PEACE OR UNREST

[jce]

Good morning David,

I am wondering how it will be that God has nothing to hate about man? In the Garden story Adam and Eve were created sinless beings, yet because of their nature they were able to disobey God, hence sin entered the picture causing God to hate man. The same thing happened again after the Flood when God destroyed all human life except for righteous Noah, and his family and once again sin entered the picture, causing God to hate man...on and on the story goes throughout the Bible with God hating man because of sin.

Now, if as you say a time will come when God establishes his kingdom on earth and there will be no more sin, what will keep man from sinning just like he did in the Garden, after the Flood and today? Is mans nature going to be any different than the first sinless man called Adam?

All the best,
Rose

Hi Rose

Just adding another thought on the prospects of man acting in disobedience to God in the world to come. It may be that our experience in this life is our learning ground. God has allowed us the opportunity to experience life in rebellion so that we know that we are not missing out on anything and that God is not withholding something from us. We fell the first time by being deceived that there was something better that God didn't want to share with us. Now we know the truth of that lie.

Once we are removed from this environment of temptation and evil, we can once again experience the liberty of a free will and at the same time never again long for something better. Doesn't a second chance in a Brand New Paradise, a New World without sin, sorrow and death sound wonderful to you? It sure does to me! And in that beautiful place to never be tempted of evil again, to never experience anxiety and insecurity, to bid farewell to that old desire to acquire goods or that longing for something better. Safe and secure forevermore, filled with eternal joy and bliss. Everything and Everyone in perfect harmony with the will of God! Just imagine for a moment what lies ahead for those who believe. God is so awesome, He will forever be revealing something new to us each new day. Like the first time you saw the Grand Canyon, or Mt Rushmore, that overwhelming feeling that you get. And those spectacles will fade in comparison to what GOD has in store for us.

Think about what you can see through the telescope in the distant light years away, the formation of galaxies and stars and planets. Just imagine a tour of our own galaxy, the spectacular things we will witness and learn. I mean, how long will it take us to tour the Milky Way let alone the billions more!!!! And this universe is just the beginning!!! Perhaps this universe is merely a bubble among billions of bubbles. It doesn't matter because we will have all of eternity to travel and view them. And here's what's really exciting... It will be even greater than that because the Scriptures say it is not possible for man to even conceive of the wonders which exist just beyond this 3 dimensional life here.

Jesus said, I've told you of earthly things and you struggle to understand, how can you possibly comprehend Heavenly things. The apostle Paul stated a profound concept in five meaningful words, "Lay hold on Eternal Life". Ponder that. The vision and the promise is there for whosoever will. What more could any of us desire? It is, if ever there were, a dream come true. So I say... Dream Big... because our God is Big!!!!

Jesus saith Come, and the Spirit and the Bride say Come, and let him that is thirsty Come and Drink Freely the Living Water.

It is a Biblical Certainty... World Without End. Amen!

Peace and Hope to you Rose.

John

[jce]

If anything has proven the truth of Steven Weinberg's statement, this is it:

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. ~ Steven Weinberg

Weinberg's bias:

Is there scientific evidence for a universe by intelligent design? Some people find it difficult to answer the question. In The New York Review of Books, Steven Weinberg contributed a piece titled: “A Designer Universe?”*(October 1999). Weinberg had been invited to “comment on whether the universe showed signs of having been designed.” Instead of addressing the assigned subject, he immediately shifted to a discussion about the nature of deity. In the end, Weinberg offers little serious consideration of the subject he was invited to address. He appeared unable to deal directly with the issue. His thinly veiled bias against theism and religion is finally unveiled at the conclusion of the article. Yet, if Weinberg is so intelligent, why doesn’t he address the question of design based on scientific evidence? Why does he resort to rambling ad hominem? Is it possible that Weinberg knows that the scientific evidence is not with him? That it builds a better case for intelligent design? Is he afraid to admit that on the question of the ultimate origin of the universe, the faith of naturalism has very little (if any) scientific evidence to support it?

