|
Post by benjoseph on Jul 21, 2012 10:57:31 GMT -5
Hi Stephanie. Here are some thoughts that I hope will be helpful. Hi there, please can someone help to elucidate for me the differences between OT and NT salvation? I understand that faith towards God and repentance have always been required of man, and that Jesus' sacrificial death is the grounds for our forgiveness. But where I get a little foggy is trying to understand how obedience ties in, in the OT. People were able to obey God both BC and AD. And obedience was a condition of God's acceptance both BC and AD. Love fulfills the law, and love is an intention of the will. Obedience is an act of the will both BC and AD. The blessings that God can give through the Holy Spirit do not make obedience possible. Obedience was always possible. God's law requires us to use "all of [our] strength". That's 100% of our strength, not 101%. So whatever strength we have, we can obey God with it. Language like "regeneration" and "born again" is figurative for changing from being purely selfish to being loving and being reconciled to God because of it. The OT law was not only symbolic rituals, but also loving God with all of your heart and loving your neighbor as well. There are differences between the OT and NT but the ability to obey God's law from the heart exists in both ages.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Apr 15, 2012 20:51:38 GMT -5
Is there a difference between saying something has "always existed" (had no beginning), and something has existed for an infinite amount of time? I see where you see the contradiction between "infinite" and "amount" but where is the difference between that and a statement that I'm assuming you would agree with. That is again that God has always existed. I think it depends on what you mean by "always". If you mean "all times past" then that would be trying to quantify eternity again. I usually just say God had no beginning. There is no contradiction there. The Bible does not say anything about God having a beginning. It makes sense to me that God would be eternal, otherwise you have existence suddenly appearing out of completely nothing. Presupposing everything that had a beginning also had a cause, then God did not ever have a beginning. Now if a beginning does not imply a cause then I don't think we would have any basis for science. We might detect synchronization and patterns in successive events but we couldn't say this one caused that one. Maybe it just happened without a cause. The patterns would be meaningless and unreliable chance. Unbelieving physicists have already resorted to stuff like this. It is amazing they still keep their jobs. This is also a problem with the idea that the universe is not ruled by a benevolent and intelligent mind. If everything was just random fractal stew then there would be no basis for scientific conclusions, only uninstructive experience. Even our sense of experience vs experiencer would be unreliable. The sense of identity could just be an uncaused and temporary quirk in the fractal stew of chance. People have to decide if the truth is valuable to them or not. How could you rationally prove that you don't really just believe God exists. Do you have any empirical proof that you might not believe in Him? Why should I take your word for it? If it is not good enough for me to say the bible is trustworthy then why is it good enough for you to say that your words are trustworthy when you say you really don't know if God exists? The bible had approx 40 authors over a huge span of time who all agreed and show no signs of being untrustworthy. Do you really have some empirical reason why I should trust you over the bible? I really hope you will read the bible for yourself. You could just read the gospel written by John. It is only 25 pages in my bible. Then you can judge by the character of the author whether you think it is worthy of your trust or not. Do you have a bible? If you prefer you could even read it online. www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1&version=NKJV
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Mar 2, 2012 20:20:12 GMT -5
So tell me then Christians, what are your views on homosexuals and trans-people? are you serious? It's a big secret..
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Mar 2, 2012 20:17:23 GMT -5
romans7man, I also don't think the former husband in Romans 7 is the law. To me it seems like the former husband is one's former life of sin. I think that's why it says "ye also are become dead" in verse 4 - because the husband and the wife were like two parts of the same person, bound together by the law. I could be wrong but that is my take on it.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Mar 2, 2012 20:08:59 GMT -5
I'm not worried about God destroying America. I'm worried about America destroying America because it's something that I can actually work towards fixing. Since you didn't answer who you thought would be a better candidate, I guess I'll just have to assume that you don't have one and since your only real argument was to tell me I'm going to burn in hell (which isn't really an argument at all) then I'll assume this is probably as far as this conversation will civilly go. I don't know, perhaps you don't plan on voting. Though if you do plan on voting I hope you'll pray on it and find the same answer that I did or at the very least that I convinced you that Ron Paul isn't the Godless baby killer that you may have imagined before. Kureji I don't think it is right to vote over other people's rights. If this country has gotten to the point where we are accepting proaborts as legit citizens and we have to vote over whether babies should be cared for then God has given america's authority over to the devil (duh). It is futile to vote against God. A nation does not have voting rights until it has a right to be born. America denies its children the right to be born. Therefore this nation has no right to vote. That is my opinion though, not a bible verse. It seems likely to me that abstaining from voting in this wicked doomed nation could be more likely to stir God's compassion than the pragmatic approach of casting ballots w/ murderers.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Mar 2, 2012 19:47:14 GMT -5
ps - hellfire and brimstone is a logical approach because I know the bible is trustworthy when it says all sinners (including unbelievers) are without excuse
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Mar 2, 2012 19:40:07 GMT -5
I thought of a problem, just wondering if you have an intelligent answer for it. You have said before that God is within time, not outside of it. I'm assuming that you believe that God has always existed, no beginning no end. Would that not suggest that an infinite amount of time has passed to get to this point? (that obviously being a contradiction, by definition an infinite amount of time never ever passes) I honestly appreciate the intelligent responses you have given me on a number of these issues. The point of my coming on this forum was too see if there was intelligent answers for a number of religious issues. I thought, just because i don't see it and i can't find any good answers to these things that doesn't mean they don't exist. But your preaching is entirely unconvincing for me. I already know the bible says I'm going to hell and I deserve it, you repeating that doesn't make me feel any more conviction then I had before. The only way I will feel convicted is if I see it to be rationally true. The only way you have a hope of getting me there is with rationality not a hellfire and brimstone sermon. bobbyjoe, there is no such thing as an infinite amount. The two ideas (infinity & amount) are mutually exclusive. I can't think of any other way to reinterpret the question because it seems like it totally hangs on assuming eternity past is a quantifiable duration. I've thought about this a lot in the past few years and I also asked my friend recently for help trying to understand your question here. As it stands it is self-contradictory. If you can find some way around the contradiction of saying "infinite amount" or "infinite duration" that would be interesting to me. The question really seems to presuppose some kind of starting point. Did you try reading the gospels yet?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jan 1, 2012 16:31:34 GMT -5
I think you misunderstood. I was calling you a hippie because you said we are not a nation of savages. I was not saying Paul's idea is a slippery slope. I was just using other examples to examine the principle. You seem like you think it's not as bad to kill unborn people as it is to kill born people.
