Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Absolutely, just my opinion. The question is, when you see my exegesis, whether or not you can, IN GOOD CONSCIENCE, regard your own position as stronger.Sure, but isn't your "exegetical proof" just your opinion? Which is it, is Biblical exegesis a trustworthy source or isn't it?
A wicked generation asks for a sign.Exactly. Convincing to the level of 100% certainty.
Doesn't matter HOW God convinces/convicts - He just has to get the job done.
They didn't simply rebel, they challenged whether Moses was speaking for God at all. And this was in the face of the signs in Egypt and on Sinai, so why should people without such exceptional demonstrations expect to be 100% convinced?Rebellion disproves conviction? You've got it backwards. Conviction is what makes it rebellion. They knew they were supposed to submit to Moses but rebelled against the truth.
Good thing there are two other tests, then.Again, not all prophecy is foretelling.
Please.A wicked generation asks for a sign.
You're missing the big picture. You see, even if I'm wrong, I'm still right. Here's why.They didn't simply rebel, they challenged whether Moses was speaking for God at all. And this was in the face of the signs in Egypt and on Sinai, so why should people without such exceptional demonstrations expect to be 100% convinced?
Right...Please.
You're missing the big picture. You see, even if I'm wrong, I'm still right. Here's why.
What's this about 100 billion souls? And who are you to deem what God deems sufficient insufficient?I am battling for the pursuit of prophecy (1 Cor 14:1) - infallible revelation. Even if that's not what God wants for us, we need to know infallibly that such is not what He wants, because, since creation, 100 billion souls are at stake if we are wrong about anything. We can't afford to be wrong about such things.
Therefore it's a no-brainer. In SOME sense we need to pursue infallible revelation, if we care about those 100 billion souls.
Population studies concerning the number of people born on earth since creation.Right...
What's this about 100 billion souls?
Sola Scriptura is sufficient? Is that an infallible conclusion?And who are you to deem what God deems sufficient insufficient?
Population studies...done by whom?Population studies concerning the number of people born on earth since creation.
Has God revealed any other means of knowing who He is?Sola Scriptura is sufficient? Is that an infallible conclusion?
As God wills.I hope so, because 100 billion souls are potentially at stake if you're incorrect.
How's that now?You do realize that Sola Scriptura is a logically self-contradictory hypothesis, right?
Do we really need to dispute this? Tell me how many billions is your estimate. Whatever your number, I'm pretty sure it's enough to validate my point.Population studies...done by whom?
Um...er...the Bible did not always exist. Do the math.Has God revealed any other means of knowing who He is?
You're presuming no responsibility for the 100 billion souls. And I'm saying that lying in the pulpits probably isn't helping.As God wills.
I'll clarify in a moment.How's that now?
Right, you expect me to admit that your false and denigrating description of my understanding is truly representative??I don't follow you. Imagine a kid gifted from conception - the most gifted person in all the world. He says to himself, "Since I'm so gifted, I deserve to be glorified. If I happen to find it glorious to throw 75% of the world in a pit of everlasting fire, so be it, I deserve it."
This is your understanding of Agape love? Unselfish love?
How's that now?
Yes. The Inward Witness operated long before the Bible.Has God revealed any other means of knowing who He is?
Your version of God is a narcissistic adult who is really just a spoiled brat selfish enough to throw billions into a pit of everlasting fire for his own self-gratification. Nice caricature of the biblical God.Right, you expect me to admit that your false and denigrating description of my understanding is truly representative??
God is not an incredibly gifted kid among kids. Are you serious??
This whole life, and all of creation, is about God. Not about us kids. Yes, he deserves all glory. If you can't fit that into your notion of love, you need to rethink your notion.
God is first cause. It is simple logic. Causation is pervasive. If you can show me how little chains of causation beginning with each decision we make, uncaused, is logically valid, I'd like to see it! You haven't even been able to show me how it is scripturally valid, but then you do seem to stray from scripture in your notions of God's mode of being. Frankly, I don't see how you can call your construction by the name of God. At best, that should take the little g --god-- since you make him in your image, at the mercy of circumstances beyond his control, subject to principles from outside himself.Admittedly freedom can be costly - it can lead to victims.
Reduces God? Whereas portraying God as a control-freak somehow magnifies Him?
Minor edit to your words: A more accurate summary would be "victims of freedom" rather than chance.
Has God revealed any other means of knowing who He is?
Chains of causing is your logical/philosophical construct. Don't confuse it with straightforward biblical exegesis.God is first cause. It is simple logic. Causation is pervasive. If you can show me how little chains of causation beginning with each decision we make, uncaused, is logically valid, I'd like to see it!
More philosophical bias.You haven't even been able to show me how it is scripturally valid, but then you do seem to stray from scripture in your notions of God's mode of being.