Equally able scholars have been willing to honestly investigate the question of design.

Owen Gingerich, professor of astronomy and the history of science at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge said, “there are so many wonderful details which, if they were changed only slightly, would make it impossible for us to be here, that one just has to feel, somehow, that there is a design in the universe and, therefore, a designer to have worked it out so magnificently.”

The famous astrophysicist, Sir Fred Hoyle, acknowledged that the choice is between “deliberate design” and “a monstrous sequence of accidents.”

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies wrote, “The very fact that the universe is creative and that the laws have permitted complex structures to emerge and develop to the point of consciousness … is for me powerful evidence that there is ‘something going on’ behind it all. The impression of design is overwhelming.”

Biochemist Michael Behe, wrote that four decades of intensive research into life at the molecular level has “sounded a loud, piercing cry for intelligent design” (Darwin’s Black Box).

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word."

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance."

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God."

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument."

Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]."

Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed."

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life."

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan."

Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."

Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique."

Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms. DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science."

Why does Weinberg treat those who suggest intelligent design with such disrespect, while a host of others exhibit at least a measure of humility in acknowledgment of the possibility or even probability?

All dogmatic religions are harmful and should be rejected.

I would agree with that part of your statement as concerns "religions", but would disagree on the fundamental Biblical doctrines, which to me, and many millions more I'm sure, are obvious;

1. Man has sinned and is in need of salvation
2. God has provided a solution
3. The solution is in the atoning sacrifice of His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ
4. Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved
5. The Blood of Jesus Christ, God's Son cleanses us from all sin
6. God's plan is redemptive and certain
7. Those whom Christ receives shall dwell with Him in His Kingdom for all eternity.

These to me, are the essential Biblical Truths and the promises, Certain. Does God's plan, purpose and abilities exceed and/or expand on these basic Biblical teachings, I am confident that it does.

God's Peace and Light be upon you Richard.

Your Brother,

John

[Rose]

Hi Rose

Just adding another thought on the prospects of man acting in disobedience to God in the world to come. It may be that our experience in this life is our learning ground. God has allowed us the opportunity to experience life in rebellion so that we know that we are not missing out on anything and that God is not withholding something from us. We fell the first time by being deceived that there was something better that God didn't want to share with us. Now we know the truth of that lie.

Once we are removed from this environment of temptation and evil, we can once again experience the liberty of a free will and at the same time never again long for something better. Doesn't a second chance in a Brand New Paradise, a New World without sin, sorrow and death sound wonderful to you? It sure does to me! And in that beautiful place to never be tempted of evil again, to never experience anxiety and insecurity, to bid farewell to that old desire to acquire goods or that longing for something better. Safe and secure forevermore, filled with eternal joy and bliss. Everything and Everyone in perfect harmony with the will of God! Just imagine for a moment what lies ahead for those who believe. God is so awesome, He will forever be revealing something new to us each new day. Like the first time you saw the Grand Canyon, or Mt Rushmore, that overwhelming feeling that you get. And those spectacles will fade in comparison to what GOD has in store for us.

Think about what you can see through the telescope in the distant light years away, the formation of galaxies and stars and planets. Just imagine a tour of our own galaxy, the spectacular things we will witness and learn. I mean, how long will it take us to tour the Milky Way let alone the billions more!!!! And this universe is just the beginning!!! Perhaps this universe is merely a bubble among billions of bubbles. It doesn't matter because we will have all of eternity to travel and view them. And here's what's really exciting... It will be even greater than that because the Scriptures say it is not possible for man to even conceive of the wonders which exist just beyond this 3 dimensional life here.

Jesus said, I've told you of earthly things and you struggle to understand, how can you possibly comprehend Heavenly things. The apostle Paul stated a profound concept in five meaningful words, "Lay hold on Eternal Life". Ponder that. The vision and the promise is there for whosoever will. What more could any of us desire? It is, if ever there were, a dream come true. So I say... Dream Big... because our God is Big!!!!

