Is there a reason why Christians (especially the evangelicals) and the Muslims have a need to proselytize non-believers, especially people who already believe in non-Abrahamic religions?

Do they feel insecure about their faiths? Or is there somewhere in their religious books that commands them to proselytize non-believers?

Finally, what exact benefits do they believe they gain out of proselytization?

Discuss.

July 12, 2010, 3:09 pm: System Notice: This thread has been automatically renewed after reaching a post limit. Most of its content has been moved to this thread (http://slickdeals.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2123240) for reference purposes.

September 10, 2010, 3:13 am: System Notice: This thread has been automatically renewed after reaching a post limit. Most of its content has been moved to this thread (http://slickdeals.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2229967) for reference purposes.

Proselytizing is the act of attempting to convert people to another opinion and, particularly, another religion

Is there a reason why Christians (especially the evangelicals) and the Muslims have a need to proselytize non-believers, especially people who already believe in non-Abrahamic religions?

Do they feel insecure about their faiths? Or is there somewhere in their religious books that commands them to proselytize non-believers?

Finally, what exact benefits do they believe they gain out of proselytization?

Discuss.

Several places in the New Testament tells Christians to proselytize. No they don't feel insecure. Particularly many of those evangelicals that walk around and proselytize to strangers on the streets. It takes an exceptional amount of faith to be willing to walk up to complete strangers and share your faith with them.

Benefits to be had are knowing you're doing your part to spread God's word. Often times evangelicals who proselytize on the street say that God tells them who to talk to and what to say, and that taking that step of faith and obeying brings them much more in-tune with God's will.

I have no idea, but its annoying.
This Wiccan ain't changing.

Several places in the New Testament tells Christians to proselytize. No they don't feel insecure. Particularly many of those evangelicals that walk around and proselytize to strangers on the streets. It takes an exceptional amount of faith to be willing to walk up to complete strangers and share your faith with them.

Benefits to be had are knowing you're doing your part to spread God's word. Often times evangelicals who proselytize on the street say that God tells them who to talk to and what to say, and that taking that step of faith and obeying brings them much more in-tune with God's will.

It is understandable if they proselytize those who were born into families that already follow one of the Abrahamic faiths. However, it is puzzling as to why they would feel a need to proselytize individuals that already believe in non-Abrahamic faiths. This is especially apparent in the evangelical and Catholic missions to places like China, India, and other Third World countries where the Abrahamic faiths have weak presence. Did their god tell them to convert heretics and pagans as well?

Also wanted to say, this topic came up today when I found out about a young guy that is a friend of the family. This young guy (in his 20's) was arrested for marijuana, he has a wife and a son, 2 yrs old. That child will go without his father for 5 yrs because of the war on drugs. You tell me who has done the evil here, the state or this young father? If anything can be criminalized, then we could all be criminals.

This guy is polite and respectful, would give you the shirt off his back but yet he is a criminal, according to the war on drugs. The injustice breaks my heart. Sigh....more bad news from the world today.I think a pound, yeah its insane for a pound of a plant.If the poor, polite and respectful criminal would have obeyed the law, he would not have placed himself in the position that he is in now. It was his choice.

If you can't do the time... Don't do the crime....

If the poor, polite and respectful criminal would have obeyed the law, he would not have placed himself in the position that he is in now. It was his choice.

If you can't do the time... Don't do the crime....
Imagine that. A retired LEO seeking blind obedience to authority, regardless of the underlying legitimacy of that claim of authority.

If America would have created reasonable, evidence-supported laws, she would not have placed herself in the position that she is in now. It was her choice to starting locking people up for smoking a plant.

Imagine that. A retired LEO seeking blind obedience to authority, regardless of the underlying legitimacy of that claim of authority.

If America would have created reasonable, evidence-supported laws, she would not have placed herself in the position that she is in now. It was her choice to starting locking people up for smoking a plant.Imagine that. A future lawyer seeking to defend a criminal in their disobedience to authority, and seeking to deny the underlying legitimacy of that authority.

So if a person decides that they want to rob banks and they (and their lawyer) believe that the law against such action has no legitimacy in their opinion, then it's OK? Same for any other law? :rolleyes:

Why not claim that using heroin, meth, hash, cocaine and other drugs are OK, since to refrain from using those illegal substances is "blind obedience to authority, regardless of the underlying legitimacy of that claim of authority"? A user of those substances could equally claim that If America would have created reasonable, evidence-supported laws, she would not have placed herself in the position that she is in now. It was her choice to starting locking people up for possessing and using a chemical substance. :rolleyes:

Once again, it is the individual's choice to break the law, and in doing so, they must be willing to accept the consequences if caught.

Imagine that. A future lawyer seeking to defend a criminal in their disobedience to authority, and seeking to deny the underlying legitimacy of that authority.

So if a person decides that they want to rob banks and they (and their lawyer) believe that the law against such action has no legitimacy in their opinion, then it's OK? Same for any other law? :rolleyes:
Where has anyone argued that laws against bank robbery (or any theft for that matter) are unjust? You are misapplying the concept that is being discussed.

Our country was founded on the principle that unjust laws sometimes need to be broken in order to challenge the legitimacy. Our history is filled with examples of civil disobedience.

When nearly half of our adult population can be considered criminals under our current marijuana laws, including many lawmakers and US presidents themselves, you have to wonder if it maybe there is a problem with the law.

Our country was founded on the principle that unjust laws sometimes need to be broken in order to challenge the legitimacy. Our history is filled with examples of civil disobedience.One can feel free to break the law to challenge legitimacy or whatever reason they choose to rationalize their actions if one wants, but one should not whine and cry when one is arrested and jailed when caught. One makes a conscious choice to break the law and one must be prepared to accept the consequences of their choices.

Again, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime....

When nearly half of our adult population can be considered criminals under our current marijuana laws, including many lawmakers and US presidents themselves, you have to wonder if it maybe there is a problem with the law.Hmm... "Nearly half of our adult population" are dopeheads???? Do you have "data" or "statistics" that backs up that statement (not from a dopehead organization such as NORML - they don't count).

Perhaps nearly half of the adult population in your circle are dope users, but in my circle that is absolutely not the case, and I highly doubt if one half of the US adult population nationwide are dopers.

A firework maker builds something for the sole purpose of destroying it. If people know he made it and are wowed by it, does that not bring him glory. I'm not equating God to a fireworks maker, just giving an example that destruction of something doesn't mean it's impossible for the creator to be glorified. In any case, the destruction was to make the power known. The mercy was to gain glory.
Smeg never claimed that the destruction of a thing should preempt glory but rather that the act of destruction itself is not glorious. The purpose of a firework is not to be destroyed. It is to produce, by way of its destruction, a beautiful display of light. The beautiful display of light is what brings that firework maker renown. Were the fireworks sentient creatures that would endure tremendous suffering by the act of their destruction, however, the faculty of compassion, of which we are possessed by virtue of the social tendencies and philosophies which guide western culture, prevents glorification of the act.

Can't read his mind so not sure if your reasoning is right. His reasons are not known as specific as you'd like.
To what degree, then, can he be understood? It seems as though whenever a Christian is brought up against a dilemma with regard to predicting the metaphysical condition of God, the popular answer is simply that we cannot know God. Extension of this belief, however, must be limited, or else the full extrapolation of the idea must mean that you cannot know that God is God. How is it, then, that you know that God is God in absence of a thorough understanding of what God is? A better question might be: What meaning is there to calling God good if the word "good" as it applies to God does not mean what we understand it to mean? Further, what meaning does any descriptor we apply to God have when that descriptor, as it applies to God, does not mean or likely does not mean what it is commonly understood to mean?

Smeg never claimed that the destruction of a thing should preempt glory but rather that the act of destruction itself is not glorious. The purpose of a firework is not to be destroyed. It is to produce, by way of its destruction, a beautiful display of light. The beautiful display of light is what brings that firework maker renown. Were the fireworks sentient creatures that would endure tremendous suffering by the act of their destruction, however, the faculty of compassion, of which we are possessed by virtue of the social tendencies and philosophies which guide western culture, prevents glorification of the act.

When God bombarded cities with fire and brimstone back in the day, I'm sure it made lots of pretty colors and that he found the sight glorious. Sure, most humans would find roasting an entire population alive rather repulsive and cruel..but this is God we're talking about remember? His ways are beyond us. And since everything he does is defined as perfect, that means all the horrible diseases and natural disasters he sends to earth, along with the billions of people ("vessels") he has created for the sole purpose of sending to hell all qualify as glorious acts. If none of this makes sense to you, that just means your puny brain (that god designed) is unable to comprehend the majesty behind it all.

How is a fool one when he is not a fool?

Trick question. One never is a fool. One is judged a fool--an evaluation which, in hindsight, may be vindicated or overturned.

When God bombarded cities with fire and brimstone back in the day, I'm sure it made lots of pretty colors and that he found the sight glorious. Sure, most humans would find roasting an entire population alive rather repulsive and cruel..but this is God we're talking about remember? His ways are beyond us. And since everything he does is defined as perfect, that means all the horrible diseases and natural disasters he sends to earth, along with the billions of people ("vessels") he has created for the sole purpose of sending to hell all qualify as glorious acts. If none of this makes sense to you, that just means your puny brain (that god designed) is unable to comprehend the majesty behind it all.

Now you've got it. Reason #8,762 to always keep sunscreen handy. :cool:

And you didn't? Calling anyone a clown is not a personal attack? Calling others a liar (not just mart) in some case over opinion is not a personal attack? You are being way to hard on shifty. He was taking no side but rather a general stance for peace and a more civil debate. He should get your thanks rather than your wrath. You ask for admonishment several times, yet you have yet to admit ever of being wrong or just saying sorry for your actions on here.

Just wanted to be clear on something:

Calling someone who is a liar is fair game if that person knows the truth about something and is blatantly selling another version. I have no qualms with that (though I'm not saying that's the case here necessarily).

Someone who believes something is true and shares it yet others think Scripture is clear about an opposing view is not a liar. They are mistaken, misinformed, confused, etc. But not a liar. Liar implies intent.

A false teacher or heretic? That is debatable. You can teach false truths and either be aware or not be aware. Thus I see no issue with calling someone a heretic if you feel they are teaching falsely. However these words should be chosen carefully because someone who is a brother or sister in Christ but is mistaken about other nonessential parts is not a heretic. I venture to say every single Christian who ever lived has at one point or another had a false understanding of some aspect of Scripture and probably shared that with others. It goes back to the saying: "hate the sin not the sinner".

When we call someone a name, if that name accurately describes the sin they are purposefully living in, there is no issue. All throughout scripture God's people called people names, but those names always describe the sin. When we start calling people names that are about something else that's where "Raca" or "fool" in the NT sense come into play. That's why I had no problem with Lemon sharing her strong belief that some of Camping's teachings were not truths at all. I can tell me wife she's a liar if she lies to me about something. But if I call her an @$$H0L3 or ID10T then it's quite a different thing.

Smeg never claimed that the destruction of a thing should preempt glory but rather that the act of destruction itself is not glorious. The purpose of a firework is not to be destroyed. It is to produce, by way of its destruction, a beautiful display of light. The beautiful display of light is what brings that firework maker renown. Were the fireworks sentient creatures that would endure tremendous suffering by the act of their destruction, however, the faculty of compassion, of which we are possessed by virtue of the social tendencies and philosophies which guide western culture, prevents glorification of the act.


To what degree, then, can he be understood? It seems as though whenever a Christian is brought up against a dilemma with regard to predicting the metaphysical condition of God, the popular answer is simply that we cannot know God. Extension of this belief, however, must be limited, or else the full extrapolation of the idea must mean that you cannot know that God is God. How is it, then, that you know that God is God in absence of a thorough understanding of what God is? A better question might be: What meaning is there to calling God good if the word "good" as it applies to God does not mean what we understand it to mean? Further, what meaning does any descriptor we apply to God have when that descriptor, as it applies to God, does not mean or likely does not mean what it is commonly understood to mean?

Why would I try to answer a question that others in the Bible have clearly learned is not answerable. Why does God find fault? Why is it OK for him to create vessels for destruction? Those are all asked and answered. The Word is truth, so if it says His ways are not completely known and that certain topics are for him to know and not us, I don't see me as copping out, but rather avoiding the work that is impossible.

"Good" does not mean - never does the following actions...
"Good" means without sin, perfect, always doing what is right for that person as defined. For us, our good and bad actions are defined. For God they are not the same. So calling God "good" is simply a way of saying he never does anything wrong, never sins, etc as defined for him. If you want to judge God and hold him accountable to the rules we play by then you're not in line with scripture. Those are not the rules he plays by.

Why would I try to answer a question that others in the Bible have clearly learned is not answerable. Why does God find fault? Why is it OK for him to create vessels for destruction? Those are all asked and answered. The Word is truth, so if it says His ways are not completely known and that certain topics are for him to know and not us, I don't see me as copping out, but rather avoiding the work that is impossible.

"Good" does not mean - never does the following actions...
"Good" means without sin, perfect, always doing what is right for that person as defined. For us, our good and bad actions are defined. For God they are not the same. So calling God "good" is simply a way of saying he never does anything wrong, never sins, etc as defined for him. If you want to judge God and hold him accountable to the rules we play by then you're not in line with scripture. Those are not the rules he plays by.

That's called a dilemma. You are expressing belief in something without form. While on an individual level this is not particularly problematic, the nature of the dilemma becomes obvious when you extrapolate it to the entirety of Christianity. Christians in general take great pride in the popularity of their belief system. It is one of the strongest pillars of the popular Christian's support system. Fallacious though this form of support may be, its strong emotional influence is compelling, yet few Christians fail to consider that their God may not be the same as the God of another. While you may be OK with worshiping an amorphous entity that is definitively perfect in spite of apparently evil tendencies that color its most sacred history, many others have not contributed such thought to the subject. Calling God good, therefore, is misleading because good is an expression of a familiar thought. God is not good unless he is good, and calling him good when he is in fact something altogether different either robs the word of its substance or tricks people into thinking God is something that you don't believe him to be.

This all takes a very long route back to the problem of evil, so to speak, and ultimately, the question must arise as to why anyone would worship a being, imagined or not, that treats us cruelly.

By the way, in case you think I have forgiven your statement that "the Word is truth," I'll leave you with this: prove it. As far as I'm concerned, the best use of the Bible is for kindling unless and until someone takes the courtesy to demonstrate otherwise.

That's called a dilemma. You are expressing belief in something without form. While on an individual level this is not particularly problematic, the nature of the dilemma becomes obvious when you extrapolate it to the entirety of Christianity. Christians in general take great pride in the popularity of their belief system. It is one of the strongest pillars of the popular Christian's support system. Fallacious though this form of support may be, its strong emotional influence is compelling, yet few Christians fail to consider that their God may not be the same as the God of another. While you may be OK with worshiping an amorphous entity that is definitively perfect in spite of apparently evil tendencies that color its most sacred history, many others have not contributed such thought to the subject. Calling God good, therefore, is misleading because good is an expression of a familiar thought. God is not good unless he is good, and calling him good when he is in fact something altogether different either robs the word of its substance or tricks people into thinking God is something that you don't believe him to be.

This all takes a very long route back to the problem of evil, so to speak, and ultimately, the question must arise as to why anyone would worship a being, imagined or not, that treats us cruelly.

By the way, in case you think I have forgiven your statement that "the Word is truth," I'll leave you with this: prove it. As far as I'm concerned, the best use of the Bible is for kindling unless and until someone takes the courtesy to demonstrate otherwise.

You bring up some interesting points. Here's some thoughts:

I have always disliked the use of english word "good" when reading the Bible especially when Jesus says in Luke 18:19: And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none [is] good, save one, [that is], God.

This is part of the issue with using a translation that is not the original text. The modern use of the word good is too broad to easily attribute to what Jesus was saying. I can say "pizza is good" or "jerry rice was good at wide receiver" but is that really the same thing Jesus is saying? I don't think so. In fact too many english words have so many different meanings that it makes interpretation scripture dangerous if one is not heeding the Spirit instead of just attributing modern meanings of words to what we read. Even the NIV which many adore was written decades ago and words then can have different meanings than now. Though not biblical, if you go back far enough "computer" meant "one who computes...".

So when we call God good, I think it is insufficient precisely because of the wide nature of the meaning today and what it implies. However we are not God and thus cannot accurately describe God completely. Same thing with heaven. We can try but must always be reticent that we are not perfectly able to do it and must be careful about the true meaning of the words we read, not just the current definition we have today. That's why I'm not against modern translations so long as they adhere to certain practices and rules. the KJV is not the original word and is just another reason we must let the Spirit teach us no matter what we see on the text. This is what believers had to do before the Bible was every written or any part of it.

1 Corinthians 2:13
13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

your statement that "the Word is truth," I'll leave you with this: prove it.

Why? Reason and logic won't convince you. Only the Spirit will lead you to Him.


As far as I'm concerned, the best use of the Bible is for kindling unless and until someone takes the courtesy to demonstrate otherwise.

If that's the only "good" you can think of using it for and are cold, sure use it for that. Plenty of people over history have found many other "good" ways to use it. Some bad too.

Whats your interpretation of Proverbs 10:8?

10:8 The wise in heart will receive commandments: but a prating fool shall fall.

v. prat·ed, prat·ing, prates
v.intr.
To talk idly and at length; chatter.
v.tr.
To utter idly or to little purpose.
n.
Empty, foolish, or trivial talk; idle chatter.

Why would I try to answer a question that others in the Bible have clearly learned is not answerable. Why does God find fault? Why is it OK for him to create vessels for destruction? Those are all asked and answered.
So long as one considers "Because God said so..." as an actual "answer".

The Word is truth, so if it says His ways are not completely known and that certain topics are for him to know and not us, I don't see me as copping out, but rather avoiding the work that is impossible.
And merely accepting that "Word is truth" "because God said so" isn't a form of copping out in a logical debate forum?

:nod:

"Good" does not mean - never does the following actions...
"Good" means without sin, perfect, always doing what is right for that person as defined.
.... as defined by God. Gee, how convenient.

One would think an all-powerful, all-knowing, perfect building wouldn't need to stack the deck so far in his favor.

For us, our good and bad actions are defined. For God they are not the same. So calling God "good" is simply a way of saying he never does anything wrong, never sins, etc as defined for him. If you want to judge God and hold him accountable to the rules we play by then you're not in line with scripture. Those are not the rules he plays by.
So calling God "good" means absolutely nothing because his "good" is not the same "good" used wrt everything else on Earth. :thumbup:

v. prat·ed, prat·ing, prates
v.intr.
To talk idly and at length; chatter.
v.tr.
To utter idly or to little purpose.
n.
Empty, foolish, or trivial talk; idle chatter.

I wasn't after a dictionary definition, but no biggie.

Do you not think that describes lemon's perception of Camping? If so, calling him a clown/fool is not only justified but defined in the bible

So long as one considers "Because God said so..." as an actual "answer".
Sometimes that is the reason, yes. No logic or reason necessary.

And merely accepting that "Word is truth" "because God said so" isn't a form of copping out in a logical debate forum? Where does it say the Podium can only be used within the confines of logic and reason?



One would think an all-powerful, all-knowing, perfect building wouldn't need to stack the deck so far in his favor.


Need? Who said he needed to do it this way? He is God. He does as he pleases.


So calling God "good" means absolutely nothing because his "good" is not the same "good" used wrt everything else on Earth.
"good" is not the same wrt everything else on earth. There are many different uses of the word. Any word used to describe God will always fall short of perfectly describing him. I agree, the use of the word "good" is not a "good" choice in my opinion. Regardless the context of the passage conveys the point Jesus was making.

Sometimes that is the reason, yes. No logic or reason necessary.
Logic and reason are only "necessary" when engaging in critical thinking.

Accepting "Because God said so" as a valid answer requires that one ignore critical thinking, and, therefore, logic and reason.

Where does it say the Podium can only be used within the confines of logic and reason?
It doesn't. Never claimed it did.

However, the point of the Podium is to engage in logical debate. Providing answers like "Because God said so" is a slap in the face to logical debate.

Need? Who said he needed to do it this way? He is God. He does as he pleases.
And apparently, it pleases your sadistic God to condemn people to eternal suffering for actions over which they had no control. :vomit:

(Of course, "sadistic" per our mere human terms doesn't come close to adequately describing his apparent decision to arbitrarily damn much of humanity.)

"good" is not the same wrt everything else on earth. There are many different uses of the word.
Do any of the other uses attempt to apply to an entity that delivers suffering and damnation to people who do not deserve it?

Any word used to describe God will always fall short of perfectly describing him. I agree, the use of the word "good" is not a "good" choice in my opinion. Regardless the context of the passage conveys the point Jesus was making.
Which was what? That God is something other than "good"?

You bring up some interesting points. Here's some thoughts:

I have always disliked the use of english word "good" when reading the Bible especially when Jesus says in Luke 18:19: And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none [is] good, save one, [that is], God.

This is part of the issue with using a translation that is not the original text. The modern use of the word good is too broad to easily attribute to what Jesus was saying. I can say "pizza is good" or "jerry rice was good at wide receiver" but is that really the same thing Jesus is saying? I don't think so. In fact too many english words have so many different meanings that it makes interpretation scripture dangerous if one is not heeding the Spirit instead of just attributing modern meanings of words to what we read. Even the NIV which many adore was written decades ago and words then can have different meanings than now. Though not biblical, if you go back far enough "computer" meant "one who computes...".

So when we call God good, I think it is insufficient precisely because of the wide nature of the meaning today and what it implies. However we are not God and thus cannot accurately describe God completely. Same thing with heaven. We can try but must always be reticent that we are not perfectly able to do it and must be careful about the true meaning of the words we read, not just the current definition we have today. That's why I'm not against modern translations so long as they adhere to certain practices and rules. the KJV is not the original word and is just another reason we must let the Spirit teach us no matter what we see on the text. This is what believers had to do before the Bible was every written or any part of it.

1 Corinthians 2:13
13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

That's an awfully daft understanding of the word "good" you're explaining. The field of moral philosophy is so enormously complicated that I can't even find a good place to start explaining it, but suffice to say you've ignored the context of goodness as it relates to morality (which is obviously the sense that is meant to be applied to God) completely. I'm fairly confident when people say God is good that they don't mean he is good at something. ;)

As for the linguistic barrier, I am absolutely certain that Hebrew, Latin, and Greek all had words that literally meant "good." I am similarly certain that the contexts of these words are not misrepresented in modern translations. Humoring you, however, if you are so concerned about the inadequacy of modern language to convey the meaning of ancient language, why are you not disturbed by the inadequacy of ancient language to convey the meaning of divine language? What makes you certain that any part of the Bible is even so much as an attempt to translate divine language into mortal language? Understanding that you may have some notion of God cemented in the peculiarities of life on this planet, what is it that makes you believe the Bible is a message from that God?

Logic and reason are only "necessary" when engaging in critical thinking.

not sure what you mean by critical thinking. If you think pure logic and reason will get you anywhere with God you're in for a bumpy ride. Not all can be explained that way. Call it what you want.

Accepting "Because God said so" as a valid answer requires that one ignore critical thinking, and, therefore, logic and reason.
Not really. His reasons might be explainable using logic and reason. We don't know what they are sometimes so we can't make that judgment one way or the other.


It doesn't. Never claimed it did.

However, the point of the Podium is to engage in logical debate. Providing answers like "Because God said so" is a slap in the face to logical debate.

First you say it doesn't. Then you say it's "point" is to use logical means of debating. Which is it. No rules that I can tell say we have to use logic in this forum. I think you're hoping/assuming that. If that weren't true the moderators would have shut down this thread a long time ago since clearly many here believe that God's ways do not have to conform to logic or reason of man.


And apparently, it pleases your sadistic God to condemn people to eternal suffering for actions over which they had no control.
Take that up with Him.

Do any of the other uses attempt to apply to an entity that delivers suffering and damnation to people who do not deserve it? Who says they don't deserve it? you? Are you the judge of man? of God?


Which was what? That God is something other than "good"?
Jesus didn't say he wasn't good. He simply asked the man why he called Jesus good if only God is good. The point is that Jesus wanted them to see that he was God and it was right to call him good. But it's important for people to realize that when we realize that Jesus was without sin, perfect and blameless he must be God.

That's an awfully daft understanding of the word "good" you're explaining. The field of moral philosophy is so enormously complicated that I can't even find a good place to start explaining it, but suffice to say you've ignored the context of goodness as it relates to morality (which is obviously the sense that is meant to be applied to God) completely. I'm fairly confident when people say God is good that they don't mean he is good at something. ;)

As for the linguistic barrier, I am absolutely certain that Hebrew, Latin, and Greek all had words that literally meant "good." I am similarly certain that the contexts of these words are not misrepresented in modern translations. Humoring you, however, if you are so concerned about the inadequacy of modern language to convey the meaning of ancient language, why are you not disturbed by the inadequacy of ancient language to convey the meaning of divine language? What makes you certain that any part of the Bible is even so much as an attempt to translate divine language into mortal language? Understanding that you may have some notion of God cemented in the peculiarities of life on this planet, what is it that makes you believe the Bible is a message from that God?

You agreed with me then that there are multiple means and thus I don't think it's a helpful word choice by the english translators. At least not today. perhaps back in King James time it meant something more concretely. It's like how we use the word "love" today. So many different levels of meaning. But don't take my statements further than I did. I didn't say I thought all of it was inadequate. I said this particular case was and in others as well (such as the word "church" which meant something different then). Faith is my certainty. Life experiences with the Divine interacting is my certainty. But yes even the original text is not sufficient. Nothing in words can accurately describe God completely.

Lemon, isn't there a verse that shares this statement. I can't recall it right now.

not sure what you mean by critical thinking. If you think pure logic and reason will get you anywhere with God you're in for a bumpy ride. Not all can be explained that way. Call it what you want.

Critical thinking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking), in its broadest sense has been described as "purposeful reflective judgment concerning what to believe or what to do. ...

Critical thinking can occur whenever one judges, decides, or solves a problem; in general, whenever one must figure out what to believe or what to do, and do so in a reasonable and reflective way. Reading, writing, speaking, and listening can all be done critically or uncritically. Critical thinking is crucial to becoming a close reader and a substantive writer. Expressed most generally, critical thinking is "a way of taking up the problems of life.

In sum: "A persistent effort to examine any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the evidence that supports it and the further conclusions to which it tends."

If one merely accepts "Because God said so" as a valid answer to the question of why God should be considered "good", then one has completely abandoned the concept of critical thinking.

Reason and logic won't get you anywhere with your God. Reason and logic dictate that even an all-powerful, all-knowing deity should not arbitrarily sentence people to eternal damnation for actions over which they had no control.

Not really. His reasons might be explainable using logic and reason. We don't know what they are sometimes so we can't make that judgment one way or the other.
Then why don't you give it a shot? How would one use logic and reason to explain the justification for sentencing people to eternal damnation for actions over which they had no control?

There is no explanation I can think of in which logic and reason support the notion of sentencing people to eternal damnation for actions over which they had no control. :dontknow:

First you say it doesn't. Then you say it's "point" is to use logical means of debating. Which is it.
Do I really need to explain the difference btw a "rule" and a "suggestion"?

There is no "rule" that one must engage in logic and reason on the Podium. However, that does not change the fact that the Podium exists so that posters can engage in logical debate.

There is already The Lounge for those who wish to engage in illogical debate.

No rules that I can tell say we have to use logic in this forum. I think you're hoping/assuming that. If that weren't true the moderators would have shut down this thread a long time ago since clearly many here believe that God's ways do not have to conform to logic or reason of man.
I never claimed you *must* use logic and reason. I said that the claim "Because God said so" lacked both logic and reason and, therefore, was incompatible w/the Podium's purpose of encouraging logical debate.

Take that up with Him.
Apparently, he has closed his ears to me. So instead, I choose to take it up w/his followers who claim that he is "just" and "loving" and "perfect" in a logical debate forum while relying on the answer "Because God said so." ;)

Who says they don't deserve it? you? Are you the judge of man? of God?
Not "who", but "what". The human standards of logic and reason dictate that such consequences are "illogical" and "unreasonable".

Why should a person who had no control over his/her actions be held responsible for committing those actions?

Jesus didn't say he wasn't good. He simply asked the man why he called Jesus good if only God is good. The point is that Jesus wanted them to see that he was God and it was right to call him good. But it's important for people to realize that when we realize that Jesus was without sin, perfect and blameless he must be God.
So Jesus didn't call himself "good", but did say that it was right to call him "good". :scratchh:

Per the standards of logic and reason, if there is no freewill, then we are equally "blameless", yet your God has no problem punishing us for actions over which we had no control.

You agreed with me then that there are multiple means and thus I don't think it's a helpful word choice by the english translators. At least not today. perhaps back in King James time it meant something more concretely. It's like how we use the word "love" today. So many different levels of meaning. But don't take my statements further than I did. I didn't say I thought all of it was inadequate. I said this particular case was and in others as well (such as the word "church" which meant something different then). Faith is my certainty. Life experiences with the Divine interacting is my certainty. But yes even the original text is not sufficient. Nothing in words can accurately describe God completely.

Lemon, isn't there a verse that shares this statement. I can't recall it right now.

Yet you trust a compilation of words to describe God to you. You don't see the contradiction here?

Yet you trust a compilation of words to describe God to you. You don't see the contradiction here?