Republicans are fools too. I don't know anyone who is actually concerned about God destroying America. Is Ron Paul? If so then he might be sane. The fact that we even VOTE over abortion and homosex is a joke to begin with. You don't VOTE over stuff like that. You just obey God or die. Period. America doesn't just need a good candidate, she needs to wake up and obey God before God knocks her block off. A good candidate would not be electable because this nation is wicked.
You should worry about YOUR campaign. Have you repented of your unbelief? What good is Ron Paul going to do for you when God drop-kicks you into the lake of fire?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jan 1, 2012 16:03:47 GMT -5
Why should I believe that God's existence is not glaringly obvious to you? I don't have any proof of your atheism. No empirical evidence. Just your claim that you know better than Jesus.
If Jesus was not a liar then He would have to be insane or a fool. He said He came down from God in heaven. He said He was the only begotten son of God. He said He existed before this world did. As they say, He was either a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord.
The fact that you are trying to malign God's character with your lame misunderstandings of the Gospel proves that you are no atheist. You are just scrounging for some excuse to justify yourself. As the Bible says, "even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind". In Romans 1, you are only a few verses away from becoming a fag. Maybe that's what it will take for you to wake up.
The Bible doesn't even have the word "trinity" in it. Jesus said, "You believe in God. Believe also in me". What is so complicated?
There is a difference between being loving and pardoning criminals. Does a loving judge just pardon every single crime? Obviously not because it would ruin the community. A loving judge does what is best for the community. Not out of selfish spite, but out of love and wisdom. Personal forgiveness and judicial pardon are two totally different things. If you don't turn you will burn.
If you were sincere you could cry out to God and He would help you with your stubborn darkened mind.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 25, 2011 23:03:19 GMT -5
What planet are you from? We aren't a nation of savages? Don't be such a diplomatic hippie. The right to govern is based on the right to life. Any government (whether state, federal, big, medium, small) that doesn't execute abortionists is pulling the rug out from underneath its own feet. If the state does nothing and the federal government likewise then both are guilty. It's not about roe vs wade, its about not murdering the unborn. If roe vs wade is gone but some state is harboring baby-killers then someone needs to do something. The value of human life needs to be upheld through the rule of law - the execution of penalties. The bible says eye for eye, tooth for tooth, burn for burn, wound for wound. People who murder a child by vacuum aspiration (suction) abortion deserve to be dismembered by a high power vacuum and then poured into a medical waste bin on public tv with a coupon code for free rusty coat-hangers. The bible says "A wise king scattereth the wicked, and bringeth the wheel over them." and "A king that sitteth in the throne of judgment scattereth away all evil with his eyes."
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 25, 2011 20:36:07 GMT -5
You said, "I would rather be within his grace instead of risking eternal damnation." But why? What is your non-pathetic reason for not wanting to risk eternal damnation? Or were you just going out of your way to pretend to be reasonable? Jesus said you will be thrown into lava. You say it's unfair . But Jesus said you are a self-deluded liar. So unless Jesus is the liar, then it is fair. Jesus is not a liar, so He will actually have you thrown into lava. Therefore it is surely worth warning you in the hope that you will reconsider your attitude toward God. You already know you deserve it. Yes you do. There is no such thing as converting to faith because of fear. Jesus says unbelievers are liars. There is only stopping being a liar and starting to seek God. Even if Jesus had not told the truth about unbelievers then it would not even be logical to "become a believer" out of fear because the fear would imply belief in the first place. So not only did Jesus say you are a liar, but the fact that He solemnly warned that unbelievers will go into the lava and stay there is even more proof of your lies oh godless one. God wants us to obey Him, not just to admit He exists. The bible says, "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." There is no such thing as obeying God simply out of selfish fear. God's law says to love Him with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love our neighbor as ourselves. We can't obey that out of selfish fear because that is just a contradiction. Jesus said, "If thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." But Jesus said that to His friends. I don't know if He would have wasted time talking to you because He said "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine". Merry Christmas if you repent.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 22, 2011 20:19:00 GMT -5
That is a better explanation than I've heard from him before. It would be a relief if he was not compromised on this like I thought.
So, what if one state decides the penalty for killing an unborn child is a fifty dollar copay? What does the federal government do? Or if killing Chinese people only has a penalty of attending racial tolerance classes? What does the federal government do? Is he consistent in this way? What would he recommend if Nebraska reduced the penalty for killing a woman to a small fine?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 21, 2011 22:03:08 GMT -5
Of course you don't have an interest in continuing. It's not me you have a problem with. It's Jesus. Jesus said, "the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." Was Jesus irrational for saying that? Jesus said, "he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." Was He irrational for saying that? Doesn't He turn you off? He said, "this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved." Does it turn you off when Jesus says you hate Him? Doesn't He make you lose interest? Isn't it irritating when He is warning you that you are headed for hell? It's too bad you are an atheist! If only you believed then you could pray and ask Jesus to change the subject! " Lord, please stop saying I hate you and that I am going to bust hell wide open. It is totally turning me off! Amen."
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 20, 2011 20:44:34 GMT -5
Ron Paul said baby-killing should be a state's right. He might be best economically or in other ways, but Jesus said what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 20, 2011 20:32:26 GMT -5
I didn't say quantities are distinct without God. They are distinct because of God. God can obviously count.
Furthermore, someone's existence has to be certain in order for the extent of their control to be certain. If you might exist and not exist simultaneously in some weird contradiction then the extent of your control is not even certain. Existing is more fundamental than having control.
Also, if contradictions are meaningful, then I can agree with you and disagree with you simultaneously. Ready? You're not wrong... ok ... and I'm right. POOF! It's a miracle.
This nonsense is all beside the point anyway. The bible doesn't say God can perform a contradiction, Jesse would not say that, I never said that.
