I feared your oil was low -- and still is. None of what you said here is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by waltero
You've put the teachings about Jesus into a blender and turned that blender on high.
|
I feared your oil was low -- and still is. None of what you said here is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by waltero
You've put the teachings about Jesus into a blender and turned that blender on high.
I knew you'd like it. My understanding of the Trinity. After this life, the only thing left Standing is Jesus!Quote:
You've put the teachings about Jesus into a blender and turned that blender on high.
Everything we have or ever going to have is Jesus. all life begins and ends with Jesus. God's Word was sent into the Darkness, It will not return to him emptyhanded...GOD was added to.
You might not understand what I have stated, above. I was hoping it might give you an idea of your (a wife) role in Marriage...doubt you will subscribe to the idea; Man being the head in marriage -Just as Jesus is head of man - and GOD is head of Jesus.
Oh, he's the head until he can't handle something and confidently passes it over to me. Thank goodness I've never had to do automotive work or figure out what's wrong with one of our computers.Quote:
Originally Posted by waltero
The crying, B***ing, incessant nagging, etc. ;-)Quote:
Oh, he's the head until he can't handle
We Know how God Judges. God, is the God who justifies the wicked...it is not a gradual process, it is an instantaneous event- whereby one is declared righteous by God.Quote:
How did he judge babies and children deserving extermination?
The question you should be asking: How can a Righteous God justify the guilty?
If the responsibility of the judge is to acquit the innocent and condemn the guilty...what in the world is going on? In the doctrine of justification, God is actually acquitting the guilty! He is justifying the ungodly. God is the God who justifies the wicked.
This World stands Condemned, we live in a condemned cell. Those who Judge according to this world will be judged by this world...good luck with that.
Athos: How did he judge babies and children deserving extermination?
Those babies and children were wicked?Quote:
Originally Posted by waltero
WG, What does that mean? what are you getting at???
Yes. That's why they have access to Heaven, after all, heaven is going to be full of sinners don't cha know?
God, is the God who justifies the wicked.
Or did God send his Son down here to bleed and die up on a cross, so that he then may accept people into heaven on the basis of the fact, that we tried to be as kind or as good as we possibly would?
Maybe you could search the scriptures, and point out where I've diverted from the truth? It would help me (maybe even you). I like to bounce it off others, hoping to gain a better understanding. The fact that you rarely if ever quote scripture, doesn't help, leaving me with my own understanding. JL always quotes Scripture(big help). I think you have a heart for God (as well as this world...bad). Athos can't be trusted...he desires his flesh over Jesus crucified.
The understatement of the year.Quote:
from Waldo
You might not understand what I have stated
You failed to answer this one, Waldo. It refers to the Flood.Quote:
from Athos
How did he judge babies and children deserving extermination?
No, Waldo, they were not wicked. They were babies.Quote:
from Waldo
Those babies and children were wicked?
Hmmm. Maybe because in your mind I ask those pesky questions. Like the one about children being exterminated that you can't or won't answer. The only thing you answer with is your now boring Wacko Waldo gibberish.Quote:
from Waldo
Athos can't be trusted.
Go back on your meds, wait a few days, and return when your mind has cleared.
If you wish to learn the truth(?), you should search out the answer to your question here- How can a Righteous God justify the guilty?
Of course I'm interested in the truth. I don't think you are since almost every one of your posts is gibberish and not understandable. Even your co-religionists don't understand you.Quote:
Originally Posted by waltero
Here's the question - How did God judge babies and children deserving extermination? So far you have been unable to answer it. I'm not surprised. Yet, you come up with this - How can a righteous God justify the guilty?
Do you even have the slightest clue what you're saying? Trying to say? Or are you simply avoiding answering by posting pseudo-Biblical gibberish.
Good question. There are several replies to be made.Quote:
Those babies and children were wicked?
1. Jesus treated the flood as an actual historical event as did Peter. It is impossible to imagine why Jesus would not have simply said, "You know guys, that story about a world-wide flood is really a late addition. It should not be taken as genuine." Remember that this is the same Jesus who set aside the dietary regulations and regularly commented on the OT with the expression, "But I say unto you..."
2. There is absolutely no textual reason at all to consider the flood account to be some sort of later addition.
2B. There are many accounts of a great flood found in the ancient historical accounts of cultures worldwide.
3. The years leading up to the flood were not silent years. "And God did not spare the ancient world—except for Noah and the seven others in his family. Noah warned the world of God’s righteous judgment."