Jesus saith Come, and the Spirit and the Bride say Come, and let him that is thirsty Come and Drink Freely the Living Water.

It is a Biblical Certainty... World Without End. Amen!

Peace and Hope to you Rose.

John

Hi John,

Now that I see life from a new perspective, and with fresh eyes, the arbitrary labels of temptation and sin no longer hold any weight. I can freely and fully experience being human in all its diversity, drinking of any water my heart desires without fear of violating some arbitrary rule and being punished for eternity. Life is rich and full and I am free to pursue any dream I can imagine, and be all that I can be without the imposition of religious doctrines that say because I'm a woman I am restricted from following my desires. I can fully exercise my free will now, and share my joy with others without waiting for some future time. I am living my dream now...

Much peace and hope to you also my friend,
Rose

[David M]

Good evening Rose
I see that I need to qualify I what I mean when I say God does not change.

Good morning David,

I am only going to respond to a couple things in your post which I have highlighted in red. The first being your statement that "God does not and cannot change". If God does not and cannot change, why is it that Jesus on many occasions directly says he does? For instance in Matthew 19, which I have been discussing on another thread called The Two shall become One Jesus introduces a new law that directly contradicts the law given to Moses by God which explicitly says that a man can have multiple wives and can divorce his wives for any reason. Whereas the law given by Jesus says that a man can only have one wife and cannot divorce her except for fornication. It seems like that is a huge change of mind!

I am not saying that God cannot change from performing punishment that would be the exercise of Justice. God listens to prayer (even though Richard will argue that God does not answer prayer). Moses pleaded on behalf of the Israelites that God did not punish them as Moses knew it would have been just of God to do so for their disobedience. As it says in James 5:16 "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." God is not changing His ultimate goal for this earth and He is not changing the promises He has made to Abraham or any of the promises He has made. God is not changeable in form or character, the same as Jesus does not change his character. Jesus will not change from the incorruptible body that he has been given, which is the same body that those accepted into the kingdom will be given. This corruptible body will be changed as the Apostle Paul tells us. In Hebrews 13: 8 it says; Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. This is clearly speaking of his unchangeable character. Compare that with sinful men as James 1:8 says; A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. God and Jesus are not unstable whereby they change their mind or their principles. Can that be said of us?

Rose; I must ask you to find and quote for me the law given to Moses which says a man can have more than one wife. Jesus said; "As it was in the beginning" Jesus was not introducing a new law. Jesus knew the ancient scriptures far better that you or I know them.

I am wondering how it will be that God has nothing to hate about man? In the Garden story Adam and Eve were created sinless beings, yet because of their nature they were able to disobey God, hence sin entered the picture causing God to hate man. The same thing happened again after the Flood when God destroyed all human life except for righteous Noah, and his family and once again sin entered the picture, causing God to hate man...on and on the story goes throughout the Bible with God hating man because of sin.

[COLOR="#FF0000"]Now, if as you say a time will come when God establishes his kingdom on earth and there will be no more sin, what will keep man from sinning just like he did in the Garden, after the Flood and today? Is mans nature going to be any different than the first sinless man called Adam? All the best,
Rose

I also wonder at the transformation that will come. Jesus proved that in this body of flesh it was possible to lead a sinless live (at least for 33.5 years that Jesus lived in this body of flesh). I can only speculate at this time and I am assured by God's word that the life to come will be perfect. In the kingdom, everyone has eternal life, this takes away any competitiveness to want and need more and prove that we are better than our neighbor. Why does man strive to have more and want everything in this life that he cannot take with him when he dies? When you have eternity to enjoy life and explore, where is the temptation to want more? This is not a perfect answer, but it goes someway to explaining why people will not sin in the kingdom. This incorruptible body will be changed and we shall realize what it means to live for ever. We know what it means to die and Adam and Eve did not know what that meant until that curse came upon them because of their disobedience.