I've brought this topic up countless times before. You won't ever get a reasonable response from someone about this. The best response I get is that people know god because they get a tingly feeling.

Critical thinking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking), in its broadest sense has been described as "purposeful reflective judgment concerning what to believe or what to do. ...

Critical thinking can occur whenever one judges, decides, or solves a problem; in general, whenever one must figure out what to believe or what to do, and do so in a reasonable and reflective way. Reading, writing, speaking, and listening can all be done critically or uncritically. Critical thinking is crucial to becoming a close reader and a substantive writer. Expressed most generally, critical thinking is "a way of taking up the problems of life.

In sum: "A persistent effort to examine any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the evidence that supports it and the further conclusions to which it tends."

If one merely accepts "Because God said so" as a valid answer to the question of why God should be considered "good", then one has completely abandoned the concept of critical thinking.

You can call it what you want, or what wikipedia wants. Doesn't really matter. It just means you won't use it to it's fullest to come to believe in the Christian God, the one true God. But then again I don't expect you to use logic and reason in every instance of considering Christianity.

Reason and logic won't get you anywhere with your God. Reason and logic dictate that even an all-powerful, all-knowing deity should not arbitrarily sentence people to eternal damnation for actions over which they had no control. God is not dictated by anyone. Not your definition, not wikipedia's, etc.


Then why don't you give it a shot? How would one use logic and reason to explain the justification for sentencing people to eternal damnation for actions over which they had no control?

There is no explanation I can think of in which logic and reason support the notion of sentencing people to eternal damnation for actions over which they had no control. :dontknow: Welcome, audience in Romans 9.


Do I really need to explain the difference btw a "rule" and a "suggestion"?

There is no "rule" that one must engage in logic and reason on the Podium. However, that does not change the fact that the Podium exists so that posters can engage in logical debate.

There is already The Lounge for those who wish to engage in illogical debate. So you're asking that we not discuss this here? Is that really what you're after? It's just a section in a sql database somewhere. What does it matter? Or are you just trying to get your way about something? I don't see why you really care. If you think Christians who believe as I am describing should be in this forum, take it up with the moderator. But double check that logic and reason are the only types of debates that are OK here first. I'm guessing you will just get the response: "Get over it. Don't participate if you don't like it."


I never claimed you *must* use logic and reason. I said that the claim "Because God said so" lacked both logic and reason and, therefore, was incompatible w/the Podium's purpose of encouraging logical debate. Where is this purpose defined? Here is a link to the rules of discussion in the Podium. I don't see anything about logic, reason, or critical thinking. I do however see tons about name calling and using emoticons in a derogatory or mocking manner. I wonder if you read that part. It seems to be a hobby of yours.

http://slickdeals.net/forums/showpost.php?p=25967216&postcount=1


Apparently, he has closed his ears to me. So instead, I choose to take it up w/his followers who claim that he is "just" and "loving" and "perfect" in a logical debate forum while relying on the answer "Because God said so." ;)
Maybe so. Take it up with us. I'm not complaining. But don't expect us to change the rules he set up.


Not "who", but "what". The human standards of logic and reason dictate that such consequences are "illogical" and "unreasonable".

Why should a person who had no control over his/her actions be held responsible for committing those actions? In the human standards you are right. A person is not responsible. If I shoot you with a gun, the bullet doesn't suffer consequences, I do. If I force someone else to pull the trigger, I suffer, not them. When it comes to God's creation, according to Romans 9 he doesn't play by our rules.


So Jesus didn't call himself "good", but did say that it was right to call him "good". :scratchh: Jesus asked a question to make sure the person knew why he was calling Jesus good.


Per the standards of logic and reason, if there is no freewill, then we are equally "blameless", yet your God has no problem punishing us for actions over which we had no control.
Like I said, those are human terms (logic and reason). You sound like a broken record and thus because I keep replying, so do I.

Yet you trust a compilation of words to describe God to you. You don't see the contradiction here?

I don't trust the Bible to completely describe him no. Only partially.

I don't trust the Bible to completely describe him no. Only partially.

Of what importance is the Bible? If god exists, don't you think he would contact us directly?

Of what importance is the Bible? If god exists, don't you think he would contact us directly?

He did for a while and still does. Just not like typical humans interact usually. There are many reasons to read the Bible. Some having direct reasons regarding being a Christian. Others for more academic and social awareness reasons.

Here's one benefit: It cuts to the heart of the person
Hebrews 4:12 (King James Version)
12For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Another:
Deuteronomy 17:19 (King James Version)
19And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them:

And they bring life when we discern the Word of God:
Matthew 4:4 (King James Version)
4But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Some other reasons:
2 Timothy 3:16-17 (King James Version)
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Romans 15:4 (King James Version)
4For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

John 6:63 (King James Version)
63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

I've brought this topic up countless times before. You won't ever get a reasonable response from someone about this. The best response I get is that people know god because they get a tingly feeling.

I've brought it up several times before also. I'm told persistence is a virtue. Perhaps I need to work on self-induced tingly feelings.

I've brought it up several times before also. I'm told persistence is a virtue. Perhaps I need to work on self-induced tingly feelings.

Perhaps.

You can call it what you want, or what wikipedia wants. Doesn't really matter. It just means you won't use it to it's fullest to come to believe in the Christian God, the one true God. But then again I don't expect you to use logic and reason in every instance of considering Christianity.
What? :scratchh: Seriously? :scratch:

How does one use logic and reason "to its fullest" in order to come to the conclusion that your God is the one true God? You made the claim, you should be able to substantiate it...

When have you used logic and reason considering the veracity of your interpretation of Christian theology wrt free will?

God is not dictated by anyone. Not your definition, not wikipedia's, etc.
If your God is not reasonable, then, IMHO, he cannot be "perfect" nor truly "just".

Why would Christians choose to use such words to describe their God, then become upset if one challenges their application, especially wrt a supposed lack of free will?

Welcome, audience in Romans 9.
Welcome back, deflection.

So you're asking that we not discuss this here? Is that really what you're after? It's just a section in a sql database somewhere. What does it matter? Or are you just trying to get your way about something? I don't see why you really care. If you think Christians who believe as I am describing should be in this forum, take it up with the moderator. But double check that logic and reason are the only types of debates that are OK here first. I'm guessing you will just get the response: "Get over it. Don't participate if you don't like it."
Whoa, there. You can stop w/the strawman suggestion that I don't want "your kind" here or any such foolishness.

You choose to call your God "loving" and "just" and "perfect" on a forum dedicated to logical debate, yet cannot logically and reasonably support your description of your God.

You are completely free to participate here, just as I am completely free to repeatedly take note of the lack of logic and reason given in the "explanations".

Where is this purpose defined? Here is a link to the rules of discussion in the Podium. I don't see anything about logic, reason, or critical thinking. I do however see tons about name calling and using emoticons in a derogatory or mocking manner. I wonder if you read that part. It seems to be a hobby of yours.
No, my hobby wrt this thread is pointing out inherent contradictions and the lack of logic and reason. But feel free to MA any post of mine you believe to be a violation of the Podium rules.

Maybe so. Take it up with us. I'm not complaining. But don't expect us to change the rules he set up.
I *am* taking it up w/you. And you're not complaining, you're deflecting from the fact that if free will does not exist, then God sentences people to eternal damnation based on actions over which they had no control. And that fact is contradictory to the human standards of "just" and "loving" and "perfect" that you have chosen to use to describe your God.

In the human standards you are right. A person is not responsible. If I shoot you with a gun, the bullet doesn't suffer consequences, I do. If I force someone else to pull the trigger, I suffer, not them. When it comes to God's creation, according to Romans 9 he doesn't play by our rules.
And yet you continue to describe him as "just" and "loving" and "perfect" according to our human standards, when those descriptions, as you admit above, clearly are not applicable.

Hence, the inherent contradiction...

Jesus asked a question to make sure the person knew why he was calling Jesus good.
So we should call Jesus "good" because he is God, but the Bible wasn't using "good" in the traditional sense of the term "good"?

Like I said, those are human terms (logic and reason). You sound like a broken record and thus because I keep replying, so do I.
Well, then I'll try a different path...

Why do you choose to call your God "good" and "just" and "loving", when he clearly engages in actions contradictory to the human understanding of those terms? Are you not engaging in a form of "bait and switch" to those to whom you proselytize?

Billy: "You should really believe in my God, Jimmy. He's loving and just and good. Man, he's perfect!"

Jimmy: "Wow. That's sounds awesome! How does your God show his love and his goodness?"

Billy: "By condemning a whole bunch of people to eternal suffering for actions over which they had no control. See, Jimmy, he doesn't actually have to do "good", "just", or "loving" things. After all, he's God."

I don't trust the Bible to completely describe him no. Only partially.
Then perhaps the Bible was only partially accurate in its depictions of him as "just" and "loving" and "good". ;)

Where is this purpose defined? Here is a link to the rules of discussion in the Podium. I don't see anything about logic, reason, or critical thinking.

keep reading that thread (it is called the 'rules and discussion' thread after all)... there's a whole bit about how arguments should be logical, on-point and timely. I'm not going to search it out specifically but I don't remember seeing any dissent.

How does one use logic and reason "to its fullest" in order to come to the conclusion that your God is the one true God? You made the claim, you should be able to substantiate it...
You can't. I never said they could be used to its fullest to come to the conlusion of God. Faith doesn't use logic and reason at its core. Along the way perhaps, but ultimately, no.


When have you used logic and reason considering the veracity of your interpretation of Christian theology wrt free will? I'm not a proponent of the type of free will that most here are talking about so you'd have to ask them that question.


If your God is not reasonable, then, IMHO, he cannot be "perfect" nor truly "just".
You're entitled to your opinion.

Why would Christians choose to use such words to describe their God, then become upset if one challenges their application, especially wrt a supposed lack of free will?
Please explain with examples. Don't want to respond to a question you aren't asking.


Whoa, there. You can stop w/the strawman suggestion that I don't want "your kind" here or any such foolishness.

You choose to call your God "loving" and "just" and "perfect" on a forum dedicated to logical debate, yet cannot logically and reasonably support your description of your God.

You are completely free to participate here, just as I am completely free to repeatedly take note of the lack of logic and reason given in the "explanations".

There you go again. Who are you to define that this forum is dedicated to "logical debate


No, my hobby wrt this thread is pointing out inherent contradictions and the lack of logic and reason. But feel free to MA any post of mine you believe to be a violation of the Podium rules. Not interested. Thanks for the offer though. Maybe some day.


I *am* taking it up w/you. And you're not complaining, you're deflecting from the fact that if free will does not exist, then God sentences people to eternal damnation based on actions over which they had no control. And that fact is contradictory to the human standards of "just" and "loving" and "perfect" that you have chosen to use to describe your God. I'm not deflecting. I have stated many times that this part is confusing to me and admitted I don't completely understand it. I am perfectly fine with the notion however that God is God and I am not his judge. You're not fine with it. But you think God should play by our rules and that's why he's contradictory. I don't think he does so it's not a contradiction.


And yet you continue to describe him as "just" and "loving" and "perfect" according to our human standards, when those descriptions, as you admit above, clearly are not applicable. We try our best to describe him with English, yes.



So we should call Jesus "good" because he is God, but the Bible wasn't using "good" in the traditional sense of the term "good"? Please explain further. Not sure I see what you're saying.


Well, then I'll try a different path...

Why do you choose to call your God "good" and "just" and "loving", when he clearly engages in actions contradictory to the human understanding of those terms? Are you not engaging in a form of "bait and switch" to those to whom you proselytize?

Billy: "You should really believe in my God, Jimmy. He's loving and just and good. Man, he's perfect!"

Jimmy: "Wow. That's sounds awesome! How does your God show his love and his goodness?"

Billy: "By condemning a whole bunch of people to eternal suffering for actions over which they had no control. See, Jimmy, he doesn't actually have to do "good", "just", or "loving" things. After all, he's God."


Then perhaps the Bible was only partially accurate in its depictions of him as "just" and "loving" and "good". ;)[/QUOTE]

You're right. The conversation should have gone much deeper than those three lines. But you seem to think Billy is going to be the one who convinces Jimmy. God does that not Billy. So the whole goal of the conversation doesn't really hold water. Our job is to share what Christ has done for us, honor him with our words and actions and let God do the heart shaping, let God give the repentance, the faith, the grace, etc. If the goal of proselytizing is to convince people to take actions into their own hands, to repent of their own free will, etc then you're talking to someone who believes in free will in which case the judgment of God is because people chose to sin of their own accord. Your question makes more sense for those who believe in pure free will.

He did for a while and still does. Just not like typical humans interact usually.

Oh, the tingly feeling, or is it supposed to hurt?

There are many reasons to read the Bible. Some having direct reasons regarding being a Christian. Others for more academic and social awareness reasons.

Here's one benefit: It cuts to the heart of the person
Hebrews 4:12 (King James Version)
12For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

My take on this is that god's words can pierce soul and spirit (what are those?), joints and marrow (this is where it must hurt) and can understand thoughts and intents.

Another:
Deuteronomy 17:19 (King James Version)
19And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them:

And they bring life when we discern the Word of God:
Matthew 4:4 (King James Version)
4But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

So apparently I live by the word of god since I am alive. That was easy.

Some other reasons:
2 Timothy 3:16-17 (King James Version)
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

So this means that if I read Bible scripture that I will be able to indoctrinate, rebuke, correct and instruct people about what is right or wrong so that I can perfect those people. Wow, I understand the appeal. People believe they have a moral right to judge other's behavior because they follow the writings in the Bible. You must feel powerful.

Romans 15:4 (King James Version)
4For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

Is it possible to have hope without scripture? Did people use to never have patience or comfort? I'm guessing this one was written for someone who isn't comfortable.

John 6:63 (King James Version)
63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

What is the Bible's definition of spirit and why would I want it to be quicker?

So god speaks words of spirit and life. What does that do? I obviously already have life, so I already have god's words spoken unto me since before I was born.

I'm really no good at translating this stuff. Is it supposed to be taken out of context like this? You quoted it like it means something to normal people. Am I supposed to use something other than logic and reasoning to understand it?


So how do we know god's words are what's written in the bible? Where is the fact checking? Why should I trust this King James guy?

Jammer, a little late to the discussion.

In short none of it will make sense to you unless you are given that by God. Go back through the last 30 pages, try to filter out the bickering and you'll see answers to most of your questions. Welcome though.

Jammer, a little late to the discussion.

In short none of it will make sense to you unless you are given that by God. Go back through the last 30 pages, try to filter out the bickering and you'll see answers to most of your questions. Welcome though.

So has it already been discussed that there are chosen ones (people who have no choice but to live by faith) and non-chosen ones (people who have no choice but to live by logic and reason)? If you go back about 6 months, or more, you might find where I didn't get that question answered before.

Or do you just not want me to re-join the endless discussion?

keep reading that thread (it is called the 'rules and discussion' thread after all)... there's a whole bit about how arguments should be logical, on-point and timely. I'm not going to search it out specifically but I don't remember seeing any dissent.

All that came up under "logical" was an excerpt from a book that Doctor Wu pasted in. Last I checked he wasn't a moderator so he's simply offering his suggestion.

So has it already been discussed that there are chosen ones (people who have no choice but to live by faith) and non-chosen ones (people who have no choice but to live by logic and reason)? If you go back about 6 months, or more, you might find where I didn't get that question answered before.

Or do you just not want me to re-join the endless discussion?

You're welcome to join. I'm simply saying the questions you posted two posts ago or so were already answered recently so you don't need to go back that far. I can't go into all of them each and every single time someone comes in and asks the same questions all over again. Well maybe I could. But not going to. Case by case basis. As of now, I gotta go to work.

I wasn't after a dictionary definition, but no biggie.

Do you not think that describes lemon's perception of Camping? If so, calling him a clown/fool is not only justified but defined in the bible

I think I gave the scripture a couple of posts back. But someone preaching a false gospel is a heretic which has a whole different meaning than a clown or fool. I believe the scripture I gave explains that.But this is not the only offending statement she made. Taking all of her offending statements into consideration including the latest attack on shifty in which he tried to remain neutral the cats out of the bag. So picking on word out of several doesn't condone her general behavior.

I think I gave the scripture a couple of posts back. But someone preaching a false gospel is a heretic which has a whole different meaning than a clown or fool. I believe the scripture I gave explains that.But this is not the only offending statement she made. Taking all of her offending statements into consideration including the latest attack on shifty in which he tried to remain neutral the cats out of the bag. So picking on word out of several doesn't condone her general behavior.

Where are all my offending statements? If I have been as horrible as you described, you should have alerted the mods.

Do you remember the cartoon Foghorn Leghorn where the rooster continually teases the dog. Where the rooster measures off the length of the leash? Then goes up to the sleeping dog and whacks him with a news paper then run up just beyond the line and waits for the dog? What happens to the dog? Boing. But the dog wises up one day and removes the fasteners from the leash and the rooster pays for his dues. This is where your at pay up and save your integrity. I am a sinner and never claimed the infallibility you seem to claim. You or I do not know if Camping is saved or not. You've called 2 of us liars,haters and 1 a clown because you disagree with us. You have the option to disagree but not an option to belittle us. Where's the love you so highly preach? I told you way back you offended me and Tal and Mal said the same recently but you gave the excuse it's no my words it's God's words. I hold no malice for you but I will shortly stop acknowledging your presence here if you don't stop your bantering.
Do the right thing and show humility in love.

Are you calling me a rooster?

I see your still not comprehending the difference between command and commandment. And you still haven't answered our questions! You got to be dizzy by now?:D

Are you implying that I am a dizzy woman?

Are you really that confused or maybe you didn't understand what I wrote? Maybe you should read John 3 again? Who's "BLOOD" was shed at the final sacrifice? Or is it what I said before has pride blinded you? Please answer these questions first before you get any more confusing on salvation issues. If you go back to your post concerning this post again answer where God tells us to confess our sins before men because that is what you asked.
What part of "I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior" don't you comprehend? What part of my sins were forgiven past,present and future were covered by the same "BLOOD" don't you comprehend? What part of my sins are separated as far as the east is from the west don't you comprehend? Do you just like to argue until the other person get frustrated as you've done to Mal & Tal? I do have a honest question for you do you listen to heretic Harold Camping because he takes the exact same stand as you have?

Are you saying I am confused, are you saying that pride has blinded me? Are you saying I am confusing?

It's because you got your eyes closed Whoo,whoo,whooo as per Curly:lmao: I did show you in your last post or are you still in denial?;) Just in case you forgot it's Post #1790

Is this mature? Am I in denial?

Good deflection. So you are in denial and continue to wrest with God's word? You said it was a holy site. I just posted what most others believe. But your good at ignoring confrontation on your Calvinist doctrine :omg: I hope your not going to get into your a hater rampage again :lmao: Again you are free to believe you Calvinist doctrine just stop trying convince me of your error which I proved in you last quoting of scriptures. Every one I highlighted was a request none were a command or demand. Lets be honest and show a little humility :hug: and say maybe I and others have a point.

Am I in denial and wrestling His word? Am I a Calvinist, again?

So as usual your denying that it is accurate to exactly what had happened? Even though it's written in plain english? You most definitely have a problem with pride because your never wrong in your own eyes. As I said you are free to follow your Calvinist beliefs;). I do not believe your doctrine and will never be convinced no matter how you wrest with God's word. http://www.tangle.com/view_video?viewkey=74951ebdba0b48b87949 Please read the choices that are highlighted in you scriptures they are all real choices be asked of men to be done and the consequences for not making a right choice

Am I filled with pride because I reject your interpretation of scripture? That isn't pride. Calling me a Calvinist again? Am I wrestling His word?

No she hasn't she just doesn't understand what she's reading

- Passages that prove man has a free will and God expects man to
choose to do right
- Deut 30:15-18; Josh 24:15; Jn 15:6-7; 3:16
- Man can "resist the Holy Spirit": Acts 6:10; 7:51-55
- 2. Without free will, many of Bible statements make no sense:
> "Why do you call me Lord & don't do what I say" Lk 6:46 Why? God
willed it that way!
> "Whosoever believes shall be saved" Jn 3:16 (Rather whosoever God
makes a believer)
> "Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. Re 22:17
> "And whosoever will not receive you, when you go out of that city,
shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them."
Lk 9:5 (Testimony against God you mean)
> "Come to me you who are heavy laden and I will give you rest" Mt 11:28

But she and those that believe Calvin(ism) are welcome to do so. Whereas I don't "have" to accept false doctrine.

I don't understand what I am reading? I am a Calvinist, again? I have false doctrine?

So your an advocate for the wicked and chose to side against brethren. My judgment of you was correct. I have one question for you. Do you believe the bible is inerrant and if so please explain II Tim 2:10-11 but remember you first called me a hypocrite II Tim 2:14. So you need to heed the scripture you quote to me for I have said nothing to offend you but you took it on yourself to offend me. As for those you stand beside Psalm 139:19-24 says again your wrong again because your saying and agreeing Is 5:20. I will say this you in the right place to teach this corrupt gospel. You have offended me now lets see if you'll heed God's word you profess to uphold.



Again you comment on something that's none of your business. You have offended me the second time! What does scripture say about offending a brother?

I am an advocate for the wicked? I am teaching a corrupt gospel?

Hello.... anyone listening??? When did I lie? You have now accused me several times of this. Where are your wittnesses? What Did I say lemon. What did I say? I never said you didn't give sites to free will theology. I said and asked many times for your definition. What LEMON thinks and defines it as. What a site says is commentary anyways and you do not read that... opps I guess you do when it suites you now huh? You are just so blasted stubborn that you cannot even read what people say and not go in a complete different reading of it. What part of "her defintion of free will" do you just not get? I never asked for sites (which you even chose not to indicate the definition you agreed with btw) with theology. I asked for your definition. WHat you think itis so we can truely understand the criteria that free will entails. Why do you insist on making this so difficult? Read what people say for once in your life and stop accusing others of lying when you are clearly in the wrong by obviously having not read what people say or just have an inability to understand what people write. It makes more sense why so many on here have issues with your beliefs since you cannot even interpret the simplest of sentences by those on this forum, yet you want us to think ou have any clue to scripture? Please. You need to grow up and stop playing games and read what people write and stop this accusation kick you are on, especially when you clearly didn't read or cannot comprehend what words are written on this forum.

You lied when you said I did not post any definition of free will.
I cannot interpret simple sentences? Am I clueless about scripture? I need to grow up? I cannot comprehend what words are written here on the forum?

I've brought this topic up countless times before. You won't ever get a reasonable response from someone about this. The best response I get is that people know god because they get a tingly feeling.

I took 2 shots of Vodka and got that feeling last night. Is God sitting in my freezer right now?

So has it already been discussed that there are chosen ones (people who have no choice but to live by faith) and non-chosen ones (people who have no choice but to live by logic and reason)? If you go back about 6 months, or more, you might find where I didn't get that question answered before.

The answer is basically, "yes". That's how it works. God chooses some people to be saved and others destroyed. The ones he sends to hell are created for the sole purpose of glorifying himself in the eyes of the lucky few he decides to show mercy on.

You lied when you said I did not post any definition of free will.
I cannot interpret simple sentences? Am I clueless about scripture? I need to grow up? I cannot comprehend what words are written here on the forum?

Never mind you really don't get it and I have nothing more to add.

That's an awfully daft understanding of the word "good" you're explaining. The field of moral philosophy is so enormously complicated that I can't even find a good place to start explaining it, but suffice to say you've ignored the context of goodness as it relates to morality (which is obviously the sense that is meant to be applied to God) completely. I'm fairly confident when people say God is good that they don't mean he is good at something. ;)


God is good at many things..such as designing flies and mosquitoes. From Mark Train's "Thought of Gods" essay..

Let us try to think the unthinkable: let us try to imagine a Man of a sort willing to invent the fly; that is to say, a man destitute of feeling; a man willing to wantonly torture and harass and persecute myriads of creatures who had never done him any harm and could not if they wanted to, and -- the majority of them -- poor dumb things not even aware of his existence. In a word, let us try to imagine a man with so singular and so lumbering a code of morals as this: that it is fair and right to send afflictions upon the just -- upon the unoffending as well as upon the offending, without discrimination.

If we can imagine such a man, that is the man that could invent the fly, and send him out on his mission and furnish him his orders: "Depart into the uttermost corners of the earth, and diligently do your appointed work. Persecute the sick child; settle upon its eyes, its face, its hands, and gnaw and pester and sting; worry and fret and madden the worn and tired mother who watches by the child, and who humbly prays for mercy and relief with the pathetic faith of the deceived and the unteachable. Settle upon the soldier's festering wounds in field and hospital and drive him frantic while he also prays, and betweentimes curses, with none to listen but you, Fly, who get all the petting and all the protection, without even praying for it. Harry and persecute the forlorn and forsaken wretch who is perishing of the plague, and in his terror and despair praying; bite, sting, feed upon his ulcers, dabble your feet in his rotten blood, gum them thick with plague-germs -- feet cunningly designed and perfected for this function ages ago in the beginning -- carry this freight to a hundred tables, among the just and the unjust. the high and the low, and walk over the food and gaum it with filth and death. Visit all; allow no man peace till he get it in the grave; visit and afflict the hard-worked and unoffending horse, mule, ox, ass, pester the patient cow, and all the kindly animals that labor without fair reward here and perish without hope of it hereafter; spare no creature, wild or tame; but wheresoever you find one, make his life a misery, treat him as the innocent deserve; and so please Me and increase My glory Who made the fly.

We hear much about His patience and forbearance and long-suffering; we hear nothing about our own, which much exceeds it. We hear much about His mercy and kindness and goodness -- in words -- the words of His Book and of His pulpit -- and the meek multitude is content with this evidence, such as it is, seeking no further; but whoso searcheth after a concreted sample of it will in time acquire fatigue. There being no instances of it. For what are gilded as mercies are not in any recorded case more than mere common justices, and due -- due without thanks or compliment. To rescue without personal risk a cripple from a burning house is not a mercy, it is a mere commonplace duty; anybody would do it that could. And not by proxy, either -- delegating the work but confiscating the credit for it. If men neglected "God's poor" and "God's stricken and helpless ones" as He does, what would become of them? The answer is to be found in those dark lands where man follows His example and turns his indifferent back upon them: they get no help at all; they cry, and plead and pray in vain, they linger and suffer, and miserably die. If you will look at the matter rationally and without prejudice, the proper place to hunt for the facts of His mercy, is not where man does the mercies and He collects the praise, but in those regions where He has the field to Himself.

It is plain that there is one moral law for heaven and another for the earth. The pulpit assures us that wherever we see suffering and sorrow which we can relieve and do not do it, we sin, heavily. There was never yet a case of suffering or sorrow which God could not relieve. Does He sin, then? If He is the Source of Morals He does -- certainly nothing can be plainer than that, you will admit. Surely the Source of law cannot violate law and stand unsmirched; surely the judge upon the bench cannot forbid crime and then revel in it himself unreproached. Nevertheless we have this curious spectacle: daily the trained parrot in the pulpit gravely delivers himself of these ironies, which he has acquired at second-hand and adopted without examination, to a trained congregation which accepts them without examination, and neither the speaker nor the hearer laughs at himself. It does seem as if we ought to be humble when we are at a bench-show, and not put on airs of intellectual superiority there.

I took 2 shots of Vodka and got that feeling last night. Is God sitting in my freezer right now?



The answer is basically, "yes". That's how it works. God chooses some people to be saved and others destroyed. The ones he sends to hell are created for the sole purpose of glorifying himself in the eyes of the lucky few he decides to show mercy on.

Jammer, see Romans 9: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+9&version=KJV

Can you do us a favor? Being someone who has not read here what each of the Christians in this group believe, can you give a summary of what Romans 9 is saying according to your reading? Does it say God does what he wants with people and cannot resist his will and that even though we are powerless for some reason God still finds us at fault or does it say something else. Some here believe it makes no statement about whether we have free will or not and whether God chooses some people to be saved and others not to. Others think it is talking about nations since Jacob and Esau were the source of future people groups where one would server another. I'm curious what a somewhat unbiased reader things Romans 9 says. Read carefully and slowly. It actually says many different things not just one.

Jammer, see Romans 9: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+9&version=KJV

Question for you shifty.. Do you believe the bible is infallible? Do you think every line and verse in the KJV was in the original version sent by God? Most Christians are not 100% literalists this way. They acknowledge the bible contains flaws and that certain stories were heavily edited and embellished over it's 1000+ year construction. Some stories were added later and some were left out. You and lemon had a disagreement a few weeks back about the various lines such as 1 Peter 2:13 that command Christians to submit to earthly authorities and man-made laws. She doesn't take that passage seriously, and seems to agree with me that those lines were likely added by a power-hungry ruler who wanted to subjugate and control the population. You obviously disagree in that case, but are there any areas in the bible you believe are not inerrant? Do you believe it is infallible? If not, why put so much stock in the Romans verse you keep referencing? Why not acknowledge the possibility that the passage was a personal thought from the author (or scribe who copied it), and not a truly "inspired" thought that God wanted to convey?

You can't. I never said they could be used to its fullest to come to the conlusion of God. Faith doesn't use logic and reason at its core. Along the way perhaps, but ultimately, no.
:secret: Yes, you did...

You can call it what you want, or what wikipedia wants. Doesn't really matter. It just means you won't use it to it's fullest to come to believe in the Christian God, the one true God. But then again I don't expect you to use logic and reason in every instance of considering Christianity.

