Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Does God ---- Do unto others?

GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 3:01:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Does God ---- Do unto others?

There are many instances in scriptures where God does not follow the golden rule.

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

In the sacrifice of Jesus, God demanded that Jesus bear the sins of the wicked who will repent.

This is hardly doing unto others or following the advice of scriptures.
----------------------------------
Matthew 25:41 (Jesus speaking): Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

Romans 12:21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Hell can hardly be called a good thing. This again is hardly Jesus doing unto others or following the advice of scriptures.
-----------------------------------

Does the God you know follow the golden rule?

How can he be doing so when a good God would find a good and moral way to convert instead the draconian methods he seems to use that go against the golden rule and his own good advice in his scriptures?

Regards
DL
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 4:24:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 3:01:38 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
Does God ---- Do unto others?

There are many instances in scriptures where God does not follow the golden rule.

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Its a legal context. All it is saying is that one's acts of wickedness will not be legally attributed to a righteous man. This is not the same as penal substitutionary atonement. Ezekiel is referring to the injustice of a righteous man being legally punished for the wicked. The difference being a matter of willingness and divine prerogative. In one sense you have a righteous man being punished for the wicked and in the other sense you have a righteous man laying himself down for the wicked.

In the sacrifice of Jesus, God demanded that Jesus bear the sins of the wicked who will repent.

Your statement is not exactly accurate. God ordained that Jesus bear the sins of the wicked who 'would believe in him' that will result in repentance, which Jesus did willingly. The condition is not in repentance but in faith that results in repentance. In-seperatable yet distinguishable.

This is hardly doing unto others or following the advice of scriptures.

Jesus willingly does the will of the Father. If the Father wills that man be atoned for by the blood of Christ (which according to scripture is the only way man could have been atoned for) then Christ willingly does so. Your comparing apples with oranges ;-)
----------------------------------
Matthew 25:41 (Jesus speaking): Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

Romans 12:21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Hell can hardly be called a good thing. This again is hardly Jesus doing unto others or following the advice of scriptures.

What is 'good'? Hell is a place where the unjust are punished justly for their sin. What would be more good: to punish evil doing, or let evil go unpunished? Legally the 'good' thing to do would be to punish the evil doing. If a judge let evil people go without punishment then the judge him/her self would be evil.
-----------------------------------

Does the God you know follow the golden rule?

Yes, i would say He goes even further. God not only gives justice to the wicked but because of Christ He gives mercy to who He gives mercy. That's a little bit more then the golden rule, eh?

How can he be doing so when a good God would find a good and moral way to convert instead the draconian methods he seems to use that go against the golden rule and his own good advice in his scriptures?

I can't agree that God uses Draconian methods on Judgement day. The difference is: Draconian is man to man infringements of law while judgement on Judgement day will consider man to God infringements. As for Jesus, his sacrifice does not fit draconian methods because he did not break the law and instead willingly laid down his life for those who did. Now a lot of the OT laws could be viewed as Draconian but I personally can understand why they existed when examined in the context of the era and the religion/culture.

Regards
DL

I know I've asked this before but i don't recall getting a response. What's DL mean?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 7:25:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"... A God who could make good children as easily as bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it; who gave his angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body; who mouths justice and invented hell - mouths mercy and invented hell - mouths Golden Rules, and forgiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell; who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him!" - Mark Twain
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 7:47:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 4:24:35 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 1/23/2012 3:01:38 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
Does God ---- Do unto others?

There are many instances in scriptures where God does not follow the golden rule.

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Its a legal context. All it is saying is that one's acts of wickedness will not be legally attributed to a righteous man. This is not the same as penal substitutionary atonement. Ezekiel is referring to the injustice of a righteous man being legally punished for the wicked. The difference being a matter of willingness and divine prerogative. In one sense you have a righteous man being punished for the wicked and in the other sense you have a righteous man laying himself down for the wicked.

In the sacrifice of Jesus, God demanded that Jesus bear the sins of the wicked who will repent.

Your statement is not exactly accurate. God ordained that Jesus bear the sins of the wicked who 'would believe in him' that will result in repentance, which Jesus did willingly. The condition is not in repentance but in faith that results in repentance. In-seperatable yet distinguishable.

