Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
This is not necessarily a change in God's character. It can also be a change in how people of that time understood God's character.
Nomadic tribes, such as the Israelites (= probably the Hyksos tribe) during the exodus needed the fierce warrior God. They had to fight their way and their God had to compete with all the other Gods of the other tribes around.
However the Jews at the time of Roman suppression needed a peaceful God who turned the other cheek. War was no good option for them because then they would be wiped out by the Romans. What indeed happened in the Bar Kokhba rebellion 130 AC.
So God can be both, aggressive and peaceful, but the people describing him probably saw only one side of his character.
The problem with this view is that it is obviously a contradiction for a character to be aggressive and peaceful at the same time.
I don't think that God has multiple personality disorder, so He is aggressive or peaceful, but not both. According to Scripture He started out aggressively and then, slowly, over time changed to a peaceful God. You can read the Bible as God's "coming of age" story if you want.
If you think Chuck Missler is Arminian, then I will no for sure than you don't understand.
I had never heard of Chuck Missler and when I googled him to familiarise myself with some of his material I could see why. The Rapture, prophetic ministries (hello! never heard of cessationism!?) and Alien Abduction (as if!?!?) are hardly reformed topics. Or perhaps it was a simply a very funny ruse, next you'll be telling me Joel Osteen is reformed!
The problem is you seem to be struggling with the misconception that being un-arminian is the sum of reformed theology. Howsabout instead of thinking you know what reformed theology is, you actually find out what it is for yourself. Monergism is a good place to start, all joking aside.
No one advocates arminiaism. It is just that mainline exceptions forumulated (sic) by reform theologians themselves start to swallow the rule at some point.
Like so many of your posts this could be a candidate for the Golden Bull award!
PS - actually I had heard Chuck Missler before but his name hadn't stuck. How could anyone forget this gem, Peanutbutter - the ultimate evo defeater! (At least find a better example in future!)
A mathematician confided
That a Möbius band is one-sided,
And you'll get quite a laugh,
If you cut one in half,
For it stays in one piece when divided!
The problem with this view is that it is obviously a contradiction for a character to be aggressive and peaceful at the same time.
I don't think that God has multiple personality disorder, so He is aggressive or peaceful, but not both. According to Scripture He started out aggressively and then, slowly, over time changed to a peaceful God. You can read the Bible as God's "coming of age" story if you want.
So God is not wrathful and merciful?
__________________
Give me Scotland or I die - John Knox
A mathematician confided
That a Möbius band is one-sided,
And you'll get quite a laugh,
If you cut one in half,
For it stays in one piece when divided!
The problem with this view is that it is obviously a contradiction for a character to be aggressive and peaceful at the same time.
I don't think that God has multiple personality disorder, so He is aggressive or peaceful, but not both. According to Scripture He started out aggressively and then, slowly, over time changed to a peaceful God. You can read the Bible as God's "coming of age" story if you want.
Like, God coming down on the clouds with His robe billowing behind Him, His Word a flashing sword to smite His enemies, isn't violent and wrathful? That's from Revelations, the last book of the Bible (not the first!).
Creationism is the least of your theological worries my friend.
__________________
And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? - Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
I had never heard of Chuck Missler and when I googled him to familiarise myself with some of his material I could see why.
I see a snow board in your avatar.
Lots of snowboarder I see do drugs.
Are you high when you right these things, or is guilt by association a bad idea?
Let's see you put out 120 hours of public speaking per year and not be subject to attack by your method of isolating a small part of the whole.
As I suggested, if you couldn't deal with this, that would be helpful to me in allocating my time here.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations") To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. in the presence of Him whom he believed--God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did;
The problem with this view is that it is obviously a contradiction for a character to be aggressive and peaceful at the same time.
I don't think that God has multiple personality disorder, so He is aggressive or peaceful, but not both. According to Scripture He started out aggressively and then, slowly, over time changed to a peaceful God. You can read the Bible as God's "coming of age" story if you want.
I see that as something I would greatly avoid.
There are much better ways to view the apparent change in behavior. (We can't say "change of mind," since the theologians who believe that they alone understand sovereignty can't really deal with the nature of idioms or literary devices.) However, "coming of age" would be a bit of a disaster, logically speaking. "Behavior " avoids that pitfall.
Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also [is] flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
Mat 12:19 He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. Mat 13:27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? Mat 13:29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Mat 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
Looking at Revelation, I see God wearing robes covered in the blood of his warfare. The same Jesus who would not quench a smoldering wick during his first coming.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations") To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. in the presence of Him whom he believed--God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did;
I've seen this before too. I wonder - does this actually convince anybody?
Its a good argument. But hardly anyone is convinced.
It is really just a watchmaker argument and perhaps is more of an analogy. He says PB is essentially like primordial soup. Obviously you can pick any substance for the analogy.
He is kind of mocking something Shernren said elsewhere that, given enough time, you will have the type of change that leads to evolution. Missler says, sure, if you have the right substrate, but there is no such substrate.
Is it a great argument? Obviously there are issues about the nature of "self-organizing" substances. It works more as an anology. Its just a freaking sermon illustration, like a trillion monkeys on typewriters for a trillion years typing until they produce Hamlet.
Missler could say, if you look at PB a billion times, you will never find a six sided structure. But then PB doesn't have the cleavage of water crystals. Then we beg the question of substrates and what the primordial soup really is.
Let me ask you this, is it an argument that merits ridicule or mocking from others in this thread?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations") To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. in the presence of Him whom he believed--God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did;
Like, God coming down on the clouds with His robe billowing behind Him, His Word a flashing sword to smite His enemies, isn't violent and wrathful? That's from Revelations, the last book of the Bible (not the first!).
Creationism is the least of your theological worries my friend.
Well, I can hardly imagine that God will literally appear as a sort of monster riding down from the clouds with a sword sticking out if its mouth.
Johannes' vision is not an account of a real event. Maybe he had seen real things to come, but in such a far future that he had problems to understand them and describe them to his contemporaries. Mankind and technology are changing fast, and I don't believe the wars of the apocalypse will be fought with flying horses and swords sticking out of mouths. Who knows what mankind's problems will be at that time. Maybe the events will take place in Cyberspace or on a spiritual level, if at all.
Are you high when you right (sic) these things, or is guilt by association a bad idea?
Hey if Chuck snowboards it's not for me to judge what he does in his leisure time! (ps - I think you meant 'write these things', unless it's a Freudian slip and I am finally righting your theology!)
Let's see you put out 120 hours of public speaking per year and not be subject to attack by your method of isolating a small part of the whole.
Bait & switch. Nice move. You wanted to make a point of Chuck's theology (or lack of) so I made it my point too. Don't whine when I find his views....em.....alternative.
As I suggested, if you couldn't deal with this, that would be helpful to me in allocating my time here.
Deal with what? Am I supposed to form an opinion on Chuck from what he doesn't say? Or were you desperate for me to understand his views on aliens? Or am I supposed to bow before your theological outpourings because you like to think you understand reformed theology when in actual fact you've proved to be only passing acquaintances? Seriously do yourself a favour, monergism is a great site.
__________________
Give me Scotland or I die - John Knox
A mathematician confided
That a Möbius band is one-sided,
And you'll get quite a laugh,
If you cut one in half,
For it stays in one piece when divided!
Linear Mode
