The BIG one

[Darren]

Numbers 23:19 is properly Numbers 23: 13-26. You did not give context, but context does not disagree with your interpretation I must point out. In the case of this passage, it is speaking of God speaking, then acting, promising, then fullfilling. This particular passage IS talking about unwaveringness.

Course, then I ask, what then do we do with passages, and they litter the Bible (quoted a few already), that say "if you do this, I will bless you" and "If you do not, you will be cursed". Then even furthr, "if you do this, you will be cursed" however "if you repent and turn to me, I will relent"?

Is it that God never changes His mind and relents, which contradicts several passages, or is it that God's personality never changes, His MOTIVES never change. God's will is for good. If God saw fit to bless me, but I went out into the street and started murdering the next day, I would probably never recieve said blessing. Did God then change? Certainly not, no doubt it was I whom changed, not God. His intent was to reward a faithful servant, but I was unfaithful, so I was not rewarded.

In human terms, when a man goes to the alter and says till death, he means it. But then he finds her unfaithful and that she longs for another man's bed. If the husband sends her away like the harlot she is, is it fair to say he changed? Ah yes, his mind did change, on an immediate level, but he never meant to commit to such a creature. Her deeds are not his fault, so then HIS committment is not flawed. She fell, not him.

You know I'm not making that up. Go ahead, if you have the notion, I doubt you do, but if you ever get it, plow through the passages, they're still there, post 18. One who claims to know the Bible so well should be eager to read it.

Do I not prove that I read almost every passage you give, especially before challenging your usage of it? Tell me some specifics that I should know that there is any point in this. This is silly, to discuss with you a passage I believe you don't understand, because you haven't READ it.

_________________________

Baptistbeliever

Thankyou for defending me.

You say this but where does the Bible say this? This is simply your interpretation which you are welcome to but a different interpretation is NOT blasphemy.

I hesitate to say this, because I hate name calling, but it's time to point this out.

DHK, when someone differs from you on a matter that does not take away from the Soveriegnty of God, nor do his actions show disrespect to God, then you claim that said individual has blasphemed for disagreeing with you, then you yourself, have blasphemed. You have claimed that disagreeing with you is like disagreeing with God, THAT is blasphemy.

I tire of this bickering. However what should I say? You've never even explained your words, which sound a lot more like blasphemy than anything I've said.

I haven't blasphemed ONCE and everyone here knows it, INCLUDING YOU I'M SURE. So why have you accused me of it? Blasphemy is to claim God's authority or worse yet, authority over Him. I have claimed nothing of the sort, nor have I claimed any beings of such nature.

I serve nothing next to or beside God and have said so more than once. I say this because there is NOTHING next to or beside God. I am His servant and a seeker of His truth. Such is not blasphemy.

To missunderstand is not blasphemy. If I am mistaken, I am not a blasphemer for such.



I forgive you. I know I should, so I do. There is no reason we should hold grudges. But some of your words need to be explained to more than just me.

 

[steaver]

Might I point out, that law wouldn't even exist, save for God making it,

This just caught my attention while I was reading. Did God make the law or make His word, or is God's word eternal as He is and He has revealed His word unto us?

The Word became flesh. God is Eternal. Is not God the Word? Did God make the law or only reveal it to us?

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

[DHK]

Numbers 23:19 is properly Numbers 23: 13-26. You did not give context, but context does not disagree with your interpretation I must point out. In the case of this passage, it is speaking of God speaking, then acting, promising, then fullfilling. This particular passage IS talking about unwaveringness.

Unwavering, yes; but also immutable. He is a God that changes not.

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
--The word "repent" means change. God never changes. He is immutable.

Hebrews 6:17-19 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:
18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:
19 Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
--He immutable; He never changes.

Course, then I ask, what then do we do with passages, and they litter the Bible (quoted a few already), that say "if you do this, I will bless you" and "If you do not, you will be cursed". Then even furthr, "if you do this, you will be cursed" however "if you repent and turn to me, I will relent"?

Every action has a consequence; every sin has its consequence. Everything that we do in life affects others. The Lord lets us know this in unequivocal terms, terms that we have no problem understanding.
However, he knows already what are choices are going to be. He is omniscient. What he has written is not for his benefit, but for ours. The Bible is an instruction manual for our sake, not for God's. Why would God need an instruction manual for his own sake? He is omniscient! God has written the Bible for our sakes; not for his. Please keep that in perspective when reading it.

Is it that God never changes His mind and relents, which contradicts several passages, or is it that God's personality never changes, His MOTIVES never change.

No, according to Numbers 23:19 God never changes or repents. "I the Lord change not," the Bible says. He is immutable. He is not moody: changing one day and then the next according to his mood. God is consistently the same: yesterday, today and forever.
It only seems to man that he changes his mind. It seems to man that he relents. But it is not God that changes; it is man that changes his attitude in relation to God, and God knew that he would before the foundation of the world.

God's will is for good. If God saw fit to bless me, but I went out into the street and started murdering the next day, I would probably never recieve said blessing. Did God then change? Certainly not, no doubt it was I whom changed, not God. His intent was to reward a faithful servant, but I was unfaithful, so I was not rewarded.

God never changed. God knew ahead of time what was going to happen. He knew you would go on street and start murdering. He knew he would withhold blessing. God didn't change anything. You changed; not God.

In human terms, when a man goes to the alter and says till death, he means it. But then he finds her unfaithful and that she longs for another man's bed. If the husband sends her away like the harlot she is, is it fair to say he changed? Ah yes, his mind did change, on an immediate level, but he never meant to commit to such a creature. Her deeds are not his fault, so then HIS committment is not flawed. She fell, not him.

Study the Book of Hosea and you will find some answers to those questions.
The difference between humans and God is that humans are fallible and make mistakes; God is infallible and never makes mistakes.
When entering marriage remember that both parties say "till death do us part." It is rare if ever, that only one person is ever at fault. It takes two to argue or have a disagreement of any kind. One doesn't wander into a marriage blind.

You know I'm not making that up. Go ahead, if you have the notion, I doubt you do, but if you ever get it, plow through the passages, they're still there, post 18. One who claims to know the Bible so well should be eager to read it.

What exact passage are you referring to? I briefly looked at all of them. I already gave you my decision on them. What more do you want?

Do I not prove that I read almost every passage you give, especially before challenging your usage of it? Tell me some specifics that I should know that there is any point in this. This is silly, to discuss with you a passage I believe you don't understand, because you haven't READ it.

Who is being silly? You don't seem to understand the Bible, nor the very basic principles of Biblical hermeneutics. You want to interpret the Bible according to your own whims and wishes and make it say what you want it to say, not what it really says.

DHK, when someone differs from you on a matter that does not take away from the Soveriegnty of God, nor do his actions show disrespect to God, then you claim that said individual has blasphemed for disagreeing with you, then you yourself, have blasphemed. You have claimed that disagreeing with you is like disagreeing with God, THAT is blasphemy.

