|
BigBird
|
 |
« on: July 28, 2003, 10:14:07 PM » |
|
NOTE: Your answer on this poll will in no way change God's mind. So, I was reading Wild at Heart, and came upon something interesting: In an attempt to secure the sovereignty of God, theologians have overstated their case and left us with a chess-player God playing both sides of the board, making all his moves and all ours too. But clearly this is not so. God is a person who takes immense risks. ... So, I don't think God takes risks at all, that's stupid. I don't think scripture suggests this either. What do you all think? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Josh
|
|
« Reply #1 on: July 28, 2003, 10:20:09 PM » |
|
One of many disturbing theological blunders in that book. If God knows everything and has the power to do whatever He wants, how can He POSSIBLY take risks? Totally unbiblical!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
standman87
|
|
« Reply #2 on: July 28, 2003, 10:24:31 PM » |
|
The risk our Father takes is giving humans free-will. He gives us freedom, to either lean on Him or destroy ourselves. God risks letting humans be damned (this is not a bad word if used in context) if they wish to be.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I tried to say the right things in the right way, but simple silence is the only way to conclude my attempt.
Ponderings and then restatements from both sides will cause more of the same.
So remember: Stan, yes, this man, gave his best and is leaving it up to you and Him to do the rest.
Farewell
|
|
|
|
Josh
|
|
« Reply #3 on: July 28, 2003, 10:27:09 PM » |
|
Sounds like God takes some pretty retarded risks, then...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BigBird
|
|
« Reply #4 on: July 28, 2003, 10:29:26 PM » |
|
I would have to disagree. If I have the choice and He has no control in my choice, then I could effectively screw up any of his plans. I could prevent Jesus from returning, in theory.
I quite frankly would have a hard time believing in a God who took stupid risks...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
bloop
|
|
« Reply #5 on: July 29, 2003, 08:08:31 AM » |
|
I would have to disagree. If I have the choice and He has no control in my choice, then I could effectively screw up any of his plans. I could prevent Jesus from returning, in theory.
I quite frankly would have a hard time believing in a God who took stupid risks... I'm pretty hardline on the free-will side, against Calvinism. I don't believe God knows the future in an exhaustive way, but I do know that a mortal can't prevent God from doing what he knows he is going to do. It's like trying to stop a Mac truck with a guppy. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Enjoy our pub. user/pw: thephorum Follow me on Grooveshark or Spotify. username: iceybloop |
|
|
|
Guest
Guest
|
|
« Reply #6 on: July 29, 2003, 08:13:02 AM » |
|
If God created time and is thus outside of it (for God existed before our space-time universe was created), how can He *not* know the future in an exhaustive way?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
oneafroboy
|
|
« Reply #7 on: July 29, 2003, 08:14:30 AM » |
|
Oops, sorry. I fogot to log-in.
(That guest post is mine.)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\"Living your life like you're trapped in a bad rap video is just not that appealing.\"
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #8 on: July 29, 2003, 08:22:27 AM » |
|
A charming simile, bloop.
In the book of Job, God appears to have made something of a bet with the devil. He won (don't bet with God, that's my motto), but the crux of the question is: could He have lost? In other words, did God take a risk by betting on Job?
I am at least half inclined to believe that Job is, at least in part, a mythical story. It sounds more like something you'd find in a pagan legend than the Bible. But assuming that it's true, why would Satan be stupid enough to make a bet with God if he knew that God never takes risks? I mean, it's pretty obvious that someone who thinks he can somehow 'beat' God isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but even an idiot doesn't make a bet he knows he'll lose. So looking at that evidence, it seems to suggest that God takes risks.
God is obviously far smarter than us and even if you don't believe He knows the whole future action by action He's obviously able to see and influence a good deal of it.
We see in the Old Testament some times when God seems to wish that He never created humanity. Fortunately, someone (often Moses) is around to convince Him that it's for the best, but it does seem fairly telling that God would even give the appearance of having second thoughts. I think this, plus the rest of the Bible, indicates that God's greatest risk of all was creating humanity and, as Stanton said, giving us the power to choose.
I guess this is another one of those questions that has its roots in free will/predestination.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
Josh
|
|
« Reply #9 on: July 29, 2003, 10:59:46 AM » |
|
could He have lost? In other words, did God take a risk by betting on Job?
