Featured Lack of education on logic the problem

No, God's word tells men to make a choice.

Jos 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

Now, I know this was spoken to the Jews, but God is no respecter of persons, I believe God gives all men the choice of whom they will serve.

Jesus certainly has a right hand. And if God wanted to appear with horns and eyeballs all over, he is certainly able to do so. Read Ezekiel, the Lord had a very startling appearance.

Yes, I believe that God appeared to Jacob as a man, and that when they wrestled Jacob prevailed, just as the Lord said. The scriptures say God cannot lie.

Yes, I believe that too.

God does not change, if he cannot lie now, he was never able to lie.

Now, that said, when God appeared as Jesus Christ, Jesus suggested it was at least possible in theory that he could lie.

John 8:55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.

That "if" in John 8:55 is very important, as it introduces "possibility". It argues that at least in theory Jesus had the ability to tell a lie. I believe what Jesus said. There would be no need to tempt Jesus if he could not possibly fail, what kind of test is that?

Luke, you might be surprised what others understand. What you believe today you may not believe in 30 years. Trust me, you will see, your viewpoint will change as you learn.

 

Luke, I think it is obvious to everyone that I believe the scriptures literally. It is you and others that say scripture does not really mean what it plainly says. Jesus very simply and clearly said he did not know the day and hour he would return. I did not twist the verse in anyway whatsoever, all honest people would say that is what the verse plainly appears to say.

And the same could be said of you. I believe you say many dangerous and non-scriptural things that could lead people astray.

Yeah, like HYPER-Calvinism.

 

Gen 32:24 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.
25 And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.
26 And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.
27 And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob.
28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.
29 And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there.
30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

I believe God's word, so shoot me.

Do you realize you are telling people to DOUBT God's word? You really ought to think carefully about that Luke.

 

People tend to look more at Jesus the man, than Jesus the Son. The reason why He came was to die for us. He could not die in the Spiritual body He had in heaven. He had to take upon Himself a fleshly body that could be crucified, and subsequently, die. Yet in His flesh, He still retained His attributes, and did not empty Himself, but merely "camoflauged" His deity with a fleshly body.

 

So Willis, do you believe Jesus literally when he said he did not know the day and hour he would return?

Mar 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

Was Jesus telling the truth here or not?

 

Luke, I can read. Mark 13:32 is not a difficult verse to understand. Jesus plainly said he did not know the day and hour he would return, but his Father only. I have not twisted this simple verse in any way.

I did not twist the passage in Genesis 32. It plainly tells that God wrestled Jacob, and that Jacob would not let go of the Lord, even after he touched his thigh and crippled Jacob for life. Jacob said he would not let go unless the Lord blessed him, and the Lord did bless him.

I simply believe the scriptures literally. I do not need folks to tell me that the scriptures do not mean what they say. If we cannot trust the scriptures for what they say, then the Bible is useless, and we might as well throw it in the trash can. Fortunately, I believe the scriptures can be understood with study and prayer, and trusted with one's very soul.

 

You are entitled to your opinion, but I try to honestly understand the Lord's interpretation of scripture. I am not interested in man's opinions, and I am not interested in MY OWN opinion. You may not believe that, but the Lord knows.

I have no problem with this verse. I can read, I can see that the Lord brings destruction and calamity on folks for their unrepentant sin. I have no problem with God raining fire and brimstone on Sodom or Gomorrah, or allowing the Babylonians to take the Jews away captive for their sins. I have no problem with this verse at all.

I do not believe God causes men to have sinful thoughts.

I don't have trouble with this verse either, the key word is FROM. Men are not born evil, but men soon turn to evil, even at a very early age. I have 8 children, I assure you I know that children are capable of doing wrong, although I do not believe God holds children accountable until they reach a level of maturity and understand their actions. I have shown many scriptures to support my view such as Deu 1:39, Isa 7:16, Jon 4:11, Rom 7:9...

If you read carefully, you will see the wording always shows a person "turning" from God, or like a sheep "going astray".

Now, a wild sheep cannot go astray. Only a sheep that is in the flock can go astray. This is what you fail to realize.

1 Pet 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

Peter compared believers to sheep that have gone astray, just as Jesus described a shepherd who had 100 sheep and one went astray. They were not originally lost. The shepherd goes out and diligently searches for his sheep, and when it is recovered he celebrates.

