Religious

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by TJDave

Why would an omniscient god need to warn his creation to not eat the fruit?

So, that Adam and Eve could freely choose to obey or disobey?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

A word of advice, do not use the word "logically" in any of your posts

Certainly not with you... A rock understands better what logic is.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

If you want to blame God, blame God for the good that comes into your life. God is light and love. The absence of God is ignorance and suffering.

But above all else...the absence of God is DEATH! Separation from God is Death -- in this age and in the age to come. Has to be since God is Life and Light.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Overlay

None of us deserve God's approval or favor on our own merits. It is only by his grace that anyone can be pleasing to him. And since grace is by definition undeserved to begin with, that also gives God the right to bestow it or withhold it as he wills. In the event of the removal of that grace, that leaves the individual's inborn, fallen, carnal nature in control of his will and actions. The individual is then indeed "left alone" (as you say) to do as he pleases, but it is his own nature (not God) controlling his actions.

You have just bowled me over. You have come nigh to sounding like a Calvinist.

Mr. Thaskalos, sir -- The following passage is from the OT on how God influences man's choices. I certainly didn't want to give short shrift to the OT for there is much written in it to support the NT passages I quoted to you a couple of days ago.

Gen 20:1-7
Now Abraham journeyed from there toward the land of the Negev, and settled between Kadesh and Shur; then he sojourned in Gerar. 2 And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, "She is my sister." So Abimelech king of Gerar sent and took Sarah. 3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream of the night, and said to him, "Behold, you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is married." 4 Now Abimelech had not come near her; and he said, "Lord, wilt Thou slay a nation, even though blameless? 5 "Did he not himself say to me, 'She is my sister'? And she herself said, 'He is my brother.' In the integrity of my heart and the innocence of my hands I have done this." 6 Then God said to him in the dream, "Yes, I know that in the integrity of your heart you have done this, and I also kept you from sinning against Me; therefore I did not let you touch her. 7 Now therefore, restore the man's wife, for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you, and you will live. But if you do not restore her, know that you shall surely die, you and all who are yours."
NASB

So, tell me, Thask: Who was right in this matter: Abimilech who took credit for not violating Sarah or God whose power (grace) restrained Abimelech from sinning? If you can read the passage carefully, the correct answer is contained therein.

Boxcar

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You have just bowled me over. You have come nigh to sounding like a Calvinist.

Mr. Thaskalos, sir -- The following passage is from the OT on how God influences man's choices. I certainly didn't want to give short shrift to the OT for there is much written in it to support the NT passages I quoted to you a couple of days ago.

Gen 20:1-7
Now Abraham journeyed from there toward the land of the Negev, and settled between Kadesh and Shur; then he sojourned in Gerar. 2 And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, "She is my sister." So Abimelech king of Gerar sent and took Sarah. 3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream of the night, and said to him, "Behold, you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is married." 4 Now Abimelech had not come near her; and he said, "Lord, wilt Thou slay a nation, even though blameless? 5 "Did he not himself say to me, 'She is my sister'? And she herself said, 'He is my brother.' In the integrity of my heart and the innocence of my hands I have done this." 6 Then God said to him in the dream, "Yes, I know that in the integrity of your heart you have done this, and I also kept you from sinning against Me; therefore I did not let you touch her. 7 Now therefore, restore the man's wife, for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you, and you will live. But if you do not restore her, know that you shall surely die, you and all who are yours."
NASB

So, tell me, Thask: Who was right in this matter: Abimilech who took credit for not violating Sarah or God whose power (grace) restrained Abimelech from sinning? If you can read the passage carefully, the correct answer is contained therein.

Boxcar

Boxcar, sir:

I will not go into whether or not I believe that this story which you narrated above actually took place...because it's immaterial to the point I am trying to make. My question is...why did God create us in the FIRST PLACE? Was he just in need of someone who could worship, honor and obey him? And if THIS is why God created us...then why doesn't he provide us with some guidance of a more "personal" nature? He doesn't want to appear to us in real life as he did to Moses...fine. Why doesn't he tell us what he wants from us in a DREAM...as he did to Abimelech in your story?

I know...you are going to say that he gave us the bible to guide us. But the message in the bible is not as clear as it should be...especially when you consider that the "heavenly life", or "eternal damnation", hang in the balance. Yes...I've heard you say that the message in the bible is clear and unmistakable. But I have also seen through direct experience that even the CHRISTIANS do not agree among themselves when it comes to certain important aspects of the Christian faith.

If God is going to punish our disobedience with eternal damnation...then why not deliver his message to us in a more clearly-understood manner? Why must we stand on the sidelines while Christian theologians battle it out...so we can determine whose "interpretation" of God's message is the correct one?

He created us...and supposedly sent his only son to save us. And now he has abandoned us...with only an ambiguous, ancient text as a guide?