How can you gamble if you can see the future? I personally believe that God knows ALL things, even things that happen in the future, and therefore He can't possibly take a risk, just from a logical standpoint alone. If you don't believe that God is omniscient (like bloop), then you might have a point, but I don't know how to even begin to argue that way. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
Guest
|
|
« Reply #10 on: July 29, 2003, 01:10:52 PM » |
|
Here's how it works if you don't believe God knows the future exhaustively. The answer is both and, kind of.
God takes risks: he gave humans free-will. By doing that, there is the potential for not fulfilling their calling. Many haven't and that saddens God I think.
God doesn't take risks: if he's going to make something happen, there's absolutely nothing a mere mortal (or angels for that matter) can do to stop him.
I don't believe time was a created thing, but that's my opinion. I have my own consistent theology I think.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
bloop
|
|
« Reply #11 on: July 29, 2003, 07:28:53 PM » |
|
^ 'twas me...haha. I forgot to login when I was using my wife's Mac.
I haven't gotten in a good Mac vs. PC battle in a long time...maybe I'll start a thread.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Enjoy our pub. user/pw: thephorum Follow me on Grooveshark or Spotify. username: iceybloop |
|
|
|
BigBird
|
|
« Reply #12 on: July 29, 2003, 09:55:17 PM » |
|
you don't believe God created time? hmm...
interesting
Macs rock!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
bloop
|
|
« Reply #13 on: July 30, 2003, 08:05:47 AM » |
|
you don't believe God created time? hmm...
interesting
Macs rock! "Fitter, happier, more productive." I love Fred. Anyway, I don't see time as a created thing, but it could be. I do think God knows everything that can be known because God's logic far surpasses ours. You've probably heard the comparison to the tree, and that's basically the approach I take. God doesn't know which choice we'll take (the branches), but he knows all the choices (the entire tree), and knows which path he wants us to take right now. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Enjoy our pub. user/pw: thephorum Follow me on Grooveshark or Spotify. username: iceybloop |
|
|
|
DvChWi
|
|
« Reply #14 on: July 30, 2003, 10:42:31 AM » |
|
"Fitter, happier, more productive." I love Fred.
What's this? The voice from "Fitter, Happier" is named Fred? Since when?  Go ahead and start that Mac vs. PC thread, I'm curious about Macs, and it would be educational for me. =D |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Fun facts about Chuck Norris:
Newton's Third Law is wrong: Although it states that for each action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, there is no force equal in reaction to a Chuck Norris roundhouse kick.
Chuck Norris can divide by zero.
Chuck Norris CAN believe it's not butter.
|
|
|
|
Guest
Guest
|
|
« Reply #15 on: July 30, 2003, 03:12:57 PM » |
|
"Fitter, happier, more productive." I love Fred.
What's this? The voice from "Fitter, Happier" is named Fred? Since when? Go ahead and start that Mac vs. PC thread, I'm curious about Macs, and it would be educational for me. =D He's one of those voices in the speech profile, I think slowed down or sped up in places throughout the track. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
leinad
|
|
« Reply #16 on: July 30, 2003, 05:26:42 PM » |
|
In the book of Job, God appears to have made something of a bet with the devil. He won (don't bet with God, that's my motto), but the crux of the question is: could He have lost? In other words, did God take a risk by betting on Job?
I just re-read Job 1-2, and I didn't see any indication that God "bet" on Job. He merely commended him for his righteousness, and when Satan retorted Him, gave Satan permission to inflict harm on Job. God didn't say "No matter what happens to Job, he'll never turn against me." I've heard some commentators express the opinion that the "Satan" in the book of Job is not meant to be the devil, but rather a heavenly angel among the "sons of God" who was doing the job that God created him for; namely, accusing people before Him and putting them to the test (one of the meanings of the Hebrew word "satan" is accuser.) This does sort of make sense, seeing as how he was present among the "sons of God", and there's no clear indication in Job that "Satan" is either an enemy of God or a fallen angel. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 30, 2003, 05:33:30 PM by leinad »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
standman87
|
|
« Reply #17 on: July 30, 2003, 10:13:13 PM » |
|
...
I am at least half inclined to believe that Job is, at least in part, a mythical story. It sounds more like something you'd find in a pagan legend than the Bible.
...