This is hardly doing unto others or following the advice of scriptures.

Jesus willingly does the will of the Father. If the Father wills that man be atoned for by the blood of Christ (which according to scripture is the only way man could have been atoned for) then Christ willingly does so. Your comparing apples with oranges ;-)
----------------------------------
Matthew 25:41 (Jesus speaking): Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

Romans 12:21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Hell can hardly be called a good thing. This again is hardly Jesus doing unto others or following the advice of scriptures.

What is 'good'? Hell is a place where the unjust are punished justly for their sin. What would be more good: to punish evil doing, or let evil go unpunished? Legally the 'good' thing to do would be to punish the evil doing. If a judge let evil people go without punishment then the judge him/her self would be evil.
-----------------------------------

Does the God you know follow the golden rule?

Yes, i would say He goes even further. God not only gives justice to the wicked but because of Christ He gives mercy to who He gives mercy. That's a little bit more then the golden rule, eh?

How can he be doing so when a good God would find a good and moral way to convert instead the draconian methods he seems to use that go against the golden rule and his own good advice in his scriptures?

I can't agree that God uses Draconian methods on Judgement day. The difference is: Draconian is man to man infringements of law while judgement on Judgement day will consider man to God infringements. As for Jesus, his sacrifice does not fit draconian methods because he did not break the law and instead willingly laid down his life for those who did. Now a lot of the OT laws could be viewed as Draconian but I personally can understand why they existed when examined in the context of the era and the religion/culture.

Regards
DL

I know I've asked this before but i don't recall getting a response. What's DL mean?

There is so much twisted in your brain I do not know where to start.

You indicate Jesus had to die.
B S.

Check this link. on the blood you crave.

You indicate that there is some kind of justice in substitutionry atonement just because some innocent fool wants to die. B S
Forced or volunteer makes no difference.

Listen to these clips. These people have morals that you migh bring into your own heart.

You are trying to suggest that if a soldier throws himself on a grenade for his friends than he is a hereo. I would agree with that but in this case, God set all the conditions for the murder of his son. He threw the grenade himself and then told his son to lay on it. Insanity.

It was God's plan from the beginning to have Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the bible says that Jesus "was crucified from the foundations of the Earth," that is to say, God planned to crucify Jesus as atonement for sin before he even created human beings or God damned sin.

If God had not intended humans to sin from the beginning, why did he build into the Creation this "solution" for sin? Why create a solution for a problem you do not anticipate?

God knew that the moment he said "don't eat from that tree," the die was cast. The eating was inevitable. Eve was merely following the plan.

What kind of God would plan and execute the murder of his own son when there was absolutely no need to?

Only an insane God. That's who.

The cornerstone of Christianity is human sacrifice, thus showing it‘s immorality.

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2012 7:52:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 7:25:10 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
"... A God who could make good children as easily as bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it; who gave his angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body; who mouths justice and invented hell - mouths mercy and invented hell - mouths Golden Rules, and forgiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell; who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him!" - Mark Twain

You could do worse than Mark Twain.

He had a well developed moral sense and knew what evil looked like.

Regards
DL
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2012 1:04:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There is so much twisted in your brain I do not know where to start.

You indicate Jesus had to die.
B S.

Check this link. on the blood you crave.



You indicate that there is some kind of justice in substitutionry atonement just because some innocent fool wants to die. B S
Forced or volunteer makes no difference.

Listen to these clips. These people have morals that you migh bring into your own heart.

I have seen those videos at one time and another. First I would like to point out that the girly dudes argument is nothing new.