4. It is a sad fact that children always suffer for the wrongdoings of their parents. In this case, if those children and infants end up eternally in heaven, I feel sure they will not be complaining about their treatment. Besides, it is difficult to imagine what would have happened to them if they had survived post-flood.
5. The amazing thought is that God saves anyone at all. No one deserves it. We are all unspeakably wicked when compared to the brilliance and perfection of God's holiness. Why should God save anyone?
6. I find it perplexing why people complain about God allowing the children in the flood account to perish when those same people live in comfort in a wealthy country. Why do they not sell everything and do everything possible to save starving children? Why do they not stand outside abortion clinics and intercede for the lives of those children? Is it not gross hypocrisy to be critical of the God who gave up His only Son while doing so little ourselves? Is it not likely that God is pointing His finger at us and saying, "Why do you allow the children to perish?"
7. Even if a person wants to regard the flood as a figurative account, you must still ask, "Figurative of what?" What lesson would be being taught other than God's mercy and judgment?
8. At the end of the day, this is Paul's answer. "Who are you, oh man, to talk back to God?" That would particularly apply to the issue of point 6.
For me, I am perfectly content to place the blanket of God's goodness over the Genesis flood. I do not understand all of God's acts, but I do understand His great love, completely irrational from our perspective, exhibited in sending His own Son to die for us. When I consider that, I am willing to wait for greater answers to all of these questions. But I will not engage in the fool's errand of going through the Bible and marking out all the accounts with which I do not personally agree or understand. That is working at the issue backwards. The great undertaking is not the changing of the Bible, but the changing of me to suit the Bible. The God exhibited in the OT is a God of both mercy and judgment, just as He is in the NT. There is no difference. If the Bible is true, then a day is coming when all of the nay-sayers will stand with great fear before God the Judge. They will find how little God is disturbed at their accusations of injustice. On that day they will find out who is wicked and who is just.
No, Jesus treated it as the allegory it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
The Genesis flood story is first composed around the 5th century BC during the Babylonian Exile, millennia after the supposed flood. The Israelites learned it from the Sumerians who wrote about it in the Epic of Gilgamesh c.2000 BC. The Genesis flood story is almost word-for-word taken from Gilgamesh.Quote:
2. There is absolutely no textual reason at all to consider the flood account to be some sort of later addition.
Irrelevant. There are many accounts of great floods occurring in modern times. Not one, however, resulted in the annihilation of the entire human race.Quote:
2B. There are many accounts of a great flood found in the ancient historical accounts of cultures worldwide.
3. skipped. Nothing there.
Wow - and this explains why every child on the planet was slaughtered?Quote:
4. It is a sad fact that children always suffer for the wrongdoings of their parents.
According to your own stated belief, the children will wind up in hell to be eternally tortured because they did not believe in Jesus.Quote:
In this case, if those children and infants end up eternally in heaven, I feel sure they will not be complaining about their treatment.
A totally bizarre way of explanation/justification. No comment possible.Quote:
Besides, it is difficult to imagine what would have happened to them if they had survived post-flood.
5. skipped. Nothing there.
6. skipped. A diversion.
Good question.Quote:
7. Even if a person wants to regard the flood as a figurative account, you must still ask, "Figurative of what?"
Paul never made any answer to the topic under discussion. Point #6 was a diversion - also irrelevant to the topic.Quote:
8. At the end of the day, this is Paul's answer. "Who are you, oh man, to talk back to God?" That would particularly apply to the issue of point 6.
A blanket of goodness over the slaughter of the entire human race? You are VERY confused.Quote:
For me, I am perfectly content to place the blanket of God's goodness over the Genesis flood
Obviously.Quote:
I do not understand all of God's acts
Not if you consider killing children "His great love".Quote:
but I do understand His great love
Lol - nice to see you copying my writingQuote:
the fool's errand
The God of the OT is a primitive God for a primitive religion. The God of the NT has evolved to manifest himself in the figure of Christ who preaches love, not killing.Quote:
The God exhibited in the OT is a God of both mercy and judgment, just as He is in the NT. There is no difference.
That's a big "IF" - followed by the usual threat for those who don't believe the same way.Quote:
If the Bible is true, then a day is coming when all of the nay-sayers will stand with great fear before God
We know that now.Quote:
they will find out who is wicked and who is just.