You didn't disagree with me primarily; you disagreed with God and the Bible.
The definition of "blasphemy" is one who insults God, and that you have done. You have brought great insult to the name of God and of course God himself. You have attacked his omniscience, his omnipresence, his omnipotence. You have attacked his very essence. You have continually insulted the character of God. That is blasphemy; it is blasphemy of the worst sort. It is not me you are offending; it is the Lord God Almighty Himself. And God hates such blasphemy. It is an abomination in his sight to attack the very character of God.

I tire of this bickering. However what should I say? You've never even explained your words, which sound a lot more like blasphemy than anything I've said.

Do I need to expain them? Do I need to explain over and over when you deny the character, the sovereignty of God that you are attacking God and blaspheming His holy name? These things ought to fairly evident.

I haven't blasphemed ONCE and everyone here knows it, INCLUDING YOU I'M SURE.

Not true. You have done it over and over and over again. Look up the word "blasphemy" in the dictionary. All throughout this thread that is all that you have been doing--attacking the character of God; insulting Him; attacking His sovereignty. God does not take those things lightly. What you are doing is indeed blasphemy. What do you think blasphemy is??

So why have you accused me of it? Blasphemy is to claim God's authority or worse yet, authority over Him. I have claimed nothing of the sort, nor have I claimed any beings of such nature.

I accuse you of it because you keep on doing it, and repeatedly do it. Blasphemy is not to claim God's authority. It is to insult God, which you keep on doing.

I serve nothing next to or beside God and have said so more than once. I say this because there is NOTHING next to or beside God. I am His servant and a seeker of His truth. Such is not blasphemy.

To missunderstand is not blasphemy. If I am mistaken, I am not a blasphemer for such.

I forgive you. I know I should, so I do. There is no reason we should hold grudges. But some of your words need to be explained to more than just me.

You seem to hold a grudge against God for being the Sovereign God of this universe. Is that so?

 

[JustChristian]

My statement was in answer to Darren's, who was taking idioms out of context and using them to deny the sovereignty of God. I gave examples in the light of the statement I made.

Does God have wings? I will cover you with my wings.
Does God have a right hand. I will uphold you with my right hand.

Hosea 5:12 Therefore will I be unto Ephraim as a moth,
--Is God a moth??

If we don't have the common sense to recognize idioms, figures of speech, anthropormorphisms, etc., then where will our hermeneutics take us in our approach to studying the Bible?

Madalyn Murray O'Hair (1919–1995), complained that the Bible was one of the most dangerous books in the world because it advocated plucking out oine's eye and cutting off one's hand. Do you agree with her?
Do you think that we should take the atheistic approach to the Bible?
Or is their a Biblical hermeutical approach that one can take when studying the Bible?

Of course the Bible needs to be interpreted in light of the cultural context. All descriptions of God are not literal. In fact, from His perspective perhaps none are literal. There is a lot we simply don't know about a being that is so much superior to us in every way. But this must be done carefully because what it allows the interpreter to do is pick and chose which descriptions are literal and which are anthropomorphisms. They can then claim that since these are "obviously" real you are a heretic if you believe certain things like Open Theism. By the way, saying something is like a moth certainly doesn't say that they are a moth. That's obvious.

 

[DHK]

Of course the Bible needs to be interpreted in light of the cultural context. All descriptions of God are not literal. In fact, from His perspective perhaps none are literal. There is a lot we simply don't know about a being that is so much superior to us in every way. But this must be done carefully because what it allows the interpreter to do is pick and chose which descriptions are literal and which are anthropomorphisms. They can then claim that since these are "obviously" real you are a heretic if you believe certain things like Open Theism. By the way, saying something is like a moth certainly doesn't say that they are a moth. That's obvious.

Yes, it is obvious. It was an obvious similie "as a moth." Any one who has studied an ounce of grammar should be able to pick things out like that right away. They should be able to recognize metaphors and similies immediately. They also ought to recognize idioms and figures of speech. A serious student of the Bible is not going to use these same phrases to attack the character of God. That is what is known as blasphemy--insulting God.

 

[Darren]

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
--The word "repent" means change. God never changes. He is immutable.

And the language can't be expressive? Isn't it naturally? That's my point. When someone says "I NEVER change!" they're usually being expressive of the idea that their intentions never change. They don't actually mean they never change their minds. I see no reason why I should believe this is literal here.

I will admit this is good usage though, so my compliments, but in light of what is written, and in light of other passages, I don't see that it is literal, sorry.

Rather shouldn't I say, "hyper literal"?

"That rock can't be moved!" moans little Jimmy about digging a ditch and he's just struck a small stone. No he's not being literal. Absolute phrases like this are normally expressive, however such is NOT the opposite of literal. He means he's having a very hard time moving it with a flat shovel. He could say "this tool is rediculous for this job" but really its the same thing and its generally accepted as such.

Hyper literal means that there is no way period for the stone to be moved, by any tool or force of nature. Why the earth itself could blow up and that stone would stay in place. Hyper literal is rare and usually quite rediculous even to assume in cases like this.

"Flap your arms hard as you like, it can't move you" says a frustrated teacher to her student trying to fly. He's five, what do you expect. Is she being literal? Absolutely. However, I could say "actually ma'ma, if he get up to about 500 beats per second he might succeed". Of course that's so rediculous it's almost funny. Given reasonable assumptions, she's speaking literally, however throw in the rediculous and things stop making sense... hence why its called rediculous.

"I don't know anything about math!" You mean you can't add two plus two?

"I can't find it!" sure you can, you're just not looking in the right places.

"This is impossible" no it's not.

"You can't out run an olimpic athlete" with enough adrenaline, why not?

In proverbs 20:

8 When a king sits on his throne to judge,
he winnows out all evil with his eyes.

The Bible to uses absolutes in expressive manners.

In Psalm 8 (psalm 8 context)

6 You made him ruler over the works of your hands;
you put everything under his feet:

Speaking of men.

The actual meaning of an "expressive term", is defined by it's context. Your Numbers passages means that God isn't wishy-washy, changing with the winds. However that it means that God, never changes His mind no matter what circumstance arises, is hard to prove.

"He is absolutely stubborn" oh come now ma'am, I'm sure your husband CAN change his mind.




The terms I've giving are not so expressive however and there's little reason to believe they are. Genesis shows God negotiating the fate of Soddom and Gomorrah. It doesn't say it happened expressively and it's not telling a parable. It's speaking of a converstation that actually took place.

This:

7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned.

Jeremiah 18:7-8 (context Jeremiah 18: 1-17)

Doesn't sound expressive in the least. It literally says, if God plans to curse you and you repent, He will not curse you.