We see in the Old Testament some times when God seems to wish that He never created humanity. Fortunately, someone (often Moses) is around to convince Him that it's for the best, but it does seem fairly telling that God would even give the appearance of having second thoughts. I think this, plus the rest of the Bible, indicates that God's greatest risk of all was creating humanity and, as Stanton said, giving us the power to choose.
I guess this is another one of those questions that has its roots in free will/predestination. :angry: I'm sorry, you hit my pet peeve. Never call one word of the Bible false! I find once you do that, it takes you done a spiral of not believing in any of it. I know you might only be expressing spiritual doubt, but to refer to pagan legend or myth is only justifying your disbelief. And yet you finish by agreeing with my central belief  . Let me correct some of your Biblical insight, not because of my vast knowledge, just because I just read about it. Moses was pleaing with God to stick with Israel instead of wiping them out and then just using Moses' family line as His people. Noah was the one who changed God's mind on totaling destroying humanity - not by plea, but by lifestyle. There is only one Godly risk conceivable by humans. He did not risk His own sovereignty but our eternal situation. The movie Bruce Almighty explains very well, why this freedom to mess-up, the right of choice, is the definition of true love. Why does it seem that every spiritual debate that Josh has seems to root in his firm belief in predestination? I put this in form of a question so that it shall not offend, but only bring light to our differing opinions. Personally I have never doubted that God could see the future, and yet His agreement not to interfere with a human's final choice is His best gift to humankind in disguise. God risks losing humans, to gain some fully. We are not forced to love our Lover; we can embrace that which hates us. If we only make a choice to let Jesus pay, the Spirit come, and God rule over our hearts; God will cover us in love. We do nothing in terms of deeds; we only decide our fate. Let me put it this way: if humans had no choice then why is there life? Why don't we go directly go to Heaven instead of playing mindless games? Why does God create some humans to suffer eternally? Do humans have a purpose? Let me ask you: Is there any hope in predestination? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I tried to say the right things in the right way, but simple silence is the only way to conclude my attempt.
Ponderings and then restatements from both sides will cause more of the same.
So remember: Stan, yes, this man, gave his best and is leaving it up to you and Him to do the rest.
Farewell
|
|
|
|
Josh
|
|
« Reply #18 on: July 30, 2003, 10:22:55 PM » |
|
Why does it seem that every spiritual debate that Josh has seems to root in his firm belief in predestination? I put this in form of a question so that it shall not offend, but only bring light to our differing opinions.
I can't separate my belief in predestination from my more general belief in Christianity. Asking this question is no different from asking me why all my arguments stem from my belief that man is sinful. I see the world through Calvinist-colored glasses. I have no choice but to think in this way. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DvChWi
|
|
« Reply #19 on: July 30, 2003, 10:46:49 PM » |
|
Why does it seem that every spiritual debate that Josh has seems to root in his firm belief in predestination? I put this in form of a question so that it shall not offend, but only bring light to our differing opinions.
I can't separate my belief in predestination from my more general belief in Christianity. Asking this question is no different from asking me why all my arguments stem from my belief that man is sinful. I see the world through Calvinist-colored glasses. I have no choice but to think in this way. I'm the same way. I think that free-will/sovereignty is a very important issue since it affects your viewpoint on so many things. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Fun facts about Chuck Norris:
Newton's Third Law is wrong: Although it states that for each action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, there is no force equal in reaction to a Chuck Norris roundhouse kick.
Chuck Norris can divide by zero.
Chuck Norris CAN believe it's not butter.
|
|
|
|
BigBird
|
|
« Reply #20 on: July 30, 2003, 11:47:06 PM » |
|
There is only one Godly risk conceivable by humans. He did not risk His own sovereignty but our eternal situation. The movie Bruce Almighty explains very well, why this freedom to mess-up, the right of choice, is the definition of true love.
Not true love if it's conditional. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ixoye41
|
|
« Reply #21 on: July 31, 2003, 12:09:25 AM » |
|
well said Standman87...
