Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

Natural law, as I view it, is determined by observing the activities of organisms, individuals, groups, tribes, cultures, etc., understanding the ones that promote the survival and flourishing of said participants, within and without harming the supporting environment - and rejecting those that are harmful or out of balance.

These laws, therefore, are not absolute, but relative to time, environment and circumstances. They are, by definition, open to individual interpretation, and therefore rather messy when trying to apply them to society in general. But, that's just the way it is.

God's perfect laws, as described by the Bible, are still open for individual interpretation, and therefore suffer from some of the same problems of application - though, admittedly, under a more narrowly defined set of parameters. But any laws, whether from a strict view of the Bible or from liberal cultural Marxists, soon prove to be harmful by their lack of flexibility - since humans, naturally, are not designed to fit in neat, tidy silos.

Since many cultures across the globe share an overlapping set of behaviors that promote the survival of the group, and allow it to flourish, I have the opinion that the Bible is not the source for these laws, nor can they ever be perfect.

The bible is not the source for natural law. God is the source for both natural law and biblical law as revealed in divine revelation. God's "natural law" is revealed intuitively in man, as a moral, personal, intelligent being, created in the image of his Creator who is also a moral, personal, intelligent being (cf. Rom 2:14-15) . Natural Law, as important as it is (especially in this fallen world) is inferior to Divine Law (revelation) because the former can be largely shaped by fallen, sinful cultures, this law largely being determined by "group think" (by consent of the majority, as it were); whereas Divine Law, as you have said, can be misinterpreted by fallen, sinful readers of scripture. But...bad interpretation does not change the fact that Divine Law itself is good, holy and perfect, and is clear and plain enough to where in can be understood and interpreted properly with help of God's grace. It is said of born again Christians, for example, that they can know what the good, pleasing and perfect will of God is (Rom 12:2) for right living. Jesus himself said that those who do the [revealed] will of God are in a saving relationship with him (Mk 3:35). Divine Law (formerly known as the Law of Moses under the Old Covenant and currently known as the Law of Christ under this New Covenant dispensation), therefore, is markedly superior to natural law since the former comes right from God's mouth through his prophets and apostles. And this law is eternal (Ps. 119:89, 160); and as Jesus also said, "heaven and earth will pass away but my words will never pass away" (Mk 13:31). In fact, it is this Law that is written upon the hearts of God's New Covenant people in this age by the indwelling Holy Spirit (Ezek 36:26-27; Jer 31:33).

If I find some time later, I'll give you a great real life example of how easy it is for someone (even Christians!) to be led astray by "natural law" that has been largely molded by one's culture, and how what this particular woman, I have in mind, was intending to do a thing and justifying it by her own selfish needs and the culture was, nevertheless, at odds with God's revealed will (Divine Law or Christ's Law). This is why the psalmist wrote,

Ps 119:11
1 I have hidden your word in my heart
that I might not sin against you.
NIV

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

It took me a long time to realize that I needed to separate a person's actions from their proclaimed faith, as it was illogical to toss Christianity to the curb for the transgressions of a few bad apples. Slick Willy Clinton, a despicable human being six days a week, got a free "reset" at his local Baptist church on Sundays, but that hardly means all Baptists are like him. But I freely admit I used the hypocrisy of some to denounce organized religion across the board - which I know longer do (or at least try not to).

I have read the Bible several times, though the translated versions might not meet every scholar's approval (King James, Good News). While I did not get the impression that Jesus or the Apostles were "forcing" believers to follow them, certainly the framework of what was required to obtain salvation was clearly laid out - and therefore vulnerable to "controllers" and zealots machinations, and then used for their purposes.

But let's keep in mind other religious figures, like Lao Tzu, Confucius and others also promoted their views on faith in a very humble manner. Others have not been so humble, and were/are definitely self-serving. How a faith is "practiced" is not necessarily the same as a person's belief system, and that applies to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, the Eastern faiths, and even - atheism.

This is why the bible teaches that the Church has only ONE head -- Jesus Christ. He is the Chief Shepherd. Pastors and elders of a local congregation are under-shepherds. First and foremost, Christians are to submit themselves to Christ's authority and then to the authority of his under-shepherds only as their teaching and instruction is in agreement with the Chief Shepherd's. Does a ship have many captains? An aircraft, many pilots? An army, many generals? Likewise, Christ's church has only one Captain -- and his marching orders are in scripture for all to see!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I addressed two of the indictments. Today I address another three. Indictments or passages, respond to whatever you want. Make it easy for yourself. Or crawl back into your hole, I don't care. But if you think you are going to shut me up by putting a limit on what I say you are mistaken.

You can post whatever nonsense you care to. Far be it from me to try to restrain a fool. I asked not to limit your nonsense, but as a courtesy so that you would not accuse me of choosing the easiest bible "difficulties". Understand this: I would much prefer to meet a bear robbed of her cubs rather than a fool in his folly (Prov 17:12).

