<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Good, Bad or Neutral?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.pantokrator.org/2005/07/08/good-bad-or-neutral/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.pantokrator.org/2005/07/08/good-bad-or-neutral/</link>
	<description>Pantokrator.org ~ The Christianos.org Blog ~ 2 Timothy 4:2</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Nov 2010 18:07:24 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Affective</title>
		<link>http://www.pantokrator.org/2005/07/08/good-bad-or-neutral/comment-page-1/#comment-73</link>
		<dc:creator>Affective</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 Jul 2005 16:29:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pantokrator.org/?p=41#comment-73</guid>
		<description>Which don&#039;t make them inherently &quot;good.&quot; If God alone is &quot;good&quot; unless he &quot;transfers&quot; His communicable &quot;goodness&quot;, as He did when He created humanity in His image--I would conclude that an inanimate object, like you said earlier is neutral. To me, we can &quot;use&quot; those for good, motivated by the power of the Holy Spirit, which glorifies God. This would emphasize the &quot;instrumentality&quot; of inanimates.

I think the list you give above, and their relationship to sin, would be tied into &quot;motive.&quot; God is concerned with &quot;why&quot; we do what we do. Why do I want to drink, gamble, etc.?

Just some quick thoughts.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Which don&#8217;t make them inherently &#8220;good.&#8221; If God alone is &#8220;good&#8221; unless he &#8220;transfers&#8221; His communicable &#8220;goodness&#8221;, as He did when He created humanity in His image&#8211;I would conclude that an inanimate object, like you said earlier is neutral. To me, we can &#8220;use&#8221; those for good, motivated by the power of the Holy Spirit, which glorifies God. This would emphasize the &#8220;instrumentality&#8221; of inanimates.</p>
<p>I think the list you give above, and their relationship to sin, would be tied into &#8220;motive.&#8221; God is concerned with &#8220;why&#8221; we do what we do. Why do I want to drink, gamble, etc.?</p>
<p>Just some quick thoughts.</p>
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://www.pantokrator.org/wp-content/plugins/tippy/dom_tooltip.css" media="screen" /><script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.pantokrator.org/wp-content/plugins/tippy/dom_tooltip.js"></script>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BA</title>
		<link>http://www.pantokrator.org/2005/07/08/good-bad-or-neutral/comment-page-1/#comment-72</link>
		<dc:creator>BA</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 Jul 2005 15:26:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pantokrator.org/?p=41#comment-72</guid>
		<description>Just a quick reply...I would like to comment more when I get some time.

I should not have used gambling as an example as it is not an inanimate object.

However, I did want to show the &quot;act&quot; (or use) of something.  That would include such things as, playing poker, dancing, singing, playing (listening to) certain types of music, drinking alcohol, using musical instruments, etc etc...

There are certain churches that teach that these things are sins and they need to re-evaluate those teachings with Scripture.

In addition, my responses to the questions were merely my &quot;knee-jerk&quot; answers.

If I sit here and think about it, I could make a case that inanimate objects are actually inherently good.  God is holding them together and as they sit there doing &quot;nothing&quot; they are actually glorifying Him as the creator.

AMDG</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just a quick reply&#8230;I would like to comment more when I get some time.</p>
<p>I should not have used gambling as an example as it is not an inanimate object.</p>
<p>However, I did want to show the &#8220;act&#8221; (or use) of something.  That would include such things as, playing poker, dancing, singing, playing (listening to) certain types of music, drinking alcohol, using musical instruments, etc etc&#8230;</p>
<p>There are certain churches that teach that these things are sins and they need to re-evaluate those teachings with Scripture.</p>
<p>In addition, my responses to the questions were merely my &#8220;knee-jerk&#8221; answers.</p>
<p>If I sit here and think about it, I could make a case that inanimate objects are actually inherently good.  God is holding them together and as they sit there doing &#8220;nothing&#8221; they are actually glorifying Him as the creator.</p>
<p>AMDG</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Affective</title>
		<link>http://www.pantokrator.org/2005/07/08/good-bad-or-neutral/comment-page-1/#comment-71</link>
		<dc:creator>Affective</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 Jul 2005 08:14:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pantokrator.org/?p=41#comment-71</guid>
		<description>You mean do I follow: Augustine=inherently evil, Pelagius-inherently good, or John Locke=inherently neutral :). I would be a follower of the first, only because he reflects scripture (Rom.3:10-18; Eph. 2:1-2; Jer. 17:9; etc.).