I'm not a proponent of the type of free will that most here are talking about so you'd have to ask them that question.
You still have an "interpretation" wrt free will even if that "interpretation" is that it doesn't exist. Did you use logic and reason when considering that interpretation of free will?

You're entitled to your opinion.
And you're entitled to your unreasonable opinion that an unreasonable God is just and perfect.

Please explain with examples. Don't want to respond to a question you aren't asking.
You have voluntarily chosen to use the human standards of "loving" and "just" and "perfect" in order to describe your God on an Internet forum dedicated to logical debate. Did you honestly believe those descriptions would not be challenged in light of the fact that your loving, just, perfect God condemns people to eternal suffering based on actions over which they had no control?

There you go again. Who are you to define that this forum is dedicated to "logical debate
A long-time member who has participated in many of the rules discussion threads. The Podium consists of much more than just this particular thread, shifty.

Elsewhere, we have even *higher* standards of evidence than the ones being used here. ;)

Not interested. Thanks for the offer though. Maybe some day.
So you will allude to me "mocking people", but not actually do anything about it, eh?

I'm not deflecting. I have stated many times that this part is confusing to me and admitted I don't completely understand it. I am perfectly fine with the notion however that God is God and I am not his judge. You're not fine with it. But you think God should play by our rules and that's why he's contradictory. I don't think he does so it's not a contradiction.
I never claimed that God should play by our rules.

I claimed that in order for God to be called "loving" and "just" and "good" and "perfect", he should exhibit qualities that make him "loving" and "just" and "good" and "perfect".

God is God. He can be as arbitrary as he likes. But I'm certainly not going to look as such arbitrariness and call it "just". :nono:

And I'm certainly going to challenge anyone who would. :nod:

You're right. The conversation should have gone much deeper than those three lines. But you seem to think Billy is going to be the one who convinces Jimmy. God does that not Billy. So the whole goal of the conversation doesn't really hold water. Our job is to share what Christ has done for us, honor him with our words and actions and let God do the heart shaping, let God give the repentance, the faith, the grace, etc. If the goal of proselytizing is to convince people to take actions into their own hands, to repent of their own free will, etc then you're talking to someone who believes in free will in which case the judgment of God is because people chose to sin of their own accord. Your question makes more sense for those who believe in pure free will.
The point was that you advertise a "loving" and "just" and "good" and "perfect" God, but instead deliver an egotistical dictator who chooses to cause arbitrary suffering in order to constantly reaffirm how totally awesome he is.

:secret: Yes, you did...

You can call it what you want, or what wikipedia wants. Doesn't really matter. It just means you won't use it to it's fullest to come to believe in the Christian God, the one true God. But then again I don't expect you to use logic and reason in every instance of considering Christianity.


I think you're misunderstanding my statement. I was simply saying you won't be able to use logic and reason soley to believe in God. If you took it some other way, I'm sorry.

You still have an "interpretation" wrt free will even if that "interpretation" is that it doesn't exist. Did you use logic and reason when considering that interpretation of free will?
You're running in circles. Slow down.


You have voluntarily chosen to use the human standards of "loving" and "just" and "perfect" in order to describe your God on an Internet forum dedicated to logical debate. Did you honestly believe those descriptions would not be challenged in light of the fact that your loving, just, perfect God condemns people to eternal suffering based on actions over which they had no control?

You really can't stop can you? Again saying the forum is DEDICATED to logical debate. Nowhere does it say this is what the Podium is dedicated to. You're adding 'logical'. That's like 5 times in a row now. Echo echo echo...hello hello hello.


A long-time member who has participated in many of the rules discussion threads. The Podium consists of much more than just this particular thread, shifty.
And your point is? Just because another thread assumes logic and reason as a common ground doesn't mean this one has to. All hail the long time member!

So you will allude to me "mocking people", but not actually do anything about it, eh? No idea what it means to allude to you...


I never claimed that God should play by our rules. You judge him based on your rules. You think it's wrong for someone to force another person to do wrong and then make that person take the blame. You claim God is doing this if he exists and thus you think it's silly that we call him loving. That's forcing him to play by your rules.


God is God. He can be as arbitrary as he likes. But I'm certainly not going to look as such arbitrariness and call it "just". Do as you like.


And I'm certainly going to challenge anyone who would. Have fun.


The point was that you advertise a "loving" and "just" and "good" and "perfect" God, but instead deliver an egotistical dictator who chooses to cause arbitrary suffering in order to constantly reaffirm how totally awesome he is. Just calling it like I see in scripture. It does the advertising for me. I simply affirm the mercy he has had on me, a terrible sinner.

Question for you shifty.. Do you believe the bible is infallible? Do you think every line and verse in the KJV was in the original version sent by God? Most Christians are not 100% literalists this way. They acknowledge the bible contains flaws and that certain stories were heavily edited and embellished over it's 1000+ year construction. Some stories were added later and some were left out. You and lemon had a disagreement a few weeks back about the various lines such as 1 Peter 2:13 that command Christians to submit to earthly authorities and man-made laws. She doesn't take that passage seriously, and seems to agree with me that those lines were likely added by a power-hungry ruler who wanted to subjugate and control the population. You obviously disagree in that case, but are there any areas in the bible you believe are not inerrant? Do you believe it is infallible? If not, why put so much stock in the Romans verse you keep referencing? Why not acknowledge the possibility that the passage was a personal thought from the author (or scribe who copied it), and not a truly "inspired" thought that God wanted to convey?

When you say "the bible is infallible" do you mean each and every translation that exists today or do you mean the original words written down? Or do you mean the meaning behind the text that the Spirit teaches us?

I believe most modern translations are based on a corrupt translation done by Westcott and Horte and thus mix truth and lies or distortions. I believe the KJV is one based on a more accurate compilation of copies of the original texts and that there exist a few modern translations that exhibit the same accuracy and remove some of the issues I have with the KJV. Part of the "infallibility" is inevitable as languages shape over time and word meanings change (like the word computer as i showed before). But gratefully I believe the Spirit can reveal to us the truth behind the words because Christ is The Word and we are temples of the Holy Spirit. So I do think there are certain words that because of today's meanings or the intentions of the writer have better options based on the English language today.

For the goal of peace I will refrain from using the example of the disagreement between Lemon and I. Perhaps you have another example? And regarding Romans, I only use that passage so much because it is a great example of the flow and responses we naturally have when we consider much of what the rest of scripture says about God's will and his affect on our hearts. Romans 9 is not at all the only example of God's will reigning, God's changing of people's hearts, God's doing as he pleases, or God using some people for wrath and some for mercy. The Bible has many examples and there is certainly plenty of examples where God is glorified, even in the midst of evil. Romans 9 is just a great line by line discussion that many people have today. I see it even in this thread where people over and over come to the statement: "yeah but how can God blame us?" just like the Paul anticipated. That is a "logical" response to what Paul is preaching. I find no fault in anyone here who takes issue with this concept of God finding us at fault for things we have no power to resist against his will. And Paul didn't think that response was illogical. He simply said we can't judge God as if we are over him or as if he plays by our rules. We are the creation, he the Creator. He makes our rules. He doesn't live by us. A painting has boundaries in which it exists. The painter does not live within those boundaries and if the painter wants to destroy some of his paintings and only exalt those that others will then glory in the painter because of his great works, then so be it.

You lied when you said I did not post any definition of free will.
I cannot interpret simple sentences? Am I clueless about scripture? I need to grow up? I cannot comprehend what words are written here on the forum?

Well it shows you can't in this post again. Sigh. I never said you didn't post definitions of free will. You posted sites and never eluded to what you agreed was your defenition of free will. I only said you never posted what your interpretation of free will is that we know what you consider it to be.

Yes you seem to be ignorant of many scriptures.

Yes you need to grow up.

Yes you have shown time and time again and even in this post you cannot read what people write and respond to only that which they write and not make up things. maybe you just read over so fast you don't see properly what is written? In anycase you definately have done quite abit of that and that only leads to confrontations since you are unwilling to say sorry or admit when you are wrong. That is precisely the meaning of pride. The truth hurts sometimes. We all have had to eat some crow once in a while when we have misunderstood what people have writen.

Never mind you really don't get it and I have nothing more to add.

She was responding to me in that post if you didn't catch it.

Jammer, see Romans 9: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+9&version=KJV

Can you do us a favor? Being someone who has not read here what each of the Christians in this group believe, can you give a summary of what Romans 9 is saying according to your reading? Does it say God does what he wants with people and cannot resist his will and that even though we are powerless for some reason God still finds us at fault or does it say something else. Some here believe it makes no statement about whether we have free will or not and whether God chooses some people to be saved and others not to. Others think it is talking about nations since Jacob and Esau were the source of future people groups where one would server another. I'm curious what a somewhat unbiased reader things Romans 9 says. Read carefully and slowly. It actually says many different things not just one.

I have said it before and shown through scripture you cannot take Romans 9 on its own without looking at the context of surrounding chapters as well as the stories in the old testiment it references. This is the problem for those that think it is a slam dunk for determinism. On the surface it seems vey much so until you see the context of who hes talking to and the context of the stories referenced. The picture of determinism diminishes quite abit when you do so.

I think you're misunderstanding my statement. I was simply saying you won't be able to use logic and reason soley to believe in God. If you took it some other way, I'm sorry.
The words on the screen speak for themselves. I don't know what other way there is to take "use [logic and reason] to its fullest to come to believe..."

You're running in circles. Slow down.
Here, I'll try to "slow down" a bit for you:

You still have an "interpretation" wrt the doctrine of free will. Your general interpretation is that it doesn't exist (correct?). When coming to this interpretation, did you consider logic and reason?

You really can't stop can you? Again saying the forum is DEDICATED to logical debate. Nowhere does it say this is what the Podium is dedicated to. You're adding 'logical'. That's like 5 times in a row now. Echo echo echo...hello hello hello.
And nowhere does the Bible unequivocally say that man is incapable of exercising free will, and yet you continuously make that claim...

I stand by my characterization of The Podium and its focus on logical debate.

And your point is? Just because another thread assumes logic and reason as a common ground doesn't mean this one has to. All hail the long time member!
Oh, look, you ask me a specific question and then attempt to ridicule me for answering. :rolleyes:

How quickly some forget their own advice...

No idea what it means to allude to you...

allude (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/allude)

to make indirect reference <comments alluding to an earlier discussion>; broadly : refer

For example, I was alluding to this particular post of yours:
I do however see tons about name calling and using emoticons in a derogatory or mocking manner. I wonder if you read that part. It seems to be a hobby of yours.

You judge him based on your rules. You think it's wrong for someone to force another person to do wrong and then make that person take the blame.
And so do you, based on your previous statements, unless that "someone" claims to be God ... and you have decided, for whatever reasons, to believe his claims.

You claim God is doing this if he exists and thus you think it's silly that we call him loving. That's forcing him to play by your rules.
Absolutely incorrect. :shake: I make no such claim that God prohibits humans from exercising free will.

You make that claim. Therefore, if true, then it is a fact that God forces a person to do wrong and then makes that person take the (eternal) blame.

If a person did this, you would call it "unjust". But if it is done by a supreme deity, then it's supposed to become "just"?

Just calling it like I see in scripture. It does the advertising for me. I simply affirm the mercy he has had on me, a terrible sinner.
And you repeat such advertising as true.

What mercy has he shown on you?

For the goal of peace I will refrain from using the example of the disagreement between Lemon and I. Perhaps you have another example?

This is the most obvious example I can think of, because the verses on the issue of obeying earthly authorities are crystal clear. There is no ambiguity about them. They mean what they say, and yet some Christians (lemon included) aren't buying it. They aren't buying the idea that not wearing your seatbelt is a sin, or that illegally freeing slaves or violating segregation laws are wrong. The "holy spirit" is apparently telling her that the lines in the bible commanding obedience to man-made governments are not genuine directions from God. I don't want to speak too much for her, but I'm assuming she thinks those lines are additions by mere mortals. I was just wondering if you had similar thoughts regarding other areas of the bible, because if you do, there is no reason to suppose the lines describing an all-loving God who intentionally creates some for destruction are not also man-made inventions. If you drop the assumption that God sets people's fate in advance, the whole Christian idea of repentance..of changing one's ways and make the right "choice" makes infinitely more sense. It makes God a truly just being..because he saves those who struggle to overcome obstacles and get closer to him. Choice is the key word here. Saving those who choose the virtuous path is a reflection of God's just nature. If you believe in the opposite (determinist) stance, I don't see how you can use that label to describe him.

Well it shows you can't in this post again. Sigh. I never said you didn't post definitions of free will. You posted sites and never eluded to what you agreed was your defenition of free will. I only said you never posted what your interpretation of free will is that we know what you consider it to be.

Yes you seem to be ignorant of many scriptures.

Yes you need to grow up.

Yes you have shown time and time again and even in this post you cannot read what people write and respond to only that which they write and not make up things. maybe you just read over so fast you don't see properly what is written? In anycase you definately have done quite abit of that and that only leads to confrontations since you are unwilling to say sorry or admit when you are wrong. That is precisely the meaning of pride. The truth hurts sometimes. We all have had to eat some crow once in a while when we have misunderstood what people have writen.



She was responding to me in that post if you didn't catch it.

Please stop with your personal attacks.

This is the most obvious example I can think of, because the verses on the issue of obeying earthly authorities are crystal clear. There is no ambiguity about them. They mean what they say, and yet some Christians (lemon included) aren't buying it. They aren't buying the idea that not wearing your seatbelt is a sin, or that illegally freeing slaves or violating segregation laws are wrong. The "holy spirit" is apparently telling her that the lines in the bible commanding obedience to man-made governments are not genuine directions from God. I don't want to speak too much for her, but I'm assuming she thinks those lines are additions by mere mortals. I was just wondering if you had similar thoughts regarding other areas of the bible, because if you do, there is no reason to suppose the lines describing an all-loving God who intentionally creates some for destruction are not also man-made inventions. If you drop the assumption that God sets people's fate in advance, the whole Christian idea of repentance..of changing one's ways and make the right "choice" makes infinitely more sense. It makes God a truly just being..because he saves those who struggle to overcome obstacles and get closer to him. Choice is the key word here. Saving those who choose the virtuous path is a reflection of God's just nature. If you believe in the opposite (determinist) stance, I don't see how you can use that label to describe him.

I don't believe those passages were added by men but rather used by unsavory men to control us all. If I don't fall in line then I will pay the punishment, I would guess that most of us break the laws of man each day without even knowing it. I suppose my best example of not bowing down to the rule of law according to man is found here:

Daniel 3
1Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold, whose height was threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof six cubits: he set it up in the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon. 2Then Nebuchadnezzar the king sent to gather together the princes, the governors, and the captains, the judges, the treasurers, the counsellers, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces, to come to the dedication of the image which Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up. 3Then the princes, the governors, and captains, the judges, the treasurers, the counsellers, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces, were gathered together unto the dedication of the image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up; and they stood before the image that Nebuchadnezzar had set up. 4Then an herald cried aloud, To you it is commanded, O people, nations, and languages, 5That at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, ye fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king hath set up: 6And whoso falleth not down and worshippeth shall the same hour be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace. 7Therefore at that time, when all the people heard the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and all kinds of musick, all the people, the nations, and the languages, fell down and worshipped the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up.

8Wherefore at that time certain Chaldeans came near, and accused the Jews. 9They spake and said to the king Nebuchadnezzar, O king, live for ever. 10Thou, O king, hast made a decree, that every man that shall hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, shall fall down and worship the golden image: 11And whoso falleth not down and worshippeth, that he should be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace. 12There are certain Jews whom thou hast set over the affairs of the province of Babylon, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego; these men, O king, have not regarded thee: they serve not thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.

13Then Nebuchadnezzar in his rage and fury commanded to bring Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Then they brought these men before the king. 14Nebuchadnezzar spake and said unto them, Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, do not ye serve my gods, nor worship the golden image which I have set up? 15Now if ye be ready that at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, ye fall down and worship the image which I have made; well: but if ye worship not, ye shall be cast the same hour into the midst of a burning fiery furnace; and who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands?

16Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter. 17If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. 18But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.

This is the most obvious example I can think of, because the verses on the issue of obeying earthly authorities are crystal clear. There is no ambiguity about them. They mean what they say, and yet some Christians (lemon included) aren't buying it. They aren't buying the idea that not wearing your seatbelt is a sin, or that illegally freeing slaves or violating segregation laws are wrong. The "holy spirit" is apparently telling her that the lines in the bible commanding obedience to man-made governments are not genuine directions from God. I don't want to speak too much for her, but I'm assuming she thinks those lines are additions by mere mortals. I was just wondering if you had similar thoughts regarding other areas of the bible, because if you do, there is no reason to suppose the lines describing an all-loving God who intentionally creates some for destruction are not also man-made inventions. If you drop the assumption that God sets people's fate in advance, the whole Christian idea of repentance..of changing one's ways and make the right "choice" makes infinitely more sense. It makes God a truly just being..because he saves those who struggle to overcome obstacles and get closer to him. Choice is the key word here. Saving those who choose the virtuous path is a reflection of God's just nature. If you believe in the opposite (determinist) stance, I don't see how you can use that label to describe him.

Forgot to add, sin is transgression of His law not man's law. I did cover that topic before so I will just leave it here.

Well it shows you can't in this post again. Sigh. I never said you didn't post definitions of free will. You posted sites and never eluded to what you agreed was your defenition of free will. I only said you never posted what your interpretation of free will is that we know what you consider it to be.

Yes you seem to be ignorant of many scriptures.

Yes you need to grow up.

Yes you have shown time and time again and even in this post you cannot read what people write and respond to only that which they write and not make up things. maybe you just read over so fast you don't see properly what is written? In anycase you definately have done quite abit of that and that only leads to confrontations since you are unwilling to say sorry or admit when you are wrong. That is precisely the meaning of pride. The truth hurts sometimes. We all have had to eat some crow once in a while when we have misunderstood what people have writen.



She was responding to me in that post if you didn't catch it.

I realize that but she had such a long list I chose the last one because it fit with what I had to say. On all the others none of her comments fit the topic of what I posted. But this one did. Rather than answer several others what she wrote fit what she has been doing.

The words on the screen speak for themselves. I don't know what other way there is to take "use [logic and reason] to its fullest to come to believe..."

Actually he said you "won't be able to" I am not sure he said what you implied off of what you quoted.

I have said it before and shown through scripture you cannot take Romans 9 on its own without looking at the context of surrounding chapters as well as the stories in the old testiment it references. This is the problem for those that think it is a slam dunk for determinism. On the surface it seems vey much so until you see the context of who hes talking to and the context of the stories referenced. The picture of determinism diminishes quite abit when you do so.

I never said I take it alone. My words in post 56 show that I see it elsewhere as well. It's just a great discussion about the issues shown in scripture and how they relate.

You still have an "interpretation" wrt the doctrine of free will. Your general interpretation is that it doesn't exist (correct?). When coming to this interpretation, did you consider logic and reason?


I use logic and reason every day. Even me typing this I'm using logic and reason. What do you mean by the openly vague question: did you use logic and reason. How so? In what context? In my thought process? In reading the scripture? Etc. What does one have to do with the other. If I did use it, what does that imply in your mind. If I didn't, what does that imply?

And nowhere does the Bible unequivocally say that man is incapable of exercising free will, and yet you continuously make that claim...
And nowhere does it say man is incapable of flying by flapping his arms. Why would it make statements about something that doesn't exist. It doesn't need to say "free will". It just says over and over God's will reigns and none can resist it and God turns our hearts this way and that way none come to Jesus except who the father gives, etc etc etc. There are so many clear cut examples it's amazing. You can refute free will by never acknowledging it and always showing the opposite wins.

I stand by my characterization of The Podium and its focus on logical debate. Stand by it all you want. Just don't condemn others for not abiding by your hopes for it.


Oh, look, you ask me a specific question and then attempt to ridicule me for answering. :rolleyes: You try to convince me I should abide by your rules because you've been a member here a long time? I'll knock down that pride and seniority any time.


allude (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/allude)

to make indirect reference <comments alluding to an earlier discussion>; broadly : refer

For example, I was alluding to this particular post of yours:
I do however see tons about name calling and using emoticons in a derogatory or mocking manner. I wonder if you read that part. It seems to be a hobby of yours.

THanks for explaining. I know what allude means I didn't know what you meant in the sentence you wrote because it seemed runon or something.


And so do you, based on your previous statements, unless that "someone" claims to be God ... and you have decided, for whatever reasons, to believe his claims. God's Word says we cannot judge him based on our rules. That's not judging him based on our rules. They're his.


Absolutely incorrect. :shake: I make no such claim that God prohibits humans from exercising free will.

How does your response have anything to do with what I said. My statement has to do with your claiming it's silly to call God loving. Never mentioned free will in the sentence you quoted.


What mercy has he shown on you?
I've addressed many of my sins forgiven in the past. I'm not going to rehash them for you. You can search back if you'd like.

Please stop with your personal attacks.

What personal attack did I make? What about the log in your eye? You called me a liar which is much worse than telling someone who is acting childish to grow up. You have not backed up your claim I was lying as I have been able to refute your claims. If you want to use "childish" tactics like accuse someone of lying and not backing it up, then you will be called out for what you are doing. Seriously Lemon, what is your problem?

I never said I take it alone. My words in post 56 show that I see it elsewhere as well. It's just a great discussion about the issues shown in scripture and how they relate.

I was commenting on the fact you asked him to read romans 9 and I was trying to add to that to say this particular chapter is one of the most difficult because of the referencing needed. i was making him or anyone else aware of that.

I don't believe those passages were added by men but rather used by unsavory men to control us all. If I don't fall in line then I will pay the punishment, I would guess that most of us break the laws of man each day without even knowing it. I suppose my best example of not bowing down to the rule of law according to man is found here:

If there is no such thing as free will, how can those lines be used inappropriately by unsavory men? Wouldn't the unsavory use of those lines be ordained by God and thus be vindicated?

What personal attack did I make? What about the log in your eye? You called me a liar which is much worse than telling someone who is acting childish to grow up. You have not backed up your claim I was lying as I have been able to refute your claims. If you want to use "childish" tactics like accuse someone of lying and not backing it up, then you will be called out for what you are doing. Seriously Lemon, what is your problem?

Please stop calling me a child, it is inappropriate.

This is the most obvious example I can think of, because the verses on the issue of obeying earthly authorities are crystal clear. There is no ambiguity about them. They mean what they say, and yet some Christians (lemon included) aren't buying it. They aren't buying the idea that not wearing your seatbelt is a sin, or that illegally freeing slaves or violating segregation laws are wrong. The "holy spirit" is apparently telling her that the lines in the bible commanding obedience to man-made governments are not genuine directions from God. I don't want to speak too much for her, but I'm assuming she thinks those lines are additions by mere mortals. I was just wondering if you had similar thoughts regarding other areas of the bible, because if you do, there is no reason to suppose the lines describing an all-loving God who intentionally creates some for destruction are not also man-made inventions. If you drop the assumption that God sets people's fate in advance, the whole Christian idea of repentance..of changing one's ways and make the right "choice" makes infinitely more sense. It makes God a truly just being..because he saves those who struggle to overcome obstacles and get closer to him. Choice is the key word here. Saving those who choose the virtuous path is a reflection of God's just nature. If you believe in the opposite (determinist) stance, I don't see how you can use that label to describe him.

All the same I will refrain from that example and try to respond in general. I'm not sure your assessment of her is completely accurate so I don't want to debate with her through you.

I believe the Spirit can teach us where the translations are wrong but it is not always clear when it's our own thinking and so it's safest to have as accurate a translation as possible. One has to take into account the meaning of the English word used when the translation was first written (one reason I have a dictionary that's from back then so that I know what it meant when it was written, not what it means today). Even still though the context can reveal a lot about the true meaning of a word which is a strategy some people use almost exclusively which can be dangerous since the context cannot always reveal the meaning. The means to a translation existing is very important to me and is one of the reasons I am skeptical of most modern translations today because of their root source in Westcott and Horte's version (which has been discussed here before).

It's interesting that you say if we belief in free will that it makes God a just being because many times in the past you have said he is not a just being because he allows disease and natural disaster and pain and suffering of the seemingly innocent. Only now as you try to convince me that perhaps there is free will in God's world do you pose that he should be considered just.

I realize you don't see how God can be considered just if there is no free will and I don't fault you for that. Your response is typical as it was mine too. All I know is that we are not God so we have very limited understanding, even with as much as we know, and thus we cannot judge God. It's like asking me to judge Brittany Spears based soley on what I know. There is so much of her life I do not know so I should refrain from judgment. Or even a close friend of mine.

I don't believe those passages were added by men but rather used by unsavory men to control us all. If I don't fall in line then I will pay the punishment, I would guess that most of us break the laws of man each day without even knowing it. I suppose my best example of not bowing down to the rule of law according to man is found here:

Daniel 3
1Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold, whose height was threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof six cubits: he set it up in the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon. 2Then Nebuchadnezzar the king sent to gather together the princes, the governors, and the captains, the judges, the treasurers, the counsellers, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces, to come to the dedication of the image which Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up. 3Then the princes, the governors, and captains, the judges, the treasurers, the counsellers, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces, were gathered together unto the dedication of the image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up; and they stood before the image that Nebuchadnezzar had set up. 4Then an herald cried aloud, To you it is commanded, O people, nations, and languages, 5That at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, ye fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king hath set up: 6And whoso falleth not down and worshippeth shall the same hour be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace. 7Therefore at that time, when all the people heard the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and all kinds of musick, all the people, the nations, and the languages, fell down and worshipped the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up.

8Wherefore at that time certain Chaldeans came near, and accused the Jews. 9They spake and said to the king Nebuchadnezzar, O king, live for ever. 10Thou, O king, hast made a decree, that every man that shall hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, shall fall down and worship the golden image: 11And whoso falleth not down and worshippeth, that he should be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace. 12There are certain Jews whom thou hast set over the affairs of the province of Babylon, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego; these men, O king, have not regarded thee: they serve not thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.

13Then Nebuchadnezzar in his rage and fury commanded to bring Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Then they brought these men before the king. 14Nebuchadnezzar spake and said unto them, Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, do not ye serve my gods, nor worship the golden image which I have set up? 15Now if ye be ready that at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, ye fall down and worship the image which I have made; well: but if ye worship not, ye shall be cast the same hour into the midst of a burning fiery furnace; and who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands?

16Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter. 17If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. 18But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.



The law made here is in direct violation of God's law: worshipping a golden image, an idol, a false god. That's not the same as a law that prohibits something that in and of itself is not sinful.

All that came up under "logical" was an excerpt from a book that Doctor Wu pasted in. Last I checked he wasn't a moderator so he's simply offering his suggestion.

He has a moderator tag under his name

I find it kind of funny that you need to distance yourself from logic and reason in order to explain the contradictory nature of your god

If there is no such thing as free will, how can those lines be used inappropriately by unsavory men? Wouldn't the unsavory use of those lines be ordained by God and thus be vindicated?

Everything is in His plan. God created evil, please do not ask me why, I don't understand or see it all.

This is not bowing down to a sinful law: worshipping a golden image, an idol, a false god. That's not the same as a law that prohibits something that in and of itself is not sinful.

Idolatry is a huge topic and I do think a case could be made that some do worship their nation, a flag.

Please stop calling me a child, it is inappropriate.

Lemon do you really believe it is inappropriate to say someone is acting childish? or are you saying that simply because you were called out for calling Camping a clown. I don't expect someone can heed your request if we really don't know what you think regarding this. Some of the things said to you in the past 2 pages are personal attacks and some are not. Can't tell if you're venting and thus calling all of them personal attacks or if you believe they are as was your calling Camping a clown. Please clarify so we're all on the same page. Otherwise I doubt anyone will heed your request.

He has a moderator tag under his name

I find it kind of funny that you need to distance yourself from logic and reason in order to explain the contradictory nature of your god

Missed that the first time. Thanks. So if you think they would have a problem with us discussing a religious view that isn't based entirely on logic and reason, feel free to mod alert and see if they ask us to stop discussing it. If they think we are violating the rules of the forum then I will comply, assuming that said moderator is able to speak for all moderators or at least the founder who has the ultimate authority here. Somehow I suppose they won't care a hoot. Perhaps though. There's no much lately that's been edifying so I'm considering dropping this altogether and going somewhere where quibbles and personal attacks are not the name of the game.

Lemon do you really believe it is inappropriate to say someone is acting childish? or are you saying that simply because you were called out for calling Camping a clown. I don't expect someone can heed your request if we really don't know what you think regarding this. Some of the things said to you in the past 2 pages are personal attacks and some are not. Can't tell if you're venting and thus calling all of them personal attacks or if you believe they are as was your calling Camping a clown. Please clarify so we're all on the same page. Otherwise I doubt anyone will heed your request.

Yes it is extremely rude to call a 41 year old woman a child.

Please stop calling me a child, it is inappropriate.

Acting childish is a description of your actions not your physical being.

Acting childish is a description of your actions not your physical being.

Your statement that I am acting childish is extremely rude.

Everything is in His plan. God created evil, please do not ask me why, I don't understand or see it all.

