Very Interesting Bible Verses...

[ThatIndividual]

Ok, folks... Here we go. We're in the book of Romans. Paul writes thus to the church at Rome:

9:13 -- As it is written, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau I have hated."

And what shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion."

SO THEN IT IS NOT OF HIM WHO WILLS, NOR OF HIM WHO RUNS, BUT OF GOD WHO SHOWS MERCY.

For the Scripture says to Pharaoah, "Even for this same purpose I have raised you up, that I might show My power in you, and that My name might be declared in all the earth."

Therefore He has mercy on whom He has mercy, and who He wills, he hardens.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ThatIndividual]

Reading further, it gets worse. Basically, what he have here is a god who decides to "show his mercy" and show his power by creating beings to torture, and then stopping the torture. God tortures some, but then is really nice to the others so he can say... "Look at me! I'm the merciful God! See how merciful I am? See how powerful I am? Look at me!"

All joking aside, this has dire implications for us all, especially if we do believe. Basically, right here in black and white, the Bible says that we have NO CHOICE in the matter. If we are hardened to the message, then "it is not of him who wills." God hardens the hard hearts and decides whether or not HE wants to soften them. This says that he controls IT ALL. We have no freedom.

Who believes in THIS god? Is this the maker of our universe? Did a being like this create the beautiful seas and breathtaking rivers and mountains? Listen to Mozart. You know there is a wonderful God, but is it THIS GUY?

This raises also another difficulty. We are suposed to act according to the way Jesus would, right? We should display god-like qualities, like love, and kindness, and honesty, etc. right? Well, what got Satan kicked out of heaven? Pride. It was his drive to self-glorification. SELF-GLORIFICATION.

Ask any Christian, what is God's purpose for creating all of this? Why build this universe in the first place? they will say, if they do not say that he was lonely and needed companionship -- which is kind of ridiculous if you think about it -- they will say TO SHOW HIS GLORY.

So God creates beings, who are made to suffer, fashioned with the intention to be cast into everlasting hellfire, in order to SHOW HIS OWN GLORY.

I believe very deeply in god, but this is not him.

[bhekti]

...I believe very deeply in god, but this is not him.

I am deeply moved.

Would you mind sharing about the kind of god you believe in, ThatIndividual?

[ThatIndividual]

An incredibly intelligent, incredibly powerful being created the universe. I claim to know nothing else about our god... Indeed, it's not possible to know anything else about him/it/whatever. I'm rational, you see, and honest. Skepticism is the only honest position.

[ThatIndividual]

bhekti, do I detect a hint of sarcasm in your cyber-tone?

[Psycheinaboat]

I choose to view God as a teacher rather than something to be feared. Now, I admit that much of what I believe I choose to believe and when I pray I often admit this to God and ask him to forgive me if I am wrong.

Oh, this discussion on what and who we think God is could get deeply personal... I feel so naked and vulnerable.

[Satirical]

In one hundred years all of these opinions will be different.

[Pendragon]

It has been said that God is so far beyond mortal thinking that the very idea that the human mind could preceive what He is is beyond rediculious. Even if you choose, ThatIndividual, to reject that the God of the Bible is the true God, you will come no closer to explaining why evil exists or why bad things happen to good people with your own version or concept of God. Faith doesn't require proof, or need to know every answer. You surrender the part of you that says "I must know" simply for the courage to say in the face of all doubts "I believe." God is the power of paradox, the explaination of the unexplainable, the courage to simply believe.... :angel:

[lover of jesus]

An incredibly intelligent, incredibly powerful being created the universe. .


there is some one is called ibn alqayym "an islamic scholar" would continu this beautiful description about The Creator of this universe:



Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allaah have mercy on him) described the greatness of Allaah in the most beautiful way:

"He is controlling the affairs of all the kingdoms. He commands and prohibits, creates and gives provision, and gives death and gives life. He raises and lowers peoples status, alternates night and day, gives days (good and not so good) to men by turns, and causes nations to rise and fall, so that one nation vanishes and another emerges. His command and decree are carried out throughout the heavens and on earth, above it and below it, in the oceans and in the air. He has knowledge of all things and knows the number of all things. He hears all voices, and does not mistake one for another; He hears them all, in all the different languages and with all their varied requests and pleas. No voice distracts Him from hearing another, He does not confuse their requests, and He never tires of hearing the pleas of those in need. He sees all that is visible, even the walk of a black ant across a solid rock in the darkest night.

The unseen is visible to Him, and secrets are known to Him Whosoever is in the heavens and on earth begs of Him (its needs from Him). Every day He has a matter to bring forth (such as giving honour to some, disgrace to some, life to some, death to some, etc.)! [al-Rahmaan 55:29 interpretation of the meaning]. He forgives sins, eases worries, relieves distress, helps the defeated person back on his feet, makes the poor rich, guides the one who is astray and confused, fulfils the needs of the desperate, feeds the hungry, clothes the naked, conceals faults, and calms fears. He raises the status of some and lowers the status of others Even if all the inhabitants of heaven and earth, the first and the last of them, mankind and jinn alike, were to be as pious as the most pious among them, this would not increase His sovereignty in the slightest; if they all, the first and the last of them, mankind and jinn alike, were to be as rebellious as the most rebellious among them, this would not decrease His sovereignty in the slightest. If everything in heaven and on earth, the first and the last of them, mankind and jinn, living and dead, animate and inanimate, were to stand in one place and ask of Him, and He were to give them everything that they asked for, thiswould not decrease what He has by even an atoms weight.