I cannot for one second think that part of the Bible is untrue or part of a myth or legend. If I began to believe that, who's to say another part of it isn't true and another and another until the whole book is just a fairy tale as many secular scholars would have you believe.
many people frequently point out that you can't take one verse of the Bible to teach a truth, but must instead examine what all of Scripture has to say about it. Well this is the same thing, believe it all or don't believe it at all. Remember that God doesn't like us hanging out in the middle ground when it comes to our faith in Him and His Word. (see Rev 3:16)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
[][
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #22 on: July 31, 2003, 08:25:59 PM » |
|
I just re-read Job 1-2, and I didn't see any indication that God "bet" on Job. He merely commended him for his righteousness, and when Satan retorted Him, gave Satan permission to inflict harm on Job. God didn't say "No matter what happens to Job, he'll never turn against me."
I've heard some commentators express the opinion that the "Satan" in the book of Job is not meant to be the devil, but rather a heavenly angel among the "sons of God" who was doing the job that God created him for; namely, accusing people before Him and putting them to the test (one of the meanings of the Hebrew word "satan" is accuser.) This does sort of make sense, seeing as how he was present among the "sons of God", and there's no clear indication in Job that "Satan" is either an enemy of God or a fallen angel. I have heard that as well, but I see no reason to believe that the Satan in the story is none other than Lucifer himself. The devil's presence in heaven or (if you believe this other theory) a reference to a specific angel we know nothing about both suggest that the story is, in fact, an oral tradition or legend which was put to pen. Which brings me to my next point: I'm sorry, you hit my pet peeve. Never call one word of the Bible false! I find once you do that, it takes you done a spiral of not believing in any of it. I know you might only be expressing spiritual doubt, but to refer to pagan legend or myth is only justifying your disbelief. Ahh, the all-or-none mentality, one of the archetypical extremist fallacies. The Bible does not have to be 100% true to convey God's message. In fact, much of the Old Testament is a history written from the point of view of God's people. Other parts (Job and the first few chapters of Genesis come to mind) suggest more oral tradition that 100% fact. Not that they may not be grounded in truth. Heck, Jesus told parables: they're not true, they just convey or express truth. How do we know that Job is not in fact a parable? I have discussed my views on the inspiration of scripture in-depth in the thread that is devoted to it on this very board, so take a look if you haven't yet condemned me as an outright heretic. I'm the same way. I think that free-will/sovereignty is a very important issue since it affects your viewpoint on so many things I concur. Oh, back to the scripture issue: I cannot for one second think that part of the Bible is untrue or part of a myth or legend. If I began to believe that, who's to say another part of it isn't true and another and another until the whole book is just a fairy tale as many secular scholars would have you believe.
And how can you acknowledge the existance of just one God? I mean, with one, who's to say there's not more and more until you have a whole pantheon crowding in overhead? If a sholar wants to claim the entire Bible is nothing but a fairy tale, he or she should talk to the many other secular scholars and historians who have used the Bible as a valuable historical resource. Belief that the scripture is nothing more than a group of historical and religious documents that have an unfortunate tendency to exaggerate and make stuff up comes from faith. Maybe my faith just isn't a great as yours. Or maybe I'm willing to believe that God could have stuck not-quite-factual accounts in the Bible for a reason--and still acknowledge the veracity of most of it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
bloop
|
|
« Reply #23 on: July 31, 2003, 08:30:29 PM » |
|
I think the way I would have put the same thing is Job could be a philosophical story. It's fiction, but it has a point, and the point is a fundamental truth that needs telling. Job is one of my favorite books: I don't know if it's literal, but it might not be. I have nothing against something being fictional in this way.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Enjoy our pub. user/pw: thephorum Follow me on Grooveshark or Spotify. username: iceybloop |
|
|
|
BigBird
|
|
« Reply #24 on: July 31, 2003, 08:47:39 PM » |
|
yeah, basically Genesis and Revelations are fiction also. Stay tuned for my "List of Books of the Bible that are completely fiction" Yeah, this is a great belief...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
PriestofDasani
|
|
« Reply #25 on: July 31, 2003, 09:51:32 PM » |
|
A charming simile, bloop.
In the book of Job, God appears to have made something of a bet with the devil. He won (don't bet with God, that's my motto), but the crux of the question is: could He have lost? In other words, did God take a risk by betting on Job?
I am at least half inclined to believe that Job is, at least in part, a mythical story. It sounds more like something you'd find in a pagan legend than the Bible. But assuming that it's true, why would Satan be stupid enough to make a bet with God if he knew that God never takes risks? I mean, it's pretty obvious that someone who thinks he can somehow 'beat' God isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but even an idiot doesn't make a bet he knows he'll lose. So looking at that evidence, it seems to suggest that God takes risks.