I know you believe that, but you can't believe that while simultaneously believing that men are responsible for the twisting of certain Bible verses to take advantage of others. If the Bible says that disobeying the laws of man is a sin and if you believe this to be the true word of God, how can you then argue that the word of God has been abused by man when you simultaneously believe that God controls the actions of men?

Yes it is extremely rude to call a 41 year old woman a child.

Likewise it is rude to call people liars that are clearly shown that you were wrong in your accessment. You accused me of things I didn't say. To not admit any of the failures on your part here as well as not potraying what people actually said accurately is "acting childish" The fact you show little humility and humbleness is also a symptom of that action. Being stubborn to not practice what you preach is also telling. I seem to recall you asking others to not take admonishment personally, didn't you? Why be like this? Appologize when you make a mistake and move on so we can all just talk about the issues and not be sidetract by this dog and pony show.

Your statement that I am acting childish is extremely rude.

Is it when it is true? I was unaware that describing actions of others was wrong since you have freely done it numerous times. Hmmm....

Can we please just drop the clown / kid thing? You two don't like each other. We get it. You're both embarrassing yourselves.

I know you believe that, but you can't believe that while simultaneously believing that men are responsible for the twisting of certain Bible verses to take advantage of others. If the Bible says that disobeying the laws of man is a sin and if you believe this to be the true word of God, how can you then argue that the word of God has been abused by man when you simultaneously believe that God controls the actions of men?

Quite a pickle indeed. ;)

Can we please just drop the clown / kid thing? You two don't like each other. We get it. You're both embarrassing yourselves.

The funny thing is I have no dislike for her dispite what it appears. I will on the other hand defend myself from misstatements of myself and will point out hypocracy if I see it. Even if it is from a fellow believer.

I know you believe that, but you can't believe that while simultaneously believing that men are responsible for the twisting of certain Bible verses to take advantage of others. If the Bible says that disobeying the laws of man is a sin and if you believe this to be the true word of God, how can you then argue that the word of God has been abused by man when you simultaneously believe that God controls the actions of men?

Each day of their lives is also written before there is even one of them. They do exactly as God has declared for them to do. I don't know why it is so, just that it is.

Where does the bible say that disobeying the laws of man is sin?

The funny thing is I have no dislike for her dispite what it appears. I will on the other hand defend myself from misstatements of myself and will point out hypocracy if I see it. Even if it is from a fellow believer.

Regardless if it's because you two genuinely dislike each other or because you're both being defensive, it needs to stop. Personal attacks happen in arguments, especially when the subject you are arguing is implicitly nonsensical. You can dismiss those attacks through your normal conduct. There's no need to get in a spitting contest over who's the more offensive.

Regardless if it's because you two genuinely dislike each other or because you're both being defensive, it needs to stop. Personal attacks happen in arguments, especially when the subject you are arguing is implicitly nonsensical. You can dismiss those attacks through your normal conduct. There's no need to get in a spitting contest over who's the more offensive.

Honestly I do not know why you should care or not. If it bothers you ignore it or don't come in the thread. I don't recall moderator on your name to be in a position to tell anyone to stop anything with authority. This will all take its course and be a memory in due time. After all I am only doing what God controls me to do ;) :P

Can we please just drop the clown / kid thing? You two don't like each other. We get it. You're both embarrassing yourselves.

The issue is greater than just on this forum, all I am going to say.

Where does the bible say that disobeying the laws of man is sin?

Romans 13

Submission to the Authorities

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.

Honestly I do not know why you should care or not. If it bothers you ignore it or don't come in the thread. I don't recall moderator on your name to be in a position to tell anyone to stop anything with authority. This will all take its course and be a memory in due time. After all I am only doing what God controls me to do ;) :P

I'm not telling you to stop. I'm telling you you're embarrassing yourself. You can stop or not at your own discretion.

I'm not telling you to stop. I'm telling you you're embarrassing yourself. You can stop or not at your own discretion.

Your opinion is noted. You did say though, this needs to stop. That is what I was referring to. We will just have to agree to disagree.

Each day of their lives is also written before there is even one of them. They do exactly as God has declared for them to do. I don't know why it is so, just that it is.

Where does the bible say that disobeying the laws of man is sin?

Romans 13:1-7: 1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

1 Peter 2:13-15: 13 Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15 For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men.

Matthew 22:21: 21 "Caesar's," they replied.

Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

Romans 13

Submission to the Authorities

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.

Romans 13
1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. 7Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Who are the higher powers? If we resist these we shall receive damnation. A govt can do a whole lot to us but damn our souls? No.

To execute wrath? Revenge? All these that belong to God? Yes, they are ministers of God, these higher powers. This passage is either promoting theocracy or talking of something more than human govt. Honor to whom honor is due, fear to whom fear is due, etc? Again, all these belong to God.

Starting in verse 8 it talks of what we owe man, not anything but love and also makes it crystal clear what law we must abide by, His law.

8Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 9For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 10Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Romans 13
1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. 7Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Who are the higher powers? If we resist these we shall receive damnation. A govt can do a whole lot to us but damn our souls? No.

To execute wrath? Revenge? All these that belong to God? Yes, they are ministers of God, these higher powers. This passage is either promoting theocracy or talking of something more than human govt. Honor to whom honor is due, fear to whom fear is due, etc? Again, all these belong to God.

Starting in verse 8 it talks of what we owe man, not anything but love and also makes it crystal clear what law we must abide by, His law.

8Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 9For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 10Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Irrelevant. That passage states that governments are authorities under God; that they are ruled by him and are therefore to be obeyed. That governments cannot damn our souls is inconsequential. Disobeying them, according to this passage, will result in God damning our souls.

Irrelevant. That passage states that governments are authorities under God; that they are ruled by him and are therefore to be obeyed. That governments cannot damn our souls is inconsequential. Disobeying them, according to this passage, will result in God damning our souls.

It is very important that denying these powers could bring damnation upon ourselves so we should know what they are, without a doubt. It cannot possibly be a govt. It doesn't even say govt.

It goes from powers to power too...and talks of a sword. Very interesting.

It is very important that denying these powers could bring damnation upon ourselves so we should know what they are, without a doubt. It cannot possibly be a govt. It doesn't even say govt.

It goes from powers to power too...and talks of a sword. Very interesting.

You're still using the KJV. I assure you, in its own, specially corrupt 16th century English way, that passage is referring explicitly to governments. Check any modern translation. You'll see that is the case.

I realize you don't see how God can be considered just if there is no free will and I don't fault you for that. Your response is typical as it was mine too. All I know is that we are not God so we have very limited understanding, even with as much as we know, and thus we cannot judge God. It's like asking me to judge Brittany Spears based soley on what I know. There is so much of her life I do not know so I should refrain from judgment. Or even a close friend of mine.
So then upon what basis do you judge God as "good" or "just" or "perfect" or "loving"? :dontknow:

And please don't try claiming that you don't judge God, but that you merely repeat the description of him given in the Bible.

By repeating such a judgment as true, you are indicating your agreement w/that judgment.

Who are the higher powers? If we resist these we shall receive damnation. A govt can do a whole lot to us but damn our souls? No.

To execute wrath? Revenge? All these that belong to God? Yes, they are ministers of God, these higher powers. This passage is either promoting theocracy or talking of something more than human govt. Honor to whom honor is due, fear to whom fear is due, etc? Again, all these belong to God.

Starting in verse 8 it talks of what we owe man, not anything but love and also makes it crystal clear what law we must abide by, His law.
A whole lot of words that don't manage to actually "say" a darn thing.... :whistin:

Nothing you discuss even comes close to rebutting the clear interpretation of Romans 13 as instructing Christians to follow secular law.

It is very important that denying these powers could bring damnation upon ourselves so we should know what they are, without a doubt. It cannot possibly be a govt. It doesn't even say govt.

It goes from powers to power too...and talks of a sword. Very interesting.

No, I'm sure that when your previous KJV refers to a "ruler", it's talking about the straight edge w/the little equidistant lines all over it.

:rolleyes:

You're still using the KJV. I assure you, in its own, specially corrupt 16th century English way, that passage is referring explicitly to governments. Check any modern translation. You'll see that is the case.

I know the KJV is not without error, the added words bother me a lot. It doesn't make sense in any language that disobeying the govt would bring damnation on us. No other part of scripture will prop this up. If it doesn't add up, I need to throw out the understanding that Romans 13 is about govt. Besides, in verse 8 it clearly states what we owe man, nothing but love and clearly indicates that we are to abide by His law (verses 8-10).

A singular power with a sword? Not a govt. It all has to line up or else. If anyone has other scriptural proofs that show that disobedience to man's law will result in damnation then I am all ears.

No, I'm sure that when your previous KJV refers to a "ruler", it's talking about the straight edge w/the little equidistant lines all over it.

:rolleyes:

Rev 2:27
And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

Rev 19:15
And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

You're still using the KJV. I assure you, in its own, specially corrupt 16th century English way, that passage is referring explicitly to governments. Check any modern translation. You'll see that is the case.

I don't need modern translations to show that KJV is fine and is talking about governments. God is THE single highest power. "higher powerS" refers simply to those put in power on earth by God as the verse states. Modern translations actually get this right when they give modern words to describe higher powers.

It makes no sense if you think about it as she is describing:

1Let every soul be subject unto the GOD (somehow plural got changed to singular?). For there is no GOD but of God: the GOD (singular change again) that be are ordained of God. (God ordains himself?)

2Whosoever therefore resisteth the GOD, resisteth the ordinance of God (God ordained himself again?): and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

There's no point in this verse and it makes no sense if "higher powers" refer to God. God ordains himself? God institutes himself?

God does choose who is granted power on earth. If we go against the powers of men that are higher or "over us" then we are going against God who ordained them. And thus by going against God we are in danger of damnation (which comes as a result of sin, so this going against is a sin).

Remember, only when man's rule is in direct violation of God's law, such as bowing down to a golden image and worshiping something other than God.

So then upon what basis do you judge God as "good" or "just" or "perfect" or "loving"? :dontknow:

And please don't try claiming that you don't judge God, but that you merely repeat the description of him given in the Bible.

By repeating such a judgment as true, you are indicating your agreement w/that judgment.


A whole lot of words that don't manage to actually "say" a darn thing....:


I'm not judging him as so. He says so in his word. I think he has shown love and mercy to me, but the emphatic statements about his character? Those are from scripture.

Who has power on earth? The governments by God's granting. Even Jesus recognized this:

John 19:10-11 (King James Version)

10Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?

11Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above:...

It all has to line up or else. If anyone has other scriptural proofs that show that disobedience to man's law will result in damnation then I am all ears.

Romans 9 is your "biggie" proof that we don't have free will.. It is a crystal clear statement of what you believe, and you have used it countless times over the past few months. You obviously put much stock in what is said in Romans, so why are you so eager to throw out what is said just a page or two later in Romans 13? The implications are crystal clear from that passage. We are to submit..to obey earthly authorities..and to "render under Caesar what is Caesar's" as Jesus put it. There are people who protest unjust wars or other government policies by refusing to pay their income tax. They are violating the words of Jesus as well as Romans 13, so it seems obvious they are going to be damned for it.

and what about..

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. - Ephesians 6:5

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. - 1 Timothy 6:1-2

This means slaves who resisted or escaped their "earthly masters" were not only breaking these specific biblical rules, but also the crystal clear commandment in Romans 13. In violating the will of their masters, they were by extension rebelling against the earthly authorities that God put in place. God has dominion over everything, including the governments that legally established and supported the slave trade for centuries. Given that the bible never condemns slavery or urges it be abolished, I don't see how you can say the abolitionists rebelling against the earthly authorities were not acting against God's will, especially in light of the two verses above + the "biggie" in Romans 13.

And who else is in authority over us besides God? governments, rulers, kings. If this does not talk about them but God, are we to pray that God act as this describes?

1 Timothy 2

1I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

2For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

I know the KJV is not without error, the added words bother me a lot. It doesn't make sense in any language that disobeying the govt would bring damnation on us.
You have *got* to be kidding me... :bigeye:

God doesn't have to make sense! How could you possibly try to judge God or his will based on your human standards of what "makes sense"! :ranting:

Romans 13 clearly says to obey your secular rulers as they were put there by God. Why God would do that is immaterial. Whether or not that's always good advice is immaterial.

The only thing that matters is that Scripture says it, so it must be true.

No other part of scripture will prop this up. If it doesn't add up, I need to throw out the understanding that Romans 13 is about govt. Besides, in verse 8 it clearly states what we owe man, nothing but love and clearly indicates that we are to abide by His law (verses 8-10).
So if something in the Bible doesn't "make sense" or "add up" to you, you merely reject and ignore that portion of the Bible?

Who are you to determine which portions of the Word of God are worth listening to and which are not? If it is "the truth", then you do not get to ignore sections of "the truth" that you do not like.

A singular power with a sword? Not a govt.
Yeah, a "singular power w/a sword" couldn't possibly refer to a monarchy like King Herod's.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Prise_de_J%C3%A9rusalem_par_H%C3%A9rode_le_Grand.jpg

It all has to line up or else. If anyone has other scriptural proofs that show that disobedience to man's law will result in damnation then I am all ears.
Ah, so when presented w/proof of something in Scripture w/which you personally disagree, your strategy is to request *additional* proof?

How many times does God have to tell you something before you'll believe him? :dontknow:

And who else is in authority over us besides God? governments, rulers, kings. If this does not talk about them but God, are we to pray that God act as this describes?

1 Timothy 2

1I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

2For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
FWIW, if you continue the quote to include 1 Timothy 4... ;)

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

I took 2 shots of Vodka and got that feeling last night. Is God sitting in my freezer right now?

You put vodka in the freezer? If you get the good stuff, you don't have to numb your taste buds with cold.

The answer is basically, "yes". That's how it works. God chooses some people to be saved and others destroyed. The ones he sends to hell are created for the sole purpose of glorifying himself in the eyes of the lucky few he decides to show mercy on.

I feel unwanted.

FWIW, if you continue the quote to include 1 Timothy 4... ;)

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Yeah I saw that. We discussed that before. Trying to focus on one topic at a time. Thanks for the reminder though.

I'm not judging him as so. He says so in his word. I think he has shown love and mercy to me, but the emphatic statements about his character? Those are from scripture.

From the post you just quoted:


And please don't try claiming that you don't judge God, but that you merely repeat the description of him given in the Bible.

By repeating such a judgment as true, you are indicating your agreement w/that judgment.

You claim your God to be "just" despite engaging in behavior that, if done by a human, you would classify as "unjust".

Why? Because God said so.

FWIW, if you continue the quote to include 1 Timothy 4... ;)

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

http://slickdeals.net/forums/showpost.php?p=32369879&postcount=1924

Pick your verse. Choose what feels right to you. It's the Christian buffet. Wheeeee. :whee:

Romans 9 is your "biggie" proof that we don't have free will.. It is a crystal clear statement of what you believe, and you have used it countless times over the past few months. You obviously put much stock in what is said in Romans, so why are you so eager to throw out what is said just a page or two later in Romans 13? The implications are crystal clear from that passage. We are to submit..to obey earthly authorities..and to "render under Caesar what is Caesar's" as Jesus put it. There are people who protest unjust wars or other government policies by refusing to pay their income tax. They are violating the words of Jesus as well as Romans 13, so it seems obvious they are going to be damned for it.

and what about..

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. - Ephesians 6:5

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. - 1 Timothy 6:1-2

This means slaves who resisted or escaped their "earthly masters" were not only breaking these specific biblical rules, but also the crystal clear commandment in Romans 13. In violating the will of their masters, they were by extension rebelling against the earthly authorities that God put in place. God has dominion over everything, including the governments that legally established and supported the slave trade for centuries. Given that the bible never condemns slavery or urges it be abolished, I don't see how you can say the abolitionists rebelling against the earthly authorities were not acting against God's will, especially in light of the two verses above + the "biggie" in Romans 13.

True, render to Caesar that which is his, I don't belong to Caesar.

Sin is transgression of His law, where are taxes in His law? Now I know what the churches say about this, tithes = taxes. They have to interpret it this way to make Romans 13 fit their theology.

Slavery is a picture of how we are enslaved to sin, the house of bondage. Here the Israelites broke His law regarding slaves and God definitely had a problem with it:

Jeremiah 34
8This is the word that came unto Jeremiah from the LORD, after that the king Zedekiah had made a covenant with all the people which were at Jerusalem, to proclaim liberty unto them; 9That every man should let his manservant, and every man his maidservant, being an Hebrew or an Hebrewess, go free; that none should serve himself of them, to wit, of a Jew his brother. 10Now when all the princes, and all the people, which had entered into the covenant, heard that every one should let his manservant, and every one his maidservant, go free, that none should serve themselves of them any more, then they obeyed, and let them go. 11But afterward they turned, and caused the servants and the handmaids, whom they had let go free, to return, and brought them into subjection for servants and for handmaids.

12Therefore the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying, 13Thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel; I made a covenant with your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondmen, saying, 14At the end of seven years let ye go every man his brother an Hebrew, which hath been sold unto thee; and when he hath served thee six years, thou shalt let him go free from thee: but your fathers hearkened not unto me, neither inclined their ear. 15And ye were now turned, and had done right in my sight, in proclaiming liberty every man to his neighbour; and ye had made a covenant before me in the house which is called by my name: 16But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom ye had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids.

17Therefore thus saith the LORD; Ye have not hearkened unto me, in proclaiming liberty, every one to his brother, and every man to his neighbour: behold, I proclaim a liberty for you, saith the LORD, to the sword, to the pestilence, and to the famine; and I will make you to be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth.

From the post you just quoted:


And please don't try claiming that you don't judge God, but that you merely repeat the description of him given in the Bible.

By repeating such a judgment as true, you are indicating your agreement w/that judgment.

You claim your God to be "just" despite engaging in behavior that, if done by a human, you would classify as "unjust".

Why? Because God said so.

Because he is God and isn't required to act within the rules he gave to us. He is God we are not. You've got it.

True, render to Caesar that which is his, I don't belong to Caesar.

Sin is transgression of His law, where are taxes in His law? Now I know what the churches say about this, tithes = taxes. They have to interpret it this way to make Romans 13 fit their theology.

His law says to submit to the authorities over us which are ordained by God so long as they are not requiring that we sin. So if you break a law that the higher power over us put into place and that law is not in direct violation of another of God's laws, then you are breaking God's law which says to submit to it.

True, render to Caesar that which is his, I don't belong to Caesar.

Sin is transgression of His law, where are taxes in His law?
So Jesus wasn't making a larger point there? You think he was just telling the people alive at the time to support their particular government, and that his teaching doesn't apply to those that follow? That's the first time I've ever heard anyone assume this. I thought Jesus's teachings were supposed to be universal and timeless.

As for the Jeremiah quote, you know full well that passage is referring to a specific instance of Jew on Jew slavery. The practice on heathens and foreigners was never repudiated..not even in the kinder gentler new testament. I'm afraid you haven't come close to resolving your contradictory views on this. You can't harmonize your opinion with the verses both shifty and I have posted. You hold your views on "earthly authorities" independently of what scripture says because your "gut" (or the holy spirit if you prefer) is telling you it's the right position to hold. Just be honest about it.

Because he is God and isn't required to act within the rules he gave to us. He is God we are not. You've got it.
I've had it for awhile. ;)

Everything boils down to "Because God said so," including why you believe he is God in the first place.

You have *got* to be kidding me... :bigeye:

God doesn't have to make sense! How could you possibly try to judge God or his will based on your human standards of what "makes sense"! :ranting:

Romans 13 clearly says to obey your secular rulers as they were put there by God. Why God would do that is immaterial. Whether or not that's always good advice is immaterial.

The only thing that matters is that Scripture says it, so it must be true.


So if something in the Bible doesn't "make sense" or "add up" to you, you merely reject and ignore that portion of the Bible?

Who are you to determine which portions of the Word of God are worth listening to and which are not? If it is "the truth", then you do not get to ignore sections of "the truth" that you do not like.


Yeah, a "singular power w/a sword" couldn't possibly refer to a monarchy like King Herod's.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Prise_de_J%C3%A9rusalem_par_H%C3%A9rode_le_Grand.jpg


Ah, so when presented w/proof of something in Scripture w/which you personally disagree, your strategy is to request *additional* proof?

How many times does God have to tell you something before you'll believe him? :dontknow:

If it clearly says what you are claiming it says then it should be easy to get two or three other passages to support it. I know the way you read it sounds like it is talking about govt, very common interpretation. Thats fine, see it as you wish but it must agree with the whole of scripture and I am not convinced that this common interpretation does agree.

The part that alerted me to it having another meaning is the damnation...I don't see us being damned for breaking man's law. What condemns us is breaking His law, that is how sin is defined.

This is a much bigger topic than what it appears to be and I am barely scratching the surface myself. I am looking into the Spirit behind the words and searching out other passages to expand the topic.

If it clearly says what you are claiming it says then it should be easy to get two or three other passages to support it.
Which other posters have already provided...

I know the way you read it sounds like it is talking about govt, very common interpretation. Thats fine, see it as you wish but it must agree with the whole of scripture and I am not convinced that this common interpretation does agree.
Why must it agree w/the "whole of scripture" when scripture is chock full of contradictory statements?

The part that alerted me to it having another meaning is the damnation...I don't see us being damned for breaking man's law. What condemns us is breaking His law, that is how sin is defined.
... And His law, according to Romans 13, is that secular law must be followed.

Just because you don't see *why* God made that a part of His law doesn't mean this common interpretation is incorrect.

This is a much bigger topic than what it appears to be and I am barely scratching the surface myself. I am looking into the Spirit behind the words and searching out other passages to expand the topic.
You mean to try to twist the plain meaning of the words of Scripture into something you find more personally agreeable?

I've had it for awhile. ;)

Everything boils down to "Because God said so," including why you believe he is God in the first place.

Why I believe is because of faith which he has granted me.

So Jesus wasn't making a larger point there? You think he was just telling the people alive at the time to support their particular government, and that his teaching doesn't apply to those that follow? That's the first time I've ever heard anyone assume this. I thought Jesus's teachings were supposed to be universal and timeless.

As for the Jeremiah quote, you know full well that passage is referring to a specific instance of Jew on Jew slavery. The practice on heathens and foreigners was never repudiated..not even in the kinder gentler new testament. I'm afraid you haven't come close to resolving your contradictory views on this. You can't harmonize your opinion with the verses both shifty and I have posted. You hold your views on "earthly authorities" independently of what scripture says because your "gut" (or the holy spirit if you prefer) is telling you it's the right position to hold. Just be honest about it.

Unless scripture certainly says that it applies just to this one person, at this one time...I never read scripture that way. Actually, I take issue with this practice, I hear it a lot in sermons. God doesn't change with the times at all.

Where does He tell them to support their government? It makes me think of this, when Peter answered for Him and said "yes" to the tax collector. He rebukes Peter and tells him that the children are free:

Matthew 17
24And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? 25He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? 26Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. 27Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

If I found true freedom in this world then I would never want anything else. I think that is why freedom does not exist here. Slavery is still very much alive and we are oppressed, all of us. There is much in His law about slaves, redeeming them, servants...it has spiritual applications. I know what you are discussing is the physical reality of one person serving another and this is very true, the flesh comes first then the spirit. When I read these things I see beyond the earthly manifestation of these things and consider the spiritual truths. Slavery, bondage, redemption, servants...all speak of spiritual matters. I think we did talk a bit about this before but not much.

If it clearly says what you are claiming it says then it should be easy to get two or three other passages to support it. I know the way you read it sounds like it is talking about govt, very common interpretation. Thats fine, see it as you wish but it must agree with the whole of scripture and I am not convinced that this common interpretation does agree.

The part that alerted me to it having another meaning is the damnation...I don't see us being damned for breaking man's law. What condemns us is breaking His law, that is how sin is defined.

This is a much bigger topic than what it appears to be and I am barely scratching the surface myself. I am looking into the Spirit behind the words and searching out other passages to expand the topic.

I have shown other scripture that shows others have power over us, authority over us.

If God says to submit to someone and we don't submit when their request isn't sinful, then we are going against God's law and that is damnable. No one here is saying if we break any human law the government can damn our souls.

Which other posters have already provided...


Why must it agree w/the "whole of scripture" when scripture is chock full of contradictory statements?


... And His law, according to Romans 13, is that secular law must be followed.

Just because you don't see *why* God made that a part of His law doesn't mean this common interpretation is incorrect.


You mean to try to twist the plain meaning of the words of Scripture into something you find more personally agreeable?

Again, it is how you see it. I don't see it the same.

Unless scripture certainly says that it applies just to this one person, at this one time...I never read scripture that way. Actually, I take issue with this practice, I hear it a lot in sermons. God doesn't change with the times at all.

Where does He tell them to support their government? It makes me think of this, when Peter answered for Him and said "yes" to the tax collector. He rebukes Peter and tells him that the children are free:



No one is saying blindly support the government like someone who goes campaigning for an official. We are talking about submitting to the laws of the land. Very different.

I know the KJV is not without error, the added words bother me a lot. It doesn't make sense in any language that disobeying the govt would bring damnation on us. No other part of scripture will prop this up. If it doesn't add up, I need to throw out the understanding that Romans 13 is about govt. Besides, in verse 8 it clearly states what we owe man, nothing but love and clearly indicates that we are to abide by His law (verses 8-10).

A singular power with a sword? Not a govt. It all has to line up or else. If anyone has other scriptural proofs that show that disobedience to man's law will result in damnation then I am all ears.

Much of Christianity is nonsensical. I know you wouldn't dismiss that much because it is nonsensical. Why start now?

As for the statement in verse 8, you forget that verses 1-7 included the laws of government as laws of God. Obey those, and you are obeying God's law.

Singular power with a sword? Government with a military? Makes sense to me. There is no other valid interpretation of this passage. Your only option besides to understand it plainly is to throw it out completely. I did, however, post a few other passages that support the authority of government, though to varying extents.

Again, it is how you see it. I don't see it the same.
Can you provide a bit more explanation as to why you do not see Romans 13 (and other Scripture) as commanding Christians to follow secular law?

I have shown other scripture that shows others have power over us, authority over us.

If God says to submit to someone and we don't submit when their request isn't sinful, then we are going against God's law and that is damnable. No one here is saying if we break any human law the government can damn our souls.

Anything outside of faith is sin:

Romans 14

22Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. 23And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

If it is indeed condemning to you to disobey man's law then abide by your convictions. It is not sin for me to disobey man's law and I abide by my convictions.

Much of Christianity is nonsensical. I know you wouldn't dismiss that much because it is nonsensical. Why start now?

As for the statement in verse 8, you forget that verses 1-7 included the laws of government as laws of God. Obey those, and you are obeying God's law.

Singular power with a sword? Government with a military? Makes sense to me. There is no other valid interpretation of this passage. Your only option besides to understand it plainly is to throw it out completely. I did, however, post a few other passages that support the authority of government, though to varying extents.

Yes, faith makes no sense, I agree.

Govt and military too? Come on Mix, they aren't in that passage. There may well be passages that support the authority of govt but this isn't one of them. I don't deny that all authority is put in place by God but these govts cannot damn our souls.

Yes, faith makes no sense, I agree.

Govt and military too? Come on Mix, they aren't in that passage. There may well be passages that support the authority of govt but this isn't one of them. I don't deny that all authority is put in place by God but these govts cannot damn our souls.

The sword is an extremely common symbol for military power. What other, more reasonable interpretation do you have in mind?

And I already said: the passage makes it clear that governments do not damn our souls. God damns our souls for violating the authority of government. That is very clearly what the passage says.

Can you provide a bit more explanation as to why you do not see Romans 13 (and other Scripture) as commanding Christians to follow secular law?

I did a little while ago, back a page or so.

Anything outside of faith is sin:

Romans 14

22Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. 23And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

If it is indeed condemning to you to disobey man's law then abide by your convictions. It is not sin for me to disobey man's law and I abide by my convictions.

Are you suggesting moral relativity? That actions are sinful for one person and not for another?

What if someone said firmly they believe in faith that rape is ok. Would say they are not sinning?

Maybe I am totally misunderstanding you. Forgive me if so.

Are you suggesting moral relativity? That actions are sinful for one person and not for another?

What if someone said firmly they believe in faith that rape is ok. Would say they are not sinning?

Maybe I am totally misunderstanding you. Forgive me if so.

Many cultures do or have believed exactly that. You'll find western culture's facetious disgust with the practice (for it was not so uncommon in Medieval and pre-Medieval Europe) and others is among the most powerful propagandist campaigns driving proselytization. We must convert barbarians, mind: for their own good.

Many cultures do or have believed exactly that. You'll find western culture's facetious disgust with the practice (for it was not so uncommon in Medieval and pre-Medieval Europe) and others is among the most powerful propagandist campaigns driving proselytization. We must convert barbarians, mind: for their own good.

Possibly. Never really heard a biblical Christian suppose idea though that morality is relative.

The sword is an extremely common symbol for military power. What other, more reasonable interpretation do you have in mind?

When I read sword in scripture, I immediately think of Him. This is why I said it is bigger topic than it appears to be and I haven't even come close to studying it all. I know there are different definitions and applications outside of scripture but I can't go outside of it to interpret it. My main concern is the spiritual war.

Rev 19:15
And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Ephesians 6:18
And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

If it is indeed condemning to you to disobey man's law then abide by your convictions. It is not sin for me to disobey man's law and I abide by my convictions.
So long as "convictions" refers to rejecting portions of Scripture that you find personally distasteful. ;)

Are you suggesting moral relativity? That actions are sinful for one person and not for another?