5 Then the prophet Shemaiah came to Rehoboam and to the leaders of Judah who had assembled in Jerusalem for fear of Shishak, and he said to them, "This is what the LORD says, 'You have abandoned me; therefore, I now abandon you to Shishak.' "
6 The leaders of Israel and the king humbled themselves and said, "The LORD is just."
7 When the LORD saw that they humbled themselves, this word of the LORD came to Shemaiah: "Since they have humbled themselves, I will not destroy them but will soon give them deliverance. My wrath will not be poured out on Jerusalem through Shishak. 8 They will, however, become subject to him, so that they may learn the difference between serving me and serving the kings of other lands."


2 Cronicles 12: 5-8 (2 Cronicles 12: 1-12 in context)



Sound expressive to you?

What exact passage are you referring to?

The one I brought up to examine separately in post 30 and have been trying to get you to look at ever since. Read Genesis 18:22-23 (context Genesis 18-19:29)

 

[Darren]

You want to interpret the Bible according to your own whims and wishes and make it say what you want it to say, not what it really says.

This has nothing to do with what I want. I don't want to believe in hell, but I still do.

You didn't disagree with me primarily; you disagreed with God and the Bible.

So you've said but have yet to prove so it seems you are taking attacks on you and saying they are on God.

The definition of "blasphemy" is one who insults God, and that you have done. You have brought great insult to the name of God and of course God himself. You have attacked his omniscience, his omnipresence, his omnipotence. You have attacked his very essence. You have continually insulted the character of God.

I see. So since I disagree and think the Bible does not say God is those things, I'm blaspheming. Keep going my friend, you're making my case for me.

That is blasphemy; it is blasphemy of the worst sort.

Worse than claiming the position of God, or claiming divine support for ones views?

It is not me you are offending; it is the Lord God Almighty Himself. And God hates such blasphemy. It is an abomination in his sight to attack the very character of God.

I once quoted a guy on my website who said God wouldn't even stand for it, my reply:

Oh so now it’s God who won’t tolerate it? Seems to be tolerating it just fine. I think its YOU who won’t tolerate it, but you don’t have His power to smash with your incredible power anything you won’t tolerate. You only have your words. But MY God has actions. Rest assured, if He couldn’t tolerate me, I wouldn’t be here.


Don't call yourself God okay? You're no god of mine.

I tire of this bickering. However what should I say? You've never even explained your words, which sound a lot more like blasphemy than anything I've said.

Do I need to expain them?

No, I'll be blunt. I mean you need to apologize to God.

Do I need to explain over and over when you deny the character

Character? So now unless God has special Soveriengty, He can't be a good God?

the sovereignty of God that you are attacking

I have never said God is not sovereign. Only denied your definition of it. If God is not omniscient, it does not compliment Him to say He is.




Since God Himself says He changes His mind, and you say He doesn't do so, aren't you calling Him a liar? I suppose then I could accuse YOU of blasphemy based on my interpretation and your definition of the word. It wouldn't go anywhere and I would look just as silly as you, but I could do it.

Not true. You have done it over and over and over again. Look up the word "blasphemy" in the dictionary. All throughout this thread that is all that you have been doing--attacking the character of God; insulting Him; attacking His sovereignty.

Notice everyone, a strong arguer like DHK makes accusations and never has quotes to back them up.




You mean insults like this:

I believe in an awsome God, full of power, wisdom and knowledge, far beyond any to even fathom. He who created the universe, He who's name the Oceans themselves bow before. He who broke the power of sin, rose HIMSELF from the dead. He who healed the sick, cured the insane, casted out demons. He who has no superior nor equal. From age to age He shall be forever, the same in intent, power and wisdom. Beyond all, above all, over all and master of everything.

One of the best arguemets for limits is that Jesus IN FACT, did not want to die. But He had a reason greater than His own desire. Something took priority. But how can that be? In all His power, could He not have simply snapped His fingers and declared forgiveness? But no, for us humans, that He refused to live without, He saw that He needed to lay down His life. Simply becuase He rose, does not mean He did not still sacrifice. Far be it from anyone, to dishonor that sacrifice declaring it, one of the "many" ways it could have happened. It was the only way.

I am a man. I know not of what God is composed. I know of Him only through His word. I have not heard Him, save for a still small voice, and I have not seen Him, and I cannot concieve a being of such power and holyness. It's like a flea looking at a Lion (worse than that actually). It can't even take in everything that its seeing, let alone understand what it is seeing, or place limits on what it is seeing.

Or maybe this:

God wants better, but it is not better.

Or is it a question of ability? Ability to what? Make pink dragons? I suppose no doubt He could, but it's entirely irrelivent to who and what He IS.

If your view is that God's limits are self imposed, as you say, then no, I do not agree. I do not believe God would self impose limits on Himself that would be to the detriment of all creation. Let's just be honest, He Himself, hating to see His creation destroyed, is not benifiting from the limits either. That sounds contrary to the character of God as far as I believe.

Quote:
OR have you just asked the question "CAN God make a rock soooo big HE can not move it"??

Well if we assume a limited yet incredibly powerfull God we can attempt to go into this.
Okay, a being so powerful it could assemble a universe in six days. That's got to be a lot of... shall we say, towing power? Lets say the rock is several galaxies in radius. Could God move it? Not sure, but probably.

I'm not sure what the limits are. Do you see what I'm getting at? The limits are so far beyond us, to speculate on their specifics is pointless. However, to alledge they are not there, is to jump from one idea that makes perfect sense, to an illogical extreme.

________________________

What do you think blasphemy is??

Didn't I already say?

Blasphemy according to Dictionary.com

3.Theology. the crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God.

I accuse you of it because you keep on doing it, and repeatedly do it. Blasphemy is not to claim God's authority.

Hate to break it to you, but yes, it is.

It is to insult God, which you keep on doing.

Actually the direct theological accusation of blasphemy means exactly what I said.

Quote:

I serve nothing next to or beside God and have said so more than once. I say this because there is NOTHING next to or beside God. I am His servant and a seeker of His truth. Such is not blasphemy.

To missunderstand is not blasphemy. If I am mistaken, I am not a blasphemer for such.

I forgive you. I know I should, so I do. There is no reason we should hold grudges. But some of your words need to be explained to more than just me.

You seem to hold a grudge against God for being the Sovereign God of this universe. Is that so?

No I hold no grudges against God...

Hey DHK there's this awsome arguement style where you take someone else's quote, don't actually read it but for the last few words or so, then try to throw it back at them, making yourself look like you have no idea what's going on... oh wait, you seem to be a master of it already.

 

[rbell]

Darren,

Why is it so important for you to limit God? Why does it bother you to think that God is all-powerful, all-present, and all-knowing? Why are you on the crusade to prove that God is less than God?

I feel sorry for you. I have perfect assurance knowing there isn't a problem I could ever face that my God couldn't handle. If I believed as you, I'd probably just rely on myself...because I'd be afraid my "god" would be overwhelmed by my problems.

