17 Dec 06
Originally posted by jaywillMatthew 25:
You are not forced to take Christ the life giving Spirit into you. You are not forced to receive Christ.
You are not forced. You are invited.
[b]"If anyone thirst, let him come unto Me and drink ...." (John 7:37)
Where is the forcing in this invitation? Perhaps you want to not thirst and also not come unto Him and drink. Then you may ...[text shortened]... ew Testament, not by a Condor or an Eagle. When has God coerced you or forced you?[/b]
41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
This is a clear example of not only the threat of punishment if the ways of Jesus are not followed, but also a mandate to do certain good works or else face hellfire. This is coercion in the extreme. There is no worse punishment the human mind can conceive than eternal torture.
It's like a repressive government telling a newspaper, "You are free to write about anything you want, but if you criticize the government, we will have you executed." Yeah, some freedom 🙄
Oh, and gravity does not have a will. It is incapable of changing its own behavior. God, however, allegedly does have the ability to change his mind, so your analogy doesn't work.
17 Dec 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf I ever tried to claim that the statement "X is jealous" doesn't mean X is jealous but is simply "language of accomodation" to the simple minded who's contrary real meaning can only be understood by experts like myself, I'd richly deserve ridicule. That is the position you are in. One doesn't "interpret" a document by giving it the opposite meaning of its plain language.
[b]"Language of accomodation"? LMAO! In other words, what it says isn't what it means; for its deeper meaning we must go to the anointed like yourself.
You gotta ask yourself: in your practice of law, do you constantly seek the letter of the law or the spirit? Do you not vigorously defend your client according to the original intent of whatever appli ...[text shortened]... s own church, party, belief or opinion.[/b]
I tolerate you, don't I? Do you reciprocate?[/b]
17 Dec 06
Originally posted by no1marauder'Opposite meaning!?' You've got to be kidding, right? Where is the accomodation, if the formula is as simple as 'just think of the exact opposite when you hear such-and-such?' You may want to re-tool that one.
If I ever tried to claim that the statement "X is jealous" doesn't mean X is jealous but is simply "language of accomodation" to the simple minded who's contrary real meaning can only be understood by experts like myself, I'd richly deserve ridicule. That is the position you are in. One doesn't "interpret" a document by giving it the opposite meaning of its plain language.
17 Dec 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHRe-tool this. You might want to answer the criticism rather than spouting your usual gibberish.
'Opposite meaning!?' You've got to be kidding, right? Where is the accomodation, if the formula is as simple as 'just think of the exact opposite when you hear such-and-such?' You may want to re-tool that one.
17 Dec 06
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemWhere is the threat in this passage?
Matthew 25:
41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was ...[text shortened]... owever, allegedly does have the ability to change his mind, so your analogy doesn't work.
And where does it say that the participants in this judgment "must follow the ways of Jesus?"
17 Dec 06
It's like a repressive government telling a newspaper, "You are free to write about anything you want, but if you criticize the government, we will have you executed." Yeah, some freedom
So freedom should be that you can under the sun do anything you want to do and God should stay out of it?
So if total anarchy overtakes the globe and there is no accounting to any governing principles, then you'll say "Ah, now THIS at last is freedom" ?
17 Dec 06
4 edits
The uncreated God sets before us life and death. Then He says "Choose life."
We are not coerced. We can choose death. Both life and death are set before us. He invites man to choose life. You are free to choose death.
But you cannot blame God if to withdraw from the uncreated and eternal Person is a dynamic withdrawal into death. You cannot blame God the Source of endless blessing if to withdraw from Him is to draw into curses. What is beyond God? What is greater than God?
The way I see it it is God's responsibiity to warn His creatures that there is no good and no blessedness in rebelling against the ultimate reality. Some people are mad because God has not created a universe where those who revolt against the ultimate truth and ultimate right cannot have everlasting well being just the same.