Likewise, Peter says we are now RETURNED to Jesus, the Bishop and Shepherd of our souls.

Do you understand what the word RETURNED means Luke? You cannot return someplace you have never been. I cannot return to Utah, because I have never been there. I can return to California, because I have been there before.

If we were born lost in sin, separated from God, then Peter could not say we are returned to Jesus. But that is exactly what he said.

Your problem is that you cannot see the forest for the trees.

 

now you are dancing around the question. Since it is biologically impossible for humans to have dorsal fins, we do not need any further information. It is completely illogical...and I think you do know this. Its completely illogical and absurd to say you don't know if he has one or not.

 

For a fellow that prides himself on being so logical and smart, surely you would recognize that Psalm 58 is hyperbole. Look at the verses that follow verse 3;

Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
4 Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear;
5 Which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely.
6 Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth: break out the great teeth of the young lions, O LORD.
7 Let them melt away as waters which run continually: when he bendeth his bow to shoot his arrows, let them be as cut in pieces.
8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.

First of all, there has NEVER been a baby that can speak the moment it comes out of the womb. Oh, a baby can cry, but they cannot speak, and they cannot form the intent to lie. Lying is something intentional. If you say something wrong by mistake, that is not a lie.

Babies are not poisonous like an adder, and mothers who breast-feed are glad for that. :thumbs:

Babies are not born with a mouthful of huge teeth like a young lion.

Babies do not melt like a snail, even if you pour salt on them.

David was not praying for all newborn babies everywhere to pass away.

So, this whole Psalm is an extreme exaggeration and should not be used to form doctrine about Original Sin.

Psalm 51 is also abused in a similar way.

Psa 51:1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David, when Nathan the prophet came unto him, after he had gone in to Bathsheba. Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.
2 Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
3 For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.
4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.
5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

This of course is David's confession of his sin with Bathsheba. Note how David admits his personal guilt;

vs 1 my transgressions
vs 2 mine iniquity, my sin
vs 3 my transgressions, my sin
vs 4 have I sinned

David is clearly taking full responsibility for his sin in the first 4 verses. Now you want us to believe that in verse 5 David suddenly blames his sin on his birth? It is not his fault he sinned, he was born that way, he could not help it, it was his sin nature??

Now, that is how ridiculous folks are that believe this is teaching Original Sin. Original Sin is an EXCUSE for sin. No man can truly repent of sin if he believes he was born that way and cannot help but sin. This is why homosexuals claim they were born that way, to excuse their sin.

Now, if you are so smart, you would know what I am telling you is true. This verse makes no sense to teach Original Sin.

Many believe that David was speaking of his mother in this verse. His mother had children with a Gentile (Zeruiah and Abigail) before she was married to David's father. David's sisters were half-Gentile. David did not have the same mother as his brothers. When Samuel came to see Jesse, Jesse did not bring David out the first two times until Samuel demanded it. David was the "black sheep" of the family, and this is what many scholars believe David was expressing in verse 5. His mother was "polluted" with a Gentile before he was born.

Now this is the more plausible explanation of verse 5, that David was born of a mother that had had children with a non-Jew before she was married to Jesse. Thus, David was considered the son of a polluted woman which was a cause of shame in ancient times.

But it makes no sense to accept blame for David's sin in the first 4 verses, and then suddenly blame his birth in verse 5.

You should be intelligent enough to see this.

 

Well, perhaps your children were born with poisonous fangs like an adder and other huge teeth like a lion. My kids were all normal, and none of them could say a single word until they were about a year old.

You probably did not even know about David's mother having children with a non-Jew. :thumbs:

 

Can't believe you even ask this. Its called dna.

You keep saying this and we keep disagreeing. The very laws of nature are defined using logic.

Distinction without a difference.

 

Yet another violation of the law of non-contradiction. I say if God ordains whatsoever comes to pass, then God is the author of sin. However Calvinism says God ordains whatsoever comes to pass but that does not make Him the author of sin.

In response, rather than address to specific issue, Luke2437 spews forth absurdity having nothing to do with the topic. Calvinism violates the law of non-contradiction and it is shocking how those who claim to adhere to logic embrace it. Truth has no meaning to the irrational mind.