With Jonathan Sarfati PhD on Fall and Inquisition

1) Newspeak in Nineteen - Eighty ... er Sorry ... Ninety-Four, 2) Mark Shea Recommended David Palm Who Misconstrues Bible Commission of 1909, 3) Would GKC have Agreed with MkSh that KH was a Bible Idolater?, 4) Correspondence of Hans-Georg Lundahl : With Jonathan Sarfati PhD on Fall and Inquisition, 5) New blog on the kid : Quarterlife is a Bad Term, 5b) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Answering Bill Nye, the Science Guy on a few points, 5c) New blog on the kid : Phil Provaznik/Dalrymple on Potassium-Argon and on Principle, more on Fission Track and Isochrons (a debunking of...), 6) [Back to Creation vs. Evolution :] Scenario impossible, 7) Karl Keating Out of His Depth?, 8) Three Kinds of Proposition, 9) Is Flat Earth Belief Heretical?, 10) HGL's F.B. writings : Between Palm and Sungenis, 11a) HGL's F.B. writings : On Helios in Christian Geocentrism, 11b) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Rivers Clapping Hands, Anaximander, Greek Philosophy at time of Ecclesiasticus ... , 12) Assorted retorts : ... on Geocentrism with Raymond Doetjes and "Imdor"

Article commented on:

Why would a loving God allow death and suffering?
by Dr Jonathan Sarfati
Published: 2 January 2014 (GMT+10)
http://creation.com/why-death-suffering

I Context of

His answer on "Christian Atrocities"

My comment:

"indeed, some criminals uttered heresies precisely so they would be transferred to the Inquisition courts from the civil courts"

If you refer to the Spanish Inquisition (did it start 350 years before 1820?) it also was judge about magic, blasphemy and sexual immorality.

Usually people would not utter heresies, but blasphemies in such cases. Not just those accused of crime, but also in civil conflicts with someone richer. After getting a hearing they would of course be judged for the blasphemy as well. This meant that they had to make up for it by walking to Santiago, usually.

That was also the usual penance for witches repenting, though some were burnt in the Basque countries.

No Answer so far.

II Context of

A long age apologist's correct answer

My comment:

"Space doesn’t permit explanations of how vegetarian animals became carnivorous and how good germs became bad, but the books in Ref. 43 provide evidence for several possibilities"

As a reader of Prince Caspian I know bears are more omnivorous than strictly carnivorous and can be in occurrence rather berry-and-honey dieting.

An obvious possibility would be carnivores were originally as bears but without using carnivorous potential before the fall and most then degenerated into pure carnivorousness (except that veggie cat a few weeks ago).

As for bacteria, I think salmonella (which brings disease) might be a mutation of escherischia coli which in some contexts has a function in digestion. And of course what is a good bacterium in one organism would be bad in another one.

Just off-hand, sure you mentioned those two.

Answered:

date : 02/01/14 à 15h47

objet : Your response to 'Why would a loving God allow death and suffering?'

Dear Hans-Georg Lundahl,
Thank you for your comment (see below) about the article on creation.com titled Why would a loving God allow death and suffering?.

Indeed, some of these are covered in my book The Greatest Hoax on Earth?
Regards
Jonathan Sarfati

III Context of

Free will defense?

My comment:

"Their descendants are now in bondage to sin. Only redeemed humans in the eternal state will have true freedom from this bondage."

This is heresy and makes - contrary to St Paul's words on sin and grace - Adam's sin abound more than God's grace through Jesus. This is the exact reason why the Catholic Church condemned Luther and Calvin as heretics.

A non-redeemed man usually has the freedom to avoid any particular sin, but not the freedom to avoid mortal sin all the time. If somehow he has, then it means God is already redeeming him, as with St Eustace before his vision.

A man who has spiritual life through baptism or through confession (if he lost it by committing a mortal sin after baptism) has not the freedom to avoid all venial sin, at least the freedom to avoid all mortal sin. If he does so anyway, he is not using it properly. And part of Church Discipline is precisly teaching him how to do so.

Answered:

date : 02/01/14 à 15h55

objet : Your response to 'Why would a loving God allow death and suffering?'

Dear Hans-Georg Lundahl,
Thank you for your comment (see below) about the article on creation.com titled Why would a loving God allow death and suffering?.

Rather, this is a fault of Roman Catholicism, hence Luther's book The Bondage of the Will.

Regards

Jonathan Sarfati

My remark thereon:

date : 02/01/14 à 17h12

objet : re: Your response to 'Why would a loving God allow death and suffering?'

OK. 1515. Martin Luther is a Roman Catholic. Roman Catholics are Roman Catholics. If he is already a Doctor ("call no man doctor ...." or "rabbi" ... or whatever) it was the Catholics that gave him the title.

1520's somewhen. Roman Catholics are still Roman Catholics, but Dr Luther is no longer one of them.

Which of the two sides changed?

Luther or Roman Catholicism?

I would say Luther did. Now, the question is, from what source in the 1520's should Christian truth come in either the 1520's or beyond? From a change occurring between 1515 and 1520's? Or from an unbroken continuity reaching back way beyond 1515 to the day when Christ told his Apostles "I am with you every day to the consummation of all time"? I would say the latter.

So much for the formal principle (since you know Luther I need not explain the term). If the pillar and foundation of truth is the CHURCH and the Bible is only part of it, obviously Bible and immemorial tradition of the Church rather than Bible alone are the true criteria.

Then there is the criterium of God's glory. I already gave a reference to St Paul. Sin abounded, but grace abounnded over and above sin. This means that if Adam could turn us into true slaves, Christ can turn us into true freemen. As St Paul indeed calls us.

Then there is the criterium of proof texts allegedly on Luther's side. Now, I already took this debate with a Calvinist.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Contra Monty Collier - De libero arbitrio:
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2008/11/contra-monty-collier-de-libero-arbitrio.html