What are you actually saying? Are you arguing FOR this irrational and unbiblical idea that God can perform contradictions? Or are you arguing AGAINST it? If you are arguing against it then it is a straw-man. If you are arguing for it then you can't prove it.
The bible says when you lie to yourself about God then you become stupid and insane. You need to get your brain washed with the bible so you can have a sound mind like God instead of a warped and darkened mind like your mentor, Satan.
Jesus Christ is true. You say He is a liar because you hate Him. You should get right with God. You are going to burn in hell and you act like you don't even care! Confess your unbelief to God and trust in the Lord Jesus. You could die in your sleep any night and then you will not feel so smart anymore. Then you will not care about acting like an innocent little angel in your unbelief. You won't fondly remember your atheism the moment you see the lake of fire. Don't let the devil put thoughts in your mind like "he is just some crazy religious guy" or "I don't believe in God anyway" and "I don't need to be scared of going to hell", "hell is not a real place I am going to", etc. It is really stupid to embrace those thoughts. Whatever you think you are getting out of this, trying to convince yourself that you are an atheist, you will soon regret when you die and they start to take you down into hell. You will instantly hate yourself at that moment and forever regret rejecting Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 4, 2011 23:44:29 GMT -5
The fact that the phrase "four-sided triangle" is meaningless is a result of the meaning of "four-sided" and the meaning of "triangle" (hint: "three-sided"). It is not the laws of physics that make us have to reluctantly say, "ok fine... four-sided triangles are meaningless i guess...." It is because there is such a thing as distinction in meaning. If "three" and "four" did not have distinct meaning then you would probably be dead. "Three" and "four" are quantities. Quantities are distinct. Therefore "three" and "four" are distinct. Aren't you imposing your laws of logic onto this discussion? You are saying that God HAS TO have this much or that much control because otherwise He would be violating a law that you believe in. You're saying a triangle should be able to be a rectangle no problem, but if God is not God then that is a problem. You are being consistently inconsistent. Why resort to logical argumentation if you want to "transcend" coherent meaning? When you are using logic to make a point about how much control God ought to have, you are relying on the principle of non-contradiction. You are trying to use non-contradiction to refute non-contradiction. Refutation and objection both presuppose non-contradiction. By objecting to non-contradiction you are really professing your own faith in non-contradiction. There is nothing wrong with saying God has both voluntary and involuntary attributes. You have to exist in order to have a will or any control or power. God's own happiness has intrinsic value. There does not need to be some extra reality outside of God in order for Him to be aware of the potential for His own well-being. The potential for good originates in God because He has the capacity to experience happiness, peace, joy, contentment. Just because the potential originates in God does not make it arbitrary. It does not originate in His will. God governs His own will in accordance with the moral obligation in His own mind which is based on the potential for good that exists in Himself first and now also in us by His own choice to create us. The existence of God is obvious. It is written into our minds by God Himself. Three year old children are smart enough to know there is an intelligent reason behind everything in the universe because they always ask "why" about everything. People deny God's existence because they don't like Him. Jesus said, He who doesn’t believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God. This is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and doesn’t come to the light, lest his works would be exposed. People deny God's existence because they want to be as far away as possible from thinking about God judging them for their selfishness like they deserve. But because it is not easy to resist the conscience, unbelievers then pretend that they are innocent and sincere in their unbelief. If they did not pretend innocence then it would be too easy to feel the light of God's law shining on their selfish hearts. We ABUNDANTLY deserve to go to hell for loving our own pleasure above God's! If you truly value your own well-being then you should be terrified when you rationally consider what must become of you on the day of judgment. The bible says the unbelieving will be cast into the LAKE of FIRE. Don't count on just turning into dirt when you die and that's it. God raised Jesus Christ from the dead proving our future resurrection and judgment. The only way you can be saved is to repent of selfishness and submit to God, believing in Jesus Christ. Jesus IS trustworthy. He is perfect, without sin. The Bible says, The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”
Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. The apostle Peter (one of Jesus's closest friends) said, We have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mountain.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Nov 22, 2011 21:14:49 GMT -5
It is not like there are these geometry police who will not allow a triangle to have four sides. There simply is no meaning to the phrase "four-sided triangle". It is a meaningless string of letters. It does not mean anything because it is like the phrase has not decided what it wants to say yet. For example, have you ever seen children realize it is silly to answer "yesno" or "noyes" to a question? Sometimes they really think it is a funny way to tease someone. It's because they know that saying both yes and no together conveys zero meaning to the person asking the question. And they know when people ask questions they are looking for some meaning. So even children understand that contradictions are instrinsically without meaning. The words "four-sided triangle" are like a joke that children make. Being "outside of time", "not confined by space" - all that stuff is like a joke that children make. God is real - not some abstract science fiction concept. He is alive up in heaven ruling over us and will soon judge the world. The bible says, "The eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and the good."
Knowledge is part of reality. It is not distinct from reality. It can reflect itself. God has knowledge and understanding of Himself. We can relate to that because He made us the same way. God knew there was a great potential for happiness for Himself and all of us if He created us. But the actual potential for good is not the obligation itself. Potential is about what could or could not be. Obligation is about what should or should not be. There is no obligation until there is knowledge of potential good. That is why I said that obligation originates in God's knowledge. Without knowledge of potential good that you could choose there is no obligation. For example, the bible says, "to him who knows to do good and does it not, to him it is sin."
There is nothing that makes trusting Jesus Christ illogical. The Bible says, "There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord." Having read the words of Jesus and the rest of the Bible I can honestly say that if Jesus Christ is not trustworthy then nothing is trustworthy. Whoever would read the Bible, and then call it a lie, is a liar himself. The reason that Jesus Christ has had an impact on my life is because of how trustworthy He is. It is totally worthy of your trust that God would send Jesus to atone for our sins. We will not be judged by how we compare to other people. We will be judged righteously by our actions, our words, and the secrets of our hearts. Jesus Christ deserves your trust and He is the only one through whom we can be forgiven.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Nov 15, 2011 9:32:29 GMT -5
bobbyjoecatfish, I'm sorry to have made you wait so long for a response. I hope you still see this since it's been a while.