What if someone said firmly they believe in faith that rape is ok. Would say they are not sinning?

Maybe I am totally misunderstanding you. Forgive me if so.

I am not suggesting any more than what scripture says on the topic.

So long as "convictions" refers to rejecting portions of Scripture that you find personally distasteful. ;)

Convictions are from the Holy Spirit which always testifies of Him, the Word. They do not disagree.

When I read sword in scripture, I immediately think of Him. This is why I said it is bigger topic than it appears to be and I haven't even come close to studying it all. I know there are different definitions and applications outside of scripture but I can't go outside of it to interpret it. My main concern is the spiritual war.

Rev 19:15
And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Ephesians 6:18
And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

In these passages, the sword is a symbol of martial might, an excessive magnitude of which is alleged to be possessed by God.

Possibly. Never really heard a biblical Christian suppose idea though that morality is relative.

Over time in my life as a Christian, I have been convicted over this sin or that. What is sinful to me today may not be sinful to you today. He shows us our sins and convicts us, personally. He is faithful and just to complete this work in us. If it is sinful for you (today) to disobey man's law then please abide by your convictions.

Romans 14
1Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. 2For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. 3Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. 4Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

5One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 6He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. 7For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. 8For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. 9For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

10But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

11For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

12So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

In these passages, the sword is a symbol of martial might, an excessive magnitude of which is alleged to be possessed by God.

His words are spirit and truth. I don't see a literal sword coming out of His mouth and I don't see a literal sword in Romans 13. Like I said, I am looking for the spiritual meaning of the text. Just this one verse talks about Christ ( I look for Him on each page as He is the Word). Maybe that will help you understand where I am coming from on this.

4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

His words are spirit and truth. I don't see a literal sword coming out of His mouth and I don't see a literal sword in Romans 13. Like I said, I am looking for the spiritual meaning of the text. Just this one verse talks about Christ ( I look for Him on each page as He is the Word). Maybe that will help you understand where I am coming from on this.

4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Do you understand what symbolism is?

Do you understand what symbolism is?

Hmm big topic, what do you mean?

Hmm big topic, what do you mean?

You seem to be misunderstanding my statement that the sword is a symbol for martial might. The passage you quoted in response to that statement is another wherein the sword is a symbol for martial might. It's redundant if you agree with me and likely indicative of a misunderstanding of how symbols work if you don't.

You seem to be misunderstanding my statement that the sword is a symbol for martial might. The passage you quoted in response to that statement is another wherein the sword is a symbol for martial might. It's redundant if you agree with me and likely indicative of a misunderstanding of how symbols work if you don't.

Of course it indicates might, sorry I didn't make that clear. This might belongs to Him alone. Which brings us back to Romans 13. And again, I look for the spiritual meaning of the text. I don't mean to misunderstand you, I'm tired, I hope I made sense.

Oohh I thought we could get a discussion on symbols going, maybe next time.

Convictions are from the Holy Spirit which always testifies of Him, the Word. They do not disagree.
This would suggest that your "convictions" are 100% accurate, since they come from God.

While highly convenient, it's also highly unlikely. ;)

Over time in my life as a Christian, I have been convicted over this sin or that. What is sinful to me today may not be sinful to you today. He shows us our sins and convicts us, personally. He is faithful and just to complete this work in us. If it is sinful for you (today) to disobey man's law then please abide by your convictions.
How is it "work in us" if God caused us to commit the sin in the first place?

If God shows us our sins and convicts us, how have you already determined that your actions/beliefs are not sinful? Surely you haven't attempted to replace God's judgment with your own, right?

His words are spirit and truth. I don't see a literal sword coming out of His mouth and I don't see a literal sword in Romans 13. Like I said, I am looking for the spiritual meaning of the text. Just this one verse talks about Christ ( I look for Him on each page as He is the Word). Maybe that will help you understand where I am coming from on this.

4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Because the "he" is supposed to refer to Jesus as opposed to "the ruler" and "the power" mentioned in the previous verses? Again, convenient, despite however unlikely.

Of course it indicates might, sorry I didn't make that clear. This might belongs to Him alone. Which brings us back to Romans 13. And again, I look for the spiritual meaning of the text. I don't mean to misunderstand you, I'm tired, I hope I made sense.

Martial might in the godly sense of course belongs to God alone, but the sword as a symbol for martial might does not only or always apply to God alone. As I said before, it is extremely common in all forms of literature, regardless of the origin of that literature. The meaning is the same in ancient history and modern--in the East and the West. It's so incredibly, ridiculously, absurdly common that it is easily among the most recognized symbols in the world.

As for the spiritual meaning of the text, I have no idea what you mean. I wouldn't exactly call the godly designation of divine authority to all governments a practical idea. ;) You know I don't believe that. Why would I have any vested interest in believing that? I really can't see any other way to read this passage.

When I read sword in scripture, I immediately think of Him. This is why I said it is bigger topic than it appears to be and I haven't even come close to studying it all. I know there are different definitions and applications outside of scripture but I can't go outside of it to interpret it. My main concern is the spiritual war.

Rev 19:15
And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Ephesians 6:18
And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

The word "sword" appears over 400 times in the KJV. Most times it talks about the physical object though not always. By pure majority when you think of the sword it should first be the physical object unless the context suggests otherwise (such as the description of the Word).

That being said let's look back at Romans 13

Romans 13

Who are the higher powers (plural)? God is represented as a different object later on in the sentence.
1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

If "the power" were the same as "God" it would just say "whosoever resisteth God shall receive to themselves damnation". It doesn't for a reason to show fluidity (resist X, which God ordains, then you resist God and will receive damnation).
2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.


Who are the rulers (plural)? Those in authority over us. The higher powers ordained by God. Why would God say "For God are not a terror to good works but to evil. Wilt though be not afraid of the God?"
3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:


Who is a minister of God? The ruler. Not "God is the minister of God". And he will punish that which is evil.
4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

All of these 4 verses say is that rulers are higher powers ordained by God. Not God is higher powers. Not Jesus is higher powers. There's really no point at all to this whole chapter if higher powers are God in the sentences.

I am not suggesting any more than what scripture says on the topic.

Thanks for not answering the question. I guess I know how it feels now.



Convictions are from the Holy Spirit which always testifies of Him, the Word. They do not disagree.

Apparently one of us isn't learning from the Holy Spirit then (or both) since we disagree. Or is that not what you're implying?

Martial might in the godly sense of course belongs to God alone, but the sword as a symbol for martial might does not only or always apply to God alone. As I said before, it is extremely common in all forms of literature, regardless of the origin of that literature. The meaning is the same in ancient history and modern--in the East and the West. It's so incredibly, ridiculously, absurdly common that it is easily among the most recognized symbols in the world.

As for the spiritual meaning of the text, I have no idea what you mean. I wouldn't exactly call the godly designation of divine authority to all governments a practical idea. ;) You know I don't believe that. Why would I have any vested interest in believing that? I really can't see any other way to read this passage.

Of course it is common in the world as a symbol of might. Everything in this world testifies of Him, I know you won't agree but that is my belief. I understand why you might go outside of scripture to define these matters, I don't understand professed Christians who do the same. Which is why I take issue with commentaries, sermons, nifty christian books and the like. Like a good friend of mine says, do the long division. All the extras are marketed as the "spiritual shortcuts" to understanding His word. As it happens, they are not necessary and quite dangerous, in my opinion. They add and take away from His word. They add men's words to His word, a mixing of the holy and the profane.

You don't have a vested interest in seeing Romans 13 the way you do, I know this...and I wondered about it too. The problem is that some religious people who do see it the same way as you want to gain power over us all (and have in many ways already). I don't need to tell you what a mess it is when religion is mixed with state. Romans 13 is constantly used to make Christians obey their govt and promote slavery (taxes).

Over time in my life as a Christian, I have been convicted over this sin or that. What is sinful to me today may not be sinful to you today. He shows us our sins and convicts us, personally. He is faithful and just to complete this work in us. If it is sinful for you (today) to disobey man's law then please abide by your convictions.

Romans 14
1Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. 2For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. 3Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. 4Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

5One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 6He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. 7For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. 8For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. 9For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

10But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

11For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

12So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

This is talking about someone who cannot eat meat because they are weak. Or someone who dedicates a day to the Lord above the others for his own reasons. They are saying don't hold meat eating or holy day celebration as more holy than another and don't hold those who differ as sinful.

That is quite different than saying if one person thinks homosexuality is wrong and another thinks it is right that God is OK with both of them. Or take a less controversial topic: murder.

You have shown many times that there are certain things you think are sinful as you believe scripture shows or the Spirit convicts (the living Word). So how does one decide when their definition of sin is ok to be different and when it is not ok and it must be wrong for everyone?

The passage you quoted is not about everyone doing as they feel is OK. I know people who think sleeping around is OK even though they are not married to any of them. That doesn't make it so. The verses you quoted are about entirely different topics.

Of course it is common in the world as a symbol of might. Everything in this world testifies of Him, I know you won't agree but that is my belief. I understand why you might go outside of scripture to define these matters, I don't understand professed Christians who do the same. Which is why I take issue with commentaries, sermons, nifty christian books and the like. Like a good friend of mine says, do the long division. All the extras are marketed as the "spiritual shortcuts" to understanding His word. As it happens, they are not necessary and quite dangerous, in my opinion. They add and take away from His word. They add men's words to His word, a mixing of the holy and the profane.

You don't have a vested interest in seeing Romans 13 the way you do, I know this...and I wondered about it too. The problem is that some religious people who do see it the same way as you want to gain power over us all (and have in many ways already). I don't need to tell you what a mess it is when religion is mixed with state. Romans 13 is constantly used to make Christians obey their govt and promote slavery (taxes).

No worries. If you're evangelical buddies want to try to dominate the world, we secularists will be happy to stop them.

Thanks for not answering the question. I guess I know how it feels now.




Apparently one of us isn't learning from the Holy Spirit then (or both) since we disagree. Or is that not what you're implying?

I did answer you in another post and please stop making statements based on what you thought I meant.

This is talking about someone who cannot eat meat because they are weak. Or someone who dedicates a day to the Lord above the others for his own reasons. They are saying don't hold meat eating or holy day celebration as more holy than another and don't hold those who differ as sinful.

That is quite different than saying if one person thinks homosexuality is wrong and another thinks it is right that God is OK with both of them. Or take a less controversial topic: murder.

You have shown many times that there are certain things you think are sinful as you believe scripture shows or the Spirit convicts (the living Word). So how does one decide when their definition of sin is ok to be different and when it is not ok and it must be wrong for everyone?

The passage you quoted is not about everyone doing as they feel is OK. I know people who think sleeping around is OK even though they are not married to any of them. That doesn't make it so. The verses you quoted are about entirely different topics.

You are talking about sins that are clearly defined in His law, with those there are no debates. I am talking about things that are not clearly defined, that may appear neutral but are not at all. For example, we got rid of the TV because it became sinful to us. Do I throw judgment on those who still have a TV? Not at all, it isn't sin to them. Its none of my business...but for my house, I don't want one here. Please stop assuming so much about me, it isn't fair. Can I buy some benefit of the doubt?

No worries. If you're evangelical buddies want to try to dominate the world, we secularists will be happy to stop them.

:lol: Deal, as long as you don't want to dominate the world either, its cool with me.

You don't have a vested interest in seeing Romans 13 the way you do, I know this...and I wondered about it too. The problem is that some religious people who do see it the same way as you want to gain power over us all (and have in many ways already). I don't need to tell you what a mess it is when religion is mixed with state. Romans 13 is constantly used to make Christians obey their govt and promote slavery (taxes).

I hope you're not lumping everyone who believes this verse talks about earthly rulers into the same box as people who want to gain power for us all. I for one am not trying to gain power over anyone and I disagree with your interpretation.

You are talking about sins that are clearly defined in His law, with those there are no debates. I am talking about things that are not clearly defined, that may appear neutral but are not at all. For example, we got rid of the TV because it became sinful to us. Do I throw judgment on those who still have a TV? Not at all, it isn't sin to them. Its none of my business...but for my house, I don't want one here. Please stop assuming so much about me, it isn't fair. Can I buy some benefit of the doubt?

I am not assuming. I asked you above to clarify and you replied "I am not saying anything more than what it says" which doesn't help at all.

So yeah, answer the questions and I won't have to try and draw conclusions.

Btw, I like the TV example. that is the same and it does apply I agree. However you're suggesting that because I think the verse implies we are to submit to earthly rulers it would be sin not to and for you not because you don't think it says that.

The vast majority of sins in the Bible can be argued among Christians. Homosexuality is one of them. You say it doesn't apply if it's clear. But how do you decide what's clear and what's not? You say it's clear but others say it is not. Is it not sinful then for those who think homosexuality between two committed people in love is not sinful?

It becomes very dangerous for a Christian to say "what's clear is sin is sin, but what's not clear is only sinful for those who think it is" because how do you determine what's clear and what's not? If born again believers disagree on a topic, is it therefore not clear and not sinful for those who don't think so? this is the moral relativity that I'm talking about.

If we love God and love our neighbors as ourselves then essentially anything not outside of love is not sinful. Yet some people believe they are acting lovingly by killing others. A parent may murder her children out of love so they don't have to face the ugliness of life. And more examples can follow.

I hope you're not lumping everyone who believes this verse talks about earthly rulers into the same box as people who want to gain power for us all. I for one am not trying to gain power over anyone and I disagree with your interpretation.

Please stop assuming things about me.

Please stop assuming things about me.

Lemon, I am not assuming. I simply said I hope you are not doing something. That is not an assumption that you are but an invitation to explain if you are.

I am not assuming. I asked you above to clarify and you replied "I am not saying anything more than what it says" which doesn't help at all.

So yeah, answer the questions and I won't have to try and draw conclusions.

Btw, I like the TV example. that is the same and it does apply I agree. However you're suggesting that because I think the verse implies we are to submit to earthly rulers it would be sin not to and for you not because you don't think it says that.

The vast majority of sins in the Bible can be argued among Christians. Homosexuality is one of them. You say it doesn't apply if it's clear. But how do you decide what's clear and what's not? You say it's clear but others say it is not. Is it not sinful then for those who think homosexuality between two committed people in love is not sinful?

It becomes very dangerous for a Christian to say "what's clear is sin is sin, but what's not clear is only sinful for those who think it is" because how do you determine what's clear and what's not? If born again believers disagree on a topic, is it therefore not clear and not sinful for those who don't think so? this is the moral relativity that I'm talking about.

If we love God and love our neighbors as ourselves then essentially anything not outside of love is not sinful. Yet some people believe they are acting lovingly by killing others. A parent may murder her children out of love so they don't have to face the ugliness of life. And more examples can follow.

I did answer you in a seperate post. So if I do not answer your questions you are going to come to your own conclusions? Not only that but you will post them here and make others think the same wrong things about me? How is that kind or loving?

I don't decide what is clearly defined as sin or not, God does that. His law is very specific on sin, no debate there at all. It is not dangerous for the Holy Spirit to convict us of sin, it is absolutely necessary. I did post Romans 14 (I think), it was about whatever not of faith being sin. I don't want to talk about moral relativity, I would like to keep this to scripture.

You mentioned killing, see you know that is already in His law. No debate there. People are confused about what is sinful or not and usually it is due to them wanting to justify their actions. His law says what it says, end of story, no debate. So I am not talking about everyone making up their own laws, I am simply saying that the things I thought were ok years ago are not ok for me today. I was convicted about certain sins. All I can tell you about this and of course, Romans 14.

Lots of words here. let me see if I can sift through it


I did answer you in a seperate post.

here's the story line since we don't agree whether you did or not:

1
Are you suggesting moral relativity? ...
Maybe I am totally misunderstanding you. Forgive me if so.

2
I am not suggesting any more than what scripture says on the topic.

...


So if I do not answer your questions you are going to come to your own conclusions? Not only that but you will post them here and make others think the same wrong things about me? How is that kind or loving?

So now explain why it's unkind or unloving that I try and guess what you are not willing to answer. This is a discussion forum and if you're not going to help explain when someone asks for clarification, then don't whine if we start making guesses to see where that leads us. You've replied to people many times "I believe what scripture says" when the passage in question is being debated so "what it says" isn't clear which makes your statement completely useless.

I don't decide what is clearly defined as sin or not, God does that. His law is very specific on sin, no debate there at all.

It is so convenient for you to say God decides what is clear and what is not. It's always "clear" when it matches what you believe and unclear when it doesn't. You are always a supporter of mine until I start disagreeing with you. Then I get called unkind, unloving, hateful, etc etc. It does no good to say scripture is clear about an issue that is debated among Christians. By that measure anyone can take the high road and say YOU are the one warping it to seem unclear.


It is not dangerous for the Holy Spirit to convict us of sin, it is absolutely necessary. I did post Romans 14 (I think), it was about whatever not of faith being sin. I don't want to talk about moral relativity, I would like to keep this to scripture.
Can you quote where I said it's dangerous for the Holy Spirit to convict us? Please don't spread lies about my words.

If you don't want to talk about moral relativity then why offer the suggestion that what I consider sin may not be sin to you and we're both right. That's exactly what moral relativity is. You've said homosexuality is a sin in the past. But what if two born again Christians love each other and are in a committed monogamous relationship (whether married by human law or not). What if they believe condemnation against scripture is not clear. I have heard many convincing discussions using scripture to support this belief. Do you think that God says if it's wrong for Lemon then it's a sin if she does it but if it's not wrong for PersonX and PersonY then it's not sinful for them to do it?


You mentioned killing, see you know that is already in His law. No debate there. People are confused about what is sinful or not and usually it is due to them wanting to justify their actions. His law says what it says, end of story, no debate. So I am not talking about everyone making up their own laws, I am simply saying that the things I thought were ok years ago are not ok for me today. I was convicted about certain sins. All I can tell you about this and of course, Romans 14.

So are the things that you thought were OK for you years ago OK back then? Or were they wrong then and you just thought they were OK but you were wrong?

Over time in my life as a Christian, I have been convicted over this sin or that. What is sinful to me today may not be sinful to you today. He shows us our sins and convicts us, personally. He is faithful and just to complete this work in us. If it is sinful for you (today) to disobey man's law then please abide by your convictions.

Romans 14
1Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. 2For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. 3Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. 4Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

5One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 6He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. 7For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. 8For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. 9For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

10But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

11For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

12So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

I guess you missed this post.

Lots of words here. let me see if I can sift through it




here's the story line since we don't agree whether you did or not:

1


2





So now explain why it's unkind or unloving that I try and guess what you are not willing to answer. This is a discussion forum and if you're not going to help explain when someone asks for clarification, then don't whine if we start making guesses to see where that leads us. You've replied to people many times "I believe what scripture says" when the passage in question is being debated so "what it says" isn't clear which makes your statement completely useless.



It is so convenient for you to say God decides what is clear and what is not. It's always "clear" when it matches what you believe and unclear when it doesn't. You are always a supporter of mine until I start disagreeing with you. Then I get called unkind, unloving, hateful, etc etc. It does no good to say scripture is clear about an issue that is debated among Christians. By that measure anyone can take the high road and say YOU are the one warping it to seem unclear.


Can you quote where I said it's dangerous for the Holy Spirit to convict us? Please don't spread lies about my words.

If you don't want to talk about moral relativity then why offer the suggestion that what I consider sin may not be sin to you and we're both right. That's exactly what moral relativity is. You've said homosexuality is a sin in the past. But what if two born again Christians love each other and are in a committed monogamous relationship (whether married by human law or not). What if they believe condemnation against scripture is not clear. I have heard many convincing discussions using scripture to support this belief. Do you think that God says if it's wrong for Lemon then it's a sin if she does it but if it's not wrong for PersonX and PersonY then it's not sinful for them to do it?



So are the things that you thought were OK for you years ago OK back then? Or were they wrong then and you just thought they were OK but you were wrong?

His law defines sin, it is not up to me. I did answer you in another post where I cited Romans 14.
I do often only use scripture as my answer, it is unwise to go on with my own words. We are to use few words.

Ecc 5:2
Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter [any] thing before God: for God [is] in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few.

Proverbs 17:27
He that hath knowledge spareth his words: [and] a man of understanding is of an excellent spirit.

If the passage or verse isn't clear to them then it isn't. I can't go on with my own words and I have before and it wasn't wise.

Matthew 5:37
But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

I don't do philosophy so I don't want to talk about moral relativity. Nothing personal, just will not profit me to do so.

Of course what I was doing back then was sin I just didn't know it at the time.

I guess you missed this post.

Please save us the guess work to what your point is regarding this passage. I already told you what it means but you seem to disagree and think it applies to the issue where you and I disagree about submission to earthly authority.

What if I took the road you said before and said "Scripture is very clear on this matter of submitting to earthly authority which is ordained by God". Would you accept that and then follow suit? Or would you say "i disagree so I don't have to follow your belief".

So you see saying something is "clear" is very dangerous because anyone can say something is clear and then where are we? Back at the stance that each person can do what they want if they feel something is clear and another doesn't. Like I said I have friends who think scripture is very clear that there is nothing wrong with certain actions you think are clear and they think scripture shows them this. So who is clear if both claim it different ways?

His law defines sin, it is not up to me. I did answer you in another post where I cited Romans 14.
I do often only use scripture as my answer, it is unwise to go on with my own words. We are to use few words.

Ecc 5:2
Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter [any] thing before God: for God [is] in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few.

Proverbs 17:27
He that hath knowledge spareth his words: [and] a man of understanding is of an excellent spirit.

If the passage or verse isn't clear to them then it isn't. I can't go on with my own words and I have before and it wasn't wise.

Matthew 5:37
But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

I don't do philosophy so I don't want to talk about moral relativity. Nothing personal, just will not profit me to do so.

Of course what I was doing back then was sin I just didn't know it at the time.


We are running in circles Lemon. You want to post on this thread and share with others what is sin (among other things you share). But others can share scripture which says something else about that action that shows it is not sin. At least in their interpretation. So if you interpret the law one way and they interpret it another where do you get the authority to say you are right and they are wrong? What if things you have posted here as being sin are not in fact. Do you leave open the door that some of your claims to what is sin may be wrong?

Please save us the guess work to what your point is regarding this passage. I already told you what it means but you seem to disagree and think it applies to the issue where you and I disagree about submission to earthly authority.

What if I took the road you said before and said "Scripture is very clear on this matter of submitting to earthly authority which is ordained by God". Would you accept that and then follow suit? Or would you say "i disagree so I don't have to follow your belief".

So you see saying something is "clear" is very dangerous because anyone can say something is clear and then where are we? Back at the stance that each person can do what they want if they feel something is clear and another doesn't. Like I said I have friends who think scripture is very clear that there is nothing wrong with certain actions you think are clear and they think scripture shows them this. So who is clear if both claim it different ways?

I wouldn't follow your belief or anyone else's, I want to follow Him. Plenty of people use His word to promote the exact opposite of what it says. I can think of one right off the top of my head, Hebrews 10 is used to prop up church attendance when the passage itself actually speaks against it. Malachi 3 also, always used to promote tithing, it was a commandment for the priests (at that time they were wicked). So it goes on and on. That does not mean that scripture isn't clear on matters, it only means that some handle it with deceit. I do not want to deal in philosophy and so I avoid it. Most of the questions that I avoid are of the philosophical ilk. Nothing personal, I just do not see any profit in entertaining these questions. I'm not being horrible or mean, just want to stick to His word.

Col 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Romans 1:18
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Romans 3:13
Their throat [is] an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps [is] under their lips:

Isaiah 32:6
For the vile person will speak villany, and his heart will work iniquity, to practise hypocrisy, and to utter error against the LORD, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail.


2Cor 4:2
2But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

I do not understand all of scripture, I only talk about the things I do understand. What do I do when I don't understand a passage? I pray and ask God to show me what it means and then I wait. Affliction is our teacher, I have been taught much by God through many sufferings. It took time and me having to go through the furnace of affliction, wasn't due to some intense bible study. Most often, what He taught me I read later on in scripture and was amazed, there it was the whole time. Some passages I know very well because I lived them, went through that furnace. I only know that which is given to me, just as you only know that which is given to you. No boasting because it is not of us at all.

John 3:11
Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

Habakkuk 2:2
And the LORD answered me, and said, Write the vision, and make [it] plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it.

Proverbs 8
8All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them.

9They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.

Matthew 15:10
And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:

We are running in circles Lemon. You want to post on this thread and share with others what is sin (among other things you share). But others can share scripture which says something else about that action that shows it is not sin. At least in their interpretation. So if you interpret the law one way and they interpret it another where do you get the authority to say you are right and they are wrong? What if things you have posted here as being sin are not in fact. Do you leave open the door that some of your claims to what is sin may be wrong?

I don't quite understand you here...are you saying that we can't be clear on defining sin? All of us are wrong compared to God which is why I want to rely upon His word.

What claims about sin are you speaking of? Can you give me an example? Could you be specific? If I am wrong I am wrong, can you show me what you are talking about?

I wouldn't follow your belief or anyone else's, I want to follow Him. Plenty of people use His word to promote the exact opposite of what it says. I can think of one right off the top of my head, Hebrews 10 is used to prop up church attendance when the passage itself actually speaks against it. Malachi 3 also, always used to promote tithing, it was a commandment for the priests (at that time they were wicked). So it goes on and on. That does not mean that scripture isn't clear on matters, it only means that some handle it with deceit. I do not want to deal in philosophy and so I avoid it. Most of the questions that I avoid are of the philosophical ilk. Nothing personal, I just do not see any profit in entertaining these questions. I'm not being horrible or mean, just want to stick to His word.

Col 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Romans 1:18
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Romans 3:13
Their throat [is] an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps [is] under their lips:

Isaiah 32:6
For the vile person will speak villany, and his heart will work iniquity, to practise hypocrisy, and to utter error against the LORD, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail.


2Cor 4:2
2But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

I do not understand all of scripture, I only talk about the things I do understand. What do I do when I don't understand a passage? I pray and ask God to show me what it means and then I wait. Affliction is our teacher, I have been taught much by God through many sufferings. It took time and me having to go through the furnace of affliction, wasn't due to some intense bible study. Most often, what He taught me I read later on in scripture and was amazed, there it was the whole time. Some passages I know very well because I lived them, went through that furnace. I only know that which is given to me, just as you only know that which is given to you. No boasting because it is not of us at all.

John 3:11
Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

Habakkuk 2:2
And the LORD answered me, and said, Write the vision, and make [it] plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it.

Proverbs 8
8All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them.

9They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.

Matthew 15:10
And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:

These are all great Lemon. I really appreciate you sharing them. Much to consider.

However it seems that you are suggesting that only that which you are certain is from God will come out of your mouth regarding scripture. You said you only talk about things you understand. Now what if another person said the same thing? How do you know you are right and he is wrong? How do you know you are not the one deceived or confused? It seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that because you realize this great lofty goal (and i mean that sincerely because your intentions here are noble and true) is what we should aspire for that you seem to be certain what you say is the truth. And that is why people think you act holier-than-thou because you leave no room for any chance that you are mistaken on anything concerning understanding scripture that you talk about. So because you want to be careful it seems like you assume that anything you write is of God regarding scripture via the Holy Spirit. I have not seen you once here say "you know what you're right. I was mistaken in that understanding". Not that I need you to say that to me, but it seems you don't ever say that to anyone. Which means you can just go along and call people liars, haters, etc and feel no remorse because in your mind you can't be wrong since you only speak that which you believe the Holy Spirit has told you is the truth. I hope I don't sound like a jerk here. I'm simply trying to show you why you end up in so many heated arguments with people. Because for you there seems to be no chance you're wrong and when believers like myself suddenly disagree we turn into vile people in your eyes. To you there is no debate. Only you teaching and telling us the truth.

And when we do disagree you pull out this scripture that you think means if we disagree on something that is not clear then it's up to each of us to decide what is sin. But then the question is "who decides what is clear?" Isn't the fact that we're both debating mean it's not clear? You can't sit there and tell people who disagree that it is clear and we just have bad motives like the verses above seem to imply.

Sometimes I wish we could all meet and hear our voices so that you would know I speak with love even if the words seem harsh.

I don't quite understand you here...are you saying that we can't be clear on defining sin? All of us are wrong compared to God which is why I want to rely upon His word.

What claims about sin are you speaking of? Can you give me an example? Could you be specific? If I am wrong I am wrong, can you show me what you are talking about?

I too want to rely upon His word. So if that's true and yet we disagree how can you say for sure you are right and I am wrong?

I think Romans 13 absolutely clearly shows that God appoints those in authority over (higher than) us and that to oppose them when their laws don't oppose God, is to oppose God and thus in danger of damnation. Despite other imagery about the sword with God, the Bible shows imagery of the sword referring to the military hand of governments and authority, much like the sword used to cut off the centurion's ear. I don't think there's anything really to debate about this. All authority is given by God and we are to submit to it when it doesn't require us to sin against other laws of God.

Now on the other hand you believe it is not a law of God to submit to the authority over us on earth. So you disobey it you don't think it's a sin.

Now this is not one of those cases where if I feel it's wrong then I should obey and if you feel it's OK you shouldn't have to obey. That's just a cop out to having to submit to the authority God ordained to be over us on earth. I have shown scripture and others have as well.