Man's nature (his corruptible body) will be changed. As the Apostle Paul writes; (1 Cor 15:52) In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. (53) For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
The other change that will come about is that God's way of life for us will be ingrained in our mind. We will not forget God's law as is the case at the moment. Instead of the law written on tables of stone, they will be written into peoples' hearts. This is what we should be putting into practice now and which we do imperfectly, but this will be perfected in the kingdom. We shall want to live in harmony with God and this will not make us robots. God wants us to come to him willingly, not by force. This is what we should be trying to do and perfect in this life. What we are unable to achieve, God will perfect. Having eternal life will be a major transformation. In the kingdom, I think we will never lose sight of where we have come from and this life is not a place we would want to return to.

I would not let any speculative questions and failure to imagine what it must be like to live in the kingdom stop me from believing all that God has promised will happen. It is a future I look forward to and accept is going to happen.

All the best,

David

[David M]

Good morning David,

Your refusal to answer my response to your points is rather telling. You have habitually harangued Rose for supposedly "not answering your questions" when in fact she did (just not in the tedious "point by point" way you demanded). It appears you hold yourself to a different standard than others.

Good morning Richard
Why the combative response? I was not refusing to answer your questions, I explained that several responses from others to your reply to my statements was sufficient in my estimation. I was not aware that you were asking me questions to which you needed a reply from me.
As you also said;"I really think that we will just be talking past each other if we play ping-pong with lists like this." which is the reason for not continuing to reply to each and every response to my statements.

I am surprised you would want to rake up the episode of Rose not answering my questions in the way that I requested in a previous thread. I must show restraint now, so I will add the link to that particular thread so that others who do not know what you are talking about can find out for themselves who was speaking the truth.
http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/show...e-Mother/page2 starting at post #20

Christians are not free to differ about the "nature of Jesus." It is a fundamental doctrine of the faith. The versions of Christianity that differ about the nature of Jesus are entirely different religions. The fact that they hold some things in common is irrelevant. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses hold most things in common with Christians, but evangelical and orthodox Christians deem them a cult. And for good reason - the distance between Jesus being God and Jesus being only a man is the distance of infinity. No Bible-believer could imagine the Apostle Paul minimizing this distinction. It must be one or the other. And if God has failed to make this truth clear in his word, then his word is too ambiguous to be trusted. Indeed, the ambiguity in the Bible has led to the horror of history (for which God is directly and personally responsible). The case of Servetus illustrates this point. He was burned at the stake by devout Christians who convicted him of two "crimes" - denying the Trinity and denying Infant Baptism! If anything has proven the truth of Steven Weinberg's statement, this is it:

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. ~ Steven Weinberg

All dogmatic religions are harmful and should be rejected. They tend to corrupt both the minds and the morals of those who adhere to them.

Your opening statements are absurd coming from someone who has denied all fundamental doctrine and do not believe the Bible is God's inspired word and have renounced all their beliefs and yet continue to put forward false doctrine in the name of others. It is a fact that there are different Christian religions that hold different doctrine sets and yet have some doctrines within those sets that are common. I choose to associate with people who hold to the same doctrine set that I do, I am not going out of my way to be antagonistic toward those who do not hold to the same doctrine set. Paul believed that Jesus was the Son of God and not God and I believe the same, so what you say is just antagonistic rhetoric and I do not want to be drawn into responding to every word you say that I disagree with. I am not going to get drawn into the tit-for-tat that we agreed that we should avoid.

I find it fascinating that you so explicitly set your own "man-made logic" above that of the very people who gave you your Bible. Surely you know that all your arguments were thoroughly examined, debated, and rejected by the ecumenical councils many hundreds of years ago. Your arguments totally ignore the reasons orthodox Christians reject your interpretation. Indeed, you don't address those reasons at all, and it makes me wonder if you are even aware of the history of your own religion. Your arguments are facile and superficial. They don't deal with the reasons that early Christians first began to believe that Jesus was God.

