1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyYou have not addressed my question about a Native American living in the 1200s. I claim that not only did your deity fail to give them the gospel message, but also had some European asked Him in prayer to do such a thing for anybody who might hypothetically be living on that side of the Atlantic, there would have been no carry-through on it.
Incorrect to insert "only inclined"; no unbeliever is dependent on another person's prayer. It's a cop out to assume so.
Bob, look how far apart we are on basic things like this!
Bob: "God doesn't even have to be asked to get the gospel to individuals. He will take the incentive to do it without anybody even bothering to ask."
Paul: "Not only did God refuse to get the gospel message to native Americans on His own accord, He also would have failed to do so had any Christians of that era asked Him to."
4 edits
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyOkay, I'm inclined to grant you that in this hypothetical case, set in modern America you have laid out a plausible case for your deity. But please see my post immediately above.
Paul, a loving Christian daughter doesn't delay until the 11th Hour to pray for an unbeliever father when he's about to expire. Nonetheless, let's ride the hypothetical one more mile. Would it be within the realm of possibility and probability that she had witnessed to Dad before and that he said, "Nah. I don't buy that crap. Besides, I'm not in control of my volition"?
Anyway, sticking with the modern-era hypothetical, do you think Rev. Hagee's advice has any merit whatsoever? Also, if you pray for the gospel to get to any small tribe living in the jungle of Papua that cannot yet be reached by "natural means" (missionaries with Bibles in jeeps or swinging machetes or whatever), do you have any confidence whatsoever that God will supernaturally give them the gospel? For instance, He could make a rubber plant in their village start reading out loud the gospel in their native language. If you laugh at this thought, it shows how you modern believers have shed the supernaturalism of Bible times.
1 edit
Originally posted by vivifyWell, let me think about this a little more. Certainly, if the God claims that I have mentioned so far are true, then God knew at creation which children would be raped. He knew who would rape them.
God also knew which children will be victims of rape. Does that mean God had determined this fate for those children?
But it is not clear how much ability God has to change these details at the moment of creation. Not being gods ourselves, we do not know what kinds of worlds are possible to create.
Now, God certainly could intervene later and stop the rapist. But - that would no longer be predestination.
So, I'm going to pull back on my previous claim somewhat. God knew that his creation would cause a number of awful things to happen, including souls going to hell and children getting raped. But - it is not clear that he predestined those things to happen.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, even an omnipotent and omniscient has some limits. Like not being able to do things that aren't logically possible. Do I view it as likely that God couldn't create a world with far less suffering in it, by adjusting certain variables in the design? No. I don't think that's likely at all. But I can't be sure.
Originally posted by Paul Dirac IIWorld religions in some way all connect themselves to the moon. A world religion based in Arabia displays the crescent moon above their meeting places. Paganism holds their religious festivals on the day of full moons. Other ancient world religions hold their festivals on the day of the new moons. Those who hold to Eastern mystical notions, yin and yang, identify with the waxing and waning moon as the symbol of wisdom. Just as the Moon produces tides in the oceans, raising the seas as it circles the earth, through religion Satan controls and influences the lives of billions of people on this planet.
What are your thoughts, knowing that if a billion Muslims are correct, your rejection of Allah and his prophet Muhammad means you are going to miss out on their Paradise and their virgins?
I lose as much sleep over one thought as the other--which is to say, very little.
Bottom of page 4: http://biblenumbers.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/moon-religion2.pdf
I wouldn't trust Mohammed he didn't die/pay/Sacrifice for our sins like Jesus did!
1 edit
Originally posted by Paul Dirac IIPaul, for the sake of unified focus, please consolidate your several still unanswered questions in a single reply. Thanks.
Okay, I'm inclined to grant you that in this hypothetical case, set in modern America you have laid out a plausible case for your deity. But please see my post immediately above.