It's not that God has to obey "Laws of Reality" as if some external laws are imposed upon Him. Laws (of logic, physics, morality) are more like a description of things that exist. They are not like arbitrary laws made by politicians and local governments. They are just descriptions of what the things that exist are like. Non-contradiction is not something that things have to "obey". It's simply the nature of "things" themselves that they are what they are. Reality is however reality is. Reality is not some way it isn't. However reality is, that's how it is. I know that sounds simple but it is true.
Our minds posses this mental reflection of reality called knowledge. Knowledge is consistent because it reflects reality. Since reality is how it is, not how it isn't, therefore true knowledge is also consistent with itself, not inconsistent. We are free to force contradictions upon our own minds (by deceiving ourselves, pretending, etc), but that is insanity because then our minds will not reflect reality. We have no ability to make reality other than what it is, therefore we can only turn knowledge into a false reflection of reality if we believe contradictions.
Contradictions are often passed off as wisdom in different religious traditions. A lot of people are sucked in by that kind of thing because it can seem like it is over their head and therefore it must be really intelligent or something.
God said the penalty for rape and for kidnapping should be death. Obviously no one should be raping rapists for punishment because they would be wrongly defiling their own body in order to inflict the punishment. God said rape in His judgment is just like when a man kills a man. So He commanded death for it.
Right and wrong originates in God's knowledge, not His will. It originates in God Himself, not outside of Him, not externally imposed upon Him. But neither is it arbitrary, because it is truth and understanding, not whim. Do you understand? It makes a huge difference.
I hope you still see this. Sorry again for keeping you waiting.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Oct 17, 2011 9:27:30 GMT -5
Time:There is nothing about time that limits us. Time does not have any boundaries. So you can't be "inside" or "outside" of it. You can't be inside or outside of time just like you can't be inside or outside of space. There are no walls that enclose or divide up time or space. So there is no inside or outside. There are no compartments of time (like days on a calendar). When you said "he is not outside of [time], and can't see it as a whole" you were probably still assuming the calendar paradigm right? Contradictions:Being challenged to perform a contradiction is not really a challenge at all. Because being "unable" to perform a contradiction is not a lack of ability. It is the meaningless nature of a contradiction - not a reflection on the person's ability. It is like saying I am not strong enough to blahblahblahblahthismeansnothing. That sentence doesn't say anything at all about my strength because the sentence is meaningless. My strength is not challenged by that sentence. Are you familiar with that riddle the " liar paradox"? It is a sentence that claims to be a false statement, but since it negates itself, it is no longer a statement in the first place and has no truth value. Not every string of words means something. Not every string of words represents something about reality. There is no such thing as being strong enough to make someone else's free will choice, or having good enough vision to see the nonexistent, or being so small that you don't exist, or being such a good carpenter that you can build a shed with a 7ft high wall and 7ft high roof that only adds up to 8 ft tall (a customer asked for this where I work). There is no such thing as any of that. Contradictory phrases do not reflect the nature of reality. They're just empty words. Words can contradict themselves but reality can not contradict itself. Something either exists, or there ain't something in the first place. There is no such thing as both existing and not existing. So words that contradict themselves don't reflect reality and must be relegated to poetic use rather than philosophical. Human Tendency:You suggested that the tendencies of humans are predictable. This is partially true. There are a lot of things about people that are predictable. But as far as our moral choices go, they are free from any outside causation, free from any mechanical forces, free from mathematical formulas, and so on. Tendency is a vague word in this context because it conveys the idea of statistics and a hint of the idea of predictability and causation. Statistics don't apply to free choices the way they do to physics. Even though the whole world is bad, each new person can make their own choices. The fact that so many people have been bad does not make anyone's moral character scientifically predictable. There is no such thing as an infallibly predictable free choice. The phrase doesn't have any meaning because it contradicts itself. Origin of Right and Wrong:Good and evil are definitely self-evident, not arbitrary. The Bible says, Yahweh God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil." Also, "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay no greater burden on you than these necessary things" Right and wrong come from self-evident value. There is no such thing as having so much power and authority that you can make good not be good anymore. That would be another contradiction. There is no such thing as having control over whether good is good or not. The knowledge of right and wrong originates in God's mind because He is intelligent. We also have a small amount of His intelligence and so we can also discern right from wrong, just not as fully as He can. We have to rely on His superior wisdom. Belief:I don't really think of belief in God as a choice because it seems self-evident to my mind that He created all of this. The alternative would be insanity in my experience. I used to be agnostic. But the Bible says we are all without excuse because we can clearly discern God's existence from seeing all of creation. I still used to pray sometimes when I was supposedly agnostic. It is reasonable to reject wrong ideas about God, like the foreknowledge of free choices and things like that. That doesn't mean we are rejecting our Creator himself though, just a wrong idea about Him. It seems to me that you ought to feel incapable of believing some of these contradictory ideas we've been discussing. But I don't think that means you would feel incapable of believing in God Himself once you see past those wrong ideas. The Bible says that we all know about God whether we say we do or not. I will think some more about faith in the hopes of having more to say about it. I haven't really had many doubts since I read the gospels. When I read all the words of Jesus Christ, there was not any doubt in my mind that He was trustworthy. Seriously, I would challenge anyone to read His words and judge for themselves if He seems like a liar when He claims to have come down from God in heaven. The Lord is awesome. If you have not read the gospels I beg you to do so. The number of rational people who have read them and believed outweighs all the world's religious hypocrisy - not that that is proof - but it morally obligates any sincere truth seeker to investigate the claims of Jesus Christ and the disciples who knew him personally. Jesus said, "For this reason I have been born, and for this reason I have come into the world, that I should testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice." Punishment:Sin is breaking God's law. The punishment for breaking a law should fit the crime. What that really boils down to is that the severity of punishment should match the value of that which the law protects. If the law protects an eye, then the punishment should cost an eye. If the law protects a life, then the punishment should cost a life. That's what the Bible says, Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, life for life, wound for wound. This is the duty of the government though, not private citizens taking personal vengeance. So the severity of the punishment for breaking God's law should match the value that God's law protects. If the law was unimportant and protected nothing, then the punishment should be nothing. Do you agree with that so far? Should the punishment for breaking a law depend on the value that law protects? Is an eye for an eye fair? Or should it be two eyes for one eye? Or a lock of hair for an eye? What kind of message would it send to society if we just snipped a lock of hair when someone took out someone's eye? What would the public impact be? Would it make for a safe society? Do you understand the relevance of these questions? I'm trying to finish this response at work now. Thanks for your patience. I'm going to cut off here and just post this without finishing the response to every point you brought up. I will plan on finishing this soon, but maybe you would like to interrupt if you get where I'm going, or if I've misunderstood, or if you have a different question.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Oct 10, 2011 13:41:56 GMT -5