It seems that inanimate/amoral &quot;things&quot; truly are neutral, I wouldn&#039;t classify gambling under that category, i.e. it is a moral conception. It seems that the so called &quot;neutral&quot; things become the media through which our &quot;value assigning&quot; feature (our heart) is expressed. Depending on what/who is informing &quot;our heart&quot; will determine how &quot;neutral/inanimate&quot; media are used/manipulated, i.e. for &quot;my glory&quot; or &quot;God&#039;s glory&quot;.

I would also argue with you, a bit, over the notion that we are no longer &quot;inherently evil&quot;. An analogy from good old Martin Luther might make the point: he says (paraphrasing), that Christians are like a piece of dung covered with a beautiful frosting of white pristine snow. In other words, we are save sinners. II Cor. 5:17, seems to recognize that indeed we are &quot;new creations&quot; but in fact there seems to be an eschatological overtone to this, see II Cor. 5:5. I definitely agree that we have been credited with Christ&#039;s righteouness, but this will not be fully realized until the escaton. I think this view makes sense of passages like Gal. 5:17 when it discusses the struggle between the &quot;flesh and the Spirit.&quot; Like II Cor. 3 adamantly points out, in relationship to the New Cov., we have new hearts, and this indeed defines the &quot;core&quot;  who we are now (i.e. rightly related to God, fully restored &quot;imago dei&quot; eshchatologically/think of the &quot;now&quot; and &quot;not-yet&quot; distinction); but we still have the remnants of the old nature and habits tied to our old nature--which hasn&#039;t yet been fully destroyed (I&#039;m not saying we don&#039;t have power not to sin, just that we will continue to struggle with the effects of sin while living in this &quot;fallen&quot; world--destruction of sin is as good as done--just not fully realized yet Rom.8).

A very thought provoking thread, Brian, thanks!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You mean do I follow: Augustine=inherently evil, Pelagius-inherently good, or John Locke=inherently neutral <img src='http://www.pantokrator.org/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> . I would be a follower of the first, only because he reflects scripture (Rom.3:10-18; Eph. 2:1-2; Jer. 17:9; etc.).</p>
<p>It seems that inanimate/amoral &#8220;things&#8221; truly are neutral, I wouldn&#8217;t classify gambling under that category, i.e. it is a moral conception. It seems that the so called &#8220;neutral&#8221; things become the media through which our &#8220;value assigning&#8221; feature (our heart) is expressed. Depending on what/who is informing &#8220;our heart&#8221; will determine how &#8220;neutral/inanimate&#8221; media are used/manipulated, i.e. for &#8220;my glory&#8221; or &#8220;God&#8217;s glory&#8221;.</p>
<p>I would also argue with you, a bit, over the notion that we are no longer &#8220;inherently evil&#8221;. An analogy from good old Martin Luther might make the point: he says (paraphrasing), that Christians are like a piece of dung covered with a beautiful frosting of white pristine snow. In other words, we are save sinners. II Cor. 5:17, seems to recognize that indeed we are &#8220;new creations&#8221; but in fact there seems to be an eschatological overtone to this, see II Cor. 5:5. I definitely agree that we have been credited with Christ&#8217;s righteouness, but this will not be fully realized until the escaton. I think this view makes sense of passages like Gal. 5:17 when it discusses the struggle between the &#8220;flesh and the Spirit.&#8221; Like II Cor. 3 adamantly points out, in relationship to the New Cov., we have new hearts, and this indeed defines the &#8220;core&#8221;  who we are now (i.e. rightly related to God, fully restored &#8220;imago dei&#8221; eshchatologically/think of the &#8220;now&#8221; and &#8220;not-yet&#8221; distinction); but we still have the remnants of the old nature and habits tied to our old nature&#8211;which hasn&#8217;t yet been fully destroyed (I&#8217;m not saying we don&#8217;t have power not to sin, just that we will continue to struggle with the effects of sin while living in this &#8220;fallen&#8221; world&#8211;destruction of sin is as good as done&#8211;just not fully realized yet Rom.8).</p>
<p>A very thought provoking thread, Brian, thanks!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

