Purveyor of Confusion

[SPF]

If I receive no such response, and continue to translate this verse, as I already have, then I can only speculate that maybe God either did not answer your intercessory request, or there is no God to answer such requests....

Or, this is a false dilemma.

Pray for God to instill 'the answer', in regards to the correct translation for Matthew 12:32, into me.

Sure, but I don't think God is going to instill the correct translation of a verse to someone who isn't a Christian that won't actually help them recognize that they're a sinner and need forgiveness. But again, God knows more than I do, so He might!

Furthermore, you did not address the many verses offered, and why they DO NOT mean what they say.

Funny how I mentioned many verses from the NT, and what directly came out of Jesus' mouth. And you must refer to the OT for clarification....?

It's not that I "must" as much as it is that it was a good example.

Why not address what Jesus said, in context in the verses provided, for which they were said.

I typically don't debate "in-house" theology with non-Christians, because it honestly doesn't matter one iota what you think about these prayer passages in that they don't lead to your Salvation, which is what matters.

Or, put another way - I don't actually "preach" to my alcoholic friend that he's "sinning" when he gets drunk. He's a sinner and he's actually living according to his nature. I do talk to him about God, and if he does become a Christian, then we can work on the sanctification and holy living part.

In other words, I am not concerned with you understanding this passage when it's not what you need to understand, nor do I think God cares if you understand this or not at this point.

Matthew 7:7 - "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you"

Do you suppose that this passage is teaching that if I, a follower of Christ, pray and ask God to cause my neighbor to have a heart attack and die, that God is somehow obligated to kill my neighbor? Why or why not.

 

[cvanwey]

Well, either it was or it wasn't. To a certain extent it doesn't actually matter

This is where we differ greatly. If you read a series of claimed events, and one after the next later gets disproven, then one has to wonder....? What parts ARE true? Especially when the Book itself makes the following statements: (2 Timothy 3:16, Proverbs 30:5, and 2 Peter 1:19-24).

Seems pretty deceptive to lead readers to believe events were literal, only to later find out they were not. Makes one wonder what else is a metaphor, fiction, or not literal?.?.?

- after all it is a story and it has a purpose in being told. So the person who thinks it was a literal event and the person who thinks it is a metaphor and the person who thinks that there was a big flood but not to the extent stated are all going to get the same things out of it in the end: God rescues the righteous and will never destroy mankind by a flood.

But if it is not literal, God appears deceptive here.... He allows millions/billions to believe false information. Information which may negatively affect human 'well-being'. You can achieve the [same] 'moral messages', by clearly telling the readers it is just a story.

 

[cvanwey]

Or, this is a false dilemma.

It is only a false dilemma if you do not pray for me. Or further, if we already concluded the same conclusion about the verse, which I doubt, since you seem to think all my conclusions are in error.

So again, if you should actually pray, is He going to 1) answer the prayer, or, 2) not answer the prayer? There's your true dilemma

Sure, but I don't think God is going to instill the correct translation of a verse to someone who isn't a Christian that won't actually help them recognize that they're a sinner and need forgiveness. But again, God knows more than I do, so He might!

You are missing the point here. If I should receive a response, I will let you know. It does not matter if I agree with the response or not. I will still let you know I received it. But one thing is for certain, I would then have no choice but to conclude that God does exist. And furthermore, I would know if I am doomed eternally - due to Matthew 12:32. See below...

It's not that I "must" as much as it is that it was a good example.

No. I find it more of a protective, preemptive, and/or convenient example, to mask or hide the conclusion that you likely know God is not going to entertain your intercessory request- regardless of these circumstances.

I typically don't debate "in-house" theology with non-Christians, because it honestly doesn't matter one iota what you think about these prayer passages in that they don't lead to your Salvation, which is what matters.

Or, put another way - I don't actually "preach" to my alcoholic friend that he's "sinning" when he gets drunk. He's a sinner and he's actually living according to his nature. I do talk to him about God, and if he does become a Christian, then we can work on the sanctification and holy living part.

Your analogy does not follow. I'm not asking you if God is 'right' or not. I'm asking you to merely give clarification as to what God states in Matthew 12:32. The verses appears ambiguous. Pray to God to give me His wisdom. I will then relay this information back to you, to demonstrate I at least received it. Again, I may not agree, or even follow, (just like the alcoholic analogy), but I could not then deny or reject that my given answer was from the said source at least.