4. It is a sad fact that children always suffer for the wrongdoings of their parents. If aborted babies end up eternally in heaven, I feel sure they will not be complaining about their treatment. Besides, it is difficult to imagine what would have happened to them if they had survived post-abortion.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Because of sin, We are unfit for God's Presence.Quote:
How did he judge
Why did he Judge? Because we are guilty and stand Condemned. How did he judge? who cares???
God is in control.
What do children have to do with it?Quote:
Not if you consider killing children "His great love"
God sent his child to die on a cross...His GREAT love!
Quote:
From Athos.
How did he judge (babies and children deserving extermination)
Babies are sinners?Quote:
Originally Posted by waltero
God murdered every single living child during the Flood.Quote:
What do "children have to do with it?
God destroyed every (excluding Noah and fam) living sould.Quote:
God murdered every single living child during the Flood.
“God was sorry he made us. Since he made us in his image, what does that say about him?”
Nothing at all, really. He made us in his image, which what that means is its own conversation, but we then decided to use our free will to disobey him. So that's on us, not him. A painting of Everest does not reflect poorly upon Everest, especially not when the painting decides it’d rather pretend Everest didn’t exist.
I will add this final point: does God owe us anything? Who can say to God, “you owe me a life!” or, “you owe me happiness!” Absolutely no one. God owes you and I nothing. In fact, because we’re all sinners, the only thing he ‘owes’ us is instantly throwing us into Hell, to satisfy his justice. Consider that before demonizing him for slaying a generation of unrepentant sinners, because that should be us, every single day.
Original sin. Remember that teaching?Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Even Freud had an opinion. During infancy, before the other components of personality begin to form, children are ruled entirely by the id ("self-servingness"). Demanding basic needs for food, drink, and comfort is of the utmost importance.
Strictly your own imagining. There is absolutely not one trace of evidence that He regarded it as so. But even at that, if you are correct, then why would Jesus have not simply pointed that out? "Hey guys. You all do realize this is not a real story but an allegory?" He was the great explainer of the OT but He elected to let his listeners believe he regarded an allegorical account to be literal??? You really believe that? It is certainly not treated as an allegory. He simply was comparing the coming of judgment in Noah's day to what His return would be like.Quote:
No, Jesus treated it as the allegory it was.
Now if you want to contend the flood is to be taken figuratively, you must still answer the question of it being figurative of what? Mercy and judgment? If so, then you have accomplished nothing.
And again, there is not a shred of evidence to back up that wild supposition. Even worse for your point, the Ketef Hinnom Silver Scrolls indicate a much earlier date for the OT.Quote:
The Genesis flood story is first composed around the 5th century BC during the Babylonian Exile,
https://faithsaves.net/silver-scroll...ches%20long%29.
Absolute lie. I've never said that.Quote:
According to your own stated belief, the children will wind up in hell to be eternally tortured because they did not believe in Jesus.
It was his reply to the question of God's sovereignty and God's judgment which are certainly a part of this topic.Quote:
Paul never made any answer to the topic under discussion
The remainder of your comments amount to a verification of the fact that you don't like God and don't believe the Bible. That has already been settled.
Allegories teach moral lessons. What was the lesson in the Flood story?Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Jesus, like any good teacher, often told stories to illustrate the points He wanted to make or lessons He wanted to teach. The Flood story was only one He used effectively.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Quote:
Seems like the twentieth century had spawned ugly twins. Ugly twins: one, mindlessness, and two, meaninglessness. Mindlessness and meaninglessness. I will not bother for the moment with the notion of nihilism and meaninglessness and futility, but let’s think just about mindlessness ( And let’s be honest enough to recognize that it is one of the charges that is leveled against the Christian). The man or the woman who says that they are men and women of faith, and if they’re bold enough to say that they’re actually men and women of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Because, of course, it is not unusual—in fact, it is quite common—for faith to be regarded as a kind of illogical belief in the improbable happening, and for people essentially to say, “You know, the real thinking people are those who think along these very rational lines. And therefore, we feel sorry for you that you’ve had to come up with this as a crutch or as a walking stick just to help you navigate your way through life.”
You don't really believe that, do you? Augustine taught that the sin is transmitted vie semen during intercourse. He never explained exactly how that works. Such a belief is worse than the "original" belief re the sin. Original sin at best represents those actions of humanity that society considers bad. To believe that babies are born with it is the worst kind of irrational theology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Freud certainly didn't classify the natural tendency of a new life to survive as sinful. If you needed food, drink, and comfort in order to survive, it would be of the utmost importance to you, too.Quote:
Even Freud had an opinion. During infancy, before the other components of personality begin to form, children are ruled entirely by the id ("self-servingness"). Demanding basic needs for food, drink, and comfort is of the utmost importance.