He is the First, before Whom there is nothing, and the Last, after Whom there is nothing, may He be blessed and exalted. He is the Most deserving of being remembered, the Most deserving of being worshipped, the Most deserving of being thanked. He is the Most Compassionate of kings, the Most Generous of those who are asked He is the King Who has no partner or associate, the One who has no rival, the Self-Sufficient Master, Who has no son, the Most High, and there is none like unto Him. Everything will perish save His face [al-Qasas 28:88 interpretation of the meaning], and everything will vanish except His sovereignty He will not be obeyed except by His permission, and He will not be disobeyed except with His knowledge. He is obeyed, so He shows His appreciation, and He is disobeyed, so he forgives. Every punishment on His part is justice, and every blessing from Him is a favour. He is the closest of witnesses and the nearest of protectors. He seizes people by their forelocks, records their deeds and decrees the appointed time for all things. Hearts conceal nothing from Him, for secrets are known to Him. His gift is a word and His punishment is a word: Verily, His Command, when He intends a thing, is only that He says to it, Be! and it is. [Yaa-Seen 36:82 interpretation of the meaning]. (Adapted from al-Waabil al-Sayib, p. 125)"

the source "
islamawareness website

May Allah guide us to good sayings and good deeds

[ThatIndividual]

yea, I'm not sure I'd agree with all that.

[Countess]

Well sir,

You have just discovered that theology that remains hidden to 90% of Christians: it is the idea of predestination.

Just as I have the right to write some of my characters as wicked, despicable humans ("foils" for the protagonist) so God has the right to write some of his characters as wicked despicable humans.

One caveat to this idea of pre-destination: when you completely fathom total depravity, then you understand all deserve Hell - all are born going to Hell. So, He is merciful that he spares some from that fate, when he did not even spare the angels - they had no redeemer or second chances.

I recommend reading Jonathan Edwards "The Two Wills of God" when you've got time.

But yes, you speak the truth, albeit not in love, but the truth nonetheless.

Countess

[Countess]

PS: I have a paper I wrote on pre-destination / Calvinism but it is in .pdf file and too large to post here. If anyone would like a copy and can provide the means of receiving it, I'd be happy to email it directly to you.

Countess

[ThatIndividual]

Countess, my truth is spoken in no other spirit than in love of the truest kind.

[subterranean]

Ok, folks... Here we go. We're in the book of Romans. Paul writes thus to the church at Rome:

9:13 -- As it is written, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau I have hated."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Esau sold his blessing for a saucer of beans. A form of disrespect and dishonour towards God. So God taught him the hard ways. But I think in the end, God blessed him too, right?!

[subterranean]

Oh, this discussion on what and who we think God is could get deeply personal... I feel so naked and vulnerable.

Indeed.........

[ThatIndividual]

Subterr, yea, Esau did sell his birthright. The point of the passage though, is that Esau was never free to not sell his birthright.

According to the Bible, he was created by God simply to serve as a bad example.

[bhekti]

bhekti, do I detect a hint of sarcasm in your cyber-tone?
No no no no no... please... I didn't mean to be sarcastic. Oh, maybe it's my english. English is a learned language for me. I am really sorry if my question has suggested sarcasm. Please..

I just want to listen. I am not talkative, but I really like to listen. (Maybe that's why my tone always sounds sarcastic everytime I begin to talk)

[Logos]

No no no no no... please... I didn't mean to be sarcastic. Oh, maybe it's my english. English is a learned language for me. I am really sorry if my question has suggested sarcasm. Please..

I just want to listen. I am not talkative, but I really like to listen. (Maybe that's why my tone always sounds sarcastic everytime I begin to talk)

bhekti, there are lots of people here where english is not their first learning, or they struggle with it for various reasons, most of us understand this so I say don't worry about it :)
oh, and I don't think you've been sarcastic.

[bhekti]

.... Skepticism is the only honest position.

I understand. I myself used to think that way until one day I began to question skepticism. As a rule, in Skepticism there's one thing that the skeptics must not be skeptic about, that is the skepticism itself. I believe true skeptics know this beforehand, but somehow, I think, they always manage to consider it, consciously or unconsciously, as "a matter of no consequence".

So I think skepticism is not at all an honest position. If you ask me, I will answer: faith. Faith is the only honest position

[bhekti]

bhekti, there are lots of people here where english is not their first learning, or they struggle with it for various reasons, most of us understand this so I say don't worry about it :)
oh, and I don't think you've been sarcastic.
Thank you very much,Logos. :)

[Countess]

Countess, my truth is spoken in no other spirit than in love of the truest kind.

***

Let us hope your true love is indeed kind, for there are truths that are neither loving nor kind but that are nevertheless truly spoken.

:lol:

[ThatIndividual]

I believe that I can give you an 'amen' to that one dear sister! Testify!

[ThatIndividual]

I understand. I myself used to think that way until one day I began to question skepticism. As a rule, in Skepticism there's one thing that the skeptics must not be skeptic about, that is the skepticism itself. I believe true skeptics know this beforehand, but somehow, I think, they always manage to consider it, consciously or unconsciously, as "a matter of no consequence".

So I think skepticism is not at all an honest position. If you ask me, I will answer: faith. Faith is the only honest position


Wow! So what you're saying is this... I was skeptical, so I got skeptical about skepticism, so then I wasn't skeptical anymore, because being skeptical should include being skeptical about skepticism, which means that I was going to NOT be skeptical.

To say the least, I'm skeptical of your position. And if there is anything that people make sure to omit from critical analysis more than their skepticism itself, its faith.

I take my skepticism of skepticism very seriously, thank you very much.

[ThatIndividual]

Also Bhetki, I take no offense at your tone. Be ye assured, there are no hard feelings for you here my brother. :p

[MiSaNtHrOpE]

Skepticism isnt a position. It's a method. It's a resistance to acceptance before the burden of proof has been met (Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer C. 2002).

I always thought that the Christian God was egotistical, out for his own gain. Wouldnt a truly benevolent God care more for his people getting along and doing what is right than believing in him? What if we find out, if God does exist, that he favors people like Pat Robertson?