I would then have no choice but to acknowledge there exists some sentient agent, whom listens and responds to requests, as instructed in the Bible. I would know God exists, and clarifies Bible passages when asked. It would then be my choice to follow them or not. -- Just like the 'alcoholic'

In other words, I am not concerned with you understanding this passage when it's not what you need to understand, nor do I think God cares if you understand this or not at this point.

Matthew 7:7 - "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you"

Do you suppose that this passage is teaching that if I, a follower of Christ, pray and ask God to cause my neighbor to have a heart attack and die, that God is somehow obligated to kill my neighbor? Why or why not.

Here's a why or why not question...

Why not at least clarify verse, in prayer? You don't think this falls under the 'window of God's acceptability'?

And 'praying to kill' conflicts with Commandment #6. So at least there's some argumentation there...

I doubt though there exists a direct 'Thou shall not' order to withhold translation of verse, when requested upon? Is there?

So are you going to pray for me now? Let me know?

 

[cvanwey]

Deleted because the quotes all got messed up. Sorry. See my next response

You started to address one of the most important inquires. Which is, what happens to the ones whom cannot perform faith, faith/works, other? Can you please respond?

 

[cvanwey]

For 2000 years Christians have looked at this and any confusion has been wiped away by the process of study and teaching. So it clearly isn't has confusing as you would like it to be. So I don't think believers have all that much of an issue.

What denomination would you call yourself?

 

[SPF]

And 'praying to kill' conflicts with Commandment #6. So at least there's some argumentation there...

So you acknowledge that God might not say “yes” to every prayer (or command as you’re using it) that I make to Him?

 

[SPF]

So again, if you should actually pray, is He going to 1) answer the prayer, or, 2) not answer the prayer? There's your true dilemma

It’s only a dilemma in your head because you don’t understand Scripture. You’re assuming that God MUST answer yes to everything I pray, which no Christian I know of believes. You’re interpretation is faulty.

No. I find it more of a protective, preemptive, and/or convenient example, to mask or hide the conclusion that you likely know God is not going to entertain your intercessory request- regardless of these circumstances.

Well, you’re of course entitled to your own opinion, even if it is wrong.

 

[cvanwey]

So you acknowledge that God might not say “yes” to every prayer (or command as you’re using it) that I make to Him?

No. I never said that. I did not say one way or another. I merely provided a handful of verses, and then asked a question, based upon those verses.

The fact that God seems to mention, in axiomatic fashion, that He will answer any/all requests, is your burden to bare, not mine. And thus far, you gave me an erroneous passage from the OT, and asked if God will go against one of His cited 10 Commandments.

In addition, I did some of your 'apologetics' work for you. Meaning, as I explained from the response you decided to chop off, God might only respond to requests which [do] align with His own moral character???? But who knows...?

And to my knowledge, I do not see a 'thou shall not' verse stating inquirers cannot ask for clarification in God's Word. Hence, you would need to give some justification as to why God will not answer [this] request? And more importantly, why are you so reluctant to ask such a request of Him?

Moving forward, I will ask you a second time...

Why not at least clarify verse, in the form of a prayer request to do so? You don't think this request falls under the 'window of God's acceptability'?

 

[cvanwey]

It’s only a dilemma in your head because you don’t understand Scripture. You’re assuming that God MUST answer yes to everything I pray, which no Christian I know of believes. You’re interpretation is faulty.

I'm sure Christians have prayed to God for understanding of verse. Does God answer these requests? If so, then you should have the green light.

Well, you’re of course entitled to your own opinion, even if it is wrong.

Then let's get the party started already. Please pray for God to instill His Wisdom upon me. We can kill two birds with one stone, in minutes or less.

I would know your God exists, and I would know what God meant in Matthew 12:32.

 

[SPF]

No. I never said that. I did not say one way or another. I merely provided a handful of verses, and then asked a question, based upon those verses.

Verses, however straight forward they may appear, require interpretation. Your questions are based upon your faulty interpretation of those verses.

The fact that God seems to mention, in axiomatic fashion, that He will answer any/all requests, is your burden to bare, not mine.

There is not a single theologian that believes this. Not one. Therefore, there is more to understanding the verse than you understand.