"Every theological question has behind it a history of study, and narrow eccentricity in handling it is unavoidable unless the history is taken into account. Adverse comment on the concept of penal substitution often betrays narrow eccentricity or this kind. The two main historical points relating to this idea are, first, that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Melanchthon and their reforming contemporaries were the pioneers in stating it and, second, that the arguments brought against it in 1578 by the Unitarian Pelagian, Faustus Socinus, in his brilliant polemic De Jesu Christo Servatore (Of Jesus Christ the Saviour)1 have been central in discussion of it ever since. What the Reformers did was to redefine satisfactio (satisfaction), the main mediaeval category for thought about the cross. Anselm's Cur Deus Homo?, which largely determined the mediaeval development, saw Christ's satisfactio for our sins as the offering of compensation or damages for dishonour done, but the Reformers saw it as the undergoing of vicarious punishment (poena) to meet the claims on us of God's holy law and wrath (i.e. his punitive justice). What Socinus did was to arraign this idea as irrational, incoherent, immoral and impossible. Giving pardon, he argued, does not square with taking satisfaction, nor does the transferring of punishment from the guilty to the innocent square with justice; nor is the temporary death of one a true substitute for the eternal death of many; and a perfect substitutionary satisfaction, could such a thing be, would necessarily confer on us unlimited permission to continua in sin. Socinus' alternative account of New Testament soteriology, based on the axiom that God forgives without requiring any satisfaction save the repentance which makes us forgivable, was evasive and unconvincing, and had little influence. But his classic critique proved momentous: it held the attention of all exponents of the Reformation view for more than a century, and created a tradition of rationalistic prejudice against that view which has effectively shaped debate about it right down to our own day."
http://the-highway.com...

To be specific the objection of penal substitutionary atonement being immoral is nothing new as I demonstrated above. I would like to point out that many of the theories for atonement he points out have been brought up in the church to eventualy be considered false (ecumenically) and I will explain why. They are:
-The Governmental Theory
A.This says that God did not have to require a payment for sinners and that God could have forgiven people simply by choosing to do so, without any payment of penalty. If this is so, then why did Christ need to die at all? This means that Christ made no payment and did not die for anyone's sins.
-The Moral Influence View
A.This says that God did not need a payment for breaking his law and that the death of Christ was an example of how much God loved us. Peter Abelard (1079-1142) held this position. This view fails to take into account the many verses that speak of Jesus dying for our sins.
-The Example Theory
A.also denies that God requires a payment for breaking his law and Christ's death on the cross was an example of how we should trust God completely, even to the point of death. This theory also fails to deal with the many Scriptures speak of Christ dying for sin.
-Ransom Theory
A.This theory holds that the price that Jesus paid was made to Satan. The problem with this view is that there is no scriptural basis for it. This view was held by Origen (185-254). This theory mistakenly assumes that we are to be ransomed from Satan. But the truth is that we have broken God's law and it is to God that a payment must be made. Furthermore, there are no references in the Bible that we were ransomed from the devil. Instead, the sacrifice was made to God.

Claiming penal substitutionary atonement immoral is misunderstanding the Biblical revelation. I also would note theologically PSA should not be incoprated in human judicial systems and never was considered to have been.

"Rationalistic criticism since Socinus has persistently called in question both the so1idarity on which substitution is based and the need for penal satisfaction as a basis for forgiveness. This, however, is ‘naturalistic' criticism, which assumes that what man could not do or would not require God will not do or require either. Such criticism is profoundly perverse, for it shrinks God the Creator into the image of man the creature and loses sight of the paradoxical quality of the gospel of which the New Testament is so clearly aware. (When man justifies the wicked, it is a miscarriage of justice which God hates, but when God justifies the ungodly it is a miracle of grace for us to adore [Prov, 17:15; Rom. 4:5].) The way to stand against naturalistic theology is to keep in view its reductionist method which makes man the standard for God; to stress that according to Scripture the Creator and his work are of necessity mysterious to us, even as revealed (to make this point is the proper logical task of the word ‘supernatural' in theology); and to remember that what is above reason is not necessari1y against it. As regards the atonement, the appropriate response to the Socinian critique starts by laying down that all our understanding of the cross comes from attending to the biblical witnesses and learning to hear and echo what they say about it; speculative rationalism breeds only misunderstanding, nothing more."
http://the-highway.com...

I will address the rest in a seperate post.





You are trying to suggest that if a soldier throws himself on a grenade for his friends than he is a hereo. I would agree with that but in this case, God set all the conditions for the murder of his son. He threw the grenade himself and then told his son to lay on it. Insanity.

It was God's plan from the beginning to have Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the bible says that Jesus "was crucified from the foundations of the Earth," that is to say, God planned to crucify Jesus as atonement for sin before he even created human beings or God damned sin.