So here we are back again. We disagree. You seek God's law and the authority of His scripture. So do I. We can't both be right. That's moral relativism. So why do you feel that anyone who teaches what they believe the scriptures are clear on is any of those nasty things in the verses you just shared and you can't possibly be wrong because your motives are to do what his Word says? Just because imagery for a phrases applies in one part of the Bible doesn't mean it applies everywhere that phrase is.

These are all great Lemon. I really appreciate you sharing them. Much to consider.

However it seems that you are suggesting that only that which you are certain is from God will come out of your mouth regarding scripture. You said you only talk about things you understand. Now what if another person said the same thing? How do you know you are right and he is wrong? How do you know you are not the one deceived or confused? It seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that because you realize this great lofty goal (and i mean that sincerely because your intentions here are noble and true) is what we should aspire for that you seem to be certain what you say is the truth. And that is why people think you act holier-than-thou because you leave no room for any chance that you are mistaken on anything concerning understanding scripture that you talk about. So because you want to be careful it seems like you assume that anything you write is of God regarding scripture via the Holy Spirit. I have not seen you once here say "you know what you're right. I was mistaken in that understanding". Not that I need you to say that to me, but it seems you don't ever say that to anyone. Which means you can just go along and call people liars, haters, etc and feel no remorse because in your mind you can't be wrong since you only speak that which you believe the Holy Spirit has told you is the truth. I hope I don't sound like a jerk here. I'm simply trying to show you why you end up in so many heated arguments with people. Because for you there seems to be no chance you're wrong and when believers like myself suddenly disagree we turn into vile people in your eyes. To you there is no debate. Only you teaching and telling us the truth.

And when we do disagree you pull out this scripture that you think means if we disagree on something that is not clear then it's up to each of us to decide what is sin. But then the question is "who decides what is clear?" Isn't the fact that we're both debating mean it's not clear? You can't sit there and tell people who disagree that it is clear and we just have bad motives like the verses above seem to imply.

Sometimes I wish we could all meet and hear our voices so that you would know I speak with love even if the words seem harsh.

I know His word is right which is how I can determine what is right and wrong. This is why I want to rely upon His word. I have seen many debates here, words of men vs words of men and I try to find a passage that will clear it up. That is what I do, it is my authority, not me, His word is the final word on all matters.

I have conceded to be wrong, as I said, I don't think you read all the posts. You cannot say I never said I was wrong just because you have never seen it. Just isn't true.

The arguments are not against me if I use mostly His word. How can they be? If anyone fights against it and it is purely His word, then they fight against His word, not my words. Oh they do indeed try to drag me into "my definitions" and "tell us what you think", etc. I don't fall for it, I know that would be a mess. For professed Christians, His word should settle the debate. Just exactly like the free will debate, I gave a lot of scripture and I got back mostly words of men. I do try to be careful even when I do explain something, I try to use the same exact wording as scripture and when I don't, I am really upset with myself. I know better. God doesn't need me to explain His word, it says what it says.

I have seen you fall for this distraction many times, when I first came into this thread I encouraged you to use the sword. I know how our words are useless plastic knives and they can be easily ripped apart. I cringe reading some of these posts and I wish that every statement made could be proven by scripture. I think carefully about what I type here: Can I back this up with scripture? Lots of it? If not, then I don't say it. Is this just my opinion or does God say this in His word? I find the verse first then I talk about it, not my words and then try to find a verse that supports MY words. No. I do not do this as well as I would like and I actually pray that I am careful with my words, not just here but everywhere. This is serious business, we are talking about God. Not a light matter. I can give my opinion and musings about other topics....but not God. No. When I go on with my own opinion it is most likely not based on His word. That would be lying, to claim a truth about Him and it merely be my own words. This is what I try to avoid.

Is everyone here being careful with their words? Some posts are up so fast I can't believe they are given much thought at all. Oh yes I have done it, rash with my words. Have you?

Please stop saying that I pretend to be holier, I don't know how many times I have explained how sinful and wicked I am. I have said many times that I am a sinner, I am no good at all.

We can debate all day long with our own words but scripture must be our final authority. I don't want to fight against it with my stupid words and I won't be dragged into the realm of philosophy where this will happen.

I too want to rely upon His word. So if that's true and yet we disagree how can you say for sure you are right and I am wrong?

I think Romans 13 absolutely clearly shows that God appoints those in authority over (higher than) us and that to oppose them when their laws don't oppose God, is to oppose God and thus in danger of damnation. Despite other imagery about the sword with God, the Bible shows imagery of the sword referring to the military hand of governments and authority, much like the sword used to cut off the centurion's ear. I don't think there's anything really to debate about this. All authority is given by God and we are to submit to it when it doesn't require us to sin against other laws of God.

Now on the other hand you believe it is not a law of God to submit to the authority over us on earth. So you disobey it you don't think it's a sin.

Now this is not one of those cases where if I feel it's wrong then I should obey and if you feel it's OK you shouldn't have to obey. That's just a cop out to having to submit to the authority God ordained to be over us on earth. I have shown scripture and others have as well.

So here we are back again. We disagree. You seek God's law and the authority of His scripture. So do I. We can't both be right. That's moral relativism. So why do you feel that anyone who teaches what they believe the scriptures are clear on is any of those nasty things in the verses you just shared and you can't possibly be wrong because your motives are to do what his Word says? Just because imagery for a phrases applies in one part of the Bible doesn't mean it applies everywhere that phrase is.

Can you show me scripture that says that if we disobey man's law it will damn our souls?

I do not believe that Daniel was looking for an excuse or a cop-out when he refused to worship the image.

Dan 3:18
18But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.

I do not believe Peter and the other apostles were making excuses:
Acts 5:29
Then Peter and the [other] apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

Do you think these men were sinning?

Can you show me scripture that says that if we disobey man's law it will damn our souls?

I do not believe that Daniel was looking for an excuse or a cop-out when he refused to worship the image.

Dan 3:18
18But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.

I do not believe Peter and the other apostles were making excuses:
Acts 5:29
Then Peter and the [other] apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

Do you think these men were sinning?

You and I both know man cannot damn our souls. No one has ever suggested Romans 13 says this yet you keep arguing against this position that no one here holds. Romans 13 says God instituted the authority and if we don't submit to it we are going against God which is damnable.

The verse with Daniel is NOT the situation we are showing you Romans 13 says. Romans 13 is not telling us to obey man when he contradicts God. Worshiping the image is a direct violation of God's law. That's why Daniel disobeyed. And Peter and the others were right. When it comes to God vs man, God's law wins. But when they are not against each other, we are to submit to the authority over us (Romans 13).

I know His word is right which is how I can determine what is right and wrong. This is why I want to rely upon His word. I have seen many debates here, words of men vs words of men and I try to find a passage that will clear it up. That is what I do, it is my authority, not me, His word is the final word on all matters.


So do I. I too know his Word is right. His word clearly says what I see it says that we are to submit to the higher powers that God ordains over us. He didn't ordain himself. He ordained all authority which is given by him. You can say you want to know his Word, but that doesn't mean every conclusion you come to is right. You are easily capable of being confused or deceived. Just like the rest of us.

I have conceded to be wrong, as I said, I don't think you read all the posts. You cannot say I never said I was wrong just because you have never seen it. Just isn't true.

Really? I did skip out for about a month. Can you share a couple things others have shown you that you were wrong about in scripture? Can anyone else recall these? I'd like to learn.


The arguments are not against me if I use mostly His word. How can they be? If anyone fights against it and it is purely His word, then they fight against His word, not my words. Oh they do indeed try to drag me into "my definitions" and "tell us what you think", etc. I don't fall for it, I know that would be a mess. For professed Christians, His word should settle the debate. Just exactly like the free will debate, I gave a lot of scripture and I got back mostly words of men. I do try to be careful even when I do explain something, I try to use the same exact wording as scripture and when I don't, I am really upset with myself. I know better. God doesn't need me to explain His word, it says what it says.

I use the same Word. I show Romans 13 over and over and yet you argue with me and others.You are not arguing with me then but His Word. His Word does settle the debate. There is no debate regarding Romans 13. Nor Romans 9. I have supported you many times when others did. If I saw a debate I would call it one.


Please stop saying that I pretend to be holier,
Again, I am misquoted. I said you are thought to be holier-than-thou by others. I didn't say you were purposefully acting that way. I simply said your actions make others think you are.

I don't know how many times I have explained how sinful and wicked I am. I have said many times that I am a sinner, I am no good at all.

So what? Doesn't mean you're incapable of pride or twisting of the Word. I have confessed my sins too. I have confessed to Christ many times. Does that mean I am somehow free from every being accused of sin, especially holier-than-thou? No. Every day I have opportunities to screw up no matter how many times I got it right before.


We can debate all day long with our own words but scripture must be our final authority. I don't want to fight against it with my stupid words and I won't be dragged into the realm of philosophy where this will happen.

I agree. Yet you see Romans 13 saying something completely different than it says. The answer can't be "if it's sin to you then let it be. it's not to me." that's moral relativism.

Can you show me scripture that says that if we disobey man's law it will damn our souls?

I do not believe that Daniel was looking for an excuse or a cop-out when he refused to worship the image.

Dan 3:18
18But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.

I do not believe Peter and the other apostles were making excuses:
Acts 5:29
Then Peter and the [other] apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

Do you think these men were sinning?

Thought I'd add the verse you didn't paste regarding Acts 5:

28Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.

They were obeying God when man's commandments were in direct violation of God. Not the same that Romans 13 is talking about. No one is in disagreement about it. I realize you don't like most if not all governments and don't trust most if not all politicians or think they are after God's heart. But they are given that authority by God and if they make a law that is not in violation of one of God's other laws then we are to submit as if serving Christ.

You and I both know man cannot damn our souls. No one has ever suggested Romans 13 says this yet you keep arguing against this position that no one here holds. Romans 13 says God instituted the authority and if we don't submit to it we are going against God which is damnable.

The verse with Daniel is NOT the situation we are showing you Romans 13 says. Romans 13 is not telling us to obey man when he contradicts God. Worshiping the image is a direct violation of God's law. That's why Daniel disobeyed. And Peter and the others were right. When it comes to God vs man, God's law wins. But when they are not against each other, we are to submit to the authority over us (Romans 13).

Romans 13 does talk about damnation:
verse 2
2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

Image worship (idolatry) is a huge topic. Have you considered that I might believe that obeying some laws of men is idolatry? Image worship is a violation of His law, I agree. It has many shapes and forms. I do have personal convictions, as you do.

So do I. I too know his Word is right. His word clearly says what I see it says that we are to submit to the higher powers that God ordains over us. He didn't ordain himself. He ordained all authority which is given by him. You can say you want to know his Word, but that doesn't mean every conclusion you come to is right. You are easily capable of being confused or deceived. Just like the rest of us.


Really? I did skip out for about a month. Can you share a couple things others have shown you that you were wrong about in scripture? Can anyone else recall these? I'd like to learn.



I use the same Word. I show Romans 13 over and over and yet you argue with me and others.You are not arguing with me then but His Word. His Word does settle the debate. There is no debate regarding Romans 13. Nor Romans 9. I have supported you many times when others did. If I saw a debate I would call it one.


Again, I am misquoted. I said you are thought to be holier-than-thou by others. I didn't say you were purposefully acting that way. I simply said your actions make others think you are.



So what? Doesn't mean you're incapable of pride or twisting of the Word. I have confessed my sins too. I have confessed to Christ many times. Does that mean I am somehow free from every being accused of sin, especially holier-than-thou? No. Every day I have opportunities to screw up no matter how many times I got it right before.



I agree. Yet you see Romans 13 saying something completely different than it says. The answer can't be "if it's sin to you then let it be. it's not to me." that's moral relativism.

I understand you see no trouble with the common interpretation of Romans 13. That does not mean that there is no need to search it out, pray about it and ask God for the wisdom on it. It is not a done deal for me. Your opinion is just that, your opinion. My opinion is just my opinion. I want to search it out and I never gobble down the common interpretation. I want God to teach me what it means.

Romans 13 does talk about damnation:
verse 2
2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

Image worship (idolatry) is a huge topic. Have you considered that I might believe that obeying some laws of men is idolatry? Image worship is a violation of His law, I agree. It has many shapes and forms. I do have personal convictions, as you do.

If you can provide clear evidence that some laws are forms of idol worship then definitely do not follow them. I am not advocating you break laws which are clearly against God's law. I'm saying the ones that are not against his law should be followed. But we can't just group any law that not clearly against God's law into some other general feeling so that we can make it "fit" the description of going against God's law. Not saying you would but it would be tempting for sure. That way we can justify to ourselves never having to submit to any authority.

Romans 13 does talk about damnation:
verse 2
2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
.

Lemon, I say this with as much patience as I can muster: sometimes I wonder if you are just messing with me to gain some other goal.

I never said Romans 13 doesn't talk about damnation. Why do you reply to me as if that's what I said. It is really quite disgusting. You're making me to be a "talebearer" which is not true. I said Romans 13 does not say MAN can damn our souls.

please tell me you're pulling my strings. otherwise I wonder if YOU are actually reading my posts and not replying back so fast you hadn't considered what I wrote.

I understand you see no trouble with the common interpretation of Romans 13. That does not mean that there is no need to search it out, pray about it and ask God for the wisdom on it. It is not a done deal for me. Your opinion is just that, your opinion. My opinion is just my opinion. I want to search it out and I never gobble down the common interpretation. I want God to teach me what it means.

Sometimes the common interpretation is the right one, keep in mind. You don't have to go against the grain all the time.

Definitely search it out. Pray about it. I encourage you to do the same and anyone else here. But you call what I say it means opinion yet I am not allowed to call what you say other verses say opinion? God's word speaks for itself here. And in Romans 9. I don't need you calling it opinion when it doesn't agree with what you want it to say.

And when you say you're not done with it, if that's the case, why offer all your other thoughts you've offered over the past few pages. if you're not certain what it says then I thought you wouldn't comment. Are you saying you spoke too soon regarding this?

Thought I'd add the verse you didn't paste regarding Acts 5:

28Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.

They were obeying God when man's commandments were in direct violation of God. Not the same that Romans 13 is talking about. No one is in disagreement about it. I realize you don't like most if not all governments and don't trust most if not all politicians or think they are after God's heart. But they are given that authority by God and if they make a law that is not in violation of one of God's other laws then we are to submit as if serving Christ.

Govts are not God and when Israel cried for a king God told Samuel that they have rejected Him.

1Sam 8
4Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, 5And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. 6But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. 7And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

His kingdom is not of this world:
John 18:36
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Oppression of the poor, widows and strangers is forbidden in His law. I don't think I need to cite these, you know this. Do unjust laws oppress? Yes. Do the tax laws make us essential slaves? Yes. So what does a Christian do with all of this? Take it all patiently, suffer wrong, offer the cheek. If I disobey the world, I don't see how this could ever result in damnation, quite the contrary. Have you ever considered how it was possible for Satan to even offer Christ all the kingdoms of the world? Just something to think about, I haven't studied it enough. Here are some verses:

Matthew 4
8Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; 9And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

John 15:19
If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

James 4:4
Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

Hebrews 8
1Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; 2A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

James 1:27
27Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Unspotted from the world. This is why I don't vote, I don't want a TV, I don't talk to some of my relatives, I don't embrace philosophy, etc. I have prayed much about this, I don't want to be a part of this world at all. I must be here for now but my heart is not.

Matthew 6:21
For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

If you can provide clear evidence that some laws are forms of idol worship then definitely do not follow them. I am not advocating you break laws which are clearly against God's law. I'm saying the ones that are not against his law should be followed. But we can't just group any law that not clearly against God's law into some other general feeling so that we can make it "fit" the description of going against God's law. Not saying you would but it would be tempting for sure. That way we can justify to ourselves never having to submit to any authority.

I do submit to authority, I also know full well that the earthly authorities are not righteous. They are mere men, not holy at all. Just like the rest of us. They write laws upon laws based on their own thoughts, not God's law. I know it is theft when I pay taxes, I am not standing up and saying that I don't pay taxes. I am saying...here I am in this world and His kingdom is not of this world and I will gladly suffer wrong. Life only lasts for a little while here. We are in Egypt, we are in this world. My heart is set on the heavenly city where perfection dwells, not here.

2Kings 18
Now, behold, thou trustest upon the staff of this bruised reed, [even] upon Egypt, on which if a man lean, it will go into his hand, and pierce it: so [is] Pharaoh king of Egypt unto all that trust on him.

Isaiah 31:1
Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help; and stay on horses, and trust in chariots, because [they are] many; and in horsemen, because they are very strong; but they look not unto the Holy One of Israel, neither seek the LORD!

Isaiah 52:4
For thus saith the Lord GOD, My people went down aforetime into Egypt to sojourn there; and the Assyrian oppressed them without cause.

Exodus 3:17
And I have said, I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt unto the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, unto a land flowing with milk and honey.

Gen 47:9
And Jacob said unto Pharaoh, The days of the years of my pilgrimage [are] an hundred and thirty years: few and evil have the days of the years of my life been, and have not attained unto the days of the years of the life of my fathers in the days of their pilgrimage.

Isaiah 19:11
Surely the princes of Zoan [are] fools, the counsel of the wise counsellers of Pharaoh is become brutish: how say ye unto Pharaoh, I [am] the son of the wise, the son of ancient kings?

Hebrews 11
13These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. 14For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. 15And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. 16But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

Govts are not God and when Israel cried for a king God told Samuel that they have rejected Him.

1Sam 8
4Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, 5And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. 6But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. 7And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

Whether it was ideal or not it happened. Remember God told Abraham kings (plural) would come out of him. Genesis 17:6

And who chooses the king's? God Deuteronomy 17:14



His kingdom is not of this world:
John 18:36
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. Certainly. But Jesus also gave to Caesar what was his, the taxes. Let's hold off on the taxes discussion first though. We can come back to taxes specifically.


Oppression of the poor, widows and strangers is forbidden in His law. I don't think I need to cite these, you know this. Do unjust laws oppress? Yes. Do the tax laws make us essential slaves? Yes. So what does a Christian do with all of this? Take it all patiently, suffer wrong, offer the cheek.

We went over this once before. You like to use "oppression" as the defining factor of whether the law should be followed. The problem is you applied oppression when someone was fined or punished for disobeying a civil law. This is such a wide net you cast that it could apply to anything and is not justified. Oppression is only in relation to unjust or cruel actions. See Merriam Webster definition. Is it unjust for someone to pay the consequences for actions they are not supposed to do? Do you then call God unjust for making death the penalty of us not being perfect? Remember we have to make a very important distinction: I'm talking about laws that are not in violation of God's law. The disobedience is the cause of the oppression, not the law itself.


If I disobey the world, I don't see how this could ever result in damnation, quite the contrary. Have you ever considered how it was possible for Satan to even offer Christ all the kingdoms of the world? Just something to think about, I haven't studied it enough. Here are some verses:

Matthew 4
8Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; 9And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

I have thought about it. A follow up question: does the fact that Satan offered it to Jesus mean that it was really in his power to offer it? I can offer you anything and possibly make you think I actually have the power to give it. But doesn't mean I do.


John 15:19
If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
The world hates us indeed. No disagreement there.


James 4:4
Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

Not saying we should be friends. We are on God's side. But that's different than submission.

Hebrews 8
1Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; 2A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
Not sure how that applies here.


James 1:27
27Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Unspotted from the world. This is why I don't vote, I don't want a TV, I don't talk to some of my relatives, I don't embrace philosophy, etc. I have prayed much about this, I don't want to be a part of this world at all. I must be here for now but my heart is not.

Unspotted how though? Jesus was in the world but not of it. What does it mean to be unspotted?

And yes you may not want to be here, but you are, and until that glorious day you are to submit when not called to violate God's law. Much of our submission in life is not the final state or goal that we long for. But until then...


Matthew 6:21
For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
Agreed. But are you suggesting by submitting to authority we are putting our treasure there? Not sure what you're saying here.

I do submit to authority,...

So you do submit? Why? If we are not commanded to, then why?



Hebrews 11
13These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. 14For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. 15And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. 16But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

I'm right there with you. Much to look forward to.

Lemon, I say this with as much patience as I can muster: sometimes I wonder if you are just messing with me to gain some other goal.

I never said Romans 13 doesn't talk about damnation. Why do you reply to me as if that's what I said. It is really quite disgusting. You're making me to be a "talebearer" which is not true. I said Romans 13 does not say MAN can damn our souls.

please tell me you're pulling my strings. otherwise I wonder if YOU are actually reading my posts and not replying back so fast you hadn't considered what I wrote.

I'm doing the best I possibly can. I would ask you to have patience with me. I do have concentration problems due to my heart condition and the medications that I take. Cut me a break will you?

I thought you did come to the conclusion that disobeying man's law is essentially disobeying God because He puts them in authority. If you did not conclude that then I apologize.

Sometimes the common interpretation is the right one, keep in mind. You don't have to go against the grain all the time.

Definitely search it out. Pray about it. I encourage you to do the same and anyone else here. But you call what I say it means opinion yet I am not allowed to call what you say other verses say opinion? God's word speaks for itself here. And in Romans 9. I don't need you calling it opinion when it doesn't agree with what you want it to say.

And when you say you're not done with it, if that's the case, why offer all your other thoughts you've offered over the past few pages. if you're not certain what it says then I thought you wouldn't comment. Are you saying you spoke too soon regarding this?

Actually the most popular interpretation is almost always wrong. This is the world, after all. The world hates Him.

I don't believe I spoke too soon about this point: Whatever power that we disobey in Romans 13 will bring damnation. I know that transgressing His law would bring me damnation, the only law that could do it.

I'm doing the best I possibly can. I would ask you to have patience with me. I do have concentration problems due to my heart condition and the medications that I take. Cut me a break will you?

I thought you did come to the conclusion that disobeying man's law is essentially disobeying God because He puts them in authority. If you did not conclude that then I apologize.

I am sorry about your health problems. I will continue to pray for you. I will gladly cut you a break if you are sincere that you made a mistake. However I don't think you made a mistake. You are correct that I believe disobeying man's laws that are not in violation of God's law, is in fact a law of God and that if we break them we are breaking God's law because he put them in authority. However that is not what you wrote before and is not what I called you out on. Perhaps you mistyped.

You wrote: "Can you show me scripture that says that if we disobey man's law it will damn our souls?"

I replied "You and I both know man cannot damn our souls. No one has ever suggested Romans 13 says this yet..."

You replied "Romans 13 does talk about damnation:"

which suggests that I said Romans 13 doesn't talk about it. Which is a lie. I never said it doesn't talk about it.

If you are having a hard time concentrating, I suggest you take a break. It does neither of us good if what you write about me is wrong but you don't intend it to be that way. You just got done saying you wondered how much others read or considered their responses before replying and it appears to be affecting you as well. I would much rather focus on scripture than defending false statements about me.

Actually the most popular interpretation is almost always wrong. This is the world, after all. The world hates Him.

I don't believe I spoke too soon about this point: Whatever power that we disobey in Romans 13 will bring damnation. I know that transgressing His law would bring me damnation, the only law that could do it.

Lemon, let me spell it out for you slowly and clearly:

1. No one here thinks Romans 13 says if we disobey man's law man can damn our souls.

2. We believe God can damn our souls (at least the Christians do).

3. We believe going against the authorities over us, which are ordained by God is the same as going against God.

4. It is God who can damn our souls, I repeat.


This is like the 5th time that you have defended a position no one here is advocating, that the earthly authorities could damn our souls.

Since no one is saying that you certainly are speaking/typing too fast. Otherwise you're having a debate by yourself. There is no side to which you're opposing.

So you do submit? Why? If we are not commanded to, then why?




I'm right there with you. Much to look forward to.

Why do I pay taxes, etc? Basically to live in peace, I don't want to change this world. Just here for a while. It doesn't matter to me what the world does and it is only money. I have zero interest in making a better world here, my heart isn't set on this world. I could take a stand but it would get me nowhere. I enjoy my quiet life and I don't have a dog in that fight. If they want one, hey they can have two, I don't care. I have to abide by many unjust laws, we all do. But they are exactly that, unjust. My God has it, He is in control, I don't stress. I know all things work out for the good and what the world pays attention to is so nothing to me. I am quite thankful that the world is not attractive to me anymore, I used to love it so. I sincerely want to focus on walking before Him and doing what is right in His eyes, not my eyes or another person's eyes.

Actually the most popular interpretation is almost always wrong. This is the world, after all. The world hates Him. .

And by the way, can you show scripture that says this statement about popular interpretation being wrong almost always? I think it is dangerous to almost through out popular understanding among Christians simply because it is popular. His Word and Spirit should be the determining factor, not popularity.

I am sorry about your health problems. I will continue to pray for you. I will gladly cut you a break if you are sincere that you made a mistake. However I don't think you made a mistake. You are correct that I believe disobeying man's laws that are not in violation of God's law, is in fact a law of God and that if we break them we are breaking God's law because he put them in authority. However that is not what you wrote before and is not what I called you out on. Perhaps you mistyped.

You wrote: "Can you show me scripture that says that if we disobey man's law it will damn our souls?"

I replied "You and I both know man cannot damn our souls. No one has ever suggested Romans 13 says this yet..."

You replied "Romans 13 does talk about damnation:"

which suggests that I said Romans 13 doesn't talk about it. Which is a lie. I never said it doesn't talk about it.

If you are having a hard time concentrating, I suggest you take a break. It does neither of us good if what you write about me is wrong but you don't intend it to be that way. You just got done saying you wondered how much others read or considered their responses before replying and it appears to be affecting you as well. I would much rather focus on scripture than defending false statements about me.

If you can't be kind then we are done with this discussion. I am being patient with you, not too much to ask for you to return the favor. I thought you were personally offended and I tried to figure out why. I will spend my time on the scripture instead.

Why do I pay taxes, etc? Basically to live in peace, I don't want to change this world. Just here for a while. It doesn't matter to me what the world does and it is only money. I have zero interest in making a better world here, my heart isn't set on this world. I could take a stand but it would get me nowhere. I enjoy my quiet life and I don't have a dog in that fight. If they want one, hey they can have two, I don't care. I have to abide by many unjust laws, we all do. But they are exactly that, unjust. My God has it, He is in control, I don't stress. I know all things work out for the good and what the world pays attention to is so nothing to me. I am quite thankful that the world is not attractive to me anymore, I used to love it so. I sincerely want to focus on walking before Him and doing what is right in His eyes, not my eyes or another person's eyes.

Sounds like a good plan. It works, but doesn't mean it's the only reason to submit. But I do like the ideas behind it.

Lemon, let me spell it out for you slowly and clearly:

1. No one here thinks Romans 13 says if we disobey man's law man can damn our souls.

2. We believe God can damn our souls (at least the Christians do).

3. We believe going against the authorities over us, which are ordained by God is the same as going against God.

4. It is God who can damn our souls, I repeat.


This is like the 5th time that you have defended a position no one here is advocating, that the earthly authorities could damn our souls.

Since no one is saying that you certainly are speaking/typing too fast. Otherwise you're having a debate by yourself. There is no side to which you're opposing.

Statement number 3, where is this in scripture? Was it disobedience to God when the Hebrew midwives did not kill the male children? Should they have obeyed the king of Egypt? No, they feared God instead.

Exodus 1
15And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah: 16And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live. 17But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive. 18And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive? 19And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them. 20Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty. 21And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses. 22And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive.

If you can't be kind then we are done with this discussion. I am being patient with you, not too much to ask for you to return the favor. I thought you were personally offended and I tried to figure out why. I will spend my time on the scripture instead.

How was I unkind? You apologized for an opinion that was actually accurate. I was saying no need to apologize for that. My issue was that what you wrote prior did not express that opinion. If anything an apology would have been nice about the false statement you made. Not one for an opinion you never expressed.

You shouldn't apologize for something you didn't do.

Statement number 3, where is this in scripture? Was it disobedience to God when the Hebrew midwives did not kill the male children? Should they have obeyed the king of Egypt? No, they feared God instead.

Exodus 1
15And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah: 16And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live. 17But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive. 18And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive? 19And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them. 20Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty. 21And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses. 22And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive.

Of course not. Again, another example that doesn't apply. This is a commandment that is in direct violation of God's law. Disobedience is not wrong here.

Here's the scripture. Clear as day: Romans 13

1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

OK Lemon, I think I'm done with you regarding this. You have stretched and pulled, picked and grabbed so many verses to support your idea when in fact none of them apply to the stance that I am making. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me three four five times, well, I'm just foolish for thinking you were actually trying to have a reasonable discussion. I'm not interested in talking about this anymore with you. You have made it very clear how distorted you are willing to go to support your position. So much so that you defend against a position no one here has ever stated. It just reinforces what I've said before to you. I don't need to repeat it. Others can see it.

If there's some other topic you'd like to discuss and you can actually discern others' position before debating it, I might be interested. With this topic your motives are clear no matter what you say they are.

And this is not unkind or unloving or hateful. This is the truth as you show it in your actions. I will continue to pray for your heart both physically and spiritually of course.

And by the way, can you show scripture that says this statement about popular interpretation being wrong almost always? I think it is dangerous to almost through out popular understanding among Christians simply because it is popular. His Word and Spirit should be the determining factor, not popularity.

I cannot trust one word from a hired man:

John 10
11I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. 12But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. 13The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.