For example, what if I prayed for your understanding, but then someone else prayed for your blindness - what would God do?What if I prayed that God would destroy the entire planet except for me? Do you honestly believe that He would do that or that He was obligated to do so?

No, go back and read the example of Daniel again. It has a lot to teach you if you’re willing.

God isn’t obligated and bound to be my slave and obey all I command (pray) Him to do.

It’s obvious that there is more to the passages.

Why not at least clarify verse, in the form of a prayer request to do so? You don't think this request falls under the 'window of God's acceptability'?

I don’t pretend to know the Will of God. But I i were a betting man (and I am) I highly doubt you’ll find God playing any of your arrogant games.

 

[cvanwey]

Verses, however straight forward they may appear, require interpretation. Your questions are based upon your faulty interpretation of those verses.

Out of curiosity....

Why do you assume that I have concluded that God must answer 'yes' to all prayer requests? I never asserted this.. You automatically assumed as such. And why is that? Maybe it is because, to the 'untrained eye', this is what is perceived to be conveyed?

It's a good thing we have apolgetics to settle all these misunderstandings...

All I did was provide verses, and then ask a question. (i.e.) Matthew 7:7, etc.... and then, 'what did God actually mean by Matthew 12:32?'

Are you going to oblige?

Sure, I would agree with you. At first glance, God appears to give this impression. However, my goal is merely to get you to recognize that, regardless of how reckless these verses seem to be, on the surface, as evidence by you assuming what I think they mean, "any/all prayers must be responded to as 'yes' " without me eluding to this before-hand, seems reasonable that God's umbrella of allowance would [include] responding to requests for translation in His Word. Yes?

There is not a single theologian that believes this. Not one. Therefore, there is more to understanding the verse than you understand.

Did I claim there was?

For example, what if I prayed for your understanding, but then someone else prayed for your blindness - what would God do?What if I prayed that God would destroy the entire planet except for me? Do you honestly believe that He would do that or that He was obligated to do so?

Yet again, you are not addressing my request. You are bouncing all around with 'hyper - hypotheticals'? I asked you a very specific request. Can you ask to clarify Matthew 12:32 for me, or not?

Again, please see my prior response. The one in which you are ignoring. Let me refresh your memory:

I did some of your 'apologetics' work for you. Meaning, as I explained from the response you decided to chop off, God might only respond to requests which [do] align with His own moral character???? But who knows...?

And to my knowledge, I do not see a 'thou shall not' verse stating inquirers cannot ask for clarification in God's Word. Hence, you would need to give some justification as to why God will not answer [this] request? And more importantly, why are you so reluctant to ask such a request of Him?

Moving forward, I will ask you for a third time...

Why not at least clarify verse, in the form of a prayer request to do so? You don't think this request falls under the 'window of God's acceptability'?

God isn’t obligated and bound to be my slave and obey all I command (pray) Him to do.

When did I state this? I'm asking if you can request for Him to answer one question. Stop being so dramatic.

I don’t pretend to know the Will of God. But I i were a betting man (and I am) I highly doubt you’ll find God playing any of your arrogant games.

Thanks for another ad hominem. I was wondering when the next one would be delivered?

 

[SPF]

Can you ask to clarify Matthew 12:32 for me, or not?

Sure, I will, but He might not. You’re not even one of His followers...

 

[Tom 1]

If such a claimed God exists, seems as though, it is asserted God has the ability to communicate with humans: via the Word, in prayer, other. However:

1. Is God providing conflicting messages to differing humans?

Furthermore:

2. Does the Bible itself appear to give conflicting messages, or is the Bible in perfect unison and harmony? What is written in the pages of the Bible seems to also conflict in areas. Namely, salvation. Ask two Christians, from differing sects, what God deems as necessary for salvation, and the answers will likely conflict. Would it be safe to say humans can blame God for not clearling providing His Words?

3. Thus, how do Christians decide which verses to adhere to, and which to ignore or re-translate? How do Christians decide which verses are not meant to be taken as literal; even if they appear axiomatic in their written intent, which might seem to conflict with opposing verse? Again, namely, the method for salvation.

Thank you in advance

The idea that a book, or anything for that matter, could ‘make’ people have the same ideas about anything even moderately complex is an obvious fallacy. If that were possible, then we wouldn’t be human, and we wouldn’t be talking about why people don’t agree, or anything else interesting.