[bhekti]

Skepticism isnt a position. It's a method. It's a resistance to acceptance before the burden of proof has been met (Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer C. 2002).

I always thought that the Christian God was egotistical, out for his own gain. Wouldnt a truly benevolent God care more for his people getting along and doing what is right than believing in him? What if we find out, if God does exist, that he favors people like Pat Robertson?


Can people really get along and do what is right when they don't believe in God?

About Skepticism... it's a method that puts its practitioner into a particular position.

[emily655321]

Can people really get along and do what is right when they don't believe in God?
Yes. I do things because I feel them to be right, not because I've been told they're right. Don't you?

[bhekti]

The same as you, I don't do things if I don't feel them to be right. But, not always... that is, to be honest...uhm well... you know.

Where do you think we learn to feel that way?

[emily655321]

Partly social conditioning (mostly parents for me), largely personal conscience. I don't think I ever learned to feel that way (though my mother taught me to pay attention to how my actions make others feel, so I learned to be more aware of others' feelings); mostly I just like to do what is good for other people. When I think, "Should I do this or not?" I search how I feel about it, not whether there's a rule that says I can't. Example: "If I take the last cookie, there will be none for my father when he gets home. But I know he was looking forward to having one, and I love my father, and I don't want him to be sad, so I won't take the last cookie." Voila. A silly example, but you get the idea.

Actually, I think there is an evolutionary root for the conscience. If you trace all human instincts back to self-preservation (with the ultimate goal of reproducing your genetic line), being nice to people makes sense. If people like you, they will help you if you need them; also, more crucial, they won't kill you in your sleep. That isn't a conscious decision, of course; it is just the evolutionary basis for the development of a conscience. If it genuinely causes you pleasure to be nice, and pain to be mean, then you are more likely to choose the one over the other. Our body rewards us for making what it perceives as the right decision. The same as hunger and sex drive; conscience is just slightly more cerebral.

Of course people don't always make that decision. The urge to "just take it" lies in the Old Brain—the part nearest to the spinal column, which we share with dogs and cows and crocodiles,—and therefore has a stronger biological urge supporting it than does the conscience, which lies in the newer part of the brain, which we only share—to a certain degree—with the other great apes. Sometimes the old overrides the new, if it seems a likelier way of getting what we want.

[smilingtearz]

Okay! i didn't know where to put this, and didn't want to start a new thread... here's something interesting...

Q: What is the shortest chapter in the Bible?
A: Psalms 117

Q: What is the longest chapter in the Bible?
A: Psalms 119

Q: Which chapter is in the center of the Bible?
A: Psalms 118

Fact: There are 594 chapters before Psalms 118
Fact: There are 594 chapters after Psalms 118
Add these numbers up and you get 1188.

Q: What is the center verse in the Bible?
A: Psalms 118:8

Q: Does this verse say something significant about God's perfect will for our lives?
The next time someone says they would like to find
God's perfect will for their lives and that they want to
be in the center of His will, just send them to the
center of His Word!

Psalms 118:8
"It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man."
Now isn't that odd how this worked out (or was God in the center of it)?

[byquist]

One quote that Bible literalists forget to mention or take serious is "If a man keep my saying he shall never see death." Or is it, "He that liveth and believeth in me, shall never die." Actually I think in the Old Testament (King James Version, that is) it says, "There is no death." Check it out, I may be wrong.

[ShoutGrace]

One quote that Bible literalists forget to mention or take serious is "If a man keep my saying he shall never see death." Or is it, "He that liveth and believeth in me, shall never die." Actually I think in the Old Testament (King James Version, that is) it says, "There is no death." Check it out, I may be wrong.


Is this my discussion or what? I think that the verse you are referring to is in fact my signature. At first blush this verse would seem to contradict itself! I think that in the second section of the quote Jesus is speaking about spiritual death. We will all experience a bio-physical end someday. There is a lot of New Testament material on both the spiritual dying we must experience in Christ and the spiritual rebirth. I can get verses on that if anyone wants.

(The NIV translates this verse "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?")

As far as the second verse is concerned I can't find any evidence of it. You are probably thinking of something legitimate, though. Both Jews and Christians believe in the resurrection of the dead. There are many Old and New testament verses on the subject, I imagine.
The Old Testament is Christianity.

[mtpspur]

The God I worship is th God who is so Holy that he punished the Lord Christ by death on the cross for sins I know I have comitted. I chose evil--either he pays the cost or I do. I throw myself on His mercy because I screw it up everytime. Plus I like a God with high standards---it's good to know the worst and the best of it.

[byquist]

Looked it up, it's Prov. 12:28, King James Version says:

... in the pathway thereof there is no death."

[Transmogrified]

pathway of "righteousness" it says.. only life and not death

[ThatIndividual]

[QUOTE=bhekti]Can people really get along and do what is right when they don't believe in God?

I love this question! (Indeed, this is THE question, isn't it?)

I believe that people absolutely CAN get along and do what's right when they don't believe in god. Absolutely. Out of love. Sheer love itself, by its own virtue, is all that is needed. Love is the supreme good; it multiplies and begets more love, more good...

People who "get along" and "do what's right" BECAUSE of God are only acting out of a fear of god's wrath, or out of a sense of duty toward god. (the latter case is certainly an improvement on the former)
Neither of these two motives is however love.

Love needs no motivation; LOVE IS THE MOTIVATION.

'twould be a sad world indeed if people needed to believe in an eternal and all-powerful authority in order to love one another... It really shouldn't be necessary.

[grace86]

One of the many verses about love in the bible...

1 John 4:8 "He who does not love does not know God, for God IS love."

So it suggests that if you do things out of love, then you know God, because that is what God is and teaches ultimately.