Hey it is better to be honest than to be a hypocrite. Jesus said to religious hypocrites, Isaiah prophesied correctly about you hypocrites, as it is written: "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. They worship me in vain.." There are a few different ideas you've brought up here. First I'll explain why other people have said these ideas limit God. People have this idea of time like it is a giant calendar. When you look at a calendar all the different days are right there in front of you - at the same time. You can see all the different days at once. There is a philosophical and religious tradition that says time is really like that. People theorized that time is like a calendar so that God can see every day at once. They said it was like God could take a step back and view all of history simultaneously. If that view of time were true then, Yes, it would be a limitation if God could not predict the free choices on a given day. If all of history existed simultaneously, like on a calendar, then of course God would be able to see it all. He wouldn't even need to predict things, because they would be directly visible. Imagine... there's a little boy taking his first steps on one day - scroll down the calendar a little - and there's that same person as an old man rejecting God on a later day. That would be totally insane, but that is basically the mainstream tradition. Is that something along the lines of what you meant by God being limited? If the future actually existed then God would certainly be limited if He could not see it. Fortunately reality is not like a calendar. There are not multiple days all happening side by side. There is none of that "Back-to-the-Future" / "Butterfly Effect" time travel stuff where you can go visit some other day in the past. The past does not exist. The word "exist" is a present tense verb. How could the past or the future "exist" (present)? It is all a big contradiction. There are not any other days you could "go to" other than right now. It makes a convenient science-fiction plot device, but it does not describe reality. If that stuff was true, imagine: you are worshiping God one day, strumming your ukulele on some tropical beach. But the whole time you are singing your heart out to God, in the corner of His eye, He can see the future way down on the imaginary calendar, and there you are in hell because years later you harden your heart and robbed some poor old lady. It is possible for anyone to choose to be good or bad. If all the different days actually exist, God might see all this at the same time you are on the beach praising Him under your coconut tree. You wouldn't know it, but He would. You would be enjoying worshiping Him, but He would be thinking "Why would I even make a universe like this?" Isn't that insane? If you and I would be reasonable enough not to make a universe like that, then certainly God is reasonable enough not to make things that way. To say that the future itself already exists is a direct contradiction to free will. If the future already exists (present tense) then our future choices have already been made - they would be set in stone. This is impossible because we have free will. There are actual different possibilities, not a script all written out in advance. If we have free will then the future can not exist already. Not only does it practically contradict the rules of grammar to say the future exists, but it also contradicts our ability to make free choices. The future does not exist. Since the future itself does not exist, God is not limited if He can't directly see "it". If I said God does not see Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer's nose, I would not be saying that God is limited, because Rudolph is fictional. It is not a limitation when we "can't see" things that don't even exist yet. There is no such thing as seeing something that doesn't exist. About the idea of God making mistakes: It is not like anyone has to be bad. People have free will. Creating people was not a mistake on God's part. It was a risk. It is people who have the power to turn themselves into a mistake or not. You can't give people the chance to be good (voluntary choice) without giving them the power to rebel also. The ability to be good and the ability to be evil are the same ability, not two different abilities. We are fully able to choose either way. So if it is wrong to give people the ability to be evil, then it is also wrong to give people the chance to be good. But is it wrong for a man and a woman to have children? Is it too much of a risk to have children who will develop the ability to choose good or evil? It seems pretty sad to say that no one should ever exist because some people might abuse their free will and endanger the whole community. Creation was not a mistake, as if God didn't realize what kind of power He was giving to people. It was a risk to create people. There is no way to share your life and power and have a relationship of trust without taking a risk of being betrayed. The other ideas you brought up were hell and tyranny. Certainly hell would be a tyrannical and unjust abuse if our future was set in stone before we were ever born. But if our future is open and we are in control of our moral choices, then God has the obligation to uphold the law for the good of the whole universe. God's law is not arbitrary but is based on self-evident truth (like in the Declaration of Independence). God only requires what is necessary and beneficial. He does not just make up impossible laws arbitrarily. His law is based on what is self-evidently best for everyone. God only punishes wicked people because He has to - not because He likes to hurt anyone. The Bible says, He has no pleasure in troubling and causing grief to the children of men. Let me know if I've misunderstood anything you brought up. I condensed the last couple points there to make the reply shorter.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Oct 9, 2011 12:37:31 GMT -5
Our nature does not control our free choices. God created us with free will. We are not just slaves of the laws of physics. If we were totally controlled by the laws of physics then we would never deserve punishment in the first place. We only deserve punishment for our bad choices because we could have chosen good but didn't. It was our fault, not physics, not our nature. Free will choices can not be foreknown. There is no such thing as a foreknown free choice. It is a direct conflict of definitions. Knowledge can't possibly be wrong, but a free choice can possibly turn out differently than expected. So there are no facts about future free choices. It is not a lack of knowledge to not have a "fact" that does not even exist. Look at what the Bible says. It teaches that God created a universe that is partially unpredictable. For example the book of Genesis (chapter six) says, Yahweh saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Yahweh was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him in his heart. Yahweh said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the surface of the ground; man, along with animals, creeping things, and birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.” But Noah found favor in Yahweh’s eyes. God actually changed His mind about having made people when He saw how bad they made themselves. Why would God make people if He foreknew they would be evil and that He would have to destroy them? That would make no sense. God expected people to be good, to obey Him, not to be evil. God even said (in the book of Ezekiel), Tell them, As I live, says the Lord Yahweh, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn, turn from your evil ways; for why will you die? And Jesus Christ, when He was talking about His future return to the earth, said, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth? Don't be confused by religious traditions that say God foreknows future free choices. The whole idea defies common sense. The Bible doesn't teach foreknown free choices. Jesse doesn't teach anything like that. He always preaches that we have free will and that God did not foreknow people would make themselves so evil. Jesse has multiple videos on this topic on his youtube channels.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jul 20, 2011 12:49:36 GMT -5
Here is a good quote from Charles Finney that I thought was relevant: "If benevolence became a habit so strong that it were utterly impossible to will in an opposite direction, or not to will benevolently, benevolence would cease to be virtuous."