I am not setting "my own" man-made logic. I am using the same logic as you claim to use. Accuse me of using "your logic", not mine. I know about all the arguments and I why should I agree when there are many that disagree like me. Even 'Greatest I am' in a recent post to you in another thread didn't agree with the decision of those councils and I am surprised you still agree with them. I think you are not such a free-thinker as you like to claim you are. You are tapped by your own logic and thought processes. "Your arguments are facile and superficial" - I have yet to see you reasoning from the scriptures that makes sense. You have been seen to dismiss important words of scripture and it is a dishonest (if unintentional) use of scripture that you employ to try and win your case.

And most importantly, think of the impact this has on your personal confidence that the Spirit of God guides "true Christians" into "all truth." If that were true, then it is impossible to say that committed Trinitarians and committed Anti-Trinitarians are led by the same spirit.

The Spirit of God comes from reading His word. I do not have to believe that the Holy Spirit is guiding my every footstep. If I trip, do I blame the Holy Spirit, or do I accept that it is my fault? (you do not need to answer). We can all read the same words and if the meaning of those words acts on us in different ways, then "yes", the spirit force of those words is different.

I can't help but smile when you say the Bible "clearly states" that Jesus is the Son of God since the Bible also "clearly states" that angels have sinned. But you are wrong when you say that I believe in that doctrine. Let me be clear: I don't believe in the Biblical doctrine of "angels" at all so I can't believe that they sinned. They may or may not be real. There is no way for me to know. But there are some things I can know, such as the fact that Jude quoted the book of Enoch in the context of talking about angels that "left their first estate" which "just happens" to be the central topic of the book of Enoch, and that Christians have a 2000 year tradition based on the Bible that says angels have sinned. You reject these facts as being "irrelevant" because Enoch is not considered "canonical" by most Christians. This is an odd reason since you also reject orthodox Christianity which defined the Bible. This brings up the problem of the canon for which you have no answer. You have received your Bible from people who teach things that you reject. Why then do you trust the book that they gave you? How do you know that Jude is supposed to be in it? Perhaps those corrupt teachers who believed in sinful angels put the books of 2 Peter and Jude in the Bible because they taught the doctrine that angels sinned. How could you know? By what standard do you judge if a book belongs in the Bible or not? You have no standard. Your entire faith is based on a book produced by a religion you reject. I find that to be quite ironic.

It is good of you to admit that you do not believe in "angels" but why do you continue to refer to the Book of Enoch that is fundamentally flawed and that you did not agree with. Jude made reference to Enoch, but not the book of Enoch as it has become. If you dismissed the Book of Enoch as you were right to do so, why do you hold with the false teaching about "angels". I can only think you have a mental block and cannot reason this out. I could not care less about Christian traditions that have gown up and are false. You are asking me questions about a book that you once accepted was falsified and could not have all been attributed to Enoch and I have rejected for the same reasons you did. I wish you would not keep bringing this up; this shows one of the reasons that I cannot reply to all your verbal replies; I do not have the same capacity to keep regurgitating the same rhetoric at the pace you do.

The words "to me" do not go well with "prove." Proof is something objective and verifiable or it is not proof at all. "We never got far enough to proving the prophecies" because you quit that conversation after it became clear that there is no such proof. At best, there are ambiguous "hints" and curious "correlations" but there is nothing like any "proof." Almost all the "prophecies" are taken out of context and misapplied to the modern secular state of Israel. It is clear from context that they were in reference to the Biblical theocratic state of Israel that existed in the first century when the Temple still stood. There never can be another authentic "Temple of God" in Jerusalem because the Jews are unbelievers who have rejected their God (according to Christianity, of course). The predictions of Christ in the Olivet Discourse have been fulfilled. Any attempt to apply them to the modern era shreds the text and makes it utterly meaningless and absurd. We've been discussing this for years on this forum, and no Futurist has ever been able to support their doctrines with logic, facts, and the Bible. I've gone the distance with a few of them, and they always quit the conversation when I prove their arguments are fallacious.

