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.
Some things are better described in poetry, metaphor and analogy. Theology is one of those things. It's beyond our capacity to talk about in any other way.I don't either. That's why I asked. There has to be something that makes sense to the average person. All of the poetic talk of redemption just confuses me more because it can't be quantified or compared to anything tangible. I wonder how many people who recite it actually understand it as well...?
This is my problem. I find it very difficult to believe in an anthropomorphic deity with the attributes specified in the Bible who created curious beings and expects them to just take things on faith. I'm curious! I want to know.Genesis does not elude to why, it only says that He did. [...] there is free will in both, otherwise Lucifer would have not fallen.
And this is why I struggle with seeing religion as anything more than a devout following of popular literature. I'm not saying anyone's wrong for believing it, I'm just saying that if you don't understand it enough to describe it logically, then it seems no more real to me than The Hobbit. It's an honest-to-goodness struggle.Some things are better described in poetry, metaphor and analogy. Theology is one of those things.
OK, whatever. Yet you choose to keep participating in this discussion.Hi Coderhead, your personal incredulity precludes communication.
But I'm seeing "4" right here in front of me in the tangible universe. You're adding to it by attempting to describe things on an ethereal plane of which you and I have no knowledge. So to you, 2 + 2 = [more than 4].I say there is nothing wrong with 2 + 2 = 4, and you say I said 2 + 2 = 5. Then you say you are not following me.
Ah, the old "atheist playbook" again. You're so smart, you must be looking over my shoulder. What page am I on now?Play 101 from the atheist playbook is pretend you do not understand the rebuttal.
It's been answered with, "so we can choose to love God and bring Him glory." So I'm trying to figure out how being put into an Earth like this is a display of God's love. You're just attacking me with no reason. So who's playing judge, jury, and executioner, really?Your question, why not bypass the earth, has been answered. So you replace it with "I am not feeling God's love...." Note that puts you in the role of judge, jury, and executioner. Personal incredulity and nothing more.
I don't even know how to address this. It's ridiculous.Next we see the charge, "you do not understand what I am saying" after saying you did not understand me. This does not move the football.
Yes, He referred to mankind's behavior as bad. But then He wiped out every man, woman, animal, and plant from the face of the Earth. So was it mankind that was bad, or was it everything on Earth that He had created? Certainly not all of the animals and plants were sinful. It just seems like an inefficient way to correct what seems to have been a mistake. I know you see it differently, but you aren't helping me understand it by being condescending and sarcastic.Did God call His creation "bad." Or did He refer to the behavior of mankind bad? So after making unsupported claims, I expect you will charge me with making unsupported claims.
So you are the one who decides what's right and what's not? Is God omniscient or isn't He? Did He know that this sinful world that needs rebuilding was a possible outcome? If so, why not create it differently so that the outcome was favorable? He's omnipotent too, right?I do not need to talk to fellow Christians to discover the flavor of Omniscience you use to disparage Christianity, it is in my opinion a false doctrine and I said as much from the get go.
OK fine. I just hear it differently from other Christians. That's all I'm saying. You can see my confusion when trying to figure out who to accept as an authority on the matter?As for back up for the alternate view I hold, I have two lines of evidence: First God is all-powerful, Omnipotent if you will. So He can know whatever He chooses to know or else He would not be all powerful. And the second, He does not know everything - recall that He forgives our sins and remembers them no more forever - so He can choose not to know things.
Like I said, why not make it so the outcome was favorable? And why did the attempt to "wipe out the sinners" fail? After the flood, there were still sinners. And now He has to do it all over again. I just don't understand the line of reasoning - especially for an all-powerful being.God was sorry He had made mankind because of all the sin mankind had done. But since man's ability to sin was part of creation, the sin was not an unanticipated outcome. God did choose to wipe out the sinners, except for eight, but as I said, this provided an illustration of the ark of Christ.
Wow, a condescending Christian, what a novel concept. All I'm saying is I want to make an informed decision.At the end of the day, you seem to want to get to heaven without sacrificing yourself. Let me know how that works out for you.