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jul 8, 2011 21:49:52 GMT -5
Thank you for your reply. I was hoping to respond sooner.
I admired that you gave Jed the benefit of the doubt about his being honest in his beliefs.
These are the main topics that stick out to me from your replies:
- Does God have power over His own will? - Do men have power over their own wills? - Does being "born again" presuppose sinfulness?
1) Does God, who gives freedom to angels and men, not have power over His own will? Do the creatures have a power that their Creator lacks?
When the Bible says someone cannot do something how do you know what the reason they cannot do it is?
We both claim to know the reason the Bible says God cannot sin. You were claiming it is because He lacks power over His own will. I have claimed that it is because He is loving. I think you had not realized that you were claiming to know the reason because you were assuming that it had to be the reason you gave. It seems like you were assuming that "cannot" must imply a lack of power rather than a result of a commitment. I think you were assuming that "cannot" couldn't be the effect of an underlying cause.
The Bible also clearly says that Christians "cannot" sin. We have no problem understanding that the "cannot" is the result of an underlying cause - having a loving heart. There is no reason to reject this idea when the Bible says the same thing of God that it says of His children.
Same thing when George Washington said "I cannot tell a lie". It is not warranted to demand that "cannot" must imply an absolute lack of power to do something. It is completely reasonable to try to understand what the underlying cause of "cannot" is. In this case it was good moral character, the same as for Christians. If Washington really had just swallowed truth serum or something then no one would care about that story. Everyone understands that "cannot" might have an unspoken underlying cause. To say that there must not be an underlying cause in God's case would just be begging the question or making an unjustified assumption.
We can admire the fact that God is always acts righteously because it is the inevitable result of His dedicated loving heart and not just a lack of power.
2) Do men have free will? Do you have power over your own will? Does the conscience accuse or excuse us or does it point the finger at Adam? Is the conscience a reliable and approved witness? Will the testimony of conscience be accepted on judgment day?
Our conscience clearly blames us for our sins and not Adam. If our conscience is deceiving us in this matter then we could not trust any of God's revelations in creation or the Bible. Our conscience, of all the means of revelation, must be among the most important because men will be judged by it, apart from the law, apart from the Bible, and sentenced to eternal hell based upon it's reliable testimony.
You said that free will is true, but then you say that sin is inevitable. But what is sin other than a misuse of the free will God gave us? Is the will free? Or is it bound by inevitability? These two are mutually exclusive. Would the Lord somehow be ashamed of someone who never sinned? Would He be offended that he didn't have to be spit upon and mocked in order to make their forgiveness possible? Or the shepherd with the hundred sheep - are the 99 good sheep an embarrassment to him? Was the time he spent searching for the lost sheep somehow wasted simply because the other 99 were not lost? Wasn't it worth it for even the one sheep? Sinning is the problem. Not sinning would not be a problem. Obeying God would not be a problem. There is nothing wrong with the ability to live a life without sin. The only problem in the entire history of the universe is that men have NOT lived perfect lives without sin. The universe would have zero problems if men lived their lives they way they are supposed to live them - completely without sin. It is not a sin to live a life without sin.
The very fact of the Lord's atonement presupposes the fact that it could have been avoided. If sin could not be avoided, then the Lord would not have had to suffer and die for something that was simply bound to happen in the first place.
3) Does being "born again" require sinning first? Wasn't the Lord Himself baptized with the Holy Spirit immediately after His baptism? I don't see why being born again would require sinning first. It could just mean "again" because we have to mature to a point first. When we are children I figure we are too young for our actions to have a lot of moral weight. But when we are mature enough then we can be born a second time in our spirits. I don't think it has to require sinning first. It cannot require sinning first if it is universally necessary, because that would make sin universally necessary. But sin that is necessary is not even a choice.