I never "quit the conversation" so do not shift the blame on me. If we quit is was by mutual agreement. You agreed that we would "keep passing by each other". I start from the self-declared premise that all scripture is given by the inspiration of God and you do not. On these grounds there is no hope we will ever get down to reasoning from the Bible. It is you who is saying there is "no proof", because you reject everything that others say with reasoning. I simply reject what you say, because you have not reasoned correctly from the Bible.
I have been reading the conversations you have had with futurists including Twospirits and it appears that you quit not having proved their arguments fallacious; only that you say you have proved them thus.

I am going to go back to the post you accuse me of "refusing to answer" and I will answer any sentences with a question mark and then I shall be done with further comment on the statements I made.

All the best,
David

[David M]

Good morning David,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

OK Richard, I am coming back to this post to answer any questions you accuse me of avoiding. As I said the several responses to your reply to my statements I thought was sufficient.

1. God is the Creator and therefore has the right to expect man to show Him respect.
Yes, God has the "right" to do and demand whatever he wants, such as kill everyone in the flood and order his people to chop up babies. But if he does things like that, how then can we say that he deserves respect? You wouldn't respect any human who did such things. Why would God deserve respect if he does things that would be considered abominable if done by any other person?

Which is more abominable; to commit the abominable acts of idolatry and child killing that God hates and has commanded everyone not to do which the Canaanites did, or the mass destruction of the Canaanites? I do not condone people killing other people (babies included) if it is not sanctioned by God. God is the giver of life and He can take life back. Life is not something you or I can give. Giving birth to a child is regarded as a gift and not a right. If God takes back life, I accept it. I balance the taking of life with the gift of eternal life that God offers and on balance, God is far more gracious and merciful than we deserve. I do not want God to class me as a reprobate and I am doing things whereby others should see that I am not a reprobate. If God classes people as reprobates, their lives are valueless and can be eradicated. Who am I to judge what God has the right to do? Do I want to be perverted by reprobates? "No" is my answer. So if God removes reprobates, that is good. There are many reprobates in the world today, but God is delaying His judgment and their punishment to come.

2. God hates those who are disrespectful to Him and who do the abominable things which God hates.
First, God has commanded people to do morally abominable things. This is the primary error of your assertion. God commands the things that he says he hates. The morality taught in the Bible is logically incoherent and so are literally impossible to believe since incoherent statements are meaningless. This is why Christians cannot agree with atheists that genocide, slavery, and the oppression of women are immoral. God commanded those things, so they must be "right." Well, sorry to break the news to you, but they are not right and not good. And if you say they are right, then you contradict your assertion that God is good.

Second, if God hates his enemies then he violates the most fundamental teaching of Christ, to love your enemies.

Third, your statement directly contradicts the Biblical testimony that God loved us "while we were yet sinners" who were "disrespectful to him and who do the abominable things which God hates."

First of all there is no question to answer here. You have made your statements which I disagree with. If a reprobate showed repentance, I would expect God to forgive them. Show me a reprobate Canaanite who was repentent. God loves those who repent, so yes, if we had done terrible things in the past, God now loves us, if we have changed our old ways and follow God's instruction.
God can hate the sin and not the sinner, especially when the sinner repents. God does not have to hate repbrobates; He simply gives up on them. God hates the evil that men and women do. I can show respect to my enemy and hate what they do. It is better to love than hate, but that does not mean we must not hate everything. I expect there are degrees by which to judge the enemy and degrees by which we hate. It would seem that those with a reprobate mind are beyond redemption. God has no reason to continue to hate those reprobates, after He has given up on them. The statements you make, we have to get in balance.

[QUOTE=Richard Amiel McGough;46248]

3. Man is imposing his own moral code on God. Man's morality is not universal and is not absolute.
When you judge that God is good, you are "imposing your own moral code on God." That's the only reason you think anything is good about him. You see things in the Bible that match your own moral code and you judge accordingly.

