<Kannoth>: May I?

<Lord`Saladin>: Go on then.

<Kannoth>: There are 5 Central Key Theological issues. If Mormonism disagrees with any of them, it cannot be considered Christian. In addition, there are three essential other Doctrines as well.

<Kannoth>: Here are the first five:

<Kannoth>: All three branches can agree upon these central Doctrines (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox): 1) the Deity of Christ (John 8:58), 2) Salvation by Grace (Eph. 2:8-9), and 3) Resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. 15:14), 4) the Gospel (Gal. 1:8-9), and 5) Monotheism (Exodus 20:3). Before we even progress, would you say Mormonism is in agreement to all these central doctrines?

<Kannoth>: Before we even progress, do you agree all five of these are central to being considered ‘Christianity’. If not, we don’t need to go on.

<Lord`Saladin>: Yes.

<Kannoth>: Alright, good. Now there are three others:

<Kannoth>: Secondary essential Doctrines: 1) Jesus is the only way to salvation (John 1:14-16), 2) Jesus’ virgin birth (Matt 1:23), 3) The doctrine of the Trinity (Matt 28:19).

<Kannoth>: Do you disagree with any of those three?

<Lord`Saladin>: No.

<Kannoth>: Which?

<Lord`Saladin>: <Kannoth> Do you disagree with any of those three?

<Lord`Saladin>: <Lord`Saladin> No.

<Kannoth>: Alright then, good.

<Kannoth>: So if I were to show that Mormonism conflicts any of these eight, can we say Mormonism is not Christianity, but an offshoot?

<Lord`Saladin>: If you mean show in terms of demonstration of lack of understanding of LDS doctrine, no.

<Kannoth>: Alright, let me hit a first point then.

<Lord`Saladin>: Which also means, rather than bulldozing over any word I have to say, you bring up each point, and I will confirm or otherwise.

<Kannoth>: The divinity of Jesus, and the character of the Monotheistic God.

<Kannoth>: THE DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS SECTION 130 says “The aFather has a bbody of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of cSpirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not ddwell in us.”

<Kannoth>: Mormonism teaches that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones (D. & C. 130:22) and that Jesus is a creation. It teaches that he was begotten in heaven as one of God’s spirit children (See the Book, Jesus the Christ, by James Talmage, p. 8). This is in strict contrast to the biblical teaching that he is God in flesh (John 1:1, 14), eternal (John 1:1, 2, 15), uncreated, yet born on earth (Col. 1:15), and the creator all (John 1:3; Col. 1;16-17).

<Kannoth>: This is denying the Trinity, denying Christ’ divinity, and denying the nature of God.

<Kannoth>: Then and there, just stating God the Father as having a body of flesh and bone’s as tangible as man’s, is outside Christianity.

<Kannoth>: For that alone we can classify Mormonism as what it is: Mormonism.

<Kannoth>: There are many more points we can move to as well.

<Lord`Saladin>: Right.

<Lord`Saladin>: Then let me cover this.

<Kannoth>: Sure.

<Kannoth>: There are followup points regarding the divinity of Jesus and the nature of the Trinity as well.

<Lord`Saladin>: John 1:14 reads: And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

<Lord`Saladin>: Which brings about John 3:16 – For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son…

<Lord`Saladin>: It is stated Christ was begotten of God.

<Lord`Saladin>: In multiple places.

<Kannoth>: Ah yes, I agree. That’s the trinity. Begotten, hints at the Trinitarian relationship: Three parts of a whole. However, Mormonism disagrees here. Mormon Theology teaches three distinct parts that form the office of the trinity.

<Kannoth>: Also, context of John 1 also highlights that the Word was with God, and before all creation.

<Lord`Saladin>: I am just coming to the Trinity…

<Kannoth>: Yup.

<Lord`Saladin>: Matthew 28:19 reads: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

<Kannoth>: Yup.

<Lord`Saladin>: It lists them as separate. Now, of course, they are one in the sense of purpose.

<Lord`Saladin>: Their purpose is one and the same.

<Lord`Saladin>: God and Christ each have physical bodies, physical bodies that have attained perfection.

<Kannoth>: No no. It does not list them as three seperate beings. To say they are three seperate entities is to say there is this office called the trinity, and there are three persons in it.

<Lord`Saladin>: The Holy Spirit, which dwells in each of us who accept it, is in spirit form so it can dwell within.

<Kannoth>: If you say God and Christ have seperate bodies, than you’re saying the trinity isn’t one being with three persons, but three seperate persons acting together.

<Lord`Saladin>: Neither, Kannoth, does it say they are one.

<Lord`Saladin>: Find where it says they are one being of three parts.

<Kannoth>: Of course. God is one. A center to Christianity is Monotheism. To reject monotheism is the reject Judeo-Christianity, which is the point I’m trying to make. By seperating them, you’re denying that central Doctrine of Monotheism, yet also running into problems with the Trinity, and the divinity of Christ.