If being born again does imply repentance, then the Lord's statement that all men must be born again would be a generalization about how many people choose to sin. I think either interpretation is worth considering. But I think the first and second topics above are really the most important, the interpretation of "born again" might hinge on whether we actually have real free will or not.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jul 4, 2011 21:49:47 GMT -5
Hi providential1611, I would like to add that one can believe in Open Theism without boxing himself into a corner like Jesse has. The idea that we will be able to sin after Christ returns and we are in glorified bodies is simply unBiblical and does not bear witness in my spirit. The ability to sin and the ability to love are the same ability. They are not two separate abilities. The ability to choose evil is a good ability because it is actually the ability to choose good or evil. There is no such thing as an ability to choose good without an ability to choose evil because it would no longer be a choice, but only an event. I don't think Jesse has boxed himself into a corner or said anything untrue here. Like you, I know it is wrong to entertain the idea of God doing wrong. I also agree with Jesse that Christians will always have free will just as God does. I will explain how these two beliefs are compatible. God cannot sin because of His free commitment to be loving. "A good tree cannot grow bad fruit." The type of tree represents the voluntary moral character of the heart or will. The fruit is bound by the type of the tree but the type of tree itself is voluntary - freely chosen. There is a difference between "nature" and "character". Character is voluntary, but nature is involuntary. The moral quality of God's choices are determined by His character. But God's character is not determined by His nature. If someone's character was determined by their nature, then they would not actually have any moral character at all. God's moral character is voluntary by definition - not determined by His nature. God's nature does not rule over Him; instead He rules over His nature. Likewise, we must not allow our natures to rule over us, but we must rule over them. By voluntarily having a good heart like God, we also make ourselves unable to sin in the same way He is unable. As the Bible says, "he cannot sin, because he is born of God" and "every one that loveth is born of God" and "he that is begotten of God keepeth himself". Believing that love presupposes freedom of the will is simply acknowledging the truth. Acknowledging and defending the truth is not idolatry. Jesus said, "the truth will set you free." That's great! We should not allow even a shadow of doubt to cross our minds in this matter. But it is about trust and not about anyone lacking power over their choices. Remember when God said of Abraham, "I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment"? It was about trustworthiness. It did not mean that Abraham had altogether lost his faculty of choice, nor that his descendants would lack freedom. The Bible says that love "believeth all things". It is morally wrong to indulge the idea that someone who has shown themselves trustworthy might choose evil. So it is unthinkable that God would choose evil because of how trustworthy He has shown Himself to be. Likewise, since God is taking so much care to ensure that only trustworthy people will enter His kingdom, we can have confident trust in His wisdom and dedication regarding this. It would not be right for us to expect sin in heaven because we would be imagining that people who lived like Jesus Christ would choose evil. But people who live like Jesus are worthy of our trust. It is not that saints will be metaphysically incapable of sin, but that it is immoral to suspect that they would sin. They have the ability to sin because they have the ability to love, again it is one and the same ability, but we should not think they would misuse this ability. We should trust God that only trustworthy people will enter His kingdom. That is why we should trust there will be no sin in His kingdom. This link is a good teaching about God having free will: gomitch.multiply.com/journal/item/57/Is_God_Good_by_Nature_or_by_Choice_by_George_E._Jed_SmockAnd this is a link to a thread where I defended the same and answered some objections (such as "God defines right and wrong anyway") www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=3083&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=30#p46173Also Charles Finney's Systematic Theology addresses some of these topics, though he did not have a Biblical view of foreknowledge as far as I can tell. And here are a few quotes from early Christian writers about God's freedom: [God is] "doing as He will; not being subject to any necessary sequence of events" - Cyril
"those who irreverently say that the Son has been generated not by choice or will, thus encompassing God with a necessity which excludes choice and purpose, so that He begat the Son unwillingly, we account as most irreligious and alien to the Church; in that they have dared to define such things concerning God, beside the common notions concerning Him, nay, beside the purport of divinely inspired Scripture. For we, knowing that God is absolute and sovereign over Himself, have a religious judgment that He generated the Son voluntarily and freely" - an early Christian writer
"man was fashioned in imitation of the Divine nature, preserving his resemblance to the Deity as well in other excellences as in possession of freedom of the will" - Gregory of Nyssa
[God created us] "not in view of any necessity, but from superabounding love, that there might exist a being who should participate in the Divine perfections. If man was to be receptive of these, it was necessary that his nature should contain an element akin to God; and, in particular, that he should be immortal. Thus, then, man was created in the image of God. He could not therefore be without the gifts of freedom, independence, self-determination" - Gregory
"He who made man for the participation of His own peculiar good, and incorporated in him the instincts for all that was excellent, in order that his desire might be carried forward by a corresponding movement in each case to its like, would never have deprived him of that most excellent and precious of all goods; I mean the gift implied in being his own master, and having a free will. For if necessity in any way was the master of the life of man, the “image” would have been falsified in that particular part, by being estranged owing to this unlikeness to its archetype. How can that nature which is under a yoke and bondage to any kind of necessity be called an image of a Master Being? Was it not, then, most right that that which is in every detail made like the Divine should possess in its nature a self-ruling and independent principle, such as to enable the participation of good to be the reward of its virtue?" - Gregory
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jul 1, 2011 22:43:38 GMT -5
Hi Molly, I don't know if you got Jesse's newsletter but I think he mentioned he hasn't had internet for a little while. Maybe he will again soon. I haven't seen a lot of other preachers on the board either. I sincerely hope you will be reconciled to God through Jesus Christ.
- Ben
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jun 15, 2011 22:33:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Paul
Jun 15, 2011 22:28:26 GMT -5
Post by benjoseph on Jun 15, 2011 22:28:26 GMT -5
whatdidjesussay, I figured I'd make our discussion about Paul into a new thread in case supermom comes back and wants to discuss the original sin thing in her original thread. I had to break this up a lot in order to respond because it was a lot of different ideas.
"What I am asking, is do you believe Jesus' death and resurrection made the law void to Christians and Jews?" It seems to me that the ceremonial/sacrificial ordinances that foreshadowed the Lord's atoning death would no longer be necessary. As for the rest of the laws given to Israel, I think they were rejected altogether, but not before having the gospel preached to them and being given plenty of opportunity to repent.
"Did Jesus' words about fulfilling the law in your opinion end the necessity to keep the law by His children?" I assume you mean the teaching starting in Matthew 5. No. That's not my opinion. I think He was reinforcing the need to keep the law. But He was putting first things first, not like the Pharisees. As long as the Pharisees sat in Moses' seat they were supposed to be obeyed. But again, I think even the unbelieving Jews knew that they were being completely rejected by God (Jeremiah 18, and the writings of Josephus) when the Romans came and destroyed them.
The Lord also said, "The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof"
"As to Paul, I believe his epistles should not carry the same weight as the words of Jesus." If there is actually a contradiction I would go with what Jesus Christ said rather than Paul. But I can't ignore how Paul seemed, like the Lord, to speak with the wisdom of the Holy Spirit. I will have to assume, unless proven otherwise, that it is more likely that we could misunderstand something that seems like a contradiction. I think we should care more about the truth than what is considered heresy or not.
"If Paul's writings seem to contradict those of Jesus we must reject Paul in favor of Jesus." It would be a sin against my conscience for me to reject Paul's writings over a "seeming" contradiction. I would have to be irrefutably certain about it. Not just at a point where I could possibly be misunderstanding something. If Paul wrote with a worldly spirit or something like that then I would not feel this way. But because, to my mind, he seemed to have a heart after the Lord Jesus, I can't just lightly believe he was a false teacher or something. It would be tragic, and I would have to see proof that couldn't just be a misunderstanding.