 

[thomas_t]

- Well, because I am politely asking.

You do. This should be a reason for me to consider. Let's assume I could just ask God, here.
Nevertheless, I am thankful that God left open so many things. My little brain would be overcharged with Bibles 1000 or even 10.000 pages longer than is.
Look, discussions here are already complex, I think. The debates are vast. If God will add 1000 more verses... then it get's even more complex.
So, I am thankful for every bit of complexity left out in the Bible.
Moreover, once we begin with that "I asked God, and I received the following answer:"-style of discussion... we will act against the CF terms of service. This is not
allowed and they don't allow for it for a reason, I guess.

How do you know this? Is this what He says in the Bible, or, is this what He tells you directly?

It's my guess.
His recipients would be overcharged if he made the Bible longer. Look at the churches. They know 1% of all Bible content, I'm afraid - and that's in its current shape it has.

In a nutshell, sounds as if you are saying...

God provides at least (3) separate passages in the Bible, regarding what [not] to do, i.e. He will never forgive you. But, He chooses not to clarify what exactly this involves, and how it is involved?

because the unfogivable sin is so special.

I did not misquote. You admit the verse us up to 'interpretation', and that "the unforgiven Christians, still being allowed to a lesser heaven, cannot be removed from the table as an option."

And if dcalling is right, then the verse(s) are pointless. If no one can commit this sin, then it is pointless to tell the readers that to commit such a sin is unforgivable; while offering no further explanation to boot. All the verse might do is pointlessly scare many.

In conclusion, to settle the matter, please ask God for me. Once we get THE answer, then we can at least determine in my original hypothesis stands...

"Blasphemy negates faith. This means 'faith' is not enough"

If @dcalling is right, then the passage would be all but futile.
There are people who genuinly believe in Jesus, such as the Pharisees... in contrast to you, but do not think it might be a good idea to declare him as Lord. This is what the passage is alluding to.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

But my above point stands. Seeing conflict(s), inaccuracies, and 'tough moral pronouncements' does lead some believers away from the Bible.

On the rest of it it just sounds like semantics. On this issue, yes fair enough, but given that millions of people read their Bibles all of the time, I'm saddened when people do act as you have done, but it is such a small proportion of Christians that it really has no significance in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Seems pretty deceptive to lead readers to believe events were literal, only to later find out they were not. Makes one wonder what else is a metaphor, fiction, or not literal?.?.?

Which is a good thing. Wondering will always cause people to question and questioning will stop people from taking for granted what they have been told and investigate for themselves. I've wavered back and forth over the years about the literalness of the flood, but none of that has made much difference to my faith. As I've said elsewhere, Faith in Jesus. So Faith in Floods is just a bit of idolatry and actually not what the Jews would have done anyway.

If you look back through history it is not a new argument.

But if it is not literal, God appears deceptive here.... He allows millions/billions to believe false information. Information which may negatively affect human 'well-being'. You can achieve the [same] 'moral messages', by clearly telling the readers it is just a story.

That isn't true. Jesus spoke in parables because it was a way of getting people away from their preconceptions. Stories have a way of speaking to us in a way that straight instruction does not. Even Aesop understood that.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

You started to address one of the most important inquires. Which is, what happens to the ones whom cannot perform faith, faith/works, other? Can you please respond?

I did or can you not read the bit where it says 'see my next response'.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

What denomination would you call yourself?

I wouldn't call myself any denomination. That's a term used to describe sections of the church and like Donne said, 'no man is an island'. At best I might be considered part of a denomination.

 

[cvanwey]

Sure, I will, but He might not. You’re not even one of His followers...

You have such little confidence it seems? I guess when a believers states "I'm going to pray for you", to an atheist, it is nothing more than a 'saying.'?

And further, in reference to your response, what if you were praying for a believer to receive this information? Are the chances any better?

 

[cvanwey]

The idea that a book, or anything for that matter, could ‘make’ people have the same ideas about anything even moderately complex is an obvious fallacy. If that were possible, then we wouldn’t be human, and we wouldn’t be talking about why people don’t agree, or anything else interesting.

True. And yet, it seems this was God's chosen primary method to convey 'truth'? Bazaar indeed.