[rufioag]

I love God because He first loved me

[XXdarkclarityXX]

I have an interesting Bible verse. Matthew 12:30 says, "He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters." (NASB) Okay, now I've heard a lot of people saying religion is relative. Catholicism doesn't seem to think so. According to this, it really is theism or atheism. More distinctly, Catholicism or Hell. Any thoughts?

[Gallantry]

Partly social conditioning (mostly parents for me), largely personal conscience. I don't think I ever learned to feel that way (though my mother taught me to pay attention to how my actions make others feel, so I learned to be more aware of others' feelings); mostly I just like to do what is good for other people. When I think, "Should I do this or not?" I search how I feel about it, not whether there's a rule that says I can't. Example: "If I take the last cookie, there will be none for my father when he gets home. But I know he was looking forward to having one, and I love my father, and I don't want him to be sad, so I won't take the last cookie." Voila. A silly example, but you get the idea.




If the only reason for doing something is that it feels good we would have chaos, death, immorality. Ah hold on a moment, this is what we have. Someone feels oppressed their whole life and they feel it is right to enact revenge on all of the "stuckup rich kids" by killing them. Is this moral? No it is not. Is it moral for the stuckup rich kids to be stuckup? No it is not. How do we know? Morality must have a basis or you fall into moral relativism. The conscience is not an objective basis or standard and that is why it is not a plausible option. What my conscience deems acceptable yours may not.

[ThatIndividual]

I believe it is very much possible to simply will the good.

It's entirely possible to be an atheist (which I am not) and do only what is right, to love every neighbor, because one WILLS THE GOOD.

That's not the same as good things... or goods... or good feelings...

I'm talking about THE good. In the Plato, Socrates, etc. sort of way.

Some of us don't really need God for that.

[smilingtearz]

Interesting bible verses...

Proverbs 19:2
Desire without knowledge is not good

Proverbs 19:11
Those with good sense are slow to anger

Proverbs 19:15
Laziness brings on deep sleep
an idle person will suffer hunger..

day to day life??

[Gallantry]

Proverbs 19:2
Desire without knowledge is not good

Proverbs 19:11
Those with good sense are slow to anger

Proverbs 19:15
Laziness brings on deep sleep
an idle person will suffer hunger..

day to day life??

...I'm missing a point

[RJbibliophil]

I have an interesting Bible verse. Matthew 12:30 says, "He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters." (NASB) Okay, now I've heard a lot of people saying religion is relative. Catholicism doesn't seem to think so. According to this, it really is theism or atheism. More distinctly, Catholicism or Hell. Any thoughts?
By Catholicism, you must mean Christianity. Christianity is a universal term that refers to all who accept the Apostle's, Nicene, and Anasthian(wrong spelling) Creeds. Catholic does also mean universal Church.

In order to really understand a verse, one has to look at the surrounding verses, and what is happening, as well as historical reasons.

Here Jesus has just cast a demon out of a man, and the Pharisees are saying that He is driving out demons by Beelzebub, which is another name for Satan. Jesus answers "every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand."(v. 25)

He goes on to tell about a strong man's house being robbed. He then says that whoever is not for Him is against Him. I understand this as meaning that whoever does not believe in Jesus and follow Him, is His enemy. If you think you can be neutral, think again. Either you are for Him, or against Him, for, if you do not serve Him, you serve Satan, who is His enemy. THIS is spiritual warfare, and you can't be stuck in no man's land. You must choose. If you deny Him, you say He is wrong, because you do not accept Him. If you do not follow Him and serve Him and help Him gather, you are not supporting His work of gathering, and are therefore scattering. Do you understand?

[smilingtearz]

...I'm missing a point

umm... I was reading through proverbs 19
and these three verses caught my eye... don't you think these are some things that would describe our day to day living... an explanation to our actions
anger
desire
laziness

[RJbibliophil]

proverbs has good verses. have you read proverbs 31 Eva?

[smilingtearz]

must have, i'll read it today... for sure :nod:

[Mililalil XXIV]

Ok, folks... Here we go. We're in the book of Romans. Paul writes thus to the church at Rome:

9:13 -- As it is written, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau I have hated."
The reference Paul here quotes is from the Book of the Prophet Malachi. One must absorb the whole direction and sense of that Book to understand this one remark from it. GOD did not hate Esau as a person, but was angered at his choice of character, and saw his despising great things as an occasion for despising Esau as anything great. GOD did not hate him outside of this context, nor for life. Here is a remark bound up intimately with a reminescence of a historical point in Esau's life. Though Esau later put off this displeasure of the LORD, his name at times represents the people that descended from him, and, in the context of a particular generation guilty of betraying Israel's blood, they now fall under the type of their forefather at the time of his incurring GOD's displeasure. Paul, noting this sort of thing, uses a similar approach to shifting from historical facts to allegorical truths prophetically embedded in the historical facts.


And what shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion."

SO THEN IT IS NOT OF HIM WHO WILLS, NOR OF HIM WHO RUNS, BUT OF GOD WHO SHOWS MERCY.

For the Scripture says to Pharaoah, "Even for this same purpose I have raised you up, that I might show My power in you, and that My name might be declared in all the earth."