Again, there is no question to answer here. I let others judge your answers to be true or not. By saying "God is good", I do not see that as applying a moral code; it is a statement concerning part of God's character. God an be good and if He does that looks bad to us, it does not mean that it is bad to God. God destroying the reprobate Canaanites is bad to you and good to me; to God, He was being good to His chosen people in eradicating this idolatrous nation and he was not being bad to the Canaanits, simply metering out justice. Alas, the Israelites failed to obey God's instruction completely and so they became corrupt sooner than later.

4. God has no man-made laws to apply to Himself. God is, who He is and His nature does not change.
His nature changed dramatically in the New Testament.

Again, no question to answer. God's total character did not change. The fact that God has delayed judgment on the nations to a future time or that He has given the judgment of people at the resurrection to His Son, is not a change of character. God's nature (substance) is still the same.

5. God is loving and merciful, but hates man's evil is vengeful toward the wicked.
Love does not hate. Hate is not love. You can't say that "God is love" and "God is vengeful." We know this because it is a universal principle. No person who pours out vengeance on his enemies can be said to "love them."

Again, no question to answer here. As I have said in a post following; "God" does not equal "love". I said; "God is loving". God is not love to the exclusion of all else, God gets angry and God hates evil.

6. God has given us the example of a moral code in action in the person of His only begotten Son; Jesus.
The morality of Christ is much better than the morality of the God of the OT, and that's a huge problem that has vexed Christians from the beginning.

No question to answer. Jesus cannot be better than God. Jesus said; Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

7. God offers us eternal life on earth in His glorious kingdom to come. What can man offer?
There is much disagreement amongst Christians about where they will spend "eternal life." Your version of the religion says one thing, while versions made up by other men say something else. That's how we know they are all man-made. Your version of Christianity differs dramatically from versions made by other men.

No question to answer here. My reply to your last statement is; "good!" It does not matter that there are different interpretations, only one can be true; that is what we have to search for.

I really think that we will just be talking past each other if we play ping-pong with lists like this. The problem is simple - your morality is fundamentally inconsistent. You apply one standard for humans and no standard for God. If God commands chopping up babies, then chopping up babies is not absolutely immoral. Your entire moral system is fundamentally relativistic. You have no moral absolutes at all. Christians claim that there can be no moral absolutes without God, but then they show that they have no moral absolutes at all because whatever God commands, no matter how abominable, must be "good"! The Bible destroys, rather than establishes, true morality. How's that for irony?

You say;"How's that for irony" I do not see any irony in what you say. And what was all the fuss about by me not replying to your questions? You made a lot of statements, which as usual are emotive and sometimes antagonistic and which are not constructive. Your deduction and reasoning from the Bible is almost non-existent. This is my personal opinion, so does not count for much. When you begin to reason from the Bible, I shall be less dismissive of your comments.

All the best,

David

[jce]

Hi John,

Now that I see life from a new perspective, and with fresh eyes, the arbitrary labels of temptation and sin no longer hold any weight. I can freely and fully experience being human in all its diversity, drinking of any water my heart desires without fear of violating some arbitrary rule and being punished for eternity. Life is rich and full and I am free to pursue any dream I can imagine, and be all that I can be without the imposition of religious doctrines that say because I'm a woman I am restricted from following my desires. I can fully exercise my free will now, and share my joy with others without waiting for some future time. I am living my dream now...

Much peace and hope to you also my friend,
Rose

Good morning Rose

It's interesting how your experience parallels that of conversion to Christ; "New Perspective (New Birth), "New Eyesight" (I was blind, now I see). Of course, once past these two transitions, major differences begin to surface.

Since I have already recited mine in the post you responded to, I will list what appear to be your contentments assuming of course that your references are restricted to the here and now with no guarantee of anything beyond this life:

Complete freedom to experience the desires of your heart
No rules, therefore no fear of transgression
No limitations other than those imposed upon you by your personal moral code or governmental ordinances legislated upon you by others
Your dream terminates with your extinction

Let me know if I've overlooked or inadvertently omitted something.

I pray God will restore the faith in Christ once gifted to you.

John

[Rose]

Good evening Rose
I see that I need to qualify I what I mean when I say God does not change.