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

Using that logic, one can also make the following statement:

Theism is a self-defeating philosophy, therefore, it cannot be factual (true).

Both, of course, are false statements.

Any argument that can be used to debunk atheism can be reversed to debunk theism. Elementary logic "proves" this, which is why both end in a hung jury in a court of law.

Any philosophy which claims to have all the answers, is suspect. I view this limit in terms of faith, which is why I'm agnostic. I understand that most do not impose this limit to include their faith.

I don't discount anyone who believes in God (or the supernatural) (via scripture and/or their own personal experiences), nor do I discount anyone who doesn't believe in God. In their hearts and minds, they have transcended past philosophical limits, made a leap of faith (or lack thereof), and usually landed on the side of believing in God or spirits.

The only self-defeating aspect of all of this is thinking that your own personal view of the supernatural must apply to and be shared by others. Nothing good comes of trying to force the issue.

Not true! For an worldview or philosophy to be self-defeating, it must violate the Law of Noncontradiction. In other words, it must be self-refuting, and biblical theism is not.

Even your skepticism (unfettered agnosticism) above is self-defeating since you cannot possibly believe that it's absolutely true -- the ultimate answer to life. You cannot say, for example, that God is unknown or unknowable because such a statement implies that you must know something about Him to make such a statement -- if we are to accept your unbridled agnosticism as meaningful. Therefore, your unlimited agnosticism is self-defeating because it refutes itself. On the other hand, if you say you know nothing about any deity, then your agnosticism reduces to an absolutely meaningless worldview. You would be a making a statement and basing your philosophy upon something about which you have absolutely no knowledge.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You can post whatever nonsense you care to.

What I posted was scripture. Glad to see you agree that it's nonsense.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You cannot say, for example, that God is unknown or unknowable because such a statement implies that you must know something about Him to make such a statement --

But as Pirate pointed out, this statement can be flipped on its head, viz.,

"You cannot say, for example, that God is known or knowable because such a statement implies that you must know something about Him to make such a statement -- "

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

What I posted was scripture. Glad to see you agree that it's nonsense.

What is nonsense are the absurd caricatures of God which you also posted.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

But as Pirate pointed out, this statement can be flipped on its head, viz.,

"You cannot say, for example, that God is known or knowable because such a statement implies that you must know something about Him to make such a statement -- "

But I do. I know this from divine revelation and personal experience since the Holy Spirit unites to me to God in Christ; therefore I have a genuine relationship with my Creator and Redeemer. So... the Pirate needs to tell us how he knows that God is unknown or unknowable. But you shouldn't concern yourself with Pirate's agnosticism; for your atheism is fraught with problems of its own. You conveniently forget that atheism has some serious ontological implications to it. We have bandied around ad nauseam two of those implications of Naturalism or Materialism (whatever you wish to label your ontological view of the universe.

First, we have seen that in such an atheistic view of Naturalism or Materialism, the universe cannot be finite because we'd have the universe creating or causing itself which is an obvious self-refuting position that would violate the Law of Noncontradiction.

Secondly, you have disowned the above position, favoring a self-existing, eternal, never-ending, timeless universe. But this view, too, as I have showed, violates the Laws of Identity and Noncontradiction.

But, of course, there is a third ontological option. One could argue (and it indeed it has been argued) that statements about existence aren't necessary to support atheistic Naturalism/Materialism. But one can see immediately that this kind of position, too, is self-defeating since this would have to include the above statement itself.

Have a nice evening, sir. And have a great Thanksgiving!

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I know this from divine revelation and personal experience ...

What kind of personal experience was it?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

What kind of personal experience was it?

I've had the Holy Spirit come over me as an overwhelming "wave" whereby I keenly sense his amazing love, awesome peace and holy presence. I have also heard God speak to me. I've also had very "mysterious" things happen to me in answer of specific prayer. I've also had the Holy Spirit aid me many times in my prayer life, etc., etc.

Later on when I return home, I'll share an experience of a very dear saint and fellow member of my church. This amazing young lady is a recent graduate nurse and is currently serving God in a missionary hospital in Zimbabwe. I will copy an excerpt from her email for all to read and also explain how her personal experience -- her encounter with the Lord -- fulfilled a promise of God in scripture. God is true to his word and is faithful to fulfill it right in the here and now.

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I keenly sense his amazing love, awesome peace and holy presence.

As have I, yet you deny my authenticity. Why should Actor believe you when you don't believe me? Nobody has an exclusive right to love or it is not love.

If the love that you feel is "exclusive" then its all in your head. An illusion. Love in your heart is true love and is never exclusive but unconditional.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

As have I, yet you deny my authenticity. Why should Actor believe you when you don't believe me? Nobody has an exclusive right to love or it is not love.

If the love that you feel is "exclusive" then its all in your head. An illusion. Love in your heart is true love and is never exclusive but unconditional.