It is God's responsibility as the ultimate Governor of all life and existence to inform us that to be in harmony with Him is to win and it is impossible to revolt against Him and win. You can only lose in a rebellion against the ultimate truth.
Several posters here are mad, even furious that they cannot discard God and win. But that is just the way it is. He will never give up His righteousness.
Instead of being sore that God will never give up His commitment to righteousness and justice, I would propose a better meditation. We should consider all that God has done to love us and save us while at the same time upholding His righteous perfection and justice.
We should spend time to think on all that process that God has passed through to bring the rebels into harmony with Himself, eternal life, and eternal well being.
"For God so loved the world ..." This is Christ's teaching. It is that God did not abandon man simply to remain under condemnation. He so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes into Him might not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16)[/b]
This thread I initiated to indicate what the simple words "gave His only begotten Son" really entail. It entails the Triune God passing through a process of incarnation, human living, death, resurrection, and ascension in oder to impart Himself into man to blend with man in an "organic" union.
Some people who read these matters will be touched. Otherwise the gospel of Christ would not have survived this long to turn sinners into sons of God.
17 Dec 06
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemIt is relevant because you appear to regard warnings of danger to be threats and coercion. A world without warnings is in your warped concept a world of "freedom".
Why is that relevant?
I suppose that when your earthly parents warned you not to play with matches as a youngster, you resentfully regarded that as a threat and coercion to love them.
I suppose when your teachers warned you that failing to study in school would result in your having to repeat a grade or go to summer school, you likewise regarded this as threat and coercion.
I suppose that you would never discipline your children or even warn them that such parential discipline was possible. Perhaps you thought to warn them of discipline for missbehavior was to threaten them and coerce them.
Do you regard the speed limit signs along the highway as threats and coercion? Do you regard traffic laws as threats from the municipal government to love the enforcers of these laws?
Your concept that God should be the infinite permissivist is warped. You've rationalized such a caricature in the Bible by being fixated on a very limited scope of passages in an unbalanced and bias way.
So if you had children did you "threaten" them to not transgress certain guidelines in your home? Did you "coerce" them and "threaten" them? Or did you teach them the "freedom" of doing whatever came into their mind to do without one single exception?
17 Dec 06
2 edits
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemIt is obvious the sheep and the goats were threatened?
Sorry, but the answers to both of the questions are painfully obvious. Please re-read the verses I provided.
If the sheep are ignorant of who they performed these good deeds to in doing them to the sick, homeless, inprisioned, and hungry, then how could they have been reacting to that person's threat? They didn't know that Christ was behind the scenes being the actual recipient of their good deeds. So how could they have been doing them because of a threat from Him?
If the goats did not know that Christ was the unseen recipient of their neglect to show care for the sick, homeless, inprisioned, and hungry, then how could they have been ignoring a threat from Him? They didn't even know that He was involved.
This passage does not refer to the final judgment at the great white throne at the end of the Bible. It is limited in its scope and has a particular application.
But my major problem with your intepretation is that even if the sheep and the goat nations had been previously warned of consequences of certain behavior, that is not the same as a threat or coercion. The lost goats join the devil and his angels in the punishment which was prepared for the devil and his angels. It was not prepared for man but for the devil and his angels -
"Go away from Me; you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels ..."
If God warns mankind that there is a danger that he will partake of the same destiny as "the devil and his angels" that is His loving warning. I do not regard that as His threat or coercion. The destiny was not meant for man. So that man would partake of it shows that man has ended up in the wrong position with the wrong leader. If man is warned that he should forsake that leader, escape the destiny of the leader, and turn to God, that is the warning of God.
I think only a warped view would regard such a warning as the threat of God. And if it is insisted upon that that warning IS a threat, then I would regard it as a righteous and justified one.