 

[JustChristian]

Yes, it is obvious. It was an obvious similie "as a moth." Any one who has studied an ounce of grammar should be able to pick things out like that right away. They should be able to recognize metaphors and similies immediately. They also ought to recognize idioms and figures of speech. A serious student of the Bible is not going to use these same phrases to attack the character of God. That is what is known as blasphemy--insulting God.

What phrases are you talking about and are you insinuating that I has committed blasphemy? I could say the same about you.

 

[DHK]

What phrases are you talking about and are you insinuating that I has committed blasphemy? I could say the same about you.

I was agreeing with you.
Even though I was replying to your post, my statements were directed at what Darren was saying. It is Darren who is attacking the character of God, and that type of attack is, by definition, blasphemy.

Blasphemy: 1 a: the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy

Note that this is the very first definition given for blasphemy, not the third or fourth down the list as Darren referred to.
Throughout his posts Darren has shown a contempt for God, a lack of reverence for God, and has continued to insult God. The definition is definitely applicable to him in most of what he has been saying.

 

[Darren]

Darren,

Why is it so important for you to limit God? Why does it bother you to think that God is all-powerful, all-present, and all-knowing? Why are you on the crusade to prove that God is less than God?

I feel sorry for you. I have perfect assurance knowing there isn't a problem I could ever face that my God couldn't handle. If I believed as you, I'd probably just rely on myself...because I'd be afraid my "god" would be overwhelmed by my problems.

I would hardely call this one thread a "crusade". However, if you must know why I dispise the belief so much, for starters, it's wrong.



Years ago, I was as dogmatic as DHK, only difference is, I believed very firmly that human logic was a gift from God, not something to be dispised. As a result, I always had a system of believing first, and then questioning to understand. As I grew as a boy and a christian, I started to understand, it wasn't doctrine I should put my faith in, rather God and His written word. There were so many doctrines it was utterly rediculous to have faith in any of them, but rather turn to the Bible and believe in it alone.

As a child the doctrine of special soveriegnty was always something I held to, not because I could understand or prove it, if asked, but because... well my parents believed. Finally, there did come a time when my human understanding started leading me to one conflict after another with the Bible. I finally broke down and cried to the Lord as to why nothing ever made sense. I know its sounds odd, but I believe He answered. He said, He wanted me to examine His word again, but just that, just His word, not put doctrines with it. He wanted me to finally read the books in order and study them in the logical manner I knew was never used in church (as in, read a whole passage instead of just one verse, never knowing where its from). I went home that day and started. What I found staggered me.

I want everyone to understand, I am NOT a prophet nor do I claim divine authority or right of any kind. What God said to me was for ME, not anyone else. As such, I do NOT believe my words are to be taken as doctrine, but to be taken and examined, as I do with any Bible theory I recieve.

The doctrines of special soveriegnty were the first ones that seemed out of place. They had seemed out of place for a while to me, because, I, like many others, had recognized before the many times the Bible refered to God more like a person than an overlord being. When I was told such conflicting passages were just figurative, my problem was... well they're not. That's the thing. Most people can see and understand that they aren't.

Then, when I began to study the Bible a new, I did begin to wonder about this issue. What if those passages were the literal ones, as literal as they sound, and the others were figurative? Would things make more sense? Yes. Would the Bible still flow? Yes, much better in fact. Would I lose my faith in God if I lost this concept of special soveriengty? No. God is just as real to me now as He ever was.

Understand, again, this is my testimony, take it or leave it, it is NOT a divine revelation. I am NOT claiming authority for it, beyond my own. I believe this is one of the things God wanted me to see, however, I'm not about to say this is God's revelation, "believe it or be damned". Instead, all I want is a fair hearing about it. If I'm right, lets put away these burdensome beliefs. If I am wrong, let me see how and I will gladely come back into the common fold, and rejoin the mass belief.

What actually happens when I discuss this usually though, is I get very weak arguements and people like DHK, whoes only real purpose in the arguement is to attack me and make people hate me as a person. Such arguements make me believe more and more firmly that I am right, but question that I must have gone wrong somewhere. Is all this blind anger and outrage without purpose or reason?

I get stronger arguements at times, understand, these aren't logical ideas I'm arguing against, so I don't expect the theory to be very good, but the scripture is sometimes, though not often, sound. The Bible I find both my strongest reference for my arguements, and my biggest anti arguement. At the moment, the score... you guys aren't winning. I've examined many passages supposidely proving special soveriegnty. Few of them ever even speak to the issue, but are taken completely out of context and slapped around with total disregard for what they actually mean. I suppose I did come to my conclusions over night, but I didn't maintain them without careful study.

Now, as to the clincher, are they just wrong? Need I really even waste my breath?

These doctrines are more than wrong. They're a burden to the faith.

Why must I accept that Jesus exists everywhere in every space time and way of existence? It seems completely illogical and there's no concievable reason why He would need to be.

Why do I need to believe that God knows everything without exception? There are so many things He doesn't even need to bother with, just knowing endless trivia is of no use.

Why must I believe in Omnipotence? Here's the real sticky one. If I believe there is NOTHING God cannot do, then how can I ever truely answer, "why is there suffering and evil" with anything but a terrible accusation: "God wants it"? Course, I know that accusation is not true so, what then? What is the truth? What can I say to the question of "why did Jesus die"? The answer should be "to save us from our sins" but if He didn't need to do such for such, nay indeed, didn't NEED to do anything for anything He wanted to come to pass, then the real answer is "He just wanted to".

I always had a problem with these doctrines because of one prime thing I always knew "I do not serve a God whom just does whatever He wants", dare I say "I wouldn't choose to, period". Just like I wouldn't serve a God who hated me and wanted nothing about me, there would be no purpose, neither will I ever, nor have I ever, believed in a God of whims. I have always believed in a God of purpose. But as far as I can reason, purpose has TWO origins. Desire and NEED.

NEED, is contradictory to the idea of total omnipotence.

I suppose yes, I do NEED, so it would seem, to believe this way. It is true and MUST be true, or so I see it. I know I can be wrong, and am a fillable man, but I must ask, when all the evidence points in ONE direction... shouldn't I go that way?

It is not God in whom I have lost faith. Rather, it is the church with whom I am dissallusioned. That is another issue entirely though. I could revive my old thread about respecting scripture, if need be.


As to, am I afraid God is not sufficient? No. The God whom created the universe so grand and magnificient in six days? What problem could I possibly have compared to that? The Son of God that was crucified in a painful and unrelenting manner full of betrayal and even false pitty and bore the evil of all the world on His shoulders... how can a man like me say He can't empathize, that my problems are worse than He ever experienced?

Nay, now my faith in God is stronger. I didn't understand then, and so questioned always wondering, even hating myself for the questions I had to ask. Now, not so much.

The world is real. The answers you were taught in Sunday school, to the questions... the answers like, "why did Jesus die?" "for our sins" "can God help me" "His power is sufficient" "why is there so much evil" "because God is working all for the best, however these things must occur for the best to come"... they're real. They really are the answers. There's no huge theological puzzel to solve. The answers are there. God is REAL, man is REAL and this world is REAL.

So perhaps it seems I am then weak. That I must put limits on God in order to believe in Him. You be the judge. Am I weak? Are my conclusions unfounded and foolish? Or have I found something?










When he gets off this name calling/hate mongering stint, I'll talk to DHK again, right now he's just being a troll. All he's doing is discrediting his side of the debate by making HIMSELF, look like a fool. I don't want to win by default, rather by logic and scripture.

 

[DHK]

I would hardely call this one thread a "crusade". However, if you must know why I dispise the belief so much, for starters, it's wrong.

Years ago, I was as dogmatic as DHK, only difference is, I believed very firmly that human logic was a gift from God, not something to be dispised. As a result, I always had a system of believing first, and then questioning to understand. As I grew as a boy and a christian, I started to understand, it wasn't doctrine I should put my faith in, rather God and His written word. There were so many doctrines it was utterly rediculous to have faith in any of them, but rather turn to the Bible and believe in it alone.

The word doctrine simply means "teaching". If you put your faith in God, you must have some teaching of the God whom you are putting your faith in. That in and of itself is doctrine. It is the doctrine of theology. Theos means God. "Ology" means the study of. Thus the study of God. Which God then are you putting your faith in. I am not being sarcastic here but quite serious. I am pointing out that you can't do away with doctrine or teaching when you say that you put your faith in God. You need to study about God first. All faith is grounded in doctrine or teaching.

Your questioning of the teachings of the Bible is agnosticism. Your questioning of the teaching of what your church taught may have been healthy. We are commanded to study those things which others preach and teach to us and see whether they are true. (Acts 17:11) But to question God and his essence is agnosticism.

As a child the doctrine of special soveriegnty was always something I held to, not because I could understand or prove it, if asked, but because... well my parents believed. Finally, there did come a time when my human understanding started leading me to one conflict after another with the Bible. I finally broke down and cried to the Lord as to why nothing ever made sense. I know its sounds odd, but I believe He answered. He said, He wanted me to examine His word again, but just that, just His word, not put doctrines with it. He wanted me to finally read the books in order and study them in the logical manner I knew was never used in church (as in, read a whole passage instead of just one verse, never knowing where its from). I went home that day and started. What I found staggered me.

Personal study is good. But if your conclusions run contrary to what the rest of the Bible teaches then you must realize that your conclusions are wrong. The Bible fits like a glove. Every part of it harmonizes with each other part. There are no contradictions. That is what makes it a miraculous book. It is inspired by God Himself. Even in this respect God is sovereign overseeing every aspect of the content and completion of His Word.
Cults like the J.W.'s reject those doctrines that they cannot understand. That is the reason they don't believe in the trinity. They cannot understand it. That is not a good reason to reject certain doctrines. There are many things in the Bible that we must accept by faith. How can a finite mind understand an infinite God? It cannot.
How do you know that it was God that answered? How can you be sure of that? Could it have been a demon? I don't mean to offend. But there are other possibilities. How can you be sure that God answered your prayers? How do you know? I don't know what kind of church you attended. Even among IFB churches and other Baptist churches there is a great divergence. For example we teach expositionally. I have taught throiugh every verse of all the minor prophets over a period of a few years. I have preached through a number of other books of the Bible as well. Very rarely do we ever preach or teach topically. Our people get a thorough knowledge of the books of the Bible. Often large portions of Scripture are read. Perhaps the church you attended was weak in this area.

I want everyone to understand, I am NOT a prophet nor do I claim divine authority or right of any kind. What God said to me was for ME, not anyone else. As such, I do NOT believe my words are to be taken as doctrine, but to be taken and examined, as I do with any Bible theory I recieve.

Fair enough. But teaching or doctrine from the Bible simply isn't theory. It must agree with the rest of Scripture. If it doesn't then you know that it is wrong.

The doctrines of special soveriegnty were the first ones that seemed out of place. They had seemed out of place for a while to me, because, I, like many others, had recognized before the many times the Bible refered to God more like a person than an overlord being. When I was told such conflicting passages were just figurative, my problem was... well they're not. That's the thing. Most people can see and understand that they aren't.

First of all there are too many passages that speak of God as our sovereign and Creator, that that fact cannot be denied.
Secondly, there are many figurative passages in the Bible as you recognize. But one does need to recognize when a passage is figurative, is a figure of speech, an idiom, etc. Perhaps more study in grammar, or even in the Greek language would help in that area. You dogmatically state "they are not." On what basis do you say that? Why, against all other scholarship, do you state that these figures of speech, are suddenly not figures of speech, when all other highly educated people maintain that they are? Don't you think that is a little odd?
Common sense here would dictate that you are mistaken in your ideas, and that you ought to do some more study in these areas.

Then, when I began to study the Bible a new, I did begin to wonder about this issue. What if those passages were the literal ones, as literal as they sound, and the others were figurative? Would things make more sense? Yes. Would the Bible still flow? Yes, much better in fact. Would I lose my faith in God if I lost this concept of special soveriengty? No. God is just as real to me now as He ever was.

Perhaps you haven't lost your faith. But you have lost the true sense of what the Bible is saying. You have made black, white; and white, black. You have taken the Bible and made it say the opposite of what it is saying by making the figurative say the literal, and the literal say the figurative. That is not sound hermeutics. Hermeneutics would be another good course for you to study. It teaches good principles on how to rightly divide the word of truth (2Tim.2:15), or understand the Bible. Here you have proposed some of the very arguments that many of the atheists put forth, or so it seemed.

Understand, again, this is my testimony, take it or leave it, it is NOT a divine revelation. I am NOT claiming authority for it, beyond my own. I believe this is one of the things God wanted me to see, however, I'm not about to say this is God's revelation, "believe it or be damned". Instead, all I want is a fair hearing about it. If I'm right, lets put away these burdensome beliefs. If I am wrong, let me see how and I will gladely come back into the common fold, and rejoin the mass belief.

One of the most dangerous positons to take is to rely on experience over and above the Word of God. That is the position you have taken. Instead of taking God and His revelation at face value, you have taken your "experience" and have put that above the authority of the Bilble. Once a person does that they can make the Bible say anything that they want, and they lose their way very quickly. Charismatics do this often. They rely on experience more than the Bible. The Bible is our authority, not experience.

What actually happens when I discuss this usually though, is I get very weak arguements and people like DHK, whoes only real purpose in the arguement is to attack me and make people hate me as a person. Such arguements make me believe more and more firmly that I am right, but question that I must have gone wrong somewhere. Is all this blind anger and outrage without purpose or reason?

If I set forth a Biblical argument, why should it make you dig in your heals all the more. That is a matter of pride. I can show you what the Bible teaches. But are you teachable enough to receive it?

I get stronger arguements at times, understand, these aren't logical ideas I'm arguing against, so I don't expect the theory to be very good, but the scripture is sometimes, though not often, sound.

Scripture is always sound. But you must be able to accept it.

The Bible I find both my strongest reference for my arguements, and my biggest anti arguement. At the moment, the score... you guys aren't winning. I've examined many passages supposidely proving special soveriegnty. Few of them ever even speak to the issue, but are taken completely out of context and slapped around with total disregard for what they actually mean. I suppose I did come to my conclusions over night, but I didn't maintain them without careful study.

You don't really use the Bible. You take verses out of context, and use them according to your experience. Experience has become modus operandi. The Scripture is a means to an end. You have set forth a pre-conceived idea, however wrong it may be--based on your experience--and have set forth to prove it by taking Scripture out of context and telling us that they mean what they don't mean.

Now, as to the clincher, are they just wrong? Need I really even waste my breath?

The Scripture is not wrong. Your interpretation is wrong. Remember, when the interpretation goes against the totality of the rest of the Biblle it is not a right conclusion. It must harmonize with all the Word of God. There is no contradiction in the Bible.

 

[DHK]

These doctrines are more than wrong. They're a burden to the faith.

They are not a burden to "my faith," but only to yours. Search the Scriptures, Jesus said. Study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, but rightly dividing the word of truth.

Why must I accept that Jesus exists everywhere in every space time and way of existence? It seems completely illogical and there's no concievable reason why He would need to be.

Because Christ said He was omnipresent, and to say that He isn't is to call Him a liar. He said things like: "

Psalms 91:15 He shall call upon me, and I will answer him: I will be with him in trouble; I will deliver him, and honour him.
--Where ever man may be; whoever man is, that man who calls upon God, God has promised to answer him. The implication here is that in order for God to do that He must be everywhere or omnipresent. There is no other way.

Here the Psalmist expresses the same idea but in more figurative speech:
Psalms 139:7-8 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
--No matter where he goes, he cannot escape the presence of God, for God is everywhere. There is not a place where God cannot be found.

Why do I need to believe that God knows everything without exception? There are so many things He doesn't even need to bother with, just knowing endless trivia is of no use.

Because God, in many places in the Bible, has declared that he knows all things. If he didn't know all things then he wouldn't be God.
He claims to know how many hairs are on your head at any given time. That in itself should be proof enough.
He claims to know the number of stars in the sky and he has named every one of them. "He has called them by name." That should be proof enough.
He claims to know (and intimately know) the heart, intent, the thoughts, and the imaginations, of every man, woman, and child that has ever lived, is living, and will ever live. That should be proof enough.

Why must I believe in Omnipotence? Here's the real sticky one. If I believe there is NOTHING God cannot do, then how can I ever truely answer, "why is there suffering and evil" with anything but a terrible accusation: "God wants it"?

God never wanted it. He knew it would happen, but he never wanted it to happen.
He did not want Satan to rebel against him.
He did not want Eve to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
He did not want Adam, in direct rebellion to that command to do the same.
He did not want man to bring suffering upon himself because of all the sinful choices he has made for himself. But the consequences of sin are ugly.

Course, I know that accusation is not true so, what then? What is the truth? What can I say to the question of "why did Jesus die"? The answer should be "to save us from our sins" but if He didn't need to do such for such, nay indeed, didn't NEED to do anything for anything He wanted to come to pass, then the real answer is "He just wanted to".

The real answer is: He loved you so much that He gave His life for you. If you were the only person on the face of this earth Jesus Christ would have loved you enough to come and die just for you. There isn't anyone on the face of this that Jesus doesn't love anymore than you.

I always had a problem with these doctrines because of one prime thing I always knew "I do not serve a God whom just does whatever He wants", dare I say "I wouldn't choose to, period". Just like I wouldn't serve a God who hated me and wanted nothing about me, there would be no purpose, neither will I ever, nor have I ever, believed in a God of whims. I have always believed in a God of purpose. But as far as I can reason, purpose has TWO origins. Desire and NEED.

The Bible says in Acts 17 that God has need of nothing. There isn't anything that God needs.
God doesn't just do whatever He wants. He is a sovereign God. He acts out of His attributes: love, holiness, justice, mercy, kindness, etc., and none of those attributes contradict each other. He does not do anything that is evil. He just doesn't do what He wants, for evil cannot be attributed to Him. He never acts contrary to His Word or contrary to His nature. God does not hate; He loves. Hate is against His nature. God is not fatalistic, and does nothing at a whim. He knew all things before the foundation of the world. He is omniscient. He is a God of purpose as He designed all things; just look around you and examine nature. God only has one origin. He always was, is and always will be. He is the eternal Word. (John 1:1; Genesis 1:1)
Thus all that you have written is a contradiction of who God really is. You misunderstand the nature of God.

NEED, is contradictory to the idea of total omnipotence.

God needs nothing. Where do you get that from? Again the Bible does not contradict itself. That is where you need more Bible study.

Acts 17:25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

I suppose yes, I do NEED, so it would seem, to believe this way. It is true and MUST be true, or so I see it. I know I can be wrong, and am a fillable man, but I must ask, when all the evidence points in ONE direction... shouldn't I go that way?

Man has need; but God has need of nothing. God is a God of love, and exists to provide lovingly for the needs of man. (That is not his only reason for existence lest you take my statement wrong).

It is not God in whom I have lost faith. Rather, it is the church with whom I am dissallusioned. That is another issue entirely though. I could revive my old thread about respecting scripture, if need be.

That sounds reasonable. Perhaps you should find a better church.

As to, am I afraid God is not sufficient? No. The God whom created the universe so grand and magnificient in six days? What problem could I possibly have compared to that? The Son of God that was crucified in a painful and unrelenting manner full of betrayal and even false pitty and bore the evil of all the world on His shoulders... how can a man like me say He can't empathize, that my problems are worse than He ever experienced?

They are not worse, thus in that He can empathize with anything you go through. For whatever you have suffered, He has suffered greater.

Nay, now my faith in God is stronger. I didn't understand then, and so questioned always wondering, even hating myself for the questions I had to ask. Now, not so much.

If your faith is stronger then you must ask yourself what is the object of your faith. Faith always has an object. The object of my faith is Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ crucified and risen again. To realize that takes doctrine or teaching. I can't dismiss it. My faith is based on doctrine. All faith is. Faith is not blind belief. The faith of a believer is rooted in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, one of the most historically attested facts of history.

The world is real. The answers you were taught in Sunday school, to the questions... the answers like, "why did Jesus die?" "for our sins" "can God help me" "His power is sufficient" "why is there so much evil" "because God is working all for the best, however these things must occur for the best to come"... they're real. They really are the answers. There's no huge theological puzzel to solve. The answers are there. God is REAL, man is REAL and this world is REAL.

So perhaps it seems I am then weak. That I must put limits on God in order to believe in Him. You be the judge. Am I weak? Are my conclusions unfounded and foolish? Or have I found something?

The answers could have been better. No limits need to be put on God. Your faith in God is weak because your perception of who God is, is not a Biblical perception, or perhaps it is an inadequate perception. Your conclusions are unfounded and need to be studied out more, perhaps under the guidance of a teacher/preacher that is more Biblcally grounded than the teaching that you have been sitting under.

When he gets off this name calling/hate mongering stint, I'll talk to DHK again, right now he's just being a troll. All he's doing is discrediting his side of the debate by making HIMSELF, look like a fool. I don't want to win by default, rather by logic and scripture.

Not meaning to do that Darren, but those who make direct attacks agains the very God; the Creator and King of Kings that I worship tend to get my ire up. It is disturbing to me when someone begins to make statements that according to the dictionary (Merriam Webster) defines as blasphemous.
But I hope this post has helped.

 

[BobRyan]

Taking it step by step --

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobRyan
God is sovereign -- He can choose a universe of intelligent beings programmed like robots to obey- or a universe based on free will. It is up to Him. He "chooses free will".

God can revoke his choice in that area at any moment -- but chooses not to.

If you want finite beings to "make choices" then things have to be "explained" as we see in Job 1 and 2.

You are attributing "less power" to God because He sovereignly "chooses" to create and sustain a "free will" universe instead of a "robot universe" in which He could do all things could be done instantly and without concern for others, limited only by His infinite power.

While the robot-model does allow for more demonstration of instant power and truly is only limited by Power - the "free will system" is a voluntary "limit" that He sets on Himself as Sovereign and Law Giver that must still "arrange events" such that free will intelligent beings can exist in the best possible state.

In Gethsemane Jesus prays to the Father "With you ALL THINGS are POSSIBLE -- please let this cup pass from me". Obviously God is "powerful enough" to stomp on a few Romans and a Jewish mob. The limit is not "power". God is "intelligent" enough to know HOW to stomp on a few Romans and a Jewish Mob -- the question is not knowledge or Wisdom. God is "able to be PRESENT" sufficiently to stomp on a few Romans and a Jewish mob -- the limit is not PRESENCE.

Matt 23 -- the end of chapter "How I WANTED to gather your children... but YOU would not"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren
One of the best arguemets for limits is that Jesus IN FACT, did not want to die. But He had a reason greater than His own desire. Something took priority. But how can that be?

Bob said -
1. He emptied Himself and became a human Phil 2.
2. God did not "want" Adam to fall... did not "want to be tortured" did not "want to suffer separation between Father and Son on the cross" did not "want to have his own disciples deny him"... It is not a case of "want".

But He DID "want" a free-will universe and to get that He chose to endure some things He "did not want".

Darren :

In all His power, could He not have simply snapped His fingers and declared forgiveness?

Bob Said -
Yep and that would instantly make "void" the LAW of the universe -- God did not "want" to abolish LAW because in the Realm of the Universe - God is "JUST" as is also "Merciful" not one without the other.

And then Darren added –

Darren

Might I point out, that law wouldn't even exist, save for God making it, according to you, I'm sure. Break it? Just don't make it.

Not sure that this makes a case for you – the point is that God is not going to nullify His Law (unjust) to be merciful – rather He finds a solution that preserves both.

As Paul points out “Do we then abolish the Law by our faith? God forbid! In Fact we Establish the Law” and in 1cor 7 a similar argument
But what matters is keeping the commandments of God” 1Cor 7:15.[/font]

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Darren said

But no, for us humans, that He refused to live without, He saw that He needed to lay down His life. Simply becuase He rose, does not mean He did not still sacrifice. Far be it from anyone, to dishonor that sacrifice declaring it, one of the "many" ways it could have happened. It was the only way.

Bob said -
It was "the only way" to preserve the LAW of God AND still provide atonement. But if God "wanted" to abolish His Law -- then many options existed.

Clearly God "sovereignly chose" not only Free will - but also a JUST system of government where "we ESTABLISH THE LAW OF GOD" Rom 3:31 by our faith "instead of abolishing it".

Darren said
But for some reason He couldn't abolish that law, or something terrible would have happened if He did, I'm not sure which one, however both ideas lead to the conclusion that something was holding Him back.

God chooses -- we can always argue that "he chose for a reason" but apart from "being God" we see that He chose to preserve both Law and Mercy.

Not sure how you can get around it short of loads of imagination without much proof.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

Darren,

You are mistaking DHK's passion for truth as personal attacks. It seems to me that if you cannot rationalize all that God does you will not believe at face value by faith the very things that are written of Him. So you then have to do as DHK pointed out and make many scriptures teach something other than what they truly teach.

Here is one that will blow your mind. How can there be anything? How can something always be? How can something have no beggining and no end?

These questions would make you go crazy if you dwelled on them!

If it wasn't for the testimony of Jesus Christ and His Spirit living in me I wouldn't believe in anything. I would be an agnostic for sure. Jesus created me and limited my understanding, so there is no way I can know the mind of God.

I really believe God can turn one over, even a truly born-again believer, to his own mind. I have a brother who is caught up in Melinnium Exclusion and you know why? He had a pastor who he gotten very close to, became a right hand man to so to speak, and this pastor indoctrinated him into this heresy. It took time though. My brother just couldn't see what this pastor was saying he saw in the scriptures. But my brother really wanted to believe because he became very close to this pastor and trusted him tremendously. It took about two years and you know what my brother told me? He said it was like a light bulb going off! My brother now seen the "truth" in what this pastor was seeing in the scriptures.

My brother wanted so badly to believe what his pastor believed that I believe God just turned him over and said if you want to believe in this heresy so bad, even after the Spirit within you has resisted it so long, then go ahead. I pray he will come back into the truth, but I believe it will take much prayer from brothers and sisters in Christ interceding for him.

Darren, if something is so radically opposed to mainstream brothers and sisters in Christ then you must believe it is wrong. Christ is at work in His body of believers and is not going to give a few some kind of special wisdom on well established foundational doctrines. Christ has given us a command to be like minded and although you will always have some rogue believers that go off on whacky things like Mellinnium Exclusion, as my brother has, I have faith in Christ that if the majority of His flock agrees on the most fundamental established doctrines then they must be of God's doing.

DHK, good counsel! :thumbs:

God Bless!

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
The Arminian position says that man -- fallen into sin is depraved - has a sinful nature and can not of his own "choose" the right. He is supernaturally "enabled" by God's drawing to CHOOSE and in John 12:32 God says He "DRAWS ALL".