God is obviously far smarter than us and even if you don't believe He knows the whole future action by action He's obviously able to see and influence a good deal of it.
We see in the Old Testament some times when God seems to wish that He never created humanity. Fortunately, someone (often Moses) is around to convince Him that it's for the best, but it does seem fairly telling that God would even give the appearance of having second thoughts. I think this, plus the rest of the Bible, indicates that God's greatest risk of all was creating humanity and, as Stanton said, giving us the power to choose.
I guess this is another one of those questions that has its roots in free will/predestination. I voted no. Althought I think you have a valid point, why would the devil do anything that he does or has done, it's all stupid. this whole not believing the Bible disturbs me... roots in freewill/predestination... Or maybe we just make it that. Anyhow... If you don't know what I just said, ignore it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
bloop
|
|
« Reply #26 on: July 31, 2003, 11:36:00 PM » |
|
I'm not saying "Job" didn't literally happen. I'm saying that the book tends toward the philosophical questioning that a fictional story would do well to illustrate. Would you consider the parables of Christ to be fiction or nonfiction? Was Jesus lying, then, if the stories never really happened? Then, is it out of the realm of possibility that an entire book of the Bible is parabolic? I don't think so, and I make no stronger statement than that. Job might be real, he might not, either way the book about him is TRUTH.
Oh, and Genesis and (especially) Revelation could be thought of as metaphorical nonfiction - which is fiction from a certain literalistic pov (unless you believe in all of the creatures of Revelation literally exist). Revelation is very obviously metaphorical, Genesis could be in parts, depending on whether you talk to a Creation scientist or a Christian evolutionary scientist.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 31, 2003, 11:40:41 PM by bloop »
|
Logged
|
Enjoy our pub. user/pw: thephorum Follow me on Grooveshark or Spotify. username: iceybloop |
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #27 on: August 01, 2003, 10:23:17 AM » |
|
I never said that Job (for example) was unworthy of reading or learning from just because it might be an allegory, a fable, or just plain mythical. I don't think Jesus was lying when He told parables. And it's not really germane to the point at hand, anyway.
Nathaniel: the reason I provided the example about Satan is that it seems that even though his actions seem to be foolish, he appears to have his own sort of rationale backing it up. So I don't think he'd make a bet (more on this in a minute) that he knew he'd lose. So either the story is made to illustrate a point or he thought he at least had a chance of proving God wrong.
Ok, someone said that it wasn't really a bet. I can't find it now, so sorry for the lack of quotage.
It wasn't really a bet in the traditional sense. God didn't really wager anything, and He didn't even say 'I bet you can't do this.' But Satan was, in effect, performing an experiment which he believed would turn out one way and God believed would turn out another way. Why experiment when you already know the outcome?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
bloop
|
|
« Reply #28 on: August 01, 2003, 03:38:01 PM » |
|
I never said that Job (for example) was unworthy of reading or learning from just because it might be an allegory, a fable, or just plain mythical. I don't think Jesus was lying when He told parables. And it's not really germane to the point at hand, anyway. If all form of fiction are not appropriate for being part of Scripture, then the parables of Jesus are indeed a relevant point as they were merely stories to convey a spiritual reality. We don't know if they really happened to someone, in the way that Jesus described, and it isn't important. The point Jesus was trying to make is all that matters to them, not the factual nature of the stories. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Enjoy our pub. user/pw: thephorum Follow me on Grooveshark or Spotify. username: iceybloop |
|
|
|
standman87
|
|
« Reply #29 on: August 01, 2003, 10:12:41 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I tried to say the right things in the right way, but simple silence is the only way to conclude my attempt.
Ponderings and then restatements from both sides will cause more of the same.
So remember: Stan, yes, this man, gave his best and is leaving it up to you and Him to do the rest.
Farewell
|
|
|
|
Josh
|
|
« Reply #30 on: August 01, 2003, 10:24:00 PM » |
|
He did not risk His own sovereignty but our eternal situation. Well THAT sure is loving. Frankly, if God's going to gamble, I rather wish he'd do it with something other than my soul... This true love is not conditional. Isn't that what BigBird said, too? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
standman87
|
|
« Reply #31 on: August 01, 2003, 10:30:05 PM » |
|
Well THAT sure is loving. Frankly, if God's going to gamble, I rather wish he'd do it with something other than my soul...
