Angelic Conflict

God bless you brother. I have a weakness in communication also. I thank God that His Holy Spirit has called you to salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
I too think that this thread has gotten carried away. I almost responded when I read someone basically beating a dear woman with his words. I do not care for abuse verbally or physically... especially on a woman.
I think its time for us all to take a deep breath.... and for me personally to stop biting my tongue. It hurts.

 

What an excellent appeal to Christian calm and decency! :thumbs:

 

Ditto (on this being an excellent call for Christian calm and decency)! :thumbs:

 

Yet no one ever quotes the OT. Everyone I have ever discussed the purpose of man goes to this exact verse in Revelation.

Personally I think it shows a real lack of understanding as to what man's "real" purpose is in God's plan. But that's just me .

 

Without having to go back through all this thread, in case you have already shared, would you mind sharing what you believe is man's real purpose in God's plan. If you have already shared it, you could maybe provide me with the thread. Thanks.

 

Well I believe God was/is/always will be the Perfect Author of a book and so I would say the purpose of mankind can be found in the opening chapter of the Book.

 

In the opening chapter it simply says for man to subdue the earth and to multiply. I think that our worship of the Creator may have something to do with our purpose. I agree that He is the perfect author in the original autograph.

 

I've been teasing you a lot, but I do have some advice. Why not just talk to us like you're having a conversation? As it is, you post snippets of "words of wisdom" which, to many of us, don't even seem like they're related to the topic. Just write like you were sitting at the table with us talking. It would make it much easier to follow what you have to say.

 

Did He ever relay this purpose to Adam and Eve? And then what is worship?

 

I understand what you are saying perfectly. Some here would rather demean others than participate in meaningful discussion. If you are lucky, he will put you on ignore, too. The BB has been a LOT more bearable for me since he has. Don't let him tell you how to post, he's not the BB authority. I see him saying nothing to another poster of the same theological bent who posts in the exact same manner as yourself...but only numbers each line before it. I'm sick and tired of his cowardly bullying.

 

If you believe in the unity of scripture—that there is one author, God, behind all the writings, and that it all forms a unified whole—then the point you've making doesn't hold much water.

But the idea found in that verse in Revelation is found throughout the Bible.

In this one, its the creation of human beings that is for the purpose of glorifying God.

In this one, it's redemption of human beings is for the purpose of glorifying Christ.

Everything comes from him, everything is sustained by his power, and intended for his glory.

Our ultimate purpose, as human beings is to do everything we do to the glory of God.

And hints of that can be found in the Genesis account of creation. Adam and Eve were created in God's image. In other words, in some way, they reflected God's glory back to him.

 

Oh, and I forgot this: That we are created to glorify God is not something that has to be spelled out to us through what is written, because that is something that we know through the witness of creation itself. Even those who have no written revelation at all are held accountable for not glorifying God because they can know they ought to be glorifying him through the witness of creation alone. "Did not honor God" is the univeral judgment on humankind:

So that we don't find a command to glorify God in the first three chapters of Genesis doesn't mean that it wasn't communicated to Adam and Eve from the beginning of creation, for creation itself is a big sign that says, "Glorify God!"

 

Exactly...and that is why his posts are so wordy, to try to distract us from the fact that he has no scripture to support his "ideas".

 

One thing I give you credit for, you consistently let someone else do your thinking. :laugh:

 

:laugh: As long as you Reformed / Calvinists groupies are ganging up on Q, hoping to provoke him, mock him, verbally abuse him and so on...you are not offended of course and silent in expressing outrage...but only when one of your own is taken to task you are offended. In the grown-up world it is called a DOUBLE STANDARD. When you have enough decency and self-respect to be offended by your own when they violate such standards, well then someone might take you with an ounce of seriousness.

In the mean time back to the topic.

 

Well Amy, out of one side of your mouth you say you are want to have me share my beliefs and out of the other side of your mouth you begin the OP with this:

So which Amy will I get? The one that decided to rashly condemn what she hadn't studied in the first place only to discover this came from a Reformed source and a rather popular and well received theologian among them.

Or do I get the Amy reflected in this post?

You do see the conflict here, right?

 

First, Mr Q repeatedly tells Amy to study the issue before approaching his highness with questions. So, she finds an article on the topic, posts it, tries to get his input, and he still plays dodge the question...

Oh, I certainly do.

 

Fortunately I am not the only source for studying the topic so with that you are blessed. However, since you have chosen on this topic to keep the disposition of double-mindedness, it will be act as a prohibiter for consistent dialogue in our case. So we'll just have to settle for debate and discussion in other threads on other topics.