[TJDave]

Originally Posted by boxcar

So, tell me, Thask: Who was right in this matter: Abimilech who took credit for not violating Sarah or God whose power (grace) restrained Abimelech from sinning? If you can read the passage carefully, the correct answer is contained therein.

Boxcar

The rest of the story:


9 Then Abimelech called Abraham, and said unto him: 'What hast thou done unto us? and wherein have I sinned against thee, that thou hast brought on me and on my kingdom a great sin? thou hast done deeds unto me that ought not to be done.'

11 And Abraham said: 'Because I thought: Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake.

Abraham uses his wife as a shield. Is willing to risk her being violated to save his life.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Boxcar, sir:

I will not go into whether or not I believe that this story which you narrated above actually took place...because it's immaterial to the point I am trying to make. My question is...why did God create us in the FIRST PLACE? Was he just in need of someone who could worship, honor and obey him? And if THIS is why God created us...then why doesn't he provide us with some guidance of a more "personal" nature? He doesn't want to appear to us in real life as he did to Moses...fine. Why doesn't he tell us what he wants from us in a DREAM...as he did to Abimelech in your story?

I know...you are going to say that he gave us the bible to guide us. But the message in the bible is not as clear as it should be...especially when you consider that the "heavenly life", or "eternal damnation", hang in the balance. Yes...I've heard you say that the message in the bible is clear and unmistakable. But I have also seen through direct experience that even the CHRISTIANS do not agree among themselves when it comes to certain important aspects of the Christian faith.

If God is going to punish our disobedience with eternal damnation...then why not deliver his message to us in a more clearly-understood manner? Why must we stand on the sidelines while Christian theologians battle it out...so we can determine whose "interpretation" of God's message is the correct one?

He created us...and supposedly sent his only son to save us. And now he has abandoned us...with only an ambiguous, ancient text as a guide?

I'm not a "theologian" in the formal sense of this term; yet, I have a pretty fair grasp on the gospel message, thanks be to God.

God created human beings for, apparently, the same reason he created angels, who are higher on the scale of God's moral and rational creation. He created us to glorify him "by enjoying Him", John Piper would say. But I still think this reason misses the mark slightly. I say that He created us to glorify him by LOVING him. God is most glorified and honored when we FREELY give him our love.. (The operative word here is freely!) This is why God did not prevent the Fall. If God had empowered [innocent] Adam and Eve to not sin, then it could never be said (or at least understood beyond any doubt) that God didnt' force his will upon our first parents. That he didn't force them to obey. That he didn't force them to believe him. That he didn't force them to love him.

God created man for a purpose, to be sure. And that purpose was to freely reciprocate the Creator's great love for us, and thereby bring him the greatest possible glory.

One of the profoundest paradoxes in scripture is the first and foremost commandment, which is to love God with our entire being -- with mind, heart, soul and strength. Yet, at the same time do any us of love another on demand -- as love is defined in 1 Corinthians 13!? If not, then why the commandment? (Something to ponder.)

But never think for a moment that God was in need of anything. God needs nothing. He is totally self-sufficient. God is love, but he was never in want or in need of objects to love, since each Person of the Godhead loved each other for all eternity.

Finally, God has given man all the "guidance" he needs. He has provided everything for salvation. Man have the objective truth claims of the Word of God, as well as the personal presence of the Holy Spirit to all those who repent of their sins and believe the gospel. You never have to stand on the sidelines for anything. The bible is still freely available to all in this country. But you won't humble yourself before your Creator and plead with him to remove all the presuppositions you bring to bear upon holy writ, so to this day you still cannot understand. As I told Actor once -- non-believers have an attitude problem when they approach God. And God does resist the proud. So, the problem is not with scripture. The problem is your sin nature and all that that entails.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by TJDave

The rest of the story:


9 Then Abimelech called Abraham, and said unto him: 'What hast thou done unto us? and wherein have I sinned against thee, that thou hast brought on me and on my kingdom a great sin? thou hast done deeds unto me that ought not to be done.'

11 And Abraham said: 'Because I thought: Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake.

Abraham uses his wife as a shield. Is willing to risk her being violated to save his life.

Which isn't the central point to the story. Try to stay on point. Abimelech did not sin. This is a fact. God said the He was the cause of that. Another fact. So tackle the question: Who gets credit for Abimelech not sinning: Abimelech for freely choosing to not sin or God for not permitting him to sin?

Boxcar

[TJDave]

Abraham sinned by telling half-truths and misrepresenting his relationship with Sarah. A lie of omission. Sarah sinned by going along with the ruse.

Abimelech was the patsy in all this and would have been without sin even had he slept with Sarah.

That God should play the moral "heavy" here is despicable.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by TJDave

Abraham sinned by telling half-truths and misrepresenting his relationship with Sarah. A lie of omission. Sarah sinned by going along with the ruse.

Abimelech was the patsy in all this and would have been without sin even had he slept with Sarah.

That God should play the moral "heavy" here is despicable.

No one ever said that Abraham or Sarah weren't sinners.