If God had not intended humans to sin from the beginning, why did he build into the Creation this "solution" for sin? Why create a solution for a problem you do not anticipate?

God knew that the moment he said "don't eat from that tree," the die was cast. The eating was inevitable. Eve was merely following the plan.

What kind of God would plan and execute the murder of his own son when there was absolutely no need to?

Only an insane God. That's who.

The cornerstone of Christianity is human sacrifice, thus showing it‘s immorality.

Regards
DL
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2012 1:39:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You are trying to suggest that if a soldier throws himself on a grenade for his friends than he is a hereo. I would agree with that but in this case, God set all the conditions for the murder of his son. He threw the grenade himself and then told his son to lay on it. Insanity.

You make a great case. But it is nothing new nor anything I have not heard before. There have been a few theories on why an omni-being would create the reality we live in. The Bible specifically does not give much in revelation. One in particular that has kinda stuck with me is that He created a reality that would most demonstrate His attributes or character (just, holy, love, ect.).

It was God's plan from the beginning to have Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the bible says that Jesus "was crucified from the foundations of the Earth," that is to say, God planned to crucify Jesus as atonement for sin before he even created human beings or God damned sin.

Yes, it was ordained. Excuse me for posting a link to a cached youtube video but I am behind a firewall and it is the only way I can.

http://74.6.238.254/search/srpcache?ei=UTF-8&p=did+god+ordain+the+fall+you+tube&vm=r&fr=yfp-t-701&u=http://cc.bingj.com...--

If God had not intended humans to sin from the beginning, why did he build into the Creation this "solution" for sin? Why create a solution for a problem you do not anticipate?

God omnisciently anticipated the fall. He ordained it! He did not coerce man nor did He chose to stop man so in essance He chose to let man act freely effectually ordaining it.

God knew that the moment he said "don't eat from that tree," the die was cast. The eating was inevitable. Eve was merely following the plan.

He knew that man would fall before He created ever a tree. She was ordained to eat from the fruit, not to be confused with coerced.

What kind of God would plan and execute the murder of his own son when there was absolutely no need to?

Only an insane God. That's who.

Or, you can take a Biblical understanding of the fall:

God did not coerce Adam to commit sin and fall, but he certainly ordained it. Even an Arminian who thinks that God merely allowed the fall, must admit that before God created the world he already knew what the future would be, and so it was within his Providence for such events to take place, for he could just have easily decided to prevent the fall...but He didn't. But we believe that while God did not make man sin coersively he certainly ordained such events to occur. Consider that if God did not decree the fall then evil is something completely outside His sovereign control ... If evil came into the universe by surprise for God, totally apart from His providence, then there are some things He does not know or things He is powerless over and therefore God would, by definition, lack omniscience and omnipotence. And then how do we know whether He will be able to defeat evil in the future if evil is outside God's control even though the Scripture plainly says that God ordains all events that come to pass (Eph 1:11).

As for how it could be that God decreed the fall. Obviously it is ultimately for His glory. In it He showed to the angels and all creation His manifest wisdom, justice and mercy and all of His perfections. He does not operate people like puppets. Adam freely chose to rebel ... God did not coerce him... and now fallen men freely choose to reject Christ, apart from grace. You ask, how could God ordain evil? Well, let me give you a clear biblical example which shows that he does, so you don't think I am just blowing smoke.

Consider that Christ's crucifixion was a certainty which God planed in eternity and prophesied would come to pass in the Old Testament. But also consider that men would freely choose to crucify the Son of God. See Acts 2:23 which brings the two together -- "this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death." This concurrent series of events taking place simultaneously is called compatibilism, which is how the Scriptures really answer this question.

So God foreordained the most evil event in history, the crucifixion, yet He lays blame for it completely on the choice of godless men, according to this passage. You must embrace the teaching in the Scriptures that God ordained an innocent man's death at the hands of sinners, yet they freely did so because they wanted to. You may not understand how God works in such a way without coercion, but you must submit to the fact the the Holy Scripture, through and through, teaches this quite matter-of-factly. Why does God do this? Well, for one, after the crucifixion event we now begin to understand that Christ did this for the good of His people, though we may not have seen it at the time. Prior to His execution, the disciples were told by Jesus, "you do not now understand what I am doing" and even Peter tried to dissuade Him. However, God used evil for good and did so blamelessly.
http://www.monergism.com...