Love does not have be inclusive to be unconditional. Unconditional Election does not mean God elects everyone to be saved or has to elect everyone to be be saved. All "unconditional" means is that the reason behind election is not found in the recipient of God's love but rather in God's sovereign purpose. The recipient of God's elective love does not have to meet any condition before receiving that love. Great example of this can be seen in Paul's conversion. What condition did Paul meet on the road to Damascus in Acts 9 that made him worthy of God's unconditional, elective love?

[boxcar]

Earlier today I said I would post an excerpt from an email update I received from a missionary nurse who my church supports. Below is the excerpt in the first email we received shortly after Emily (the nurse's name) arrived in Zimbabwe.

Try to put yourself in this young lady's shoes. The hospital knew weeks in advance that she would be arriving. Naturally, she thought that her living quarters would have been fully prepared for her and that all would be in order. Read below then I will show from scripture how God fulfilled a promise he has made to his church.

I arrived in Harare, the capital city, on Monday afternoon and was picked up by Major Mereki, who is in charge of all non-medical staff and finances for the hospital. We stayed the night in Harare because the car we needed to take back to the hospital was taking an extra day in the auto repair shop. We spent Tuesday running errands for the hospital and were finally on our way at 7:00 p.m. After about 4 hours of driving we reached the 54 kilometer (about 19 miles) dirt road. It was easily the longest, bumpiest, rockiest dirt road I have ever been on. It took us an hour just to drive the last 19 miles!

At about 12:30 a.m. I was brought to my little guest house that stands behind Kathy’s house. Kathy is the nurse practitioner who has been running the hospital for the last 37 years. It was late, so once my bags were brought inside Major left for his own house. I was on my own. Within minutes I realized the toilet did not work, it was very hot inside and I was sweating, the fan did not work (I found out the next day I was just plugging it into the universal plug the wrong way), I couldn’t find the shower (it was so dark when we arrived I couldn’t see the entrance to the outdoor shower just outside my room), and there were spiders everywhere. And I mean everywhere! There was one on the wall behind my bed, a few on the wall in front of my bed, under the desk and chair, a couple very large ones inside the closet and on another chair, several smaller ones in the corners of the room and on the floor, and as I moved the covers on my bed another spider came crawling out from between the sheets! I quickly grabbed a pillow, praying there were no spiders on the pillow itself, and after several attempts managed to sweep the spider onto the floor. I panicked. “What am I doing here?? Why did I commit 6 weeks to this? Who let me do this crazy thing??” I thought to myself. After almost crying I began to pray for peace. Almost immediately an extraordinary peace that could come from nowhere but God just washed over me. He reminded me that he led me here and for his purpose. He reminded me that these people I was about to meet live with even less than this every day. He reminded me that he promises to always be with me. I changed out of my hot jeans and into shorts and, after checking to make sure there were no more bugs in my bed, laid down and was asleep in minutes. I don’t think I have ever slept so soundly!

As you have read, Emily was quite overwhelmed by her perceived inadequacy of her surroundings. In fact, so much so...she "panicked". To say that she was filled with anxiety would not be an exaggeration at all. But what did she do in her situation? She prayed! She called out to the Lord in the anxiousness of her heart. And what did He do? He answered her. And how did He answer: By giving her his unbelievable peace. When I read her story, this passage of scripture immediately came to mind:

Phil 4:6-7
6 Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. 7 And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, shall guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.
NASB

And again,

John 14:27
27 "Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives, do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful.
NASB

One of the seven fruits of the Holy Spirit is peace (Gal 5:22) and, of course, Jesus the Messiah is the Prince of Peace (Isa 9:6).

Evidently, the peace of God which surpasses all comprehension did guard little Emily's heart and mind because she wound up having a very restful sleep that night.

God is faithful in keeping his promises.

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Love does not have be inclusive to be unconditional. Unconditional Election does not mean God elects everyone to be saved or has to elect everyone to be be saved. All "unconditional" means is that the reason behind election is not found in the recipient of God's love but rather in God's sovereign purpose. The recipient of God's elective love does not have to meet any condition before receiving that love. Great example of this can be seen in Paul's conversion. What condition did Paul meet on the road to Damascus in Acts 9 that made him worthy of God's unconditional, elective love?

Unconditional love and unconditional election are two opposite things. In unconditional love ALL are loved by God as they are, period.

In unconditional election, the majority of people are NOT loved by God, period. They are subject to predestination with the minority going to paradise and the majority to Hell.

Unconditional election is Calvinism at its worst. It did not catch on till the 4th century. Unconditional election is not something God dictated. It is a Calvinistic interpretation of various passages in the Bible . It portrays the worst qualities you can think of about God. An extreme sadist who creates people he has already chosen not to save. The ultimate hypocrite who does not hold himself to the same standards he expects us to follow.

Can Satan be any worse than unconditional election. No. So think about what you are following. This is why it is very important to understand the difference between what man says God says and what God says.

This is why Jesus said the kingdom of God is within you. Because if you know God within you, you will know unconditional election is the words of fools.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I have also heard God speak to me.

An actual audible voice?