You plainly don't understand the concept.Quote:
Original sin at best represents those actions of humanity that society considers bad.
And again, there is no evidence at all that Jesus regarded the story of the flood, or any other OT account, to be allegorical. In fact He did not even use it in a way that was allegorical in the Luke 17 passage. To say he did is to reveal either an insane bias or a lack of understanding as to what an allegory is. Jesus was not teaching a moral message there. He was describing what His second coming would be like.Quote:
Jesus, like any good teacher, often told stories to illustrate the points He wanted to make or lessons He wanted to teach. The Flood story was only one He used effectively.
That's the teaching I grew up with, a very solid teaching in many Christian denominations. Adam and Eve, the first sinners, handed sin down to all the generations that followed. (I got an A on my original sin essay!)Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
No, Freud didn't call it original sin, but am guessing he was reframing Bible teachings with his id, ego, and superego.Quote:
Freud certainly didn't classify the natural tendency of a new life to survive as sinful. If you needed food, drink, and comfort in order to survive, it would be of the utmpst importance to you, too.
I was told during my original sin learning period that Freud saw a crying, even screaming baby as a selfish little human, thinking only of itself, its own needs. Original sin personified!
An idea that can certainly be verified simply by observing human behavior.Quote:
That's the teaching I grew up with, a very solid teaching in many Christian denominations. Adam and Eve, the first sinners, handed sin down to all the generations that followed.
That makes it OK to kill all the children?Quote:
Originally Posted by waltero
That he's an idiot.Quote:
“God was sorry he made us. Since he made us in his image, what does that say about him?”
You enjoy all those sinners being thrown into hell, don't you? Some would say it's your passive-aggressive way of getting even with all those who were more successful in life than you. It's never about God satisfying his justice. It's about you getting revenge.Quote:
God owes you and I nothing. In fact, because we’re all sinners, the only thing he ‘owes’ us is instantly throwing us into Hell, to satisfy his justice.
A new-born baby is an "unrepentant sinner"? A child? A good adult?Quote:
Consider that before demonizing him for slaying a generation of unrepentant sinners, because that should be us, every single day.
No, quite the opposite. Jesus endured Hell so we wouldn't have to. You don't have to be a slave to your unbelief (mind).Quote:
You enjoy all those sinners being thrown into hell, don't you?
You don't know what I am talking about because you haven't experienced the Love of God. You are too smart for your own good. When I read the Bible, does it ask me to disengage my thinking processes in order that I might then become this person of faith? No, it does not.
This is the text in question from Matt. 24. "37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man."
1. What indication do you see that Jesus did not regard it to be genuinely historical?
2. An even bigger question. What point do you think Jesus was trying to make in referencing the unexpected judgment that came in the day of Noah?
This is a similar text from Luke. "Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot-- they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all--so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed” (Lk. 17:28-30). Please note that it is being used to make the exact same point about the revelation (coming) of the Son of Man. Coincidence??
1. What indication do you see that Jesus did not regard it to be genuinely historical, assuming that your personal bias is not a satisfactory answer?
2. An even bigger question. What point do you think Jesus was trying to make in appealing to the judgment of God upon Sodom and it's relationship to His second coming?
People that tell stories do not go around saying "Hey, this is an allegory". Good grief.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Do you seriously believe the ENTIRE planet was flooded?Quote:
Now if you want to contend the flood is to be taken figuratively
I have certainly accomplished that an all-human life-ending planet-wide flood never happened.Quote:
you must still answer the question of it being figurative of what? Mercy and judgment? If so, then you have accomplished nothing.
Oh, please - that has nothing - NADA - to do with Genesis. Stop lying - you're supposed to be a Christian.Quote:
Even worse for your point, the Ketef Hinnom Silver Scrolls indicate a much earlier date for the OT.
Quote:
from Athos
According to your own stated belief, the children will wind up in hell to be eternally tortured because they did not believe in Jesus.
You're the absolute liar here. You quoted many Bible verses saying unbelievers go to hell. Are you now denying that you did that? What, then, is your current belief on where unbelievers go after death?Quote:
Absolute lie. I've never said that.
It's only been settled in your mind. We all notice how you prefer to disparage any who believe differently than you. Better you should just argue your point and leave it at that. Disparaging others doesn't make your weak points any less weak.Quote:
The remainder of your comments amount to a verification of the fact that you don't like God and don't believe the Bible. That has already been settled.