Therefore He has mercy on whom He has mercy, and who He wills, he hardens.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The hardness of Pharoah's heart was his own freely held onto hardness of heart. GOD did not make him to be evil rather than be good. HE offered him at first to freely cooperate with HIM and Moses. What GOD did was force what already possessed Pharoah's heart to come out of concealment, as one applies pressure along the length of a toothpaste tube, to extract the toothpaste within. GOD waited for Pharoah to enact what was within himself, rather than hastilly destroy him for what he yet concealed within. HE did not deny Salvation to any one. When it says that GOD has Mercy on whom HE will, it means that in the case of those that don't seem to have been treated as badly as they deserve, if GOD shows Mercy beyond what merely seems fair, it should be understood that HE will show HIS Mercy to even those we would not expect it to be shown to. It no where says that HE withholds it from whom HE withholds it. JESUS' Parable about the workers that all did the same work, and all to the end of the day, but beginning at different times of day applies perfectly to this statement that GOD shows Mercy to whom HE will show it. Those that worked the whole day, seeing that those that began to join in in working just hours before the day ended were givin the same wages, and not less, brought this matter up with the employer. He remarked that he gave them who had this complaint all that he had promised to pay, and had shorted them nothing, then went on to say about the rest, that, if HE had paid them just as much, it was for HIM to do. The moral here is that all got the full measure of the wages, and that HE pays the full wages to whom HE will pay them. Since one cannot get more than the full wages, some look at those who have longer lived in sin, and think, why should they not recieve less Mercy than those more deserving?

[Mililalil XXIV]

Reading further, it gets worse. Basically, what he have here is a god who decides to "show his mercy" and show his power by creating beings to torture, and then stopping the torture. God tortures some, but then is really nice to the others so he can say... "Look at me! I'm the merciful God! See how merciful I am? See how powerful I am? Look at me!"
The Gospel is the Universal Gospel because it applies to all. All were given free will. JESUS commands all to repent of all evil and come and recieve True Rest from HIM. All will be requited according to their moral choices. All are given commands that GOD's SPIRIT can and will enable anyone at all to fulfill. To practice evil involves a lack of Love, the Essence of GOD. No one is forced to be loveless. GOD does not determine what each chooses, but foresees our free choices, standing aside from manipulation of our free choice from Eternity, allowing those that wish only to have themselves and evil idols for gods to make this "divine" choice, being the gods of their own deprivation of what only the TRUE GOD can give them eternally. Yet, from Eternity, HE prepared Salvation to be offered for all, and the very Passion of JESUS CHRIST has its root in a laying down of HIS Life for us in the ETERNAL SPIRIT, as the LAMB slain before the Foundation of the World. And, in time and space, in which this Reality was revealed on the Cross of CHRIST in the fulness of time, GOD draws near with conviction of sinners' hearts, as a HELP to motivate all towards making in the shortness of time an eternal decision. Even those HE knows will reject HIS Free Offer, HE expends all means of wooing into the right choice. No one suffers for not possessing something they were not offered and which they did not reject. Esau rejected his life as first offered him by GOD. GOD knew what he would do, but in no way prodded him to do the evil, nor wished him to forfeit anything. After he had shown disdain for his gracious allotment, he incurred the momentary displeasure of the LORD.

Those that GOD knows will choose hell over GOD, HE often seems to let get away with murder. HE grieves that these will never know Eternal Life, so HE first bestows everything from riches to a thousand chances upon them, to not let them go to their eternal perdition without a fight put up for their souls. HE does not delight in the death of the wicked, but waits with Longsuffering, perchance that they might repent and gain Eternal Life. Those that HE knows will repent, HE improves through their sufferings, giving them eternal qualities through things that merely seem stressful. At times HE uses those that HE already forsees the Judgement of according to the Judgement they are already choosing over Mercy, and displays that those that oppress others will not go unpunished, nor their victims unaveanged, while rescuing some of the Holy at times in contrast to this, though others gain an everlasting Reward as Martyrs, winning the contest against temptations even through their exodus from this world.


This raises also another difficulty. We are suposed to act according to the way Jesus would, right? We should display god-like qualities, like love, and kindness, and honesty, etc. right? Well, what got Satan kicked out of heaven? Pride. It was his drive to self-glorification. SELF-GLORIFICATION.

Ask any Christian, what is God's purpose for creating all of this? Why build this universe in the first place? they will say, if they do not say that he was lonely and needed companionship -- which is kind of ridiculous if you think about it -- they will say TO SHOW HIS GLORY.

So God creates beings, who are made to suffer, fashioned with the intention to be cast into everlasting hellfire, in order to SHOW HIS OWN GLORY.

Actually, ONE WHO is GOD humbled HIMSELF infinitely, living in time and space as a MAN, and placing HIMSELF in the place of all those HE had created that had sinned against HIM. HE glorified the FATHER as the PERFECT MAN, and the FATHER glorified HIM, giving HIM, as MAN, the NAME above all names, WHICH before the TRINITY had only in THEIR DEITY. THEY decreed that none blaspheme the HOLY SPIRIT, WHO was sent to reveal and honor the Life CHRIST accomplished in infinite Humility to establish us for all Eternity as participants in the Divine Nature. Any one that does not honor the one bestowing a benefit is a bad character. satan wanted to displace his CREATOR and crowd out the fulness of Life from fellow creatures. Pretending to be GOD, he invented the idea of only one person being GOD, to eclipse the THREE DIVINE PERSONS, and wanted to be alone considered the MOST HIGH. To get this, he despised the very lives of the TRINITY, and thus is called a murderer from the beginning - for as a man thinks, so he is. Not being GOD, when satan tries to overlord the creation, he uses greater strains of force, and cannot give unlimited fulfilment, but, as one finite being weighing down on other finite beings, can only displace a creature's fulness with his deficiency. GOD, however, in filling all things, gives everfresh fulness of being, as the FOUNTAINHEAD beneath all things, and as the SEA to WHICH all rivers aspire to flow.

[bhekti]

.... "Jacob have I loved, but Esau I have hated."

...."I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion."



I always thought of God as something coming out from Hegel or from Laboratory until I met those verses.