I am not saying that God cannot change from performing punishment that would be the exercise of Justice. God listens to prayer (even though Richard will argue that God does not answer prayer). Moses pleaded on behalf of the Israelites that God did not punish them as Moses knew it would have been just of God to do so for their disobedience. As it says in James 5:16 "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." God is not changing His ultimate goal for this earth and He is not changing the promises He has made to Abraham or any of the promises He has made. God is not changeable in form or character, the same as Jesus does not change his character. Jesus will not change from the incorruptible body that he has been given, which is the same body that those accepted into the kingdom will be given. This corruptible body will be changed as the Apostle Paul tells us. In Hebrews 13: 8 it says; Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. This is clearly speaking of his unchangeable character. Compare that with sinful men as James 1:8 says; A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. God and Jesus are not unstable whereby they change their mind or their principles. Can that be said of us?

Good morning David,

But that is my point exactly! God and Jesus DO change their minds and principles throughout the Bible!

Rose; I must ask you to find and quote for me the law given to Moses which says a man can have more than one wife. Jesus said; "As it was in the beginning" Jesus was not introducing a new law. Jesus knew the ancient scriptures far better that you or I know them.


All the best,

David

As I explained in my previous post, nowhere in the Old Testament does it limit, or imply that men are to have only one wife. In Genesis 1, God tells the male and female to be fruitful and multiply. Genesis 2, tells us that Adam and Eve were one flesh because the woman was taken from man, but it doesn't say that man is restricted to only one wife. Adam's great grand son Lamech took two wives seemingly with God's approval.

Gen. 4:19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.

All through the Old Testament we see cases of multiple wives with no hint of a disapproving God. What we do see is God accommodating men with laws to dispose of their wives through divorce, or regulations on how to treat their multiple wives.

Exo.21:10-11 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

Deut. 21:15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:

Also there is the case of God giving Saul's wives to David, and then as punishment to David took those same wives and gave them to Absalom to rape in the sight of all Israel!

2Sam.12:7-11 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.

Not only does God actively participate in the giving of multiple wives to David, which according to Jesus would be considered adultery, but God explicitly gives the wives of David to Absalom to rape!

All the best,
Rose

[Rose]

Good morning Rose

It's interesting how your experience parallels that of conversion to Christ; "New Perspective (New Birth), "New Eyesight" (I was blind, now I see). Of course, once past these two transitions, major differences begin to surface.

Since I have already recited mine in the post you responded to, I will list what appear to be your contentments assuming of course that your references are restricted to the here and now with no guarantee of anything beyond this life:

Complete freedom to experience the desires of your heart
No rules, therefore no fear of transgression
No limitations other than those imposed upon you by your personal moral code or governmental ordinances legislated upon you by others
Your dream terminates with your extinction

Let me know if I've overlooked or inadvertently omitted something.

I pray God will restore the faith in Christ once gifted to you.

John

Hi John,

All anyone has is the here and now, there are no guarantees of anything else. Whether or not one enjoys life to its fullest now changes nothing in the afterlife, if there is one.

I do not believe our dreams in this life terminate with the demise of our fleshly bodies, but rather continue on in the lives of others. All consciousness springs from the same source, we are all a part of and connected to the whole, so whatever positive acts we accomplish in this life adds to the whole. That is why as a universal body the human race is progressing to higher and higher levels of consciousness...it is built upon the dreams of our ancestors.

All the best,
Rose

[jce]

Hi John,

All anyone has is the here and now, there are no guarantees of anything else.

That will depend on who you know.

I do not believe our dreams in this life terminate with the demise of our fleshly bodies, but rather continue on in the lives of others. All consciousness springs from the same source, we are all a part of and connected to the whole, so whatever positive acts we accomplish in this life adds to the whole. That is why as a universal body the human race is progressing to higher and higher levels of consciousness...it is built upon the dreams of our ancestors.

All the best,
Rose

Did you read this concept somewhere, or did someone teach it to you?

Kindest Regards,

John