In which case God is not insane, but instead desires to make Himself known. To glory in His own glory.

The cornerstone of Christianity is human sacrifice, thus showing it‘s immorality.

I would say your comparing apples with oranges again.

Regards
DL

Whats DL mean?
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2012 3:59:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"In which case God is not insane, but instead desires to make Himself known. To glory in His own glory."

This says it all.
God's only purpose is sel-aggrandizement for his own glory.
Murdering those he loves including his own son is just a part of it.

One has to wonder when all this desire for glory began in a God who is not supposed to change and why he waited so long.
It sounds so much like what humans who invented God would come up with.

Regards
DL

P.S. DL is my real initials.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2012 4:04:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/25/2012 3:59:13 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
"In which case God is not insane, but instead desires to make Himself known. To glory in His own glory."

This says it all.
God's only purpose is sel-aggrandizement for his own glory.
Murdering those he loves including his own son is just a part of it.

One has to wonder when all this desire for glory began in a God who is not supposed to change and why he waited so long.
It sounds so much like what humans who invented God would come up with.

Regards
DL

P.S. DL is my real initials.

This was a very astute post.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2012 4:25:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/25/2012 3:59:13 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
"In which case God is not insane, but instead desires to make Himself known. To glory in His own glory."

This says it all.
God's only purpose is sel-aggrandizement for his own glory.
Murdering those he loves including his own son is just a part of it.

God has mercy on who He has mercy.

Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
Romans 9

selfaggrandizement implies ruthlessness. He is no more ruthless then a judge convicting a criminal of his/her crime.

One has to wonder when all this desire for glory began in a God who is not supposed to change and why he waited so long.

There is no property of time in eternity. Hence, waiting would be problematic.

It sounds so much like what humans who invented God would come up with.

Why? If I could come up with a god it would be nothing like the God the the Bible. at all... I take comfort that God is beyond my reasoning.

Regards
DL

P.S. DL is my real initials.

Ty

Oh! and the first video I had never seen before. I FREAKING LOVE that they quoted from Carm.org! and twice!
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 5:46:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/25/2012 4:04:39 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/25/2012 3:59:13 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
"In which case God is not insane, but instead desires to make Himself known. To glory in His own glory."

This says it all.
God's only purpose is sel-aggrandizement for his own glory.
Murdering those he loves including his own son is just a part of it.

One has to wonder when all this desire for glory began in a God who is not supposed to change and why he waited so long.
It sounds so much like what humans who invented God would come up with.

Regards
DL

P.S. DL is my real initials.

This was a very astute post.

Thank you.

Regards
DL
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 5:57:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/25/2012 4:25:00 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 1/25/2012 3:59:13 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
"In which case God is not insane, but instead desires to make Himself known. To glory in His own glory."

This says it all.
God's only purpose is sel-aggrandizement for his own glory.
Murdering those he loves including his own son is just a part of it.

God has mercy on who He has mercy.

Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
Romans 9

selfaggrandizement implies ruthlessness. He is no more ruthless then a judge convicting a criminal of his/her crime.

One has to wonder when all this desire for glory began in a God who is not supposed to change and why he waited so long.

There is no property of time in eternity. Hence, waiting would be problematic.

It sounds so much like what humans who invented God would come up with.

Why? If I could come up with a god it would be nothing like the God the the Bible. at all... I take comfort that God is beyond my reasoning.

Regards
DL

P.S. DL is my real initials.

Ty

Oh! and the first video I had never seen before. I FREAKING LOVE that they quoted from Carm.org! and twice!

bump
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 5:59:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/25/2012 4:25:00 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 1/25/2012 3:59:13 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
"In which case God is not insane, but instead desires to make Himself known. To glory in His own glory."

This says it all.
God's only purpose is sel-aggrandizement for his own glory.
Murdering those he loves including his own son is just a part of it.

God has mercy on who He has mercy.

Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

Has the clay pot who is bound for etrnal flame and torture for leaking have the right to ask the potter why he made him to leak when he hates leaks?

Romans 9

selfaggrandizement implies ruthlessness. He is no more ruthless then a judge convicting a criminal of his/her crime.