Ezek 34:10
Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I [am] against the shepherds; and I will require my flock at their hand, and cause them to cease from feeding the flock; neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more; for I will deliver my flock from their mouth, that they may not be meat for them.

Jeremiah 23:1
Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the LORD.


1John 5:19
[And] we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

Matthew 7:13
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide [is] the gate, and broad [is] the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

Did you get the Romans 13 interpretation from someone else or your own study? I know it is commonly taught in churches but I am not sure that is how you came to the conclusion about what it means or not.

I cannot trust one word from a hired man:

John 10
11I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. 12But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. 13The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.

Ezek 34:10
Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I [am] against the shepherds; and I will require my flock at their hand, and cause them to cease from feeding the flock; neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more; for I will deliver my flock from their mouth, that they may not be meat for them.

Jeremiah 23:1
Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the LORD.


1John 5:19
[And] we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

Matthew 7:13
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide [is] the gate, and broad [is] the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

Did you get the Romans 13 interpretation from someone else or your own study? I know it is commonly taught in churches but I am not sure that is how you came to the conclusion about what it means or not.

I'm serious Lemon. I'm done talking about this. I have seen your ways, whether medically caused or not, I am not interested in talking to you about this topic anymore. You did this once before only then you came back saying "I am done talking to the professed Christians for a while." Now it's my turn. I'm done talking about this subject with people who do what you have done to this conversation.

How was I unkind? You apologized for an opinion that was actually accurate. I was saying no need to apologize for that. My issue was that what you wrote prior did not express that opinion. If anything an apology would have been nice about the false statement you made. Not one for an opinion you never expressed.

You shouldn't apologize for something you didn't do.

I told you the truth about my concentration and because of what YOU THINK, I did not make a mistake, according to you. Did you think I was lying? Here is what you said:

I am sorry about your health problems. I will continue to pray for you. I will gladly cut you a break if you are sincere that you made a mistake. However I don't think you made a mistake.

So according to your thoughts, I did not make a mistake so then according to you I deserve no break. I get it and it is horrible. I did not lie about my concentration. I'm real tired of abiding by YOUR THOUGHTS.

I'm serious Lemon. I'm done talking about this. I have seen your ways, whether medically caused or not, I am not interested in talking to you about this topic anymore. You did this once before only then you came back saying "I am done talking to the professed Christians for a while." Now it's my turn. I'm done talking about this subject with people who do what you have done to this conversation.

No problem, I'm not interested in your harsh conversation.

No problem, I'm not interested in your harsh conversation.

You're always the oppressed. Never the oppressor. I get it now.

Did my lowly post #60 (http://slickdeals.net/forums/showpost.php?p=32424337&postcount=60) cause the "holy spirit" to sow discord and confusion among his followers over the past 10 pages (and highlight for bystanders why it impossible to reach consensus or any form of objective truth through"faith")?

Mission accomplished. :P

If god did exist, he would have informed how much of a fool you people are for reading scriptures concocted by another mortal.

Neither of you are correct,lib or wang but God did reveal tarts error again. So God did reveal the truth and the error was admonished by Him.

Martib, remember those verses you posted that I said I would think on, pray, and study on? Can you provide them again? I can't for the life of me find the post where they were. You pasted a lot over the past week or so but there was one post which I said I would withhold comment on.

Thanks.

EDIT: nevermind. I think I found it: http://slickdeals.net/forums/showpost.php?p=32334981&postcount=1841

Martib, remember those verses you posted that I said I would think on, pray, and study on? Can you provide them again? I can't for the life of me find the post where they were. You pasted a lot over the past week or so but there was one post which I said I would withhold comment on.

Thanks.

EDIT: nevermind. I think I found it: http://slickdeals.net/forums/showpost.php?p=32334981&postcount=1841

That is the correct posting. I have a busy weekend so I'll try to stay abreast of this post.

Neither of you are correct,lib or wang but God did reveal tarts error again. So God did reveal the truth and the error was admonished by Him.

What is my error?

I know His word is right which is how I can determine what is right and wrong.
"His word" says that believers should both love their brother and hate their brother. So how do you determine what is "right" and what is "wrong"?

"His word" says "an eye for an eye" and "turn the other cheek". So how do you determine what is "right" and what is "wrong"?

How exactly does one resolve the plethora of inherent contradictions contained w/in Scripture? Or resolve the dilemma of several different versions of "Scripture" and the books it contains?

Oh, wait, I forgot.... If lemontart68 believes it, then it must be the correct version of "the truth".

This is why I want to rely upon His word. I have seen many debates here, words of men vs words of men and I try to find a passage that will clear it up. That is what I do, it is my authority, not me, His word is the final word on all matters.
Laughable.

According to you, it is your interpretation of "His word" that is supposed to be the final word on all matters.

After all, *you* believe that the prohibition against braided hair doesn't *really* apply to braided hair, so then it must not.

*You* believe Romans 13 isn't referring to secular govts, so then it must not.

It must be awfully convenient to always have one's personal beliefs codified into religious edict. :thumbup:

I have conceded to be wrong, as I said, I don't think you read all the posts. You cannot say I never said I was wrong just because you have never seen it. Just isn't true.
When have you conceded to be wrong about an interpretation of Scripture in this thread? :look:

The arguments are not against me if I use mostly His word. How can they be?
:secret: Just because you use "mostly His word" doesn't mean you use "His word" correctly.

As a sinful human, you have no better understanding of "His word" than the other believers that you mock and insult (like Camping -- whoever the hell he is :lol:).

If anyone fights against it and it is purely His word, then they fight against His word, not my words.
And here's where the "holier-than-thou" pops up... again.

That's a helluva big "IF" there at the beginning of that sentence, lemon. :rolleyes:

Oh they do indeed try to drag me into "my definitions" and "tell us what you think", etc. I don't fall for it, I know that would be a mess.

So it's not your personal, private interpretation of Scripture that God's prohibition against women wearing braids in their hair doesn't *actually* apply to women wearing braids in their hair?

It's not your personal, private interpretation of Scripture that Romans 13 is referring to Jesus and not secular rulers wrt "the sword"?

If it walks like a hypocrite and talks like a hypocrite .... :whistlin:

For professed Christians, His word should settle the debate.
So long as they agree that "His word" means exactly what *you* claim it to mean.

:vomit:


Just exactly like the free will debate, I gave a lot of scripture and I got back mostly words of men.
And none of that Scripture ever unequivocally stated that man is incapable of exercising free will, which, of course, is the standard you used to reject Scripture that does suggest the existence of free will.

One standard for lemon.... one standard for anyone else who might dare to disagree w/lemon's personal, private interpretations of Scripture.


I do try to be careful even when I do explain something, I try to use the same exact wording as scripture and when I don't, I am really upset with myself. I know better. God doesn't need me to explain His word, it says what it says.
And it says you should be silent and not wear braids in your hair and hate your brother... After all, it says what it says.

I have seen you fall for this distraction many times, when I first came into this thread I encouraged you to use the sword.
"Holier-than-thou" anyone? :coverlaf:

I know how our words are useless plastic knives and they can be easily ripped apart. I cringe reading some of these posts and I wish that every statement made could be proven by scripture. I think carefully about what I type here: Can I back this up with scripture? Lots of it? If not, then I don't say it. Is this just my opinion or does God say this in His word? I find the verse first then I talk about it, not my words and then try to find a verse that supports MY words. No. I do not do this as well as I would like and I actually pray that I am careful with my words, not just here but everywhere. This is serious business, we are talking about God. Not a light matter. I can give my opinion and musings about other topics....but not God. No. When I go on with my own opinion it is most likely not based on His word. That would be lying, to claim a truth about Him and it merely be my own words. This is what I try to avoid.
Then apparently, you need to try a helluva lot harder. :rolleyes:

Please stop saying that I pretend to be holier, I don't know how many times I have explained how sinful and wicked I am. I have said many times that I am a sinner, I am no good at all.
If your private, personal interpretations of Scripture are as universally correct as you claim, how could you *not* be "holier" than us lowly peons whose opinions are supposed to be avoided?

We can debate all day long with our own words but scripture must be our final authority.
Unless, of course, you personally disagree w/what the words of Scripture say.

I cannot trust one word from a hired man:
And yet, you trust an entire Bible filled w/words from a hired man.

:facepalm:

Been reading some today about Hitler and the German churches and I came across this:

A serious problem for the straightforward interpretation can be demonstrated by a word replacement exercise. Romans 13:1-7 (ESV)

[1] Let every person be subject to the Hitler. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. [2] Therefore whoever resists Hitler resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. [3] For Hitler is not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of Hitler? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, [4] for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. [5] Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. [6] For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. [7] Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

:

I'm not worth your time.

According to you, it is your interpretation of "His word" that is supposed to be the final word on all matters.

After all, *you* believe that the prohibition against braided hair doesn't *really* apply to braided hair, so then it must not.

Don't forget the various verses where God speaks unkindly of women who "paint their faces". Lemon apparently likes wearing makeup, so she "interprets" these verses to mean the women are two-faced/liars..when in actuality it's quite clear the bible is talking about women who are using mascara and other traditional makeup. I can't fault her though. Every Christian creates their own personal God..one who miraculously agrees with them on most minor issues. It's not surprising.

http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/57a.htm

Been reading some today about Hitler and the German churches and I came across this:

A serious problem for the straightforward interpretation can be demonstrated by a word replacement exercise. Romans 13:1-7 (ESV)
Except of course, that the biased example used in your "exercise" instituted secular law that violated God's law, so Romans 13 wouldn't apply to him, or at least to those particular laws.

FWIW, no one who has advocated the "secular ruler" interpretation of Romans 13 has claimed that it's necessarily good advice. But, the Bible says what it says.

I'm not worth your time.
"Holier-than-thou" hypocrites are always worth my time. :nod:

Don't forget the various versions where God speaks unkindly of women who "paint their faces". Lemon apparently likes wearing makeup, so she "interprets" these verses to mean the women are two-faced/liars..when in actuality it's quite clear the bible is talking about women who are using mascara and other traditional makeup. I can't fault her though. Every Christian creates their own personal God..one who miraculously agrees with them on most minor issues. It's not surprising.

http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/57a.htm
I wouldn't limit it to just Christians, though. ;)

Except of course, that the biased example used in your "exercise" instituted secular law that violated God's law, so Romans 13 wouldn't apply to him, or at least to those particular laws.

FWIW, no one who has advocated the "secular ruler" interpretation of Romans 13 has claimed that it's necessarily good advice. But, the Bible says what it says.


"Holier-than-thou" hypocrites are always worth my time. :nod:

Nope, I'm not.

Nope, I'm not.Thanks for another awe-inspiring demonstration that if lemon claims it, then it must be true. :coverlaf:

Don't forget the various versions where God speaks unkindly of women who "paint their faces". Lemon apparently likes wearing makeup, so she "interprets" these verses to mean the women are two-faced/liars..when in actuality it's quite clear the bible is talking about women who are using mascara and other traditional makeup. I can't fault her though. Every Christian creates their own personal God..one who miraculously agrees with them on most minor issues. It's not surprising.

http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/57a.htm

What is surprising is that you seem to agree with the religious types that seek dominion over us all. I didn't see that one coming at all. Do you agree with them? Should they control us?

Thanks for another awe-inspiring demonstration that if lemon claims it, then it must be true. :coverlaf:

No problem.

What is surprising is that you seem to agree with the religious types that seek dominion over us all. I didn't see that one coming at all. Do you agree with them? Should they control us?


Uh, no. Where did you get that idea?

Uh, no.

I didn't think you did but isn't it a bit strange that you see Romans 13 the same way they do? Romans 13 is pushed at churches to promote blind allegiance to state. I understand why they do this, after all...they are preaching blind allegiance to the pastor as well. I don't understand why you would agree?

I didn't think you did but isn't it a bit strange that you see Romans 13 the same way they do? Romans 13 is pushed at churches to promote blind allegiance to state. I understand why they do this, after all...they are preaching blind allegiance to the pastor as well. I don't understand why you would agree?

I don't. I agree with you. The difference is I put no stock in the bible. I don't believe it has any authority..and even if it did, I would be forced to oppose what it says in Romans 13. I believe people are justified to rebel against oppressive earthly governments. I believe it is right to break unjust laws and launch a public protest against bad ideas from our "leaders", because I don't believe they have any special authority from God himself. They were put in place by my peers, not the creator of the universe. You share the same opinion as I do when it comes to things like taxes, marijuana criminalization, etc..but you also believe the bible is the authoritative word of God. And the ideas you share with me are in clear violation of certain biblical commands and precepts. There is no contradiction on my end because I believe the bible is just one of a million man-made books. You on the other hand are in a pickle.

I don't. I agree with you. The difference is I put no stock in the bible. I don't believe it has any authority..and even if it did, I would be forced to oppose what it says in Romans 13. I believe people are justified to rebel against oppressive earthly governments. I believe it is right to break unjust laws and launch a public protest against bad ideas from our "leaders"..because I don't believe they are put in place by anyone other than my peers. You and I seem to share the same opinion when it comes to things like taxes, marijuana criminalization, etc. You agree with me on these issues, yet you also believe the bible is the authoritative word from the creator of the universe. The ideas you share with me are in violation of certain biblical commands and precepts. There is no contradiction on my end because I believe the bible is just one of a million man-made books. You on the other hand are in a pickle.

See that is what I am saying...you think it says the same as what is preached in these churches. You don't put authority in it or believe in it but yet you believe the very same about certain passages, yes? How do you reconcile this?

You say the ideas I share are in violation of biblical commands and precepts. How can you cite it one way or another? It isn't your authority, as you said so how can you bring it in as an authority? It is fiction to you and you agree with parts of it? Help me understand this. So many Christians do the same thing, they believe parts of it and throw out the rest.

This is just another proof that the churches are part of the world. You know as soon as anyone says the word "Christianity" that immediately churches pop into our heads, right? The people sitting in the pews think this: Church = God. If you don't believe in God then why do you think the same? Does Church = God for you too? If not, I am misunderstanding you and I'm sorry.

I honestly have no problem with you Lib and I know that you could never profane His name like those who profess Him. You don't sound like the type to tow the line so I am just asking you to consider these things. It is just an issue that I have wondered about for a long time. Why do those in the world who don't believe in Him see some things the very same way as those in the pews?

See that is what I am saying...you think it says the same as what is preached in these churches. You don't put authority in it or believe in it but yet you believe the very same about certain passages, yes? How do you reconcile this?
What is there to "reconcile"? The man read the words on the screen/page and formed an opinion as to what those words meant. That doesn't mean he agrees w/those words, just that he understands the idea(s) those words convey

You say the ideas I share are in violation of biblical commands and precepts. How can you cite it one way or another? It isn't your authority, as you said so how can you bring it in as an authority? It is fiction to you and you agree with parts of it? Help me understand this.
Lib can agree w/an interpretation of a set of words w/o simultaneously agreeing that that set of words represents the "Word of God".

So many Christians do the same thing, they believe parts of it and throw out the rest.
You mean like throwing out commandments against wearing make-up and braiding your hair? :whistlin:

What is there to "reconcile"? The man read the words on the screen/page and formed an opinion as to what those words meant. That doesn't mean he agrees w/those words, just that he understands the idea(s) those words convey


Lib can agree w/an interpretation of a set of words w/o simultaneously agreeing that that set of words represents the "Word of God".


You mean like throwing out commandments against wearing make-up and braiding your hair? :whistlin:

Your name isn't Lib.

Your name isn't Lib.
And it's not really Smeg, either... What's your point?

I'm sure you'd rely on similar methods of deflection and avoidance even if Lib asked you the exact same things. :rolleyes:

See that is what I am saying...you think it says the same as what is preached in these churches. You don't put authority in it or believe in it but yet you believe the very same about certain passages, yes? How do you reconcile this?
I didn't have my idea on the passage "handed down" by a preacher. In fact I never heard a sermon on that passage when I went to church. My opinion on it came from reading it myself and trying to understand what was being said. The fact that many churches (and other believers) came to the same conclusion is not surprising. The meaning seems quite plain to me.


You say the ideas I share are in violation of biblical commands and precepts. How can you cite it one way or another?

While I see no reason to take anything in the book seriously, others do. You believe this is the word of God...that the ideas and commands in the book were handed down from God. The fact that I don't accept that claim doesn't mean I'm not able to read those commands and comprehend what the author (whether God or human) was conveying. I'm sure if you read the Koran, you will be able to understand what is being said, even if you attach no significance to the teachings.

It is fiction to you and you agree with parts of it? Help me understand this.

I'll agree with a good idea where I see it, regardless of the source. Good ideas stand on their own. Even a fictional character from an anonymous author may have words of wisdom to share with the reader. There is some good advice in the bible, and a lot of bad advice. I take it on a case by case basis. Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2:13 are two cases of very bad advice in my opinion. I believe those commandments are wrong and evil...that they support tyranny and acquiescence in the face of injustice. If necessary, I would gladly violate the words on those pages because I believe blind allegiance to a state is nonsensical, and that the bible has no authority over anyone. You however are in an entirely different position. I applaud you for being willing to "follow your heart" and oppose a bad idea when you see it, even when it doesn't line up with what some scribe copied down 2000+ years ago. Just recognize that you aren't being consistent with what your favorite book says.

And it's not really Smeg, either... What's your point?

I'm sure you'd rely on similar methods of deflection and avoidance even if Lib asked you the exact same things. :rolleyes:

I wasn't talking to you, that is the point. It is rude to answer for someone else, another point. I am sure Lib is capable to do this himself.

I wasn't talking to you, that is the point.
Then send him a PM.

If you post on a public Internet forum, it's quite possible that someone other than your intended recipient just might have something to say about it. :bulb:

It is rude to answer for someone else, another point. I am sure Lib is capable to do this himself.
I didn't answer for him. I asked you what in the world he was supposed to "reconcile" wrt his beliefs.

But I'm sure you'll be able to ignore and deflect away from his statements just as well as you are mine. :thumbup:

I didn't have my idea on the passages "handed down" to me by a preacher. In fact I never heard a sermon on that passage when I went to church. My opinion on it came from reading it myself and trying to understand what was being said. The fact that many churches (and other believers) came to the same conclusion is not surprising. The meaning seems quite plain to me.



While I see no reason to take anything in the book seriously, others do. You believe this is the word of God...that the ideas and commands in the book were handed down from God. The fact that I don't buy into that claim doesn't mean I'm not able to read those commands and comprehend what the author (whether God or human) was conveying. I'm sure if you read the Koran, you will be able to understand what is being said, even if you attach no significance to the teachings.



I'll agree with a good idea where I see it, regardless of the source. Good ideas stand on their own. Even a fictional character from an anonymous author may have words of wisdom to share with the reader. There is some good advice in the bible, and a lot of bad advice. I take it on a case by case basis. Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2:13 are two cases of very bad advice in my opinion. I believe those ideas/commandments are wrong and evil...that they support tyranny and acquiescence in the face of injustice. If necessary, I would gladly violate the words on those pages because I believe blind allegiance to a state is nonsensical, and that the bible has no authority over anyone. You however are in an entirely different position. I applaud you for being willing to "follow your heart" and oppose a bad idea when you see it, even when it doesn't line up with what some scribe copied down 2000+ years ago. Just recognize that you aren't being consistent with what your favorite book says.

Truth is truth, no matter who says it. I will agree with you there, no doubt. A lie is a lie, no matter who says it.

Very true, if those passages do promote blind allegiance to the state then I understand why you would throw out the bible. I would too, it would make His word evil. It would represent an ugly god. What if all the noise out there is a lie? What if it is true, that men have changed the truth into a lie? I could show you some examples of it, was actually thinking of posting examples of just how crafty and prevalent this practice is in Churchianity.

I've read much in scripture that seemed very clear on the surface but later found the depth in the passage. These passages that supposedly preach tyranny are taken just by the letter of the text, not the Spirit of it. I've been dead wrong and found many of my own beliefs to be in direct opposition to scripture. Scripture proves me wrong all the time.

You know about exegesis and isogesis, I'm sure. The terms bother me a bit, along with the word hermeneutics because it comes from the god hermes. But that is another topic. What often happens is scripture is read with a preconceived idea of what is there already and our own beliefs are put onto the text. Actually a mixture of our own words and His word, I'm sure you have seen this yourself. I've done it so many times before and it leads to confusion.

You can use the bible to support any of your own thoughts, plans or ideas. Whether they be good or evil, it is a craft, easily done if you know how to do it. So easy to do when we rip out of context, go into it with our own thoughts or force religion onto it. For example, the recent koran burning pastor used Acts 19 to support his plans to burn books. I checked out his website before it was shut down. Here is what he did:

Acts 19
18And many that believed came, and confessed, and shewed their deeds. 19Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver.

The people here in Acts 19 that burned books were the ones who actually used the books, before they believed. It is not a record of outside people burning other people's books but a record of new Christians burning their own former books. The pastor who wants to burn the koran used this passage to promote how holy it was to burn books. That would only apply if the pastor himself was a former user of those books. Since he wasn't a muslim and did not use the koran as truth, Acts 19 does not apply. But he says that it does, very weak argument for him to burn the koran. He misused this passage to further his own agenda and to be honest, I have seen better cons than him. In the same exact way, Romans 13 and other passages are misused to further agendas. Simply put, they have changed the truth into a lie for their own gain.

I know you don't believe scripture is the word of God and like I said, I see no problem or threat with you. The threat for you and I both lies with those who do handle His word with deceit and use these passages to build their own kingdom. A kingdom that would greatly oppress both of us, believer or not. Sure, they want the Christians in control but as it happens I am not their brand of Christian. Not even close. If I, as a Christian, would be executed due to their laws they wish to establish, how much more so would you be as well? I might have a chance to appear like I have the "right Jesus" but you wouldn't even come close, yes?

So I tell you this because the Jesus they preach and try to get us all to gobble is a fraud, a false god of their own minds. Scripture does disagree with them on so many points. Christian Domininists are no different than the likes of Hitler, the misuse of these passages is nothing new. I have a greater reason for digging deeper into these passages when I see them being used in this fashion.

Thank you for humoring me and I hope I made sense.

Truth is truth, no matter who says it. I will agree with you there, no doubt. A lie is a lie, no matter who says it.
And whatever lemontart68 says is, conveniently, always "truth" -- according to her.

Very true, if those passages do promote blind allegiance to the state then I understand why you would throw out the bible.
:headbang:

Lib doesn't throw out the Bible because God gives us "bad" commandments. Lib throws out the Bible because there is no logical or reasonable evidence to suggest it was inspired by a supreme deity.

I would too, it would make His word evil. It would represent an ugly god.
It would still represent an ugly *imaginary* God.

:rolleyes:


What if all the noise out there is a lie? What if it is true, that men have changed the truth into a lie? I could show you some examples of it, was actually thinking of posting examples of just how crafty and prevalent this practice is in Churchianity.
How prevalent in this practice in your own form of Christianity?

What other "truths" do you turn into lies besides the commandments against breaking secular law, wearing make-up or wearing a braid in your hair? What other commandments of the Bible do you reject because they do not fit w/your personal beliefs about what the Bible *should* say?

I've read much in scripture that seemed very clear on the surface but later found the depth in the passage. These passages that supposedly preach tyranny are taken just by the letter of the text, not the Spirit of it. I've been dead wrong and found many of my own beliefs to be in direct opposition to scripture. Scripture proves me wrong all the time.
Like w/secular law... and make-up.... and wearing hair in braids... :whistlin:

How hypocritical of you to claim that the "Spirit" can provide meaning to Scripture not found when reading solely the words on the page, when, wrt the free will debate, you accused others of spreading "lies" and relying on "their word instead of His" when they suggested the same thing wrt the Bible verses supporting the notion of free will.

In other words, lemon, if *you* get to add the context of the "Holy Spirit" to effect the meaning of the words on the page, then why can't other Christians? Why are you the only one qualified or otherwise special enough to sense the context of the Spirit?

So I tell you this because the Jesus they preach and try to get us all to gobble is a fraud, a false god of their own minds.
And you are confident yours is not because why?

In other words, how are you so positively convinced that everything you believe is 100% accurate?

Scripture does disagree with them on so many points.
And Scripture likewise disagrees with you on quite a few points. And yet you remain so thoroughly convinced of your own perfection wrt Biblical interpretation.

I have zero interest in making a better world here, my heart isn't set on this world.

What a sad indictment on faith.

A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in. (Greek proverb)

What a sad indictment on faith.

A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in. (Greek proverb)

I know it sounds lovely when those in office say " for the greater good" but what they really mean is "for the good of the greater". Sure, they preach a better world for us all but are only interested in a better world for themselves. The little people do not matter to them but it makes for a good speech.

I looked long and hard for a world with love, life, peace, joy and freedom. I never did find it here, I still cannot see it here.

Please do not mistake me for someone who throws her hands up in the air and gives up. I could spend my life pretending that I was making this ball of dirt a nicer place. Or I could talk about a better place, a hope beyond this world. I find no hope in this world at all...and yeah...I have tried. For many years I tried to do just that. When I figured out the game was rigged I stopped playing it.

Except of course, that the biased example used in your "exercise" instituted secular law that violated God's law, so Romans 13 wouldn't apply to him, or at least to those particular laws.

FWIW, no one who has advocated the "secular ruler" interpretation of Romans 13 has claimed that it's necessarily good advice. But, the Bible says what it says.



Glad to see someone else noticed what she was doing. 4 times she posted examples of biblical people opposing the law of the land. yet many times she failed to awknowledge that the commandments required of them were direct violations of God's law. I kept hoping she was just mistaken. But it happened over and over. She tried to convince me of some other truth in Romans 13 by posting verses that did not oppose what I was saying. She asked me to cut her a break, and I did - 4 times. I finally gave up cutting her a break.

She claimed I meant one thing. Then later apologized for an opinion that was now different, only this time it was actually accurate. So it wasn't needing an apology. The original statement was.

Glad to see someone else notice yet again another example from her (Hitler this time), a supposed way to show that Romans 13 is saying something crazy according to me. Except this time she is adding/changing God's Word which is sinful as she has said many times. She tries to convince us of it's meaning using a leader who the vast majority of the time used sinful laws to rule.

I don't know what posts you're referring to regarding braided hair. I must have missed that one. But I do know she has multiple times called out other Christians for not bringing witnesses against her sin, for not talking to her privately about her sin first and yet she threw insults at many, calling us hateful, harsh, liars, etc. I can tell you this, not once has she contacted me privately before doing this on the threads. How is that lovely as she claims I have not been when I confront her of her sin.

She continually refers to people who believe Romans 13 is talking about submission to state authority as desiring dominion over all. What a large generalization which is also a lie. I wish for smaller government yet I believe scripture is clear we are to submit to that authority when it doesn't violate God's law. So where is my desire for dominion?

I have learned much from this thread and the Lord has confirmed to me many teachings shared here that I did not have before. I have humbled myself and admitted those both publicly and privately. I have never seen her once admit she misinterpreted scripture. And yet she thinks because she is careful and sincere that there's no way she could misinterpret? Where is the humility in that? She is a sinner just like the rest of us. She is fully capable and she has misinterpreted.

I have no hate for her, but I have sincere hate for the sin she has demonstrated as much as I hate the sin I have demonstrated. Others continue to hate on her instead of just her actions and I don't support that either. If they denied it I would point it out. One has been willing to admit his faults.

My teachers used to tell me to stop over analyzing things. To keep it simple, look at what the test question says and not read into it too much because I would add my own thoughts and my own hopes and confuse things. I got many questions wrong when I did this. I think Lemon does as I do and tries to find the deeper meaning, but sometimes and often we just have to stop reading into it and see what it says plainly to all.

Glad to see someone else noticed what she was doing. 4 times she posted examples of biblical people opposing the law of the land. yet many times she failed to awknowledge that the commandments required of them were direct violations of God's law. I kept hoping she was just mistaken. But it happened over and over. She tried to convince me of some other truth in Romans 13 by posting verses that did not oppose what I was saying. She asked me to cut her a break, and I did - 4 times. I finally gave up cutting her a break.

She claimed I meant one thing. Then later apologized for an opinion that was now different, only this time it was actually accurate. So it wasn't needing an apology. The original statement was.

Glad to see someone else notice yet again another example from her (Hitler this time), a supposed way to show that Romans 13 is saying something crazy according to me. Except this time she is adding/changing God's Word which is sinful as she has said many times. She tries to convince us of it's meaning using a leader who the vast majority of the time used sinful laws to rule.

I don't know what posts you're referring to regarding braided hair. I must have missed that one. But I do know she has multiple times called out other Christians for not bringing witnesses against her sin, for not talking to her privately about her sin first and yet she threw insults at many, calling us hateful, harsh, liars, etc. I can tell you this, not once has she contacted me privately before doing this on the threads. How is that lovely as she claims I have not been when I confront her of her sin.

She continually refers to people who believe Romans 13 is talking about submission to state authority as desiring dominion over all. What a large generalization which is also a lie. I wish for smaller government yet I believe scripture is clear we are to submit to that authority when it doesn't violate God's law. So where is my desire for dominion?

I have learned much from this thread and the Lord has confirmed to me many teachings shared here that I did not have before. I have humbled myself and admitted those both publicly and privately. I have never seen her once admit she misinterpreted scripture. And yet she thinks because she is careful and sincere that there's no way she could misinterpret? Where is the humility in that? She is a sinner just like the rest of us. She is fully capable and she has misinterpreted.