The kingdom prepared for the sheep from the foundation of the world has as its King God. The Devil and his angels are not the king of the kingdom prepared for the sheep from the foundation of the world. The damned in Matthew 25:31-46 have forsaken their God created conscience and have chosen another leader and another kingdom. The destiny of that leader and his kingdom becomes unhappily their own destiny.
This judgment is limited in scope. It involves the nations which are left alive on the earth at the end of the great tribulation just before Christ comes to istablish His millinnial kingdom on the earth for 1,000 years. This passage in Matthew 25:31-37 regards to the how the living nations at the time of the second coming of Christ behaved under the world rulership of the Antichrist. It regards how the nations reacted to the persecution of the Lord's brothers who will be destitute and driven into annhilation under the Antichrist.
"The least of these my brothers" are neither the sheep or the goats. They are the third group. And they represent those saved by the Gospel of grace and believing in Christ.
The criteria under which the sheep nations inherit the kingdom prepared by His Father from the foundation of the world is not the criteria of the gospel of grace and belief in Christ. THEY DIDN"T EVEN KNOW HIM. They didn't know that HE was the recipient of their kind behavior. So they could not have been threatened by Him to act in such a way.
They were warned however, not to follow Antichrist (Revelation 14:6-12). And that "eternal gospel" was preached to them not by man on the earth, but supernaturally by the angel in the air:
"And I saw another angel flying in mid-heaven, having an eternal gospel to announce to those dwelling on the earth, even to every nation and tribe and tongue and people, Saying with a loud voice, Fear God and give Him glory because the hour of His judgment has come, and worship Him who has made heaven and earth and the sea and teh springs of water"
As you can see in this "eternal gospel" repentence and belief in Jesus Christ is not mentioned. It is a call to regard God the Creator. And it is a gospel announced by angelic messengers to neutralize the Antichrist's claim that he is god and all peoples should worship him. The persecuted Jews and Christians will be refugees under Antichrist's terrible persucution.
The sheep nations will be considerate of these driven and exiled refugees and prisioners. They listen to their human conscience. And they regard God as the Creator of the universe and not Antichrist.
Matthew 25:31-46 is not the same judgment as Revelation 20:11-15.
17 Dec 06
Originally posted by jaywillIt is relevant because you appear to regard warnings of danger to be threats and coercion. A world without warnings is in your warped concept a world of "freedom".
It is relevant because you appear to regard warnings of danger to be threats and coercion. A world without warnings is in your warped concept a world of "freedom".
I suppose that when your earthly parents warned you not to play with matches as a youngster, you resentfully regarded that as a threat and coercion to love them.
I suppose when your teach ...[text shortened]... "freedom" of doing whatever came into their mind to do without one single exception?
Your problem is that you like preaching instead of debating. I'll ignore this crude distortion of my views.
I suppose that when your earthly parents warned you not to play with matches as a youngster, you resentfully regarded that as a threat and coercion to love them.
Another poor analogy. Parents don't have control of fire, but God has control of who goes to hell. The bible makes it clear that it is God who casts the body and soul into hell.
The answer to the rest of you analogies is simple. Just punisments are acceptable, excessive and cruel punishments are not. Your God wishes to send people to hell for breaking one law, regardless of the seriousness of the offense.
Your concept that God should be the infinite permissivist is warped.
No, your reading of my views is warped. Is it possible for you to step off your soapbox for even a few minutes?
You've rationalized such a caricature in the Bible by being fixated on a very limited scope of passages in an unbalanced and bias way.
Yet with all your alleged biblical knowledge, and all your windy posts, cannot answer the charges. What part of 'depart from me, ye cursed' do you not understand?
17 Dec 06
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemYou are right Bigdogg but the problem is that you have taken one single verse and given it a wider meaning over all other verses. Anyone who has studied religious scripture (or even history for example) knows that you cannot take one verse out of context give it a meaning over and above the other verses. Jesus also said " Anyone who comes to me I will never turn away"
Sorry, but the answers to both of the questions are painfully obvious. Please re-read the verses I provided.