Except that this judge put all the pieces in place and planned the crime.

One has to wonder when all this desire for glory began in a God who is not supposed to change and why he waited so long.

There is no property of time in eternity. Hence, waiting would be problematic.

And you know this as a fact, how?

If there is no time there, then since thinking needs time, your God cannot think or even think of returning to be your security blanket.



It sounds so much like what humans who invented God would come up with.

Why? If I could come up with a god it would be nothing like the God the the Bible. at all... I take comfort that God is beyond my reasoning.

Yes. I can see that'

Do you also vote for a political party that you cannot understand?



Regards
DL

P.S. DL is my real initials.

Ty

Oh! and the first video I had never seen before. I FREAKING LOVE that they quoted from Carm.org! and twice!

Yes. Idiocy should be repeated so that the foolish will understand things.

Regards
DL
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 7:20:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/26/2012 5:59:46 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 1/25/2012 4:25:00 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 1/25/2012 3:59:13 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
"In which case God is not insane, but instead desires to make Himself known. To glory in His own glory."

This says it all.
God's only purpose is sel-aggrandizement for his own glory.
Murdering those he loves including his own son is just a part of it.

God has mercy on who He has mercy.

Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

Has the clay pot who is bound for etrnal flame and torture for leaking have the right to ask the potter why he made him to leak when he hates leaks?

The language in Romans is deep. Terms like Hardening can be interpreted to mean that God is the 'active' cause in a man choosing to sin but this is not consistent with scripture. To harden all God needs to do is remove any influence of Himself to that individual in process the individually hardens himself. In the same aspect God ordains that man will fall while at the same time not being the author of mans fall. This is the difference between Calvinism and -hyper Calvinism. That fact that you cannot differentiate this makes your following comments a straw man.

Romans 9

selfaggrandizement implies ruthlessness. He is no more ruthless then a judge convicting a criminal of his/her crime.


Except that this judge put all the pieces in place and planned the crime.

Straw man

One has to wonder when all this desire for glory began in a God who is not supposed to change and why he waited so long.

There is no property of time in eternity. Hence, waiting would be problematic.

And you know this as a fact, how?

Because a 'forever-ness' that has time is called sempiternity. In context you were referring to God before creation, aka eternity. from wiki:
Theists say that God is eternally existent. How this is understood depends on which definition of eternity is used. On one hand, God may exist in eternity, a timeless existence where categories of past, present, and future just do not apply. On the other hand, God will exist for or through eternity, or at all times, having already existed for an infinite amount of time and continuing to exist for an infinite amount of time. One other definition states that God exists outside the human concept of time, but also inside of time.

None of those definitions can be interpreted as sempiternity.

If there is no time there, then since thinking needs time, your God cannot think or even think of returning to be your security blanket.

Are you familiar with decrees determined logically from eternity? Infralapsarinaism/supralapsarianism? Decrees cannot be made from eternity? Can you prove that? You can study eternity and make observational facts? If your going to argue with something non falsifiable you may as well argue it with its proper understanding.

It sounds so much like what humans who invented God would come up with.

Why? If I could come up with a god it would be nothing like the God the the Bible. at all... I take comfort that God is beyond my reasoning.

Yes. I can see that'

Do you also vote for a political party that you cannot understand?


No I would not. But what God has revealed inscripture I do understand and would 'vote' on it lolz.

Regards
DL

P.S. DL is my real initials.

Ty

Oh! and the first video I had never seen before. I FREAKING LOVE that they quoted from Carm.org! and twice!

Yes. Idiocy should be repeated so that the foolish will understand things.

Regards
DL


fail
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 9:31:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/27/2012 7:16:19 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
Epic fail.



Regards
DL

Bait and switch again? I don't have time for this. My response to your 'unbaised' lollz video is in another post. Later.

Regards
ZJ
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 10:47:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/27/2012 9:31:26 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 1/27/2012 7:16:19 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
Epic fail.



Regards
DL

Bait and switch again? I don't have time for this. My response to your 'unbaised' lollz video is in another post. Later.

Regards
ZJ

Why bother?

You have nothing to teach me and you do not want to learn.

You waste you time .

Regards
DL