Now, as for Abimelech (another sinner), God revealed to him what the real skinny was, so Abimelech was not the patsy. God told the king that Sarah was married. Don't forget...Abimelech "sent and took Sarah" -- because he lusted in his heart after her. You think he sent for her because he was going to make wedding plans for her? This "patsy" was a sinner who lusted in his heart after Sarah! However, by God's power, he did not commit an even greater sin in the physical act of adultery.

And why are you angry with God? Because he "foiled" Abimelech's plans? Because he restrained sin? If Abimilech had relations with Sarah, that would have put a happy ending to the story for you?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Or I can feel for them but just can't reach 'em.

Federal Court To Atheist Group: The Ground Zero Cross Stays

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/28/fe...#ixzz38uXt2qmS

Yesterday was a sad day for a bunch of atheists.

Actor, you atheists suffer so much to not believe in God. Question: Would you lay down your life for your belief? I'm thinking you wouldn't because you'd stand to lose all that pain that is so good. But you should try to connect and preach the gospel of pain to your like-minded sissy brethren who complain about their emotional pain the Cross has caused them. Apparently, they have different ideas about how good pain is.

Boxcar

[thaskalos]

Are the Atheists so emotionally connected to their non-religious beliefs that they would claim "injury" merely at the sight of a cross?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Yesterday was a sad day for a bunch of atheists.

I'm not one of them. I'm not surprised at the decision nor do I think the ground zero cross is really that big an issue.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Actor, you atheists suffer so much to not believe in God.

Not as much as theists suffer through their delusion.

"I have concluded through careful, empirical analysis and much thought that somebody is looking out for me. Keeping track of what I think about things, forgiving me when I do less then I ought, giving me strength to shoot for more than I think I am capable of. I believe they know everything that I do and think and they still love me and I’ve concluded after careful consideration that this person keeping score is me." - Mythbusters host Adam Savage, speaking at the Reason Rally.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Question: Would you lay down your life for your belief?

Do you mean if a Muslim or Crusader held a knife at my throat and said "Believe or die?" would I continue to profess non-belief. Hell no! Do you think I'm stupid? I'd be screaming "Praise God!" "Praise Allah!" Praise whatever deity I suspect to be the theists god du jour.

It wouldn't change my belief.

I can see your next non sequitur coming. "If you are unwilling to die for your belief then your belief is invalid." BS!

Originally Posted by boxcar

I'm thinking you wouldn't because you'd stand to lose all that pain that is so good. But you should try to connect and preach the gospel of pain to your like-minded sissy brethren who complain about their emotional pain the Cross has caused them. Apparently, they have different ideas about how good pain is.

I'm going to say this to all who participate in this thread (Boxcar excepted). Boxcar's line of thought, I can't call it reasoning or logic, wherein he concludes that I am a masochist, has to be the biggest non-sequitur I've ever heard. I will no longer respond to anything Boxcar posts on that subject.

:weapons grade facepalm:

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I'm not one of them. I'm not surprised at the decision nor do I think the ground zero cross is really that big an issue.

Not as much as theists suffer through their delusion.

"I have concluded through careful, empirical analysis and much thought that somebody is looking out for me. Keeping track of what I think about things, forgiving me when I do less then I ought, giving me strength to shoot for more than I think I am capable of. I believe they know everything that I do and think and they still love me and I’ve concluded after careful consideration that this person keeping score is me." - Mythbusters host Adam Savage, speaking at the Reason Rally.

Do you mean if a Muslim or Crusader held a knife at my throat and said "Believe or die?" would I continue to profess non-belief. Hell no! Do you think I'm stupid? I'd be screaming "Praise God!" "Praise Allah!" Praise whatever deity I suspect to be the theists god du jour.

It wouldn't change my belief.

I can see your next non sequitur coming. "If you are unwilling to die for your belief then your belief is invalid." BS!

I'm going to say this to all who participate in this thread (Boxcar excepted). Boxcar's line of thought, I can't call it reasoning or logic, wherein he concludes that I am a masochist, has to be the biggest non-sequitur I've ever heard. I will no longer respond to anything Boxcar posts on that subject.

:weapons grade facepalm:

But YOU ARE the quintessential masochist. Your words are forever recorded in the stone archives of PA's forum, which were: "Pain is good."

See what happens when you don't qualify you statements and say succinctly what you mean? All you had to say about pain was the truth, which is: Pain is a necessary evil. But to this day, you cannot or will not concede that pain is not an absolute good. But when you said that "pain is good" and then told us that this is so because if we didn't feel pain when we're sick or injured, that that would be a wee bit detrimental to our health, and then palm that off to us as being the whole story about pain, that was patently absurd. What you said was a half truth. The flip side to the pain coin is that pain also sucks raw eggs!

Boxcar
P.S. How do you like your eggs, by the way? I'm thinking from your thought processes -- scrambled?

[hcap]

That is not what Actor said.

Maybe you are a "necessary evil"?