<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bottomMargin=0 leftMargin=3 rightMargin=3 topMargin=0>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>On Mon, 12 May 2008 22:12:24 -0700 "Discussion of the Good, Clean Funnies
List" <<A href="mailto:gcfl-discuss@gcfl.net">gcfl-discuss@gcfl.net</A>>
writes:<BR>> English, please, Siarlys. That sounds strangely UNLIKE
English.<BR>> Jeanene<BR>> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>I'm sorry, but I am not familiar with half the terms you just used Siarlys.
:(</DIV>
<DIV>~Lance<BR> </DIV>
<DIV>OK, glad I waited until all the comments are in. Lance, I thought you would
know all about this stuff, because you often refer to religious commentary that
I never heard of. If you know about Calvin and Wesley and Azusa, surely you
would know something about this? Jeanene, I started thinking about this after
reading your description of the Catholic Church in the Door discussion. And I
thought EVERY Christian knew that Athansius proposed that Jesus was
simultaneously fully human and fully divine, while Arias said no, he was fully
human and the divine was somewhere else. It used to be basic Sunday School
stuff. Athansisus was accepted as orthodox, which is why it appears in
recitations like the Apostles Creed, which was written centuries after the
Apostles were all dead. Other stuff is more obscure, and most of us don't know
about them.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Pelagius was a Welsh monk who came to Rome, found everyone committing
hedonistic sins, and decided that if this is what comes of salvation being a
free gift of grace, maybe there was something to the idea that salvation had to
be earned by leading a moral life. He also rejected original sin, which never
made sense to me either, nor to anyone who has ever tried to explain the
original Hebrew meaning of Genesis, because its not there.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>What is fun about these topics is, most Christians have never really
thought about them, they probably have no great significance to God, yet the
church has spent centuries debating them. Which can either make you a fan of
Richard Dawkins, or, can lead you back to, OK, what was the most significant
sentence or two Jesus preached, good, now get this other stuff out of my face.
All theological debates end in such tangled nonsense that theology itself is
revealed to be useless.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Siarlys</DIV>
<DIV><BR>> <BR>> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> > On another
subject, anyone interested in Pelagianism?<BR>> > When I found I was too
heterodox to accept Athanasian orthodoxy, <BR>> I<BR>> > thought I
might be an Arian, but Arius didn't make much sense <BR>> either, so<BR>>
> I looked up the Sabellian heresy, and for reasons I can't <BR>>
remember, that<BR>> > didn't make sense either. At least Pelagius affirmed
a sense of <BR>> personal<BR>> > responsibility, and the importance of
trying to live up to moral<BR>> > standards, unlike most of the other
Christian philosophers of his <BR>> time.<BR>> > Siarlys<BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>> GCFL-discuss mailing
list<BR>> <A
href="mailto:GCFL-discuss@gcfl.net">GCFL-discuss@gcfl.net</A><BR>> <A
href="http://gcfl.net/mailman/listinfo/gcfl-discuss">http://gcfl.net/mailman/listinfo/gcfl-discuss</A><BR>>
<BR>> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>