More philosophical bias. We've been over this. Even your god is a subject to an existence he cannot relinquish - circumstances beyond His control.Frankly, I don't see how you can call your construction by the name of God. At best, that should take the little g --god-- since you make him in your image, at the mercy of circumstances beyond his control, subject to principles from outside himself.
People with free will sometimes prey on others. The prey are sometimes called "victims". That wasn't clear?"Victims of freedom"? What sort of freedom would that be?
Finally? The proof has always been there. You're just in denial about it.Have you finally found a way to prove that we can do something that we are not caused to do?
More philosophical bias. We've been over this. Even your god is a subject to an existence he cannot relinquish - circumstances beyond His control.
The context had nothing to do with preying on others. It had to do with impotence against determination by chance, which, just so we're clear, in itself is self-contradictory nonsense. Apparently you agree it is nonsense, since you changed it to "freedom".People with free will sometimes prey on others. The prey are sometimes called "victims". That wasn't clear?
By your judgement. But do they not in and of themselves freely choose to do precisely what they were caused to do?Finally? The proof has always been there. You're just in denial about it.
The proof is that only an evil God would punish people for things they were deterministically caused to do.
This is a straw argument, because ultimately it is not the Bible that is the authority but the apostolic/pophetic witness which is derived from proximity to Jesus.The short version first. It's simple, right? If the Bible is the only authority, on what authority should I accept the Bible?
This reply makes no sense. On what basis/authority do you accept the Bible?This is a straw argument, because ultimately it is not the Bible that is the authority but the apostolic/pophetic witness which is derived from proximity to Jesus.
So while today what we have is the Scriptures, their authority is the Apostolic authority
I accept it on God's authority, vested in the Apostles selected by Christ.This reply makes no sense. On what basis/authority do you accept the Bible?
Your reply is, "On apostolic authority?" Care to explain that?
That's like me asking a Muslim, "On what basis do you accept the Koran?", and he replies, "On prophetic/apostlic authority - namely Muhammed's authority". A Muslim who replies that way is ultimately relying on blind faith.
To call this a strawman point sounds like intellectual dishonesty.
That makes no sense, epistemically. That's exactly what the Muslim would say of the "apostle" Muhammed. It reduces to blind faith. Again, if blind faith is commendable, it is perfectly commendable to convert to Islam on blind faith.I accept it on God's authority, vested in the Apostles selected by Christ.
Faith? Yes. Blind faith? No. Unlike the Muslim I'm not basing it off of a chain of transmission but the conviction of the Holy Spirit who resides in me.That makes no sense, epistemically. That's exactly what the Muslim would say of the "apostle" Muhammed. It reduces to blind faith. Again, if blind faith is commendable, it is perfectly commendable to convert to Islam on blind faith
We're talking past each other.The context had nothing to do with preying on others. It had to do with impotence against determination by chance, which, just so we're clear, in itself is self-contradictory nonsense. Apparently you agree it is nonsense, since you changed it to "freedom".
By yours too. You're well aware that any parent who behaves as the Calvinistic God is pure evil. You therefore persist a contradiction.By your judgement.
No on your deterministic assumptions, they don't.But do they not in and of themselves freely choose to do precisely what they were caused to do?
I thoroughly disagree. There are chains of influence, certainly, but I don't agree that all my decisions are rigorously caused.Back away from the idea of God being in the mix for a moment. Do you, or do you not, agree that, (except for God as first cause) our choices are the result of long chains of causation?
My freedom is that cause, in many instances - (self-propelling freedom). This is what you fail to understand.Does anything happen nowadays that is not caused to happen? If you are logical, or as you would say, rational, you will admit, there is a cause behind everything that happens, including decisions.
By first cause you essentially mean "the only cause" (in a deterministic chain of dominoes). See above.But somehow, since we must admit that God is first cause....
I came up with that rule? Let's suppose you are holding a knife in your hand. I grab you hand and force you to stab someone to death. What are you going to tell the judge? "I take full responsibility, it was all my fault" ??? Let's be honest here.You will say that decisions are not effects, because even in your distorted view of who God is (he that you claim grows and changes, contrary to scripture), you can't abide the notion that he is mean, which after all he must be (to you) if he does exactly what is demanded by justice for crimes committed against God. YOU come up with a rule that if a person is caused by whatever reason (well, that is, by your thinking, if it is somehow caused by God) to do evil, that person is not responsible.
You contradict your own values and beliefs, as shown above.Did they choose it? Then they are responsible for what they did. Simple. It doesn't matter that there is a chain of causation by which they chose, nor where that chain begins. You have proved nothing.
Absolute mastery IS the distorted view of God, if taken to mean a control-freak who punishes deterministic puppets of His own making!Do you not, even in your distorted view of what God is, admit to his absolute mastery over creation? He owns us even more surely than a potter owns his clay. And compared to him, we are at least that inanimate.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?