Posted on 07/09/2003 12:08:32 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
I didn't realize when I created my screen name that it would be a problem. Changes on FR have made it a little better for now, but for awhile there it couldn't be typed at all, you had to reply. But I'm too stubborn to change it.
You and I are going to have to learn to post pictures!
;^)
Actually, it can be done. I find the word obedience to have some baggage I'd rather not carry. I would prefer to ask, how can you teach children to live in conformity with morality. Christian morality is something other than a list of rules to be obeyed. It requires a positive or proactive effort, not just to obey rules but to love, to make things better. It is not enough to refrain from hurting people. You need to apply your intelligence to protecting the weak and building political and economic institutions that reward fair play.
In the case of children it is rather simple. Be the kind of person you want your children to be. When the store clerk gives you too much change, explain to your children that you have to go back and return the money, because the clerk is responsible for errors.
Now is this easy to do, and have I always been this perfect? Absolutely not, but I tried.
The only credentials I bring to these discussions are in psychology and special education. I can assure from both theory and from experience raising my kids, that it is easier and more effective to teach them what you want them to do than to teach what you want them not to do. If someone wants to stay on the road, you do not need such enormous siderails.
But what reason do you give the kids for locking the house, not talking to strangers, not running into the street, not playing with snakes?
Every child experiences pain as natural consequence of ordinary activities. These do not need to be taught. One of the first words any kid should learn is "dangerous" or "hurt" or some equivalent. As a child learns to talk and reason, these words can be applied to situations that are not obvious to the child.
I might add, that nearly all the swats my kids ever received were to reinforce the avoidance of danger.
I know some theologians define sin as separation from God, rather than jusr rule-breaking. I'm pretty sure that most children, given a consistent family environment, will do whatever is necessary to avoid being separated from the love of their parents. If this is "obedience", so be it, but it doesn't require a long list of explicit negative rules.
I have entertained this thought, but I'm pretty sure it is a stretch. The Jesus of the Bible seems pretty confident that he is divine, not just a teacher. It's possible that his words have been incorrectly recorded, but this seems to lead nowhere. Personally I can believe that some people and some words can be inspired without worrying about whether I am dealing with the actual voice of God mucking about in the natural order, or the words of a charlatan or lunatic. It just doesn't matter to me. The truth of moral teachings is not dependent on the source.
I know this is a heresy, and I don't care.
You just described the "wrong" action.
What it does show is the intact preservation of the scriptures over the centuries, which is very important. It goes to reliability.
guess I've justified it by saying that he never claimed he was the son of god, but rather that others tagged him with that after his death. I'll stick with that, but I may have to revise it.
If you stick to that, then you will be going against Jesus' words in the gospels. Are you then saying that the gospels that record His words are wrong? When studying any ancient text, a good scholar will give the writer the benefit of the doubt unless there is other evidence that the writer's account is not true. Since we know that historians take Tacitus, Suetonius, Caesar, Herodotus, and other historians at the word, why do you doubt the accuracy of the writers of the gospels? Do you doubt ALL historical texts or just this one? (remember, the gospels have been traced back to the 1st century). I might also add that Sir William Ramsey (perhaps the greatest archeologist of the 19th century) set out to disprove the accuracy (as to places, names, etc.) of the book of Luke and Acts. What he found not only confirmed the meticulous accuracy of Luke's account, but resulted in Ramsey's conversion.
I'd be quite interested in a clearly laid out case for the prophesies.
Pick up a copy of Evidence that Demands a Verdict (Josh McDowell).
You'd think an omnipotent would be a bit more clear with things... you know, dates, names, places and stuff.
They were clear enough for Paul to use them to convert people. For starters, read these scriptures and then tell me how clear they are: Micah 5:2 (place of birth), Is. 7:14 (virgin birth), Is. Chap. 53 (suffering Messiah and atonement), Is. 9:6, Psalm 22 (crucifixion), Zech. 12:10 (crucifixion).
Plenty of fools believe John Edward or Sylvia Brown have a gift. They don't. Neither did Nostradamus and neither did Jesus himself.
Jesus didn't have what gift?
(b) that if anyone tries to be "good enough" to get to heaven, He will let them and they will fail (if it were possible to be "good enough" then Christ would have died for nothing) - and
(c) that by faith in Christ we are more than just free from the law, we are adopted into the family.
BTW, another question on child-rearing. If you have survived a teenage rebellion (when the parent don't know anything anymore) - how'd you do it?
Jesus' favorite term for himself was the Son of Man, which is an interesting study in itself. Was Jesus the Son of God? Well, he claimed to be God when he said in John 8:58, which somebody previously posted:
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"The following online commentary offers some hints as to what he meant.
Jesus' reference to Abraham sounds to the opponents like an incredible claim to spiritual experience. His reply to their incredulity pushes his claim far beyond the idea of vision whether mystical or otherwise, whether of the past or through ascents into heaven: I tell you the truth . . . before Abraham was born, I am! (v. 58). He is not just making a statement of his age, for then he would have said something like, "Before Abraham was born, I was" (Carson 1991:358). Rather, he is now using in an unambiguous way the divine I AM (Harner 1970:26-30). The I AM was the name of God revealed to Moses, though the Greek expression (ego eimi) is not that used in the Septuagint in Exodus 3:14 (ho on). The phrase ego eimi is used of the divine name in Isaiah (41:4; 43:10, 25; 45:18; 46:4; 47:8, 10; 51:12; 52:6). Isaiah 43:10 is a particularly significant passage since it includes a reference to the Lord's chosen servant (pais) who is his witness, "so that you may know and believe and understand that I am he [hoti ego eimi]. There was no other god before me nor will there be after me." This strong statement of monotheism is the very thing the opponents think Jesus' claim is denying.SourceBy using the I AM Jesus is claiming to have existed not just at the time of Abraham, but from eternity. This is not only a statement about his salvific work, though that is implied here as it was in God's self-identification at the bush (Schnackenburg 1980b:224). Rather, he is saying that his words and deeds are not about God; they are in fact God's own words and deeds. He speaks in language of oneness, though he has just clearly expressed distinctness also (vv. 54-55). Jesus is God, though not simply by way of identification with Yahweh, for there is also distinction. He is not simply a human being who has been taken up into the divine counsels and made an agent of God unlike any other, but neither is he simply God in a suit of flesh. Rather, as the later church counsels said, he is fully God and fully man. Such formulations are based on revelation such as found in this passage.
Clearly this is the climax of the revelation that has been unfolding during the Feast of Tabernacles. People have been wondering if Jesus is the Prophet or the Messiah. "But messianic categories are transcended when Jesus offers Himself as the source of living water, and as the light of the world, and finally pronounces the ego eimi which affirms the mystery of His own eternal being, in unity with the Father" (Dodd 1953:351).
I don't have time to write anything else, so sorry for the hit and run for now.
I could pretend to be a superparent, but the truth is my genetic line tends to produce late bloomers (code word for nerds). By the time we hit the hormones we are older and wiser than most. For some reason, my house was always the one that my kids' friends wanted to hang out at. My wife an I are pretty laid back and like to talk to kids, but we aren't dopers and don't consume much alcohol (there's no beer in the fridge). So the bottom line is, my kids were usually home, along with a tribe of their friends.
My daughter was especially lucky in school. She got into a college prep program within the public school system. Nothing is life is more fortunate than having peer pressure work in your favor.
I think the answer to your question is we had good luck.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.