"Jesus told the apostles He was the only teacher, they were only to be instructors of His words they were not given license to change the gospel He gave them, correct?"As far as I know, only God would have the authority to change the Gospel. How it should be applied for different people is a different matter. Like when John the Baptist gave different instructions to different people who asked him.
My beef with Paul is biblical, no where in the scriptures is Paul called an apostle, except by himself. Biblically, and legally one cannot be a witness to himself, he must have two others to testify for there to be truth.You want to know why you should believe what Paul said about himself. That's reasonable.
The scriptures are very plain there are only 12 apostles, Judas was replaced by Matthias. Revelation speaks of 12 thrones for the 12 apostles, Paul is not included as an apostle.I didn't think apostleship was limited to those twelve. Jesus said something about them sitting on thrones and judging Israel. Is it possible that they were primarily ministering to Israel, while Paul and possibly others were sent to the rest of us? I can't say why it would be impossible. It would even make sense to me. But I agree we should be able to verify whether it is actually true or not.
In 2 Peter, Paul is called a beloved brother not an apostle. Beloved brother to one who claims to be an apostle was probably taken as an insult.This sounds off. Someone who was humbled by having their feet washed by Jesus Christ probably doesn't think "beloved brother" is an insulting term to any man.
What the author (Peter) was saying to Paul was that his words were Ketuvim that is not inspired, but scripture. Just to clarify the word scripture means writings.I don't judge you for questioning Paul but some of this does seem like a stretch. If it's not the heart of your concern, I'd suggest it is not solid enough to try to make into an issue. Peter said Paul talked about all the same things that Peter was saying.
So my thought here is, if Paul was said to be confusing, allowing some to twist his words to promote evil, then why bother regarding any of Paul's epistles as inspired?That sounds pretty biased. The Lord Jesus was misunderstood constantly. He even said things that I don't know how anyone could understand if they were there hearing it for the first time.
What was the author of 2 Peter saying exactly about what evil was being promoted by his teachings be twisted? Could this have been Paul's words saying the law was no longer in force, that it had been nailed to the cross, and had not resurrected with Jesus? I believe Peter did not believe that Paul meant to teach these ideas in his writings, and must have thought Paul's words must have been twisted by those who were preaching abrogation of the law.I talked to one man who said he rejected Paul because he thought Paul taught original sin. That is historically how Paul has been twisted the most I think. Original sin and the idea of being by faith without any works. I think a lot of people don't get him or twist him. But it's not a crime to write something that takes some real study to understand.
I think it is quite plain the apostles were keeping the law all along, before and after the resurrection. The apostles were keeping the sabbath day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended on them. By that time, I think they had been informed of the entire message of Jesus would you not agree? And they were still keeping the law. I don't think it is wrong to keep the sabbath.
The early church most definitely kept the festivals of the Lord, the easter orthodox to this day keeps Passover, only the English speaking churches call Passover by the pagan name Easter. The change of the sabbath day to the Sun's Day is recorded in history during the reign of Constantine the Great, up until that time the church kept God's seventh day sabbath. Ok. I don't really have any issue with any of that. I think the sabbath was specifically for Israel. I'm not convinced that Sunday replaced the Sabbath. If I thought I had to keep sabbath I would do it the Jewish way, but I don't think I'm obligated to do that.
My biggest issue with Paul was found in Duet 13: 1-4 I believe Paul's epistles fit the text exactly, he preached the law was no longer in force, that it had passed away. But this would be exactly what God was warning against when He said if anyone comes with signs and wonders that come true (like on the road to Damascus) but teaches you to follow a different path or god or tries to cancel what has come before from God, then he is a false prophet. We should cling to God and His commandments alone.
Yes I know this is considered damnable heresy by most who claim to be Christians, but all of what I have written is supported in the inspired scriptures of God.I don't think your soul is in danger for questioning Paul. If someone is totally heels dug in biased, not even open to finding out if they could be mistaken or uninformed, then probably they would have a defiled conscience and it would not be a good sign. But I don't have any reason to believe that is the case for you.
I'll check out Deut 13:1-4. But I don't know what else to respond to unless you collect the actual passages of Paul's that you think are contrary to God's will and show me.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jun 14, 2011 15:52:01 GMT -5
As I understand it, the ten commandments were a particular application of God's law for Israel. The law was in the heart thousands of years before it was on stone.
I don't know exactly what you mean by the law being crucified (I know there's a verse like that), but that makes sense to me in a figurative way if we're talking about forgiveness. I got the impression that maybe you didn't think you should accept the apostle Paul's writings?
I don't personally know any Christians who are sojourners in Israel. As I understand it, tragically, God had to reject Israel. But if they become reconciled to God maybe He will exalt them again. Maybe that would be a blessing to all of us if God gave them some kind of special role again.
In the meantime, we have the command "Let him who hears say 'Come'". So I figure that gives us the special role. So we should learn a lesson from Israel's fall because who are we?
Are you Jewish?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jun 13, 2011 11:04:07 GMT -5
I think we all know what being good and being bad is.
When the Lord looked around and asked the people if it was lawful to do good on the sabbath, they all shushed because they knew what good was automatically. Their knowledge of good didn't just hinge on holy writings. They recognized lawfulness just by considering it. This knowledge is in everyone's heart, although we can damage it to some extent.
But I implicitly defined sin as selfishness in that last post. If we get psychological about sin, it boils down to selfishness.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jun 12, 2011 17:57:42 GMT -5
Free will makes it possible for everyone to be good or bad. That means it is possible for everyone to be good or to be bad. Sorry, I guess I made an editing mistake and said that twice. I was thinking more about what you said: "why can the writers of the bible be so bold to claim 'For ALL have sinned'" If everyone has turned away from God, then He more than anyone else would want to know why. But Jesus said "they hated me without cause". And God asked sinful people more than once in the bible "Why will you die?" Jesus also told a parable of a man who was at the feast without having the proper clothing and when he was questioned, he was only speechless. Only obedience to God (love) has a good reason. But sin (selfishness) has no reason. It is unreasonable and insane. The only logical expectation is obedience. But we are not subject to logic. We have power over our own intentions, to choose reasonably or not.
|
|