First: You should understand, IT IS ALL DEATH!!! Everything you see, taste, smell, touch, own is going to pass away!Quote:
That makes it OK to kill all the children?
You love this life and this World, it will follow you to your grave. Die to self now, while there is still time.
God gives life. God gave you life, through your own initiative you seek death rather than Life. Don't worry about the wee ones, God has them covered. Keep your focus on the Cross and crucifixion of Jesus the Christ.
No, the reason I don't know what you're talking about is because you're incoherent. Amazing how you people criticize any who disagree with you as being un-Godlike in one way or another. If you had a little intelligence, you would realize how that detracts from anything you say or promote.Quote:
Originally Posted by waltero
YES, that's it! That's exactly what it does! You're on the right path. Try to re-engage those thinking processes when you post something here.Quote:
When I read the Bible, does it ask me to disengage my thinking processes
.The honest answer has to be no, it does not. In many cases, what it does is it causes me to think so deeply that we cannot quite unravel the jigsaw puzzle, that it introduces us to complexities that are metaphysical in their dimensions. And through it there runs a line, and that line is running historically, yes, and rationally.Quote:
When I read the Bible, does it ask me to disengage my thinking processes
YES, that's it! That's exactly what it does! You're on the right path. Try to re-engage those thinking processes when you post something here
Jesus knew it was an oft-told story among the Jews. Jesus, being a consumate storyteller, used the idea of a major flood engulfing a id-obsessed humanity and the raining down of fire and brimstone on inhospitable city inhabitants as alerts to change their selfish ways and become more loving toward others.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Love God and each other.Quote:
2. An even bigger question. What point do you think Jesus was trying to make in referencing the unexpected judgment that came in the day of Noah?
Yes, we all did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Not so solid when really considered. It's a dogma/doctrine/teaching that has as its source a story that never actually happened - an allegory. Adam and Eve didn't really exist. It's part of a creation myth. Every culture has one. Original sin assumes they DID exist.Quote:
a very solid teaching in many Christian denominations. Adam and Eve, the first sinners, handed sin down to all the generations that followed.
Replacing original sin with Freudian stuff? OK.Quote:
No, Freud didn't call it original sin, but am guessing he was reframing Bible teachings with his id, ego, and superego.
If that were true of Freud, who we know had some strange ideas, then he totally missed the human instinct to survive. To call that natural instinct selfish, is to betray an ignorance so great that it makes me wonder just who told you that during your original sin learning.Quote:
I was told during my original sin learning period that Freud saw a crying, even screaming baby as a selfish little human, thinking only of itself, its own needs. Original sin personified!
What you find in the Gospels is historical. I’ve always been intrigued by the way in which Luke begins chapter 3. He’s writing a Gospel. He’s not writing a history book. He’s not writing a biography, although there’s biographical material. He’s writing a Gospel. He’s writing good news. And this is how he starts his third chapter: “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias [the] tetrarch of Abilene…" I won’t read any further on. What in the world are you doing here, Luke? He’s setting the reality and the truth of the Gospel within the historical context of the time. He’s reminding the reader—the thinking reader—that this is not something that has been scrabbled together out of the air. These are real events, in real time, involving real people.
Same with Noah, and the Ark.
Explain it to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
waltero, you are one sick puppy.Quote:
Originally Posted by waltero
If you don't mind, I'll worry about the wee ones.
Huh? What?Quote:
Originally Posted by waltero
Noah, the main character in the Flood story, lived in Mesopotamia, an ancient region of West Asia. Mesopotamia can be hot and dry. However, ancient civilizations were able to flourish here because of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers that overflowed their banks every year, enriching the soil and providing irrigation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Terrific setting for a story about a flood!
You're drifting, walter.Quote:
Originally Posted by waltero
Yes, indeed. And note that Sumeria (Gilgamesh) was the first civilization to settle in that area - long before the Israelites.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Of course, it was my church's spin to further confirm that original sin is a reality. Bad Adam and Eve for starting the ball rolling!Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Reading the Story about the Ark/flood, you will understand that it is not something that has been scrabbled together out of the air.Quote:
You're drifting, walter.
Pointing out the incredible detail in which the building of the Ark has been described.
Nobody said it was "scrabbled together out of thin air". Now you've revealed that you don't understand what an allegory is. You're reading into these posts what you want to find, but isn't there.Quote:
Originally Posted by waltero
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:33 PM. |