<Kannoth>: Mind you, the Trinity is never mentioned in scripture. You used the verses to devise the concept of the trinity, however what I just posted of the Doctrine and Covenants talks about God and Jesus having different bodies, physical ones, meaning they are seperate.

<Kannoth>: You’ve agreed with this. And to agree with this is to deny monotheism, which would deny the title of Christianity.

<Kannoth>: We haven’t even touched the nature of the Gospels, how forgiveness of sins is attained, etc.

<Lord`Saladin>: Hm.

<Kannoth>: That nature of God is distinctly un-Christian.

<Kannoth>: Do you have facebook?

<Kannoth>: My name is Leonardo by the way.

<Lord`Saladin>: I see you are a good manipulator of words.

<Lord`Saladin>: My name is Saladin.

<Lord`Saladin>: I have Facebook, yes.

<Kannoth>: I do not think I am manipulating anything, rather scripture is scripture.

<Kannoth>: Would you like to exchange Facebooks, perhaps if we ever wish to have discussions (I have to leave work soon).

<Lord`Saladin>: It is not for online acquaintances.

<Kannoth>: Understandible.

<Lord`Saladin>: Scripture is scripture yes.

<Lord`Saladin>: The bible, we also know, has been changed to suit the designs of man

<Lord`Saladin>: Multiple times

<Kannoth>: Also, Mormon theology completely goes against the Doctrine of Monotheism (God used to be a man on another planet, Mormon Doctrine, p. 321. Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, Vol 5, pp. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol 2, p. 345, Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333.)

<Kannoth>: Lord, that’s a red herring. We have the most accurate texts any generation has had. I study the greek, and the accuracy of the New Testament in comparison to any other ancient text is uncomparible.

<Kannoth>: Plus, if you want to say the doctrine has been changed to suit the designs of man, what stops me from saying that’s exactly what a Mormon is trying to do

<Kannoth>: ?

<Lord`Saladin>: Oh, I know.

<Lord`Saladin>: However, consider this…

<Lord`Saladin>: Perhaps as a closure to this discussion…

<Kannoth>: It’s an unprovable. However, I can open up my Greek, and point to where every Greek verse comes from (the Papyrus, it’s century, etc).

<Kannoth>: Sure. Although I would have liekd to continue this.

<Kannoth>: There are a plethora of other points where Mormonism disagrees outright with Christianity.

<Lord`Saladin>: Look at the structure of Christ’s church, that He set up whilst in this world…

<Lord`Saladin>: Tell me ANY denomination where it is the same.

<Lord`Saladin>: There is only one.

<Kannoth>: Wait. We agreed that if Mormonism disagreed with any of those 5 Doctrines, it isn’t Christian. It was clear there was a disagreement between the Monotheism of God. I think the case is set.

<Kannoth>: Christ’s church is simply the collective body of believers, not a physical institution.

<Kannoth>: It was never a single entity, but a loose collection of house churches.

<Lord`Saladin>: Now, who decided the definition of Christianity?

<Lord`Saladin>: Was it God?

<Lord`Saladin>: But, step away from any belief you may have.

<Kannoth>: We define Christianity through the source of Righteouss, the Bible.

<Lord`Saladin>: Oh dear.

<Lord`Saladin>: My friend, I am afraid to say you sound near robotic,

<Lord`Saladin>: *.

<Kannoth>: If you want to ignore the bible, you’re putting into question your source of righteousness and truth.

<Kannoth>: You’re not degrading me personally instead of discussing and debating the ideas. That’s usually an end to a conversation.

<Kannoth>: You agreed that it had to adhere to all those 5 central Doctrines, and it did not.

<Kannoth>: You now are questioning the definition of Christianity. That’s not what you yourself agreed to above.

<Lord`Saladin>: Hm… How to explain this…

<Lord`Saladin>: Hm.

<Kannoth>: Do we mean the Doctrine of Monotheism?

<Lord`Saladin>: Damn, if only this had taken place at a time other than 20 past one in the morning when my back is murdering me.

<Kannoth>: Friend, get some rest.

<Lord`Saladin>: Okay.

<Kannoth>: I do not want to bring you any uncomfort, honestly.

<Kannoth>: Let me say this, it was a pleasure talking to you.

<Lord`Saladin>: Let me give you the answer to your every question…

<Kannoth>: Sure. This being that of Monotheism and how God and Jesus can both have seperate physical bodies?

<Kannoth>: Alright, I would ask of you only the same. This is no academic teaching, but rather a study of the Bible, God’s word. <Kannoth>: It was a pleasure talking to you. <Lord`Saladin>: My friend, I have done the same. <Lord`Saladin>: On multiple occasions. <Kannoth>: Have a good day. God Bless, and merry Christmas.

Pray.

–

Leonard O Goenaga