I have no hate for her, but I have sincere hate for the sin she has demonstrated as much as I hate the sin I have demonstrated. Others continue to hate on her instead of just her actions and I don't support that either. If they denied it I would point it out. One has been willing to admit his faults.

My teachers used to tell me to stop over analyzing things. To keep it simple, look at what the test question says and not read into it too much because I would add my own thoughts and my own hopes and confuse things. I got many questions wrong when I did this. I think Lemon does as I do and tries to find the deeper meaning, but sometimes and often we just have to stop reading into it and see what it says plainly to all.

amen, from a fellow dominionist ;) lol ( just incase Lemon tries and comments on this.. I was being sarcastic about the dominionist thing)

George Carlin is in heaven right now and laughing at how silly some people are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

Because I am short on time, I want to link to the following article.

http://www.xomba.com/gods_love_and_the_art_of_rebuking_by_james_wood

I don't think you should take the person's comments as God's Word. But his comments do give a decent flow of scriptural references on how to address sin among fellow believers. I suggest we take the verses quoted and look them up for ourselves and see what God teaches us about rebuking one another in love. If I had not love for my brothers and sisters I would not bother rebuking. And when I am rebuked by them, if it be true, I am grateful for their love to me that they took the time to address it appropriately. Sometimes it only take the Spirit to rebuke us. Other times it takes a sibling of God. Personally I would recommend you look up the verses in the KJV. But also remember it is the Spirit that teaches, not man:

1 Corinthians 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

And I have also seen this tonight which I need to remember personally. Perhaps others do as well, so I share it:

Pr 9:8 Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you; rebuke a wise man and he will love you.
Pr 9:9 Instruct a wise man and he will be wiser still; teach a righteous man and he will add to his learning

Hopefully after all this we will love one another and be wiser and have learned something.

Please do not mistake me for someone who throws her hands up in the air and gives up. .... When I figured out the game was rigged I stopped playing it.
So we shouldn't mistake you for someone who has given up, merely because you admit you've given up? :scratchh:

I don't know what posts you're referring to regarding braided hair. I must have missed that one.
It's from a pretty long time ago, probably back in the retired thread. IIRC, I think it was martib who first mentioned it in order to highlight for Lemon the part about women being silent rather than teaching:

1 Timothy 2:9-12

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

When I mentioned the braided ("broided") hair part, Lemon's interpretation was that it was not referring to real actual braids in one's hair, but some sort of spiritual representation that really meant something else. :dontknow:

In other words, it's conveniently not a sin when *she* wears braids in her hair... or wears make-up. ;)

I have no hate for her, but I have sincere hate for the sin she has demonstrated as much as I hate the sin I have demonstrated. Others continue to hate on her instead of just her actions and I don't support that either. If they denied it I would point it out. One has been willing to admit his faults.
FWIW, I have no hate for her -- or anyone else on TP. :grouphug: Nor do I attempt to "hate on" anyone.

But I do have a rather strong dislike for pretentious hypocrites. :nod:

My teachers used to tell me to stop over analyzing things. To keep it simple, look at what the test question says and not read into it too much because I would add my own thoughts and my own hopes and confuse things. I got many questions wrong when I did this. I think Lemon does as I do and tries to find the deeper meaning, but sometimes and often we just have to stop reading into it and see what it says plainly to all.
IMHO, the search for the "deeper meaning" only occurs when the obvious interpretation is incompatible w/her personal beliefs (such as Romans 13 & 1 Timothy 2)

George Carlin is in heaven right now and laughing at how silly some people are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

Carlin had some things right, especially when he did that bit about the owners of this country. Too bad he didn't know that the corrupt church system has nothing to do with God. At least he noticed the hypocrisy and questioned the religious leaders.

EDIT: one time she did bring up something I had done that was sinful privately. I shared something public that was not be shared. Once I confirmed it was true, I admitted my mistake and she forgave me. I don't want to make it seem that this never happened. Just not the vast majority of the time. In my opinion, if we are going to go down this road and admonish one another to stick to the plan laid out, then all accusations of sin should be done privately first. That certainly she has not done most of the time and I have probably not done it every time as well, but have on many occasion only for her not to accept it or admit it. She did one time apologize if I was offended by her comments though. She is still a sister in Christ.

Very true, if those passages do promote blind allegiance to the state then I understand why you would throw out the bible. I would too, it would make His word evil. It would represent an ugly god. What if all the noise out there is a lie? What if it is true, that men have changed the truth into a lie? You forgot one option. What if the bible means exactly what it says..that men correctly understand what it is saying, and that the meaning is still ugly? That's my opinion on Romans 13 as well as Romans 9 and countless other passages. The verses explaining the unpleasant character and commandments of the Christian God aren't the reason I don't believe in him however. They just make me grateful that there isn't a shred of evidence for his existence. :)
I've read much in scripture that seemed very clear on the surface but later found the depth in the passage. These passages that supposedly preach tyranny are taken just by the letter of the text, not the Spirit of it.

I think shifty had a good point above lemon. You are trying to read too much into some passages. It seems to me you are instinctively repulsed by certain ideas in the bible. You view some ideas in there as stupid or unjust, and if you don't want to believe what a passage plainly states, you "read into it"..twisting yourself in mental contortions in a vain attempt to find the "real" meaning behind it, and to convince yourself it doesn't mean what it says. I don't envy the position you are in (having put this book on such a high pedestal) but there is not much I can do about it except tell you that I think you've given the book undue credit. I know that criticism will fall on deaf ears because the fact is you have given the book a place of honor in your world, and are therefore very uncomfortable when you read something in it that doesn't sit well with you. But you simply can't interpret your way out of every situation. Sometimes a spade is really a spade.

You can use the bible to support any of your own thoughts, plans or ideas. Whether they be good or evil, it is a craft, easily done if you know how to do it.
I agree 100%, and I think every Christian does this, including you. Don't take this personally.. From my experience all Christians do it to some extent (including myself when I was a believer). I know it is hard to realize this sitting in your position, but shifty, tal, steady, and several other believers have been trying to point out to you that this is indeed what you are doing when it comes to Romans 13, 1 Peter 2:13, and other verses that command Christians to submit to earthly authorities. Smeg has brought up the (much more minor) issue of the bible condemning things like hair braiding and makeup (face painting) and where you seem to disagree there as well. I know you are a good person, that your motives are pure, and that you are opposed to those who want to abuse the bible..but all the same, you are still imprinting your personality on the text..accepting some passages at face value while twisting, reinterpreting, or rationalizing away others that you disagree with.

You forgot one option. What if the bible means exactly what it says..that men correctly understand what it is saying, and that the meaning is still ugly? That's my opinion on Romans 13 as well as Romans 9 and countless other passages. The verses explaining the unpleasant character and commandments of the Christian God aren't the reason I don't believe in him however. They just make me grateful that there isn't a shred of evidence for his existence. :)


I think shifty had a good point above lemon. You are trying to read too much into some passages. It seems to me you are instinctively repulsed by certain ideas in the bible. You view some ideas in there as stupid or unjust, and if you don't want to believe what a passage plainly states, you "read into it"..twisting yourself in mental contortions in a vain attempt to find the "real" meaning behind it, and to convince yourself it doesn't mean what it says. I don't envy the position you are in (having put this book on such a high pedestal) but there is not much I can do about it except tell you that I think you've given the book undue credit. I know that criticism will fall on deaf ears because the fact is you have given the book a place of honor in your world, and are therefore very uncomfortable when you read something in it that doesn't sit well with you. But you simply can't interpret your way out of every situation. Sometimes a spade is really a spade.


I agree 100%, and I think every Christian does this, including you. Don't take this personally.. From my experience all Christians do it to some extent (including myself when I was a believer). I know it is hard to realize this sitting in your position, but shifty, tal, steady, and several other believers have been trying to point out to you that this is indeed what you are doing. I know you are a good person, that your motives are pure, and that you are opposed to those who want to abuse the bible..but all the same, you are still imprinting your personality on the text..accepting some passages at face value while twisting, reinterpreting, or rationalizing away others that you disagree with.

So we have discussed Romans 13 but you failed to mention what other passages, verses, etc I am twisting. There really is no point in me ever sharing scripture again if you all consider it as me putting my own spin on it. Probably a good idea anyhow so I won't waste any more time here.

I tried telling you not to take it personally lemon..Every Christian creates their own religion. I mention the Romans verse because it is the biggie..dealing with a HUGE issue about life here on earth, so it is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. The meaning of the words is crystal clear, and it is backed up by other verses in the bible (1 Peter 2:13 and Daniel 4:17 off the top of my head. Shifty has provided several others). As for other areas of the book..I edited my post before you responded and mentioned the other less significant areas where you seem to dismiss verses that don't suit your tastes. I'm not trying to "rebuke" you as you asked people to do.. I'm just asking you to step back for a moment.. Try coming at the bible from a fresh point of view..as if reading it for the first time without any presuppositions or biases...then see if lemontart68's opinion is consistent with the obvious meaning of the text. If you do this, I'm sure you will find a few discrepancies. If you really believe each page is inspired by God himself and you want to be consistent, you need to accept it fully..warts and all.

I tried telling you not to take it personally lemon..Every Christian creates their own religion to some degree. I mention the Romans verse because it is the biggie..dealing with a HUGE issue about life here on earth, so it is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. The meaning of the words is crystal clear, and it is backed up by other verses in the bible (1 Peter 2:13 and Daniel 4:17 off the top of my head. Shifty has provided several others). As for other areas of the book..I edited my post before you responded and mentioned the other less significant areas where you seem to dismiss verses that don't suit your tastes. I'm not trying to attack or "rebuke" you as you asked people to do.. I'm just asking you to step back for a moment.. Try coming at the bible from a fresh point of view..as if reading it for the first time without any presuppositions or biases...then see if lemontart68's opinion is consistent with the obvious meaning of the text. If you do this, I'm sure you will find a few discrepancies. If you really believe each page is inspired by God himself and you want to be consistent, you need to accept it fully..warts and all.

Oh it is no problem, I have actually been thinking about dropping it all here. You haven't caused me to bail out, I think it is just time to do so. I understand why you don't abide by scripture but I don't understand the professed Christians who do the same. I just wanted to look at the scripture with them but it isn't happening. Sometimes you just understand that no matter what you say then they will fight against it. It isn't me taking it personally, it is others who would love to discuss people instead of the Word. Things would be fine it they dealt with the scripture and didn't talk about the person who posted it. Lib, you haven't been anywhere near as rude to me as the others and I do appreciate it. As I said before, you cannot profane His name like a professed Christian.

I have to take a fresh look each and every day. I wake up stupid and go to bed the same way. The more I do learn the more I feel like I don't know a thing. Scripture always proves me wrong and for that I am glad. I can't have a discourse about scripture when all they want to use is their own words. So I will leave this thread where I found it. I will still read it and I would lay money on the fact that it will consist of mostly men's words. Just the way it was before I came into the thread. I've learned an awful lot here, nearly every post I made with scripture I was looking at it new and fresh again myself. Its been great but time to move on.

Its been great but time to move on.

http://i55.tinypic.com/23t582s.jpg

:) See ya around lemon. Everyone needs a break once in a while.. Don't be a stranger though.

:) See ya around lemon. Everyone needs a break once in a while.. Don't be a stranger though.

See ya Lib. :)

Oh it is no problem, I have actually been thinking about dropping it all here. You haven't caused me to bail out, I think it is just time to do so. I understand why you don't abide by scripture but I don't understand the professed Christians who do the same. I just wanted to look at the scripture with them but it isn't happening. Sometimes you just understand that no matter what you say then they will fight against it. It isn't me taking it personally, it is others who would love to discuss people instead of the Word. Things would be fine it they dealt with the scripture and didn't talk about the person who posted it.

Really? Seems like you've a whole lot of talking about people in this thread. Why is OK if you do it and not others?

Lib, you haven't been anywhere near as rude to me as the others and I do appreciate it. As I said before, you cannot profane His name like a professed Christian.

I wonder if you put yourself in that group, of professed Christians who have been rude? I wonder how many times you fall on your knees and say "Lord forgive me for I have sinned with rude words, hypocritical stances, and professing things you later taught me weren't true." We have all been there, just not sure if you have.

See ya Lib. :)

If you truly are done posting here, it's been a learning experience and overall I'm glad you chose to participate. The good outweighs the bad for certain. Will continue to pray for you, especially your health and family.

Oh it is no problem, I have actually been thinking about dropping it all here. You haven't caused me to bail out, I think it is just time to do so. I understand why you don't abide by scripture but I don't understand the professed Christians who do the same. I just wanted to look at the scripture with them but it isn't happening. Sometimes you just understand that no matter what you say then they will fight against it. It isn't me taking it personally, it is others who would love to discuss people instead of the Word.
Because it all comes back to your belief that your interpretations of Scripture are always 100% accurate. You *did* look at Scripture w/other Christians. And some of them dared to disagree w/your personal interpretations of those Scriptures! :bigeye:

Things would be fine it they dealt with the scripture and didn't talk about the person who posted it. Lib, you haven't been anywhere near as rude to me as the others and I do appreciate it. As I said before, you cannot profane His name like a professed Christian.
Except that this isn't a thread solely for professed Christians to discuss lemontart's one true meaning of Scripture.

This is a *debate* thread, meaning every once in awhile, you're going to have an asshat like me actually disagree w/what you say or challenge your reasons for holding your opinion. ;)

I have to take a fresh look each and every day. I wake up stupid and go to bed the same way. The more I do learn the more I feel like I don't know a thing. Scripture always proves me wrong and for that I am glad. I can't have a discourse about scripture when all they want to use is their own words. So I will leave this thread where I found it. I will still read it and I would lay money on the fact that it will consist of mostly men's words. Just the way it was before I came into the thread. I've learned an awful lot here, nearly every post I made with scripture I was looking at it new and fresh again myself. Its been great but time to move on.
Again, you've somewhat arrogantly assumed that this thread is *supposed* to consist mostly of Scripture. Where in the world would you get such an idea? This is a debate thread about proselytizing specifically and the existence of
religions in general.

Even w/all that, however, I hate to see any voice silenced, even if voluntarily. :sadwalk:

shifty, I hope you weren't referring to me that I am one of those that didn't admit I was never wrong. I never made the claim nor will I on tarts part. I called her out a long time ago and you defended her actions then. I said nothing to personally offend her or bring offense to her. I stated facts that were not disputed. Whether tart agreed or not with them didn't make them false.It took you a good bit of time to finally catch on but my question to you is the things you say you learned from her are they based on scripture or based on her private biased interpretation. I don't ask you this out of malice but rather concern for truth. As I read the last few pages there were many valid questions that she should have had answered but instead ducked them which brings up even more about her knowledge of scripture. However the one valid statement that was bought up because of this is alarming and a point that I bought up a while ago "Damaging God's Word" , "Private Interpretation". The statement was by lib:"Every Christian creates their own religion". That in itself is a terrible rebuke to us isn't it? So perhaps next time this goes on we'll remember to "Know and not wrest with the scriptures" as God's word says.

shifty, I hope you weren't referring to me that I am one of those that didn't admit I was never wrong. I never made the claim nor will I on tarts part. I called her out a long time ago and you defended her actions then. I said nothing to personally offend her or bring offense to her. I stated facts that were not disputed. Whether tart agreed or not with them didn't make them false.It took you a good bit of time to finally catch on but my question to you is the things you say you learned from her are they based on scripture or based on her private biased interpretation. I don't ask you this out of malice but rather concern for truth. As I read the last few pages there were many valid questions that she should have had answered but instead ducked them which brings up even more about her knowledge of scripture. However the one valid statement that was bought up because of this is alarming and a point that I bought up a while ago "Damaging God's Word" , "Private Interpretation". The statement was by lib:"Every Christian creates their own religion". That in itself is a terrible rebuke to us isn't it? So perhaps next time this goes on we'll remember to "Know and not wrest with the scriptures" as God's word says.

Hi Martib, I don't detect any malice in this post, no. I have seen words written by all of us in this thread that at one point or another we should be ashamed of. I do include you in that group, yes. If you would like to discuss those privately or publically, let me know. What bothers me most is when people confess sin and then do it again right away. I have done that more than I count in my life, Lord knows so I'm not trying to appear better than anyone else. It bothers me when I do it probably more than when I see others do it.

Regarding Lemon's stances and what stances I have taken, I will repeat that she has challenged me in many ways, and I took her advice then and always: don't believe man, but check all things with Scripture and the Spirit. She said things that I at first did not agree with but upon reading the word privately, checking Scripture and waiting on the Lord have changed my stance on. She has said things that I agreed with already from my past experiences with scripture and the Spirit. And she has said things that I didn't agree with and still have not been taught otherwise by the Spirit and I think scripture is clear on. I appreciate your concern though. We should all be careful when considering our thoughts on scripture.

The following are all very dangerous things for a Christian to say. They are dangerous because it implies the speaker thinks he/she always has it right and others have it wrong. It implies that people are just reading in their own opinion. They imply that the person can see clearly what scripture says and yet anyone else who says scripture is clear about a different interpretation, they are lieing or false teachers, or what-not. One thing she did remind me is that I am not hear to teach or convince others. I am here to share what I think Scripture teaches. But the convincing and turning of the heart? That is up to God. We are not the Holy Spirit. He has all the power and purpose, not us. And mostly, everything we've discussed here, everything we discuss in Bible studies, or in Sunday School, or at a Christian school, or with our friends over coffee, they are all providing what we, men, think Scripture says. No one talks by simply quoting scripture without any words of their own. So while I agree we must be very careful that we don't see wisdom from other books about God, we must not fool ourselves into thinking we are not doing the exact same thing by talking to anyone else about Scripture. But I do much prefer the latter so that we can actually have a discussion. I have only seen a couple cases where Christians here admitted that perhaps they were wrong in their understanding about Scripture before the discussion here. I have mentioned a few and I think Talgot mention he was reconsidering his thoughts on suicide and the Bible. The fact that few people if any are willing to admit any change in understanding makes me wonder just how much of a discussion this has all been and perhaps it has just been a "podium" for people to tell others how wrong they are and how right they are. I guess that's why they call it The Podium though right?

And "He" can be replaced with "She" easily:

* He is just making his own opinion into the scripture
* He is reading his thoughts into scripture.
* He is making his own religion
* He is using private interpretation
* He is twisting what scripture says clearly
* I wish they would leave their opinions out and just look at Scripture
* I wish they would let the Spirit teach and not other people.

Hi Martib, I don't detect any malice in this post, no. I have seen words written by all of us in this thread that at one point or another we should be ashamed of. I do include you in that group, yes. If you would like to discuss those privately or publically, let me know. What bothers me most is when people confess sin and then do it again right away. I have done that more than I count in my life, Lord knows so I'm not trying to appear better than anyone else. It bothers me when I do it probably more than when I see others do it.

Regarding Lemon's stances and what stances I have taken, I will repeat that she has challenged me in many ways, and I took her advice then and always: don't believe man, but check all things with Scripture and the Spirit. She said things that I at first did not agree with but upon reading the word privately, checking Scripture and waiting on the Lord have changed my stance on. She has said things that I agreed with already from my past experiences with scripture and the Spirit. And she has said things that I didn't agree with and still have not been taught otherwise by the Spirit and I think scripture is clear on. I appreciate your concern though. We should all be careful when considering our thoughts on scripture.

The following are all very dangerous things for a Christian to say. They are dangerous because it implies the speaker thinks he/she always has it right and others have it wrong. It implies that people are just reading in their own opinion. They imply that the person can see clearly what scripture says and yet anyone else who says scripture is clear about a different interpretation, they are lieing or false teachers, or what-not. One thing she did remind me is that I am not hear to teach or convince others. I am here to share what I think Scripture teaches. But the convincing and turning of the heart? That is up to God. We are not the Holy Spirit. He has all the power and purpose, not us. And mostly, everything we've discussed here, everything we discuss in Bible studies, or in Sunday School, or at a Christian school, or with our friends over coffee, they are all providing what we, men, think Scripture says. No one talks by simply quoting scripture without any words of their own. So while I agree we must be very careful that we don't see wisdom from other books about God, we must not fool ourselves into thinking we are not doing the exact same thing by talking to anyone else about Scripture. But I do much prefer the latter so that we can actually have a discussion. I have only seen a couple cases where Christians here admitted that perhaps they were wrong in their understanding about Scripture before the discussion here. I have mentioned a few and I think Talgot mention he was reconsidering his thoughts on suicide and the Bible. The fact that few people if any are willing to admit any change in understanding makes me wonder just how much of a discussion this has all been and perhaps it has just been a "podium" for people to tell others how wrong they are and how right they are. I guess that's why they call it The Podium though right?

And "He" can be replaced with "She" easily:

* He is just making his own opinion into the scripture
* He is reading his thoughts into scripture.
* He is making his own religion
* He is using private interpretation
* He is twisting what scripture says clearly
* I wish they would leave their opinions out and just look at Scripture
* I wish they would let the Spirit teach and not other people.

As I expressed to you before you may bring anything that you think is pertinent to the conversation. I will admit to right/wrong I have done. Take in consideration what you/I perceive as sin may really be the question. When I joined in this conversation many,many pages back I worded my posts carefully and precisely as to make a valid point again you/they may not have agreed with the facts but just the same they were true. I will not be intentionally maligned or spoken down to by anyone. I've been saved for over 20 years and do not take God's word lightly nor do I expect that from others I debate with. So as to conversations with those that think they are fully correct in what scripture says and will not admit error (because we are all filthy rags) I question all their knowledge of scripture and even the Holy Spirits involvements with their understandings.The claim was made that she understood much of the scriptures and had a few more thing to study(I think I'm correct and am remembering properly). I have a number of years behind me and have not even scratched the surface yet and I not saying it's impossible just highly improbable. I myself show you what I believe is true but not claim my believe is absolutely correct and God declares it so. My mind is biased as all men's minds are and to claim it is not so is an outright lie. This is something I learned a number of years ago reading a book on evolution. So as I said before we need to be careful of the claims we make on knowing something because we are all biased in one way or another. Knowledge without wisdom makes us fools!

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Peter 3:16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

I know it sounds lovely when those in office say " for the greater good" but what they really mean is "for the good of the greater". Sure, they preach a better world for us all but are only interested in a better world for themselves. The little people do not matter to them but it makes for a good speech.

I don't know if you're still reading this, but is that really what you got from that Greek proverb I posted?

As I expressed to you before you may bring anything that you think is pertinent to the conversation. I will admit to right/wrong I have done. Take in consideration what you/I perceive as sin may really be the question. When I joined in this conversation many,many pages back I worded my posts carefully and precisely as to make a valid point again you/they may not have agreed with the facts but just the same they were true. I will not be intentionally maligned or spoken down to by anyone. I've been saved for over 20 years and do not take God's word lightly nor do I expect that from others I debate with. So as to conversations with those that think they are fully correct in what scripture says and will not admit error (because we are all filthy rags) I question all their knowledge of scripture and even the Holy Spirits involvements with their understandings.The claim was made that she understood much of the scriptures and had a few more thing to study(I think I'm correct and am remembering properly). I have a number of years behind me and have not even scratched the surface yet and I not saying it's impossible just highly improbable. I myself show you what I believe is true but not claim my believe is absolutely correct and God declares it so. My mind is biased as all men's minds are and to claim it is not so is an outright lie. This is something I learned a number of years ago reading a book on evolution. So as I said before we need to be careful of the claims we make on knowing something because we are all biased in one way or another. Knowledge without wisdom makes us fools!

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

I have spoken generally regarding all of our sin. Are you saying everything you have said to myself or Lemontart, the tone you used, the words you used, they were all acceptable to the Lord? If you have searched Him and found not fault in the manner in which you addressed people, never mocking, never being rude, and always seeking to be a peacemaker, and the Spirit has not convicted you of any sin, then enjoy the peace that comes from that. I do know that it is not always our intentions that matter but how it is received and how it is done. My wife can attest to much sin I have committed yet having good intentions.

If at the end of the day we can be sure we had charity then we can rest easy.

1 Corinthians 13
1Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
2And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
3And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
4Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
5Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
6Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
7Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

We all must make sure our heart is where our lips are. Otherwise we serve not and instead simply pay lipservice.
Isaiah 29:13
13Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:

And we must get rid of all hatred, suffering no sin towards one another, rebuking in love and in wisdom
Leviticus 19:17-18 (King James Version)
17Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.
18Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

And let us seek the Lord to make sure we have no hate in our hearts. Otherwise everything that we share here, it may all be for naught since we might be walking as the blind do, not knowing where we're going or what we're saying.
1 John 2:11 (King James Version)
11But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.

And when we try to restore a brother or sister, we must be careful otherwise we will find ourselves tempted to sin as well. I know I have been there in this thread on more than one occassion. And we must restore with gentleness and meekness. Have we done this?

Galatians 6
1Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.


Gossip and evil speaking are very different from rebuking or bringing someone back who is in sin. Judgment is reserved for the Lord.

James 4:11-12 (King James Version)
11Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.
12There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?


Again, I say we are all guilty. Any that claims they are not is walking with blinds over their eyes. It's no matter. All will be made known some day. We must choose our words wisely, always seeking to be peacemakers, for if we call ourselves brothers and sisters in Christ, we will be peacemakers.

Matthew 5:9 (King James Version)
9Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

I have been reading and came across these verses. I am seeking out what they mean, but thought I'd share them with everyone. The first section reminds me a lot about lobbying and the like. How many secrete gifts pass hands?

Deuteronomy 16:18-20 (King James Version)

18Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, throughout thy tribes: and they shall judge the people with just judgment.
19Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous.


And then I see this section which shows God's disgust for us requesting rulers of men instead of Him. The part I am seeking out is if the description of how the king rules is a prophecy of what's to come for them or if it's a commandment of how it should be run. If the latter, I have seen some people use this passage to promote only 10% taxes total for the governments. Then again the taxes then were to provide for the government employees, not to give back to the people in various forms. Much to learn here.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%208:7-18&version=KJV

I have been reading and came across these verses. I am seeking out what they mean, but thought I'd share them with everyone. The first section reminds me a lot about lobbying and the like. How many secrete gifts pass hands?

Deuteronomy 16:18-20 (King James Version)

18Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, throughout thy tribes: and they shall judge the people with just judgment.
19Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous.


And then I see this section which shows God's disgust for us requesting rulers of men instead of Him. The part I am seeking out is if the description of how the king rules is a prophecy of what's to come for them or if it's a commandment of how it should be run. If the latter, I have seen some people use this passage to promote only 10% taxes total for the governments. Then again the taxes then were to provide for the government employees, not to give back to the people in various forms. Much to learn here.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%208:7-18&version=KJV

Lets get down to brass tacks here.

1. God never wanted to appoint a king over the people but the people wanted and demanded a king as those pagan nations had. Verse 7

2.Beings God's was angered by this He made rules that would inconvenience some by taking the best livestock,their beautiful young women and 10% of their income. Tithes and offering are completely different than tax/support to run the kingdom so using this to justifying tithe offerings is wrong. Abraham gave 10% of all to King Melchizedek (Willingly). Tithes and offering are always voluntary and is not always 10% the widow gave 2 mites all she had. To me 10% is for legalists because it is not found in the NT besides you can't out give God.

3. We have always had Judges over us ordained by God. Moses,Joshua then the Judges to follow His commandments which have been circumvented.

4.And the final "thou shalt not respect persons" Means not to put anybody no matter who they are regardless of their status above God's law. As a King is no different than a servant as Jesus(king) washed the apostles(servants) feet over Peters objection. And above all we are to see that those in office don't take bribes to again to circumvent the law(wrest/twist) to receive a lighter or no sentence.

So with all them their words we are in agreement.

I have spoken generally regarding all of our sin. Are you saying everything you have said to myself or Lemontart, the tone you used, the words you used, they were all acceptable to the Lord? If you have searched Him and found not fault in the manner in which you addressed people, never mocking, never being rude, and always seeking to be a peacemaker, and the Spirit has not convicted you of any sin, then enjoy the peace that comes from that. I do know that it is not always our intentions that matter but how it is received and how it is done. My wife can attest to much sin I have committed yet having good intentions.

If at the end of the day we can be sure we had charity then we can rest easy.

1 Corinthians 13
1Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
2And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
3And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
4Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
5Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
6Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
7Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

We all must make sure our heart is where our lips are. Otherwise we serve not and instead simply pay lipservice.
Isaiah 29:13
13Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:

And we must get rid of all hatred, suffering no sin towards one another, rebuking in love and in wisdom
Leviticus 19:17-18 (King James Version)
17Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.
18Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

And let us seek the Lord to make sure we have no hate in our hearts. Otherwise everything that we share here, it may all be for naught since we might be walking as the blind do, not knowing where we're going or what we're saying.
1 John 2:11 (King James Version)
11But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.

And when we try to restore a brother or sister, we must be careful otherwise we will find ourselves tempted to sin as well. I know I have been there in this thread on more than one occassion. And we must restore with gentleness and meekness. Have we done this?

Galatians 6
1Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.


Gossip and evil speaking are very different from rebuking or bringing someone back who is in sin. Judgment is reserved for the Lord.

James 4:11-12 (King James Version)
11Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.
12There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?


Again, I say we are all guilty. Any that claims they are not is walking with blinds over their eyes. It's no matter. All will be made known some day. We must choose our words wisely, always seeking to be peacemakers, for if we call ourselves brothers and sisters in Christ, we will be peