19 Mar 07
1 edit
Originally posted by TheSkipperOk , let's say the water is omni-everything and has the ability to force the water down the man's throat. However , the problem is that the moment this happens the very point of the man being alive is destroyed.
Now give the water the ability to be omni-everything and you may have a point.
It matters not how powerful God is he cannot create real freedom without creating real freedom and that means real choices. So yes he has the power to ram the water down the man's throat , but the game's up is he does this . He is far far too respectful of us to do that. God's in a bind and it's not one his omnipotence can get him out of . He has to give us real choice , but how to do that without risking the prospect of a man wanting to go thirsty by choice? If he forces us he then goes back on the whole deal and it becomes pointless.
But why would anyone not want to drink once they see the water for what it is?
19 Mar 07
3 edits
Originally posted by ballsofsteelNRS Psalm 137:9 “Happy shall they be who take your little ones [in the Hebrew literally: infants, or suckling children] and dash them against the rock!”
Consider these passages:
"Because of the sinful things they say,
because of the evil that is on their lips,
let them be captured by their pride,
their curses, and their lies.
Destroy them in your anger!
Wipe them out completely!
Then the whole world will know
that God reigns in Israel" (Psalm 59:12-13).
"But s Christ.
It is heretical to teach that God saves everyone, unconditionally.
Do you take these words from the Psalmist as being inspired by the Holy Spirit?
The same God who shows the faithful 'unfailing love' also 'wipes out completely' His enemies.
Again, these “enemies” are in you and me; they are not whole persons—not in the NT anyway.
_______________________________
John 3:16 “In this way, because loved [the/this] God the cosmos (literally: the cosmos), therefore the son, the unique [he] assigned/entrusted/gave, in-order-that all* the/this/that trusting into that-one, not might perish/pass away/be ruined/be deprived, but/however/nevertheless keep life for [the] ages.”
* “All” (pas) here is an adjective. In other words, it is not “everyone,” but modifies another word. I would suggest: “in order that all trust into that one might not perish.” “That one” could refer to God or “the son.”
Why do you call that a “condition,“ rather than a promise, or simply a statement of purpose? EDIT: You see, that is your hermeneutics...
You still haven’t addressed the fact that soterias, “salvation,” means cure or healing, rather than pardon from judgment.
The “son," by the way, is the pre-existing logos that became/becomes “flesh/matter” (sarx). Jesus is ho Christos because he embodied and realized that logos; his call is for you to become the same.
Salvation is not an event: it is a process, as St. Paul pointed out.
It is heretical to teach that God saves everyone, unconditionally.
It is heretical to teach that he must, not to believe that he will.
19 Mar 07
1 edit
John 3:16-21
16 For God so loved the cosmos that he gave/established his only son, so that all trusting in that one might not perish, but live ages.
17 Indeed, God did not send the son into the cosmos to judge the cosmos, but in order that the cosmos might be healed by means of himself.
18 Each trusting in that one not is-judged; on the contrary each not trusting now is-judged, because not trusted in the name of unique son of God.
19 This but is the judgment*: that the light appears in the cosmos; and love the humans more the darkness, since their works are worthless.
20 For each the wrong practicing hates/disregards the light and not appears with the light, so that not detected his actions.
21 But each that accomplishes the truth appears with the light, in order that made evident [to/of] himself the deeds that in God take place having happened.
* The Greek word here is krisis, which can mean judgment, decision, resolution, determination. Here it may well mean the diagnosis of the world's ills. (The word for “judge” in these verses is the verb form.) It is only “condemnation” is one presumes a negative judgment, in the juridical sense.
_______________________________
How any of this contradicts anything I said about eternal “sentencing,” I don’t know.
19 Mar 07
Vistesd, I think it is amazing and very thoughtful of you to intentionally provide an actual reference to the true translation, and I think it expounds your (our) point more clearly... 🙂
And, ballsofsteel, as Vistesd said, it's human nature to pick and choose from the Bible; even those who first composed the Bible picked and chose which books to include.
And finally, I think Vistesd also made a good point, that in a debate, a point comes in which no more arguing can arise...inevitably, you will have your beliefs, and I will have mine. I believe in a God who loves unconditionally. Easy way out? Wrong belief? We'll find out eventually.
I would like to agree and disagree with you on this: I still believe questioning our faith develops, enriches, and strengthens it. We do not necessarily need to fully understand God before we believe in him, but we should attempt to understand some things about Him. In agreement with you, I want to say that the most effective way of wrestling for answers to our faith is through scripture, which I have much to catch up on. 🙂
19 Mar 07
1 edit
"John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except by means of me.”
The Greek word dia, generally translated as “through,” means here “by means of” or “by way of.” And Jesus is speaking as ho Christos, “the Christ,” the logos tou theou—the logos of God—not in terms of his human person. It is that “means,” not yours or mine or someone else’s (not even by means of right-thinking/belief), that is the point."
--There is no separation between Jesus the Man and Christ the logos of God. That's why He's called 'God's unique Son,' because he is the only God-man there is in all eternity. And I'm sorry, but your bible exposition is still quite superficial even though you dissect the original Greek; all you are doing is restating the standard interpretation with synonyms and acting as though it supports your wishful thinking. God is who He is, not as we think He should be. Hermeneutics is no excuse for creating a form of biblical pluralism, where all meaning is relative to the interpreter. God may have veiled Himself in mystery, but He is not a God of confusion.
More later...
19 Mar 07
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesd"NRS Psalm 137:9 “Happy shall they be who take your little ones [in the Hebrew literally: infants, or suckling children] and dash them against the rock!”
NRS Psalm 137:9 “Happy shall they be who take your little ones [in the Hebrew literally: infants, or suckling children] and dash them against the rock!”
Do you take these words from the Psalmist as being inspired by the Holy Spirit?
[b]The same God who shows the faithful 'unfailing love' also 'wipes out completely' His enemies.
Again, these “e tionally.[/b]
It is heretical to teach that he must, not to believe that he will.[/b]
Do you take these words from the Psalmist as being inspired by the Holy Spirit?"
--Definitely. If God deems the Babylon of which David speaks to be worthy of absolute destruction, then it does. I trust God's judgement. Obviously you underestimate God's hatred for sin. His anger burns against it. David's zealous expression of hatred for the wickedness of others is a reflection of the Lord's. How can you claim to know the Lord if you can't see that He is holy and righteous, and that He exercises judgement? God kills. If that offends you, then you haven't grasped the reality of God's holiness, nor do you share His hatred for sin as you should (as David does).
The same God who shows the faithful 'unfailing love' also 'wipes out completely' His enemies.
Again, these “enemies” are in you and me; they are not whole persons—not in the NT anyway.
"Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt" (Danial 12:2).
--Speaking of judgement day, when the dead shall rise and be judged. Notice Danial speaks of whole persons, not parts of persons as you falsely claim, who are either cast into hell or received into heaven.
"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew 10:28).
--God's judgement is final. People are only able to kill our bodies, not our whole person; while God's judgement destroys both soul and body in hell.
"Then the King will turn to those on the left and say, ‘Away with you, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his demons" (Matthew 25:41).
--You would have us believe that when Christ says, "Away with you, you cursed ones," He's only referring to say, a few toes and few fingers, and not the whole person. I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. God judges the whole person, not parts of a person, otherwise He would not have commanded elsewhere that our 'eye be single' (Luke 11:34).
"Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them, 'Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are: then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out" (Luke 13:23-28).
--How explicit does this need to be for you to let go of your false presumption about God's judgement? Not everyone goes to heaven; many end up in hell. You're doing God no favors by obscuring the gospel of His Son, Jesus Christ, or sugar-coating His eternal judgement, which all men and women should rightly fear. Messing with the word of God is also a dangerous business, as Revelation 22:18-19 attests:
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
Why do you call that a “condition,“ rather than a promise, or simply a statement of purpose? EDIT: You see, that is your hermeneutics...
You still haven’t addressed the fact that soterias, “salvation,” means cure or healing, rather than pardon from judgment.
"I tell you the truth, those who listen to my message and believe in God who sent me have eternal life. They will never be condemned for their sins, but they have already passed from death into life" (John 5:24, italics mine).
--Condition or promise, call it what you will. It is both. And as this passage in John shows, those who listen to Christ's message and believe in Him have eternal life already. Again, how plain does God have to be for you to take Him at His word?
It is heretical to teach that God saves everyone, unconditionally.
It is heretical to teach that he must, not to believe that he will.
--God is not confined by His own law; His law is an expression of Himself, of His holiness and righteousness. It is an expression of Himself, not a limit upon His love. As John 3:16 shows, His love is expressed in that Christ died for us in order to satisfy God's Law. Christ did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it. Therefore, if we remain sinners without believing in Jesus Christ, then we are still under the Law and under God's judgement. That you believe God will save sinners who don't obey His plan for salvation, shows that you don't really take God's word very seriously at all.
---May the Spirit of God open your eyes...
19 Mar 07
Originally posted by ballsofsteel"NRS Psalm 137:9 “Happy shall they be who take your little ones [in the Hebrew literally: infants, or suckling children] and dash them against the rock!”
[b]"NRS Psalm 137:9 “Happy shall they be who take your little ones [in the Hebrew literally: infants, or suckling children] and dash them against the rock!”
Do you take these words from the Psalmist as being inspired by the Holy Spirit?"
--Definitely. If God deems the Babylon of which David speaks to be worthy of absolute destruction, then ...[text shortened]... at all.
---May the Spirit of God open your eyes...[/b]
Do you take these words from the Psalmist as being inspired by the Holy Spirit?"
--Definitely. If God deems the Babylon of which David speaks to be worthy of absolute destruction, then it does. I trust God's judgement. Obviously you underestimate God's hatred for sin. His anger burns against it. David's zealous expression of hatred for the wickedness of others is a reflection of the Lord's. How can you claim to know the Lord if you can't see that He is holy and righteous, and that He exercises judgement? God kills.
Haha! You willingly worship a deity that kills babies *AND* then attempt to convince other people that they should worship the same diety! That is just great. You are a fool and you are your own best proof of it.
Originally posted by ballsofsteelThere is no separation between Jesus the Man and Christ the logos of God.
[b]"NRS Psalm 137:9 “Happy shall they be who take your little ones [in the Hebrew literally: infants, or suckling children] and dash them against the rock!”
Do you take these words from the Psalmist as being inspired by the Holy Spirit?"
--Definitely. If God deems the Babylon of which David speaks to be worthy of absolute destruction, then at all.
---May the Spirit of God open your eyes...[/b]
Nor, according to the Definition of Chalcedon, is there any confusion between the two...
And I'm sorry, but your bible exposition is still quite superficial even though you dissect the original Greek; all you are doing is restating the standard interpretation with synonyms and acting as though it supports your wishful thinking.
I just try to find alternative readings that support the Greek text; I’m sorry if you think it is superficial or simply a synonym–replacement exercise. BTW, I’m glad to see that at least you refer to the “standard interpretation” as an interpretation. Who made it “standard?” Has it always been “standard?”
Never mind: see below—I give up. You might be right about “wishful thinking”—but, I doubt that you know what that thinking was (others on here might have a pretty good idea, though).
If God deems the Babylon of which David speaks to be worthy of absolute destruction, then it does. I trust God's judgment. Obviously you underestimate God's hatred for sin. His anger burns against it. David's zealous expression of hatred for the wickedness of others is a reflection of the Lord's.
Okay, so God’s anger burns against the sinfulness of babies still at their mother’s breast, and approves of—nay, inspires—David’s “zealous expression for the wickedness” of those infants, which is a “reflection of the Lord’s.” What an ugly god you create in your idolizing every from David’s mouth as God’s own—
Well, maybe you’re not. Maybe you’re right and the God of the Bible is an ugly, vicious God who is such a perfectionist that, unable to tolerate the presence of imperfection (sin: I assume you know what the Hebrew and Greek words translated as “sin” are, and what they mean, so I won’t offer any further “superficial” exegesis) and rather than healing the sinfulness of little babies, he would have their heads dashed against rocks...
I give up: perhaps your god is the god of the Bible, and all my searching behind superficial English texts and conventional superstitious understandings of Christianity for a god there who is not capricious and unjust; who does not kill babies in his anger at their wickedness, nor offer eternal torture as a punishment for the crime of being born—is just, as you say, wishful thinking. Your god is a terrorist and the Joseph Mengele of religion.
Your god is beyond redemption. But if your god is the God of the Bible, I will quit my vain searching—my vain attempts to deconstruct the god created by years of encroaching Biblical literalism, with it’s crass acceptance of anthropomorphic projections as being real. That work, which has been mine, is just too hard—when all one really has to do is just walk outside and see the world arrayed before one. One judges the map by its conformance to the territory, not the other way around. Perhaps I, too, have idolized the graven word, even as I have argued against that. Perhaps I too have clung to the idol, as something to struggle against—and in the very act of the struggle, have given the lifeless word and image power that it does not have...
The metaphor has become the thing; myth and allegory, history; the symbol, the fact. Shame that I have wasted so many years of my life at it.
That, however, is not your fault. You have simply expressed what you see as the truth. You are not alone.
19 Mar 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterHere is why your analogy does not work for me:
Ok , let's say the water is omni-everything and has the ability to force the water down the man's throat. However , the problem is that the moment this happens the very point of the man being alive is destroyed.
It matters not how powerful God is he cannot create real freedom without creating real freedom and that means real choices. So yes he has ...[text shortened]... ntless.
But why would anyone not want to drink once they see the water for what it is?
God hides the ball and the water does not. When a man is thirsty he knows exactly what he needs (water) and the wise man goes to find some. However, God does not present itself to the thirsty as simple, easy to see, water but water disguised as something else, which is why you need to do all sorts of intellectual acrobatics to explain why you believe in such a creature as God. If God were as plain as water you would have a much easier time defending your delusion.
So, to further fix your analogy you need to add a few things:
First, you need to disguise the water as something which is not easily recognizable as water...a rock, perhaps.
Second, you need to add an element of magic or mysticism to the water's existence, for instance, "you can only see the rock if you believe it exists, and until then you will never understand." Basically, you must ask the thirsty man to suspend disbelief, for no legitimate reason.
Third, you need a bunch of really annoying people dancing around and singing to the rock and generally behaving like crazy people...at least in the perspective of our thirsty man.
So, let's try the analogy again.
A thirsty man is stumbling around looking for something to quench his nagging thirst when he happens upon a group of people huddled together singing and bowing and carrying on. The man, hoping that finally he will get what he is searching for, asks one of the people (Stan) if they have anything to quench his thirst. Stan claims to have just the thing (although this is almost unintelligible because he keeps babbling on about not being worthy and everything he says rhymes...it is REALLY annoying). Stan continues his caterwauling and grandiose gestures towards a particular spot on the ground where he claims to see an invisible rock. When he sings:
Our rock is an awesome rock
Our rock, is better than a clock
Our rock, will not be mocked
So you better believe in our rock
Finally, Stan looks at the thirsty man points to the spot on the ground where he claims the rock is and says "there ya go".
This is how it all looks to those of us outside the Church, can you blame us for not being terribly impressed with your delusion?
19 Mar 07
Originally posted by TheSkipperNicely done.
Here is why your analogy does not work for me:
God hides the ball and the water does not. When a man is thirsty he knows exactly what he needs (water) and the wise man goes to find some. However, God does not present itself to the thirsty as simple, easy to see, water but water disguised as something else, which is why you need to do all sorts of int ...[text shortened]... outside the Church, can you blame us for not being terribly impressed with your delusion?
I used to think that was a caricature of the original religion, crafted and perpetrated by various religionists themselves—and still do, I guess. But the caricature has become so solid that the original can no longer be found behind it; the caricature cannot be deconstructed (and my efforts at doing so were perhaps all along doomed to failure—though the exercise itself was not unvaluable).
People worship the map, rather than seeking the territory. Though the territory need not be sought: it has never not been right here, in the very entanglement of mind with world.
_________________________________
Pear tree blossoms white
once again
the surrounding thrum of bees—
__________________________________
And once again, I become calm...
19 Mar 07
Originally posted by ballsofsteelArrogance! Thy name is ballsofsteel!
"John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except by means of me.”
The Greek word dia, generally translated as “through,” means here “by means of” or “by way of.” And Jesus is speaking as ho Christos, “the Christ,” the logos tou theou—the logos of God—not in terms of his human person. It is th ...[text shortened]... may have veiled Himself in mystery, but He is not a God of confusion.
More later...
Vistesd, has shown himself to know more about scripture and the religions of the world than almost any person I have ever met, yet if you were to ask him I guarantee he would claim to understand almost nothing.
You, on the other hand, seem to know almost nothing yet claim to understand everything. Not only claim to understand but also, that it is simple.
I would sooner heed the words of the humble man, vistesd, any day of the week than your arrogant and self righteous drivel, you worshiper of a hateful God.
When I walked out of my Church for the last time a couple of months ago I didn’t curse God (why bother, he doesn’t exist) I cursed all the people like you and I curse you now.
I was happy. I loved God and never thought twice about it until you and your ilk arrogantly and hatefully destroyed my faith by claiming to know everything while behaving like buffoons. I eventually could not apologize for you enough, I could not put enough distance between you and my faith. I began to question, I began to do research and slowly but surely I began to realize that behind all the songs, behind all the theology, behind all the pomp and circumstance there is no God (as I dearly hoped there was) there was only more of you. More pious, hateful and spiritually spoiled ignoramus’ who think they are in the middle of a war. You are my hell!
Where is your humility, Christian!?
Where is your love, Christian!?
You run along now and sing psalms about smashing babies heads against rocks all you want; fool.
19 Mar 07
Originally posted by TheSkipperTo be fair, however, Skipper—sometimes the way we present our arguments on here can cause them to be construed as statements of certainty. I am not so innocent in that regard. Sometimes, I think I should preface every post with that quote by Niels Bohr to the effect that all my statements should taken as questions... But I, too, can become quite argumentative...
Arrogance! Thy name is ballsofsteel!
Vistesd, has shown himself to know more about scripture and the religions of the world than almost any person I have ever met, yet if you were to ask him I guarantee he would claim to understand almost nothing.
You, on the other hand, seem to know almost nothing yet claim to understand everything. Not only claim ...[text shortened]...
You run along now and sing psalms about smashing babies heads against rocks all you want; fool.
19 Mar 07
Originally posted by vistesdHa! This is exactly what I should have expected you to say!
To be fair, however, Skipper—sometimes the way we present our arguments on here can cause them to be construed as statements of certainty. I am not so innocent in that regard. Sometimes, I think I should preface every post with that quote by Niels Bohr to the effect that all my statements should taken as questions... But I, too, can become quite argumentative...
You have become predictable in your humility, vistesd. An enviable trait, to be sure.
19 Mar 07
2 edits
Originally posted by vistesd"Okay, so God’s anger burns against the sinfulness of babies still at their mother’s breast, and approves of—nay, inspires—David’s “zealous expression for the wickedness” of those infants, which is a “reflection of the Lord’s.” What an ugly god you create in your idolizing every from David’s mouth as God’s own.
There is no separation between Jesus the Man and Christ the logos of God.
Nor, according to the Definition of Chalcedon, is there any confusion between the two...
And I'm sorry, but your bible exposition is still quite superficial even though you dissect the original Greek; all you are doing is restating the standard interpretation with synon s not your fault. You have simply expressed what you see as the truth. You are not alone.
The ugly God that I created?! I think not. Consider this passage from the New Testament:
"And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth)
It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion" (Romans 9:11-14).
You must understand, as this passage points out, that God's grace does not depend on whether we're good people or not, young or old. Like it or not, He chooses whom He will have compassion upon without respect to persons.
God was right in the first place to condemn Adam's children to die. Under God's Law that is the judgement. And accordingly His grace through Christ is completely unmerited. He was, and is, under no obligation to save anyone.
Why do you accuse me of 'creating' an ugly God? I did no such thing; I merely parrot the scriptures, God's word. Take it up with my Father, don't accuse the messenger. Is there unrighteousness with God? Or, as you put it, Is God an 'ugly' God? Paul says, "God forbid".
Remember, God's ways aren't our ways. Our consciences protest to no avail. God is who He is:
"So it is God who decides to show mercy. We can neither choose it nor work for it.
For the Scriptures say that God told Pharaoh, “I have appointed you for the very purpose of displaying my power in you and to spread my fame throughout the earth.” So you see, God chooses to show mercy to some, and he chooses to harden the hearts of others so they refuse to listen.
Well then, you might say, “Why does God blame people for not responding? Haven’t they simply done what he makes them do?”
No, don’t say that. Who are you, a mere human being, to argue with God? Should the thing that was created say to the one who created it, “Why have you made me like this?” (Romans 9:16-20).
"Your god is beyond redemption. But if your god is the God of the Bible, I will quit my vain searching—my vain attempts to deconstruct the god created by years of encroaching Biblical literalism, with it’s crass acceptance of anthropomorphic projections as being real. That work, which has been mine, is just too hard—when all one really has to do is just walk outside and see the world arrayed before one. One judges the map by its conformance to the territory, not the other way around. Perhaps I, too, have idolized the graven word, even as I have argued against that. Perhaps I too have clung to the idol, as something to struggle against—and in the very act of the struggle, have given the lifeless word and image power that it does not have..."
My advice: don't take yourself so seriously. It's not your responsibility to give God's word life, for the words which God speaks are already 'spirit and life.' Beware of deconstructing the word of God to the point where you lose the forest for the trees.
"Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life" (2 Corinthians 3:5-6)
If you haven't yet received the empowerment of the Holy Spirit, I recommend doing so at your nearest convenience. Only then will you be able to see into God's word with clarity.
19 Mar 07
Originally posted by ballsofsteelMy advice: don't take yourself so seriously.
[b]"Okay, so God’s anger burns against the sinfulness of babies still at their mother’s breast, and approves of—nay, inspires—David’s “zealous expression for the wickedness” of those infants, which is a “reflection of the Lord’s.” What an ugly god you create in your idolizing every from David’s mouth as God’s own.
The ugly God that I crea ...[text shortened]... e. Only then will you be able to see into God's word with clarity.[/b]
Wise advice, that. Seriously. 🙂