Anyway, sticking with the modern-era hypothetical, do you think Rev. Hagee's advice has any merit whatsoever? Also, if you pray for the gospel to get to any small tribe liv ...[text shortened]... at this thought, it shows how you modern believers have shed the supernaturalism of Bible times.
Originally posted by googlefudgeWhat is fair largely depends on the eye of the beholder.
When one is living in a cold and indifferent universe governed only by simple
uncaring laws of physics then fairness shouldn't be expected.
However, when one is talking about a universe supposedly created by an
intelligent being, for other intelligent beings, it becomes quite reasonable
to complain that life isn't fair, as there is an intelligen ...[text shortened]... far more conducive places for us to live, any of which you god could have
presumably bettered.
For example, if someone murders your loved one, then he should either be put to death or be in prison for life.
However, if you or your loved one murders someone, you very may well think that the judge should show leniancy in some way.
In addition, if you murder people for a living, you probably don't view it as such a big deal. In fact, if you are murdering "bad" people, you may very well expect that someone give you a medal for your good deeds.
Originally posted by vivifyI find Calvin's ideas anathema to the way Christians should conduct themselves, primarily in the idea of predestination. Calvin based his ideas on the teachings of Augustine of Hippo, whom many, even within the church, considered to have some wrong ideas.
For those who don't know, the "Doctrine of Election" is the belief held by many Christians (known as "Calvinists" ) that those who will be saved and those who are going to hell, are predetermined by God. This is discussed in Romans 9:14-21.
This then means that if God is real, then there is nothing anyone can do to become saved, nor can they do anything t ...[text shortened]... because he's God and does what he wants.
Any thoughts from Christians here regarding this?
As an Episcopalian in the United States, my theology is, naturally, more in line with John Wesley than John Calvin. I find many aspects of Calvin's theology offensive at best, and theatrically non-Biblical at worst.
Originally posted by SuzianneBut Calvin's ideas regarding election are based on direct quotes from the bible.
I find Calvin's ideas anathema to the way Christians should conduct themselves, primarily in the idea of predestination. Calvin based his ideas on the teachings of Augustine of Hippo, whom many, even within the church, considered to have some wrong ideas.
As an Episcopalian in the United States, my theology is, naturally, more in line with John Wesley t ...[text shortened]... ind many aspects of Calvin's theology offensive at best, and theatrically non-Biblical at worst.
1 edit
Originally posted by vivifyso what? its easy to build a case for a particular perspective while ignoring a plethora of verses to the contrary, trinitarians do it all the time, they have to.
But Calvin's ideas regarding election are based on direct quotes from the bible.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI guess you're right I should've asked instead, for Christians who don't believe in the Calvinist view: what did Paul mean by the words quoted in the OP? Is Paul simply wrong?
so what? its easy to build a case for a particular perspective while ignoring a plethora of verses to the contrary, trinitarians do it all the time, they have to.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyIf I don't burn out on the spirituality forum (something that does happen to me with regularity) I may start a new thread in some days, dealing with what may be side issues in the context of this Election thread.
Paul, for the sake of unified focus, please consolidate your several still unanswered questions in a single reply. Thanks.
🙂
Originally posted by vivifyMany people have ideas they claim come directly from passages in the Bible, but are usually their own personal twist on what they think those passages mean.
But Calvin's ideas regarding election are based on direct quotes from the bible.
Look at creationists and their bizarre ideas about creation taking place in 6 24-hour days, for example. The Bible does not say that, it is their twisted interpretation. So saying that someone bases their ideas about something on "direct quotes from the Bible" is rather stretching a point. What it comes down to is their opinion of what those passages mean.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by SuzianneAnd thus nicely demonstrating how useless the bible is.
Many people have ideas they claim come directly from passages in the Bible, but are usually their own personal twist on what they think those passages mean.
Look at creationists and their bizarre ideas about creation taking place in 6 24-hour days, for example. The Bible does not say that, it is their twisted interpretation. So saying that someone base ...[text shortened]... rather stretching a point. What it comes down to is their opinion of what those passages mean.