Darren said -
It alledges, so far as I have studied, that both the draw to God and the pull of sin nature, are things we have control over. However, if God predestined which of us specifically would be saved and which would not, this is of little consiquence is it not? If God totally controls in which direction we go, and we only have choice "in a sense" or "from our persepective", but we can truely only choose what God destines us to choose... We can only do what God programmed us to do or He is programming us to do (not sure which is more proper to say). Thusly we are robots.

Almost all Arminians today seem to agree that man is unnable to "do good" (control sin) apart from God. Since God "draws ALL" according to John 12:32 the Arminian considers that this ENABLES all to now choose.

Choice they could not have otherwise.

Not sure how this helps or hurts the case you want to make.

There is no "only do what you are programmed to do" in the Arminian model. For "programmers are guilty of the sins of their computers -- not hardware". God would be "guilty of all sin" if all sinners were just doing what they were programmed to do -- and the Bible already shows us that this is not the case. God "draws all" and through His drawing "enables all" to choose.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said Quote:
Hmm "COULD" he create a universe of FREE-WILL beings that COULD sin but most certainly WOULD NOT sin?

"It is hard to BE God" as it turns out.

Who "but God" CAN answer that?

Darren said
I understand, it's hard to think on this level. I don't know what the limits would be because I can't see that far, so to speak.

indeed "being God" is a lot harder than many have supposed.

However, this it little more than saying the limits exist, not saying what they are.

You just acknowledged I could be right. I hate to sound like a manipulator, but I'm wondering if I can get you to take the next step.

I can't "do the experiment" with my own "free will universe" to test out what you have imagined -- I don't see a "next step".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said
OR have you just asked the question "CAN God make a rock soooo big HE can not move it"??

Darren said
Well if we assume a limited yet incredibly powerfull God we can attempt to go into this.

Okay, a being so powerful it could assemble a universe in six days. That's got to be a lot of... shall we say, towing power? Lets say the rock is several galaxies in radius. Could God move it? Not sure, but probably.

I'm not sure what the limits are. Do you see what I'm getting at? The limits are so far beyond us, to speculate on their specifics is pointless. However, to alledge they are not there, is to jump from one idea that makes perfect sense, to an illogical extreme.

Of the billions of gallaxies and trillions of stars we have detected -- it still appears that there is about 5 times that amount of "mass" entangled in some way in what is called "Dark Matter". Yet even that combined total is only about 30% of the total mass/energy of the inflating - accelerating universe. There is another 70% in "Dark Energy" (all "Dark means" is that we don't understand it and can't play with it in the lab).

So when you go off on a trip about "a rock so big that ..." you are on your own. Even dealing with what we CAN see - we are coming up short on answers.

in Christ,

bob

 

[Darren]

I do not see DHK's previous posts as reasonable with resolve to attacks and name calling, however, I must admit, sometimes he is capable of putting out some good points. Here's a pat on the back, I'll actually have to THINK about how to answer his points this time. Well that and he wrote so much... this will take a while and a few posts to answer. Understand... I know it will probably dissapoint you, but I most likely have answers.

Unfortuanately that's just how these things end up going and in the end, we will attribute eachother blindness for why we did not win. All I or you can hope for really, is to make an effect on others reading, and on the individaul in the future upon reflection. With that in mind... can I take a minute?

You want that impression and reflection to be good. If you spent you're time throwing out insults and trying to impress on every one the ultimate evil you believed to be on display, sorry, but the impression of you will not get any points across. Jesus Himself used anger and even violence, but only in their place.

Rather, examine what I've said again. Indeed I've accused the doctrines of special soveriegnty of much. Not making any sense, having little to no real Biblical basis, taking away from the faith and even that they call God evil. Those aren't small accusations. I am indeed, in truth, calling these ideas evil. But rather than shouting that point over and over or attempting to force the extreme view of hatred for the ideas I have, I've tried to sound more on the diffensive. If I were to come here saying these doctrines were flat out baisless, wrong and evil, how far would I have gotten (okay, so not totally baiseless)? So how far do any of you think it goes when its said about my beliefs to people who have them? Now that you have seen how my conclusions are so, and that we aren't total enemies and that I'm not trying to insult or attack, I can say what I truely think, and I guess at the very least be pittied for being so lost. Well, being pittied is better than being ignored, because listening is listening. Understand, how you guys feel towards me, is how I feel towards you mostly. I don't see you as enemies. But as servants of God, like myself, just a little lost. (Yea, I know, I'm a little lost too, I don't think I know everything.)




Now, back on subject, first, let me reassure, I believe firmly, every bit of the Bible is true, however, largely missinterpreted. I feel like I am Luther, pointing out the many rediculous ideas put out by tradition ("we have the graves of all 14 apostles!" when refering to artifact collecting). I'm not denying the Bible, I'm denying traditional belief, there's a very big difference. I do NOT believe the Bible contradicts.

Yes, I've see the sceptics annotated Bible site. Have a look anyone who likes. It was probably written and maintianed by a twelve-year-old and contiuing through his teens. The format has no single degree of professionalism, it's loaded with bias and the research is feeble at best, at least last time I saw it, I couldn't get past even a few pages, without laughing myself to tears at anyone who would take it seriously as a source. The Bible has NO contradictions, most attempts to prove it does, are like taking a sentence out of chapter 12 of Moby Dick and comparing it to a sentence from chapther 2 and saying there are problems. Let's see, NO context, NO relivence between sentences, NO consideration of intent, NO honest research or reading, NO... brains used... you get the idea. Most study of historical books is made with an effort to see the way in which they make the most logical sense and flow the best. These studies have to be made giving the writers a degree of credibility, that they understood and knew how to write logically. They also have to be made considering that old ideas don't always translate the same today as they did then. Skeptics annotated obviously started with the assumption that the Bible was flawed, and went from there. They don't respect it or it's writers at all, instead set out on a witch hunt to find "errors". As a result, the majority of the errors on the site are with how the site itself was written, and with the lack of intelligence of its writers.

The Bible is the divinely inspired word of God. It has no flaws, it does not contradict.

Let's also calm down and understand something here. There are so many doctrines (doctrines as in, teaching steming from the Bible-says nothing about how they end up-) that they cannot all be right. In fact, the grand majority are wrong. That means, in reality, whatever you believe, you have to accept that you too, believe that the grand overwhelming majority of Christians are... dead wrong. Maybe not "damned wrong" as the old catholics always thought, but flat out, not even close. My accusations of you aren't far from yours of others. My point: popularity, or lack there of, proves NOTHING.

I do NOT believe there are errors in the Bible, or passages to be ignored. As I stated, I believe what you say is expressive is literal, and what you say is literal, is expressive. Expressive of VERY important concepts yes, and therefore, NO, they are NOT to be ignored and NO I do not ignore them.

You all also rely on your study, so understand if I rely on mine. It's all I can reasonably be expected to do.

Well all this is neither here nor there and I just got off a twelve hour shift again so I'm tired, mind if I cut off here and pick up again another day?