Isn't that what BigBird said, too? Without this gamble, there is no life. Otherwise you are just like an angel that is to serve the Lord without any choice. Not at all, Josh. You are mistaken. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I tried to say the right things in the right way, but simple silence is the only way to conclude my attempt.
Ponderings and then restatements from both sides will cause more of the same.
So remember: Stan, yes, this man, gave his best and is leaving it up to you and Him to do the rest.
Farewell
|
|
|
|
Josh
|
|
« Reply #32 on: August 01, 2003, 10:37:19 PM » |
|
Without this gamble, there is no life. Actually, no. With this gamble, there is quite literally no life for a whole bunch of people who make a poor choice and receive no help from God. Sorry, I just don't see your standpoint showing a very loving God at all. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
standman87
|
|
« Reply #33 on: August 01, 2003, 10:57:37 PM » |
|
Actually, no. With this gamble, there is quite literally no life for a whole bunch of people who make a poor choice and receive no help from God.
Sorry, I just don't see your standpoint showing a very loving God at all. Same with Calvinism - the un-elect live to die. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I tried to say the right things in the right way, but simple silence is the only way to conclude my attempt.
Ponderings and then restatements from both sides will cause more of the same.
So remember: Stan, yes, this man, gave his best and is leaving it up to you and Him to do the rest.
Farewell
|
|
|
|
BigBird
|
|
« Reply #34 on: August 01, 2003, 10:58:43 PM » |
|
a sheep is a sheep
and a goat is a goat
nowhere have i seen Jesus talking about goats transforming into sheep or vice versa...
God keeps His sheep, and goes out and grabs His lost sheep and brings them back to the heard. God loves every last one of his sheep.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Josh
|
|
« Reply #35 on: August 01, 2003, 11:02:32 PM » |
|
Same with Calvinism - the un-elect live to die.
Yes. God says this in Romans when He tells us that certain people were dreated simply to eventually be destoryed! God doesn't love these people as He loves His children. Good words from David, by the way. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
bloop
|
|
« Reply #36 on: August 02, 2003, 12:13:25 AM » |
|
There's something I don't like about the sheep/goat metaphor being applied in such a literal way. I can't put my finger on it, so I'll get a good night's sleep and then explain why I think it is a faulty application.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Enjoy our pub. user/pw: thephorum Follow me on Grooveshark or Spotify. username: iceybloop |
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #37 on: August 02, 2003, 08:32:27 PM » |
|
If all form of fiction are not appropriate for being part of Scripture, then the parables of Jesus are indeed a relevant point as they were merely stories to convey a spiritual reality. We don't know if they really happened to someone, in the way that Jesus described, and it isn't important. The point Jesus was trying to make is all that matters to them, not the factual nature of the stories. Since the point at hand is God taking risks, that's what I am referring to--I'm not saying that Jesus' parables are not relevant to the discussion of scripture. Well THAT sure is loving. Frankly, if God's going to gamble, I rather wish he'd do it with something other than my soul...
God isn't gambling with our souls, He's allowing US to gamble with them. dreated simply to eventually be destoryed! I would hate to be dreated to be destoryed. Seriously, though, I firmly believe that part of love is allowing the person you love to make their own decisions. I myself don't see a God who toys with man, creating some who He hates regardless of what they do as being loving in the least. I don't think the "which God is more loving" game is one which has much merit, but I'll play if you will. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
Josh
|
|
« Reply #38 on: August 02, 2003, 08:36:19 PM » |
|
I don't think the "which God is more loving" game is one which has much merit, but I'll play if you will.
You're probably right, about that and about my typo. Really, I think the only good way to debate this kind of thing is with Scripture, which we haven't done much on this thread, so this whole thing is going nowhere fast, in my opinion.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #39 on: August 02, 2003, 08:39:46 PM » |
|
I've tried to address some scriptural points that have been brought up, but I admit that I haven't been introducing any new scriptures of my own. Once I'm on a desktop (I'm using leinad's laptop at present, and although I appreciate his courtesy in letting me use it, my fingers are too fat for the keyboard) I'll try to bring in more scripture for us to discuss.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
Poll