Hi Coderhead, play 102 from the playbook is play the victim.
...snip...
You're really coming off as pompous and unlikable. I hope that's not your goal.Hi Coderhead, play 102 from the playbook is play the victim.
Did God really wipe out Noah? That is news. And since you agree the plants and animals were not "bad" then wiping them out does not suggest a mistake. Game, set and match. But the flood and the ark does suggest the ark of Christ. And Christ was the plan before the beginning. So it all fits together.
My point with the math example was to illustrate your contention that doing stuff the right way does not make a person a mindless zombie. Rather than address that, you rewrote my argument, using your own words, and addressed your strawman. Then you charge me with malfeasense. I think you have the play book memorized.
Is God omniscient? It depends on how you define omniscient. Using my view, yes God is omniscient. Did He know man would fall? Yes, but that was part of the plan. Why else put that tree in the garden?
You do not have to accept anyone as an authority on the matter. I demonstrated the reason why Omniscient as I presented it is the biblical view.
See?Using my view, yes God is omniscient.
What I find disheartening, is that most atheists cling to false doctrines as representing Christianity because it gives them something to ridicule.
Whatever that means.Think about what that says. Who knows, maybe a light will shine in your heart.
Obviously. It's difficult to grasp any of this. Thanks for (not) helping.Hi Coderhead, it seems there is an endless list of "things" you are trying to figure out.
Yet another oft restated question. Why did God do it the way He did it, and not some other way that makes more sense to ME! And for the umpteenth time, God created us with the capacity to choose God or not, in order that when a person makes that autonomous choice, they bring glory to God. Otherwise we would be sorta like a pull string doll that says "I love you."
Despite the enlightenment's assertion that's become ingrained in modern western culture, not everything reduces to its kind of thinking. Not just theology but art, relationships, beauty, philosophy, even mercy and justice.And this is why I struggle with seeing religion as anything more than a devout following of popular literature. I'm not saying anyone's wrong for believing it, I'm just saying that if you don't understand it enough to describe it logically, then it seems no more real to me than The Hobbit. It's an honest-to-goodness struggle.
Hi Aesjn, no that is not what angels are (pull string dolls). I have no interest in discussing angels, unless they play in Orange county, because exploring Christianity should be focused on exploring Christ. Now I know some folks like to make fun of angels, but according to God's word, that is not a wise thing to do. See the book of Jude for more detail.
Isn't this the equivalent of saying, "whatever I think the Bible says is exactly what the Bible says?" If this is the case, does the Bible even have any true meaning? More confusion. Oh, so much confusion!If a person adopts what he or she believes is the biblical view, then the view can be referred to as their view and the biblical view.
But you have to understand, Van's personal view is the Biblical view. So you're wrong.Er, no that is exactly what some of them are. I'm not making fun of them, that's what the bible says the angels around god's throne do.
Hi Aesjn, Angels are not pull string dolls. You claim is without foundation in scripture. To say they are pull string dolls and then say you are not making fun of them reflects absurdity. I suspect you are referring to the four "living creatures" of Revelation 4:6-11.
While there are conflicting theories concerning just who or what are these "living ones" I accept the view that they are indeed angels, in fact the highest order of angels - cherubim. But to conclude that these 4 "worship team" members do not rotate with other cherubim, so that they all share various opportunities of service misses the point of their description.
Day and night they never stop saying: "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come." Whenever the living creatures give glory, honor and thanks to him who sits on the throne and who lives for ever and ever, the twenty-four elders fall down before him who sits on the throne, and worship him who lives for ever and ever. They lay their crowns before the throne and say:
"You are worthy, our Lord and God,
to receive glory and honor and power,
for you created all things,
and by your will they were created
and have their being."
But you have to understand, Van's personal view is the Biblical view. So you're wrong.
And you're not portraying your personal interpretation as absolute truth?Folks, again what we have here are pagans "assuming" an unlikely view, then claiming dogmatically that is the only view possible.
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?