Yes, to the God who said it and said it in that way I will give up everything I think my own. Yes, that guy is God. O how glad, happy, powerful and secure I feel, knowing that God is that kind of guy, even if my nature should fall to the Esau category. I love him for those words he said. I love God that knows love and hate, hate and love, and speaks it out and clear. Here is a will, a feeling and a reason. Here is a person. That person is there and is willing, hating, loving, punishing, praising, judging, sacrificing, betting, maddening, questioning. That person speaks and speaks not, acts and acts not. That person is God. For free but not cheap.

[RJbibliophil]

Great explanations Milillil. I will have to come back and finish when I have more time. :D

[RJbibliophil]

Very interesting... I am not sure I agree with all your statements, but I will refrain from refuting them. You are mostly in the right, although as imperfect human beings, we are all partly in the wrong. It could just be the way I interpret you statements, or the way you phrase things.

[Pendragon]

Mil I would change one word in your explaination. I would not use the word "commands". The word I would use is "invites" or "entreats". "Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Matt, 11:28
This is no demand, it is an offer. Then there is no problem with the rest of what you are saying. There is Free Will. You may take the offer or refuse it. If God is all-knowing, He will already know what your choice will be. But the offer stands, as it did in Genesis with Cain. Genesis 4: 6-7. He was told if he offered a correct sacrifice he too would be accepted. He chose to murder his brother. The choice lies with the individual. That God should know who will make a correct choice is part of what makes Him God. :angel:

[Gallantry]

umm... I was reading through proverbs 19
and these three verses caught my eye... don't you think these are some things that would describe our day to day living... an explanation to our actions
anger
desire
laziness

Ah, I understand.

[The Unnamable]

“It ain't the parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.”
Mark Twain

[The Unnamable]

"It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies."

Mark Twain (referring to the Bible)

[RJbibliophil]

I just found this verse which I thought applied to some discussions here.

"For men are not cast off by the Lord forever. Though he brings grief, he will show compassion, so great is his unfailing love. For he does not willingly bring affliction or greif to the children of men." Lamentations 3:31-33

God does not want His children to suffer, but suffering does create charactor.

[Bandini]

I just found this verse which I thought applied to some discussions here.

" For he does not willingly bring affliction or greif to the children of men." Lamentations 3:31-33



How do you define is grief? Does eternal torment count as grief? If he does bring grief, but not willingly, who forces him? Please explain? Or is eternal torment CharactEr building?

[Mililalil XXIV]

The most oft used statement to cast a coubt upon the Gospel Accounts is that they were allegedly written very late. Let us look at how this "lateness" makes no difference to keeping a Good Record:

Most biographies of celebrities today take for granted that an aged person with sharp wits is no less useful now for describing their own childs than they would have been in their childhoods. No matter how "late", for example, some of John Paul II's childhood reminescences were told (in his old age), the still vivid memories treasured in his heart still found valid expression in his mind. Friends of his that have outlived him still remember many of the things of childhood with a similar recollection.

How on earth, then, would the Apostle John become any less a written Witness to the most important things in his life, as pertaining to JESUS, in old age, than he had been since the times of which he had constantly recounted the events over and over orally to many Churches that could compare his statements over many decades to many generations of many individuals?! A Book written decades after the thing written of within the lifetime of an actual eyewitness are equal to contemplating the thing right after it has occurred. If you write a post, whether you wait 5 minutes or an hour to press "send" changes nothing. And if you develope old negatives, the image still represents what was photographed, or taken into the memory of the film.

I had tried to start a new thread called On Dating (Religious Texts), but the first post ended up here!

[RJbibliophil]

Do you never stop?

The book of Lamentations is 5 poems in which Jeremiah pours out his heart to God. He laments over the destruction of Jerusalem(586 b.c.). Lamentations is about grief and how to deal with it.

[RJbibliophil]

The most oft used statement to cast a doubt upon the Gospel Accounts is that they were allegedly written very late.

The book of acts focuses primarily on Peter and Paul.

The book of Acts tends to discuss the persecution and death of Christians, especially leaders. Jesus(Acts 2:22-24), Stephen(Acts 7:54-8:1), plots on Paul's life(Acts 9:23-24, 23:12-14), James the brother of John(Acts 12:2).

Acts concludes with Paul still in Rome, never mentioning his death, which was probably in the year 64 A.D.

It is resonable to assume that Acts and Luke was written in the early 60's. Acts is the sequel to the book of Luke, and Luke said he consulted other gospels(Luke 1:1-4) which most scholars believe to be the Gospel of Mark.

Another important clue is the fall of Jerusalem, which was in the year 70 A.D. Jesus had prophesied this event(Matthew 24:1-2). It is not mentioned as a past event in the New Testament, and it would of been huge news all over the Meditteranean. It seems as though the writers of the New Testament would have emphasized it to add to their argument.

[Mililalil XXIV]

When John was still alive, he already had heretical opponents to contend with - nonetheless, his Gospel took precedence over the writings of the pseudo-gnostic innovations. Early Catholics considered themselves the true "gnostics", as holding to the original Knowledge from JESUS. Their innovative opponents presumptiously called themselves the same thing, but were regarded rightly as a counterfeit for the true Gnostics by the true recipients of True Gnosis (Knowledge), the Catholic Church.

One sect called "the Valentinians" acknowledged the Gospel of John as being an ancient Document they could not outright gainsay. They recognized that their own Valentinus' "Gospel of Truth" was his own recent production. They had no earlier document to appeal to than what Valentinus himself wrote - so how did they try to get around this? The disciples of Valentinus school of thought started composing their own commentaries on the Gospel of John, striving to derive out of the words of that Text expressions to reinterpret according to their own bent. Why would they bother if the Gospel of John did not have universally acknowledged merit which none of their own writings had? Being a rather early psedo-gnostic sect, had there been a sect before them to quote or draw an air of tradition or authority from, do you not think their whole approach would have been entirely different?

This was the situation the second and third centuries, before the Gospel of John is alleged by ignorant fools like Dan Brown, to have been invented into canonical status by the Council of Nicea in the fouth century. He naively alleges that the find of Qumran Scrolls and of Nag Hammadi Codices reveal a different JESUS to really have existed than the Church has passed down in Documents such as the Gospel of John - which no one of any sect was able to disprove the validity, nor, in many cases, to disgard at the very least misuse of, in order to bolster their own novel claims through alleged association with John and/or his turns of phrase in his Writings. Nonetheless, the "Gospel of Truth" of Valentinus is among the documents of the Nag Hammadi cache, and its author was witness to the preeminant staus of John's Testimony, as in his Gospel Account, from the beginning.

Among the Nag Hammadi texts is an orthodox Writing called "the Teaching of Silvanus". It has features that suggest its early, Jewish Christian provenance (such as its Hebrew Wisdom literary tone, and in comparing spiritual impurity to the unkosherness of a sausage of many things), as well as Romanesque features that match well with the Roman citizenry of Paul's friend and fellow Apostle, Silvanus, and the Text presents JESUS as DIVINE. I have no objection to the Teaching of Silvanus. The Rebublic of Plato is in this find too. It hardly lends proof to a differing view of JESUS tahn the Church has always had.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear RJ, I hope I didn't confuse you at all. I wasn't trying to post this post or the last one in this or any other already existing thread, but meant to put both of these under a new one to be called:
On Dating (Religious Texts)

Good additional points though, RJ.

[Bandini]

Do you never stop?

The book of Lamentations is 5 poems in which Jeremiah pours out his heart to God. He laments over the destruction of Jerusalem(586 b.c.). Lamentations is about grief and how to deal with it.

I could ask you the same.

All I want is for you to explain your viewpoint - but you point me towards a section of a book. YOU explain. I don't think it is in the spirit of debate to communicate entirely via aphorisms and quotes.

Incidentally, was that quote meant to answer my question? Because it obviously doesn't it. If you can't or won't answer my question just say - but don't insult my intelligence by answering a question I haven't asked.

Have you responded to my last exchange on the other thread?

[RJbibliophil]

This was the situation the second and third centuries, before the Gospel of John is alleged by ignorant fools like Dan Brown, to have been invented into canonical status by the Council of Nicea in the fouth century. He naively alleges that the find of Qumran Scrolls and of Nag Hammadi Codices reveal a different JESUS to really have existed than the Church has passed down in Documents such as the Gospel of John - which no one of any sect was able to disprove the validity, nor, in many cases, to disgard at the very least misuse of, in order to bolster their own novel claims through alleged association with John and/or his turns of phrase in his Writings. Nonetheless, the "Gospel of Truth" of Valentinus is among the documents of the Nag Hammadi cache, and its author was witness to the preeminant staus of John's Testimony, as in his Gospel Account, from the beginning. I totally agree with you when you call him a ignorant fool. May I add that the book says it is truth, because it was based on a cult in the 50's or something. However, the leader of that cult later stated that the whole thing was a fraud.

I just added some more evidence and logic for the dating of the New Testament.

@Bandini-I was adding something I thought might be of interest to the discussion in this thread. I am sorry if I come acrossed as aphorisms and quotes. Now that you have clearly stated what you want, I will try to tell you what you want to know. I do not know what was insulting to you, but I was just trying to give you more information. I have yet to consider my reply to your post, but be assured that I have read it.

[ShoutGrace]

Hey now guys. I would refrain from calling anybody an 'ignorant fool', myself. I don't think Dan Brown intended to write historically accurate novels. I'm not sure if anyone has ever claimed that 'The Davinci Code' is at all factual concerning it's main premises. The book is popular for different reasons, and that has implications all it's own. But I think that perhaps we can avoid insults. And directly assaulting Brown's personal intellect. Maybe calmer words of a more loving nature would be of better service. Not to mention crazy old Matthew 5:22.

The feeling is what is important. The Royal Law is a big deal, otherwise Jesus' wouldn't have made it such. I more than most have to try to keep it in mind.

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind; and your neighbor as yourself."

God Bless.

[Bandini]

I would refrain from calling anybody an 'ignorant fool', myself. I don't think Dan Brown intended to write historically accurate novels. I

I think you're right Grace. A lot of people seem to be confusing fact and fiction. Who'd have thought?

I look forward to illumination Bib.

[Shield&Sword]

Brown. he talked so bad about Jesus peace be upon him, lies.

[Mililalil XXIV]

Brown. he talked so bad about Jesus peace be upon him, lies.
That is a fact.

[kabton14]

That's my God! We cannot box Him in with our inferior minds. We can never fathom some of the things He does but after all, He knows what is best. All you have to do is trust in Him.

“Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross!”- Philippians 2:5-8

[Lynne Fees]

Esau sold his blessing for a saucer of beans. A form of disrespect and dishonour towards God. So God taught him the hard ways. But I think in the end, God blessed him too, right?!

I was in a Bible study one night, and the leader said the Esau example was to show that God created Esau to screw up, basically, and that this was set from the time Esau was in the womb. While I like the pro-life aspects of this story, I must say that it is much deeper than this. As it was pointed out, Esau, in his free will, chose to reject his blessing. I don't think we can understand the interface between God creating us as we are, on the one hand, and free will on the other. I know it has something to do with nature vs. nurture. Why do parents raise 2 children, loving them both as best they know how, and one is a hopeless drug addict and one is a fine, upstanding person with character?

[chrissy613]

I choose to view God as a teacher rather than something to be feared.

Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Psalms 111:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever.

[BienvenuJDC]

Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Psalms 111:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever.

A fearful respect of God is an important part of one's spiritual life. Thank you for quoting these verses, chrissy....

[JuniperWoolf]

A fearful respect of God is an important part of one's spiritual life.

That's one thing that I've never understood about christianity... why do you want to be afraid of your diety?

[MarkBastable]

That's one thing that I've never understood about christianity... why do you want to be afraid of your diety?


I don't know whether they want to be, but I can tell you why they are.

It makes perfect sense to be afraid of a deity whose angle is, "Listen, folks - you have free will. You can do whatever you like. Go ahead. Though perhaps I should mention that if you use your free will to do something I don't like, you'll burn for all eternity. But - you know - that small detail apart, it's Liberty Hall. Have fun down there!"


I'd be pretty scared of a deity that set up a universe along those lines.

[JuniperWoolf]

Well, somebody must have made it like that right? I just have trouble with the whole concept, how can you love something and be afraid of it at the same time? Plus, how can you convince yourself that it loves you if it's willing to condemn you to the worst place imaginable for all eternity if you (let's say) use it's name in vain? How could fear be good in any way?

[MarkBastable]

Well, somebody must have made it like that right? I just have trouble with the whole concept, how can you love something and be afraid of it at the same time?

In answer to the second bit, the analogy that many Christians use is parenthood. On another thread recently, someone was arguing that all children were afraid of their parents. In fact, the corollary was that if your kids aren't scared of you as well as loving you, you're not doing it right. I didn't know where to start to reply to that. Luckily not all Christians think that way about being a father or about God.

But the answer to your first question, I think, is that God is ineffable and incomprehensible, and it's his universe so he can run it in any way he likes. Which is unarguably true. And for me it was a central problem - when I was agonising over such things - in believing in God. I just couldn't see how any vast intellect or any caring creator could set the game up in such a way that disobedience was punishable by eternal damnation.

However - lots of people do think that's fair, and they take it as read that God knows what he's doing. And if he exists, I'm sure he does. But I think he should be a bit more consultative about the processes and procedures, because I have some improvements to suggest.

[virginiawang]

That's why I never liked to think that there is an omnipotent God having power above everything, and if there is such a thing, I don't want to submit my soul to his reign. I can get alone with Christians well enough, but I've never prayed once in my life. Perhaps there is a God, since I believe in fate. It 's a wonderful idea to think that people were predestined in a way that they must listen to fortune tellers once in a while, and I like all this very much. However I will not pray and have things to do with that existence, if there is one somewhere.


By the way, I don't think God will like me, if I edge closer to him by praying.

[virginiawang]

A fortune teller told me not to get close to a temple when I was very young, about years ago, and that made me believe that I was in some way opposite to Gods, no matter what sort he was. Added to this, my mind cursed gods when I was doing my homage somewhere in a temple, almost every time against my will. The more I feared that I should curse Gods with blasphemous words, the more likely that I should do it. Then I never went to a temple again.


However I believe in predestiny.

[virginiawang]

Thinking about it once again, I started to believe that I was being very ridiculous. I know nothing about predestiny, and it was only out of my creative ability that I said I knew and believed it. Perhaps it was an attempt made on my part to appease my agitation, which growing stronger now, will swallow me entirely in the next moment, I guess. No, it was not predestinity that I've believed in. I believe in hearts.

[chrissy613]

I just couldn't see how any vast intellect or any caring creator could set the game up in such a way that disobedience was punishable by eternal damnation.


I am just curious as to know where it states "eternal damnation" of your soul when disobeying The Lord. I do however know where it is stated the penalty of death when not following God's commandments.

[BienvenuJDC]

However - lots of people do think that's fair, and they take it as read that God knows what he's doing. And if he exists, I'm sure he does. But I think he should be a bit more consultative about the processes and procedures, because I have some improvements to suggest.

Does a clockmaker consult his clock about how it should be run?

[OrphanPip]

Does a clockmaker consult his clock about how it should be run?

I don't think that analogy will help set Mark's concerns at rest. If God were to view humanity in the way a clockmaker views a clock, then I'd think his attitude would be rather contemptuous towards us.

[BienvenuJDC]

I don't think that analogy will help set Mark's concerns at rest. If God were to view humanity in the way a clockmaker views a clock, then I'd think his attitude would be rather contemptuous towards us.

The analogy was made to show that the Clockmaker knows much more about how a clock works than the clock does itself. A bit of hyperbole was used. I don't understand why you would think that a clockmaker would be contemptuous toward his creation. Your perspective of God is very limited.

[The Comedian]

how can you love something and be afraid of it at the same time??

I don't want to get into the religious debate, but I'd argue that most parents pull this off. We love our parents but we do fear them a bit (not in any bad or abusive way). In fact, some would argue that the combination of fear and love is respect.

[MarkBastable]

Does a clockmaker consult his clock about how it should be run?

If he managed to create a clock that contained cogs that had free will, yeah - I think he should.

More to the point, if he's going to give the cogs the choice as to whether or not to turn in the way he'd prefer, and if he's going to melt them down if they decide against doing so, then the least he can do is consider their views on how the entire timepiece is geared.

[MarkBastable]

I am just curious as to know where it states "eternal damnation" of your soul when disobeying The Lord. I do however know where it is stated the penalty of death when not following God's commandments.

I'd go for Revelation 20:15, Revelation 14:10, Matthew 13:42 - for the fires-of-hell type of eternal damnation.

But even without the eternal damnation, I still think that death is a bit steep for coveting your neighbour's as s.

The point is, I'd have a lot more time for God if he said, "Look, to be honest, there's no real reward for being good - I just think that, y'know, you should be. But I have no way of forcing you to be. I don't want to start issuing threats or revoking postmortem privileges. So, frankly, you're pretty much on your own."

[virginiawang]

But was the bible not written by a group of human beings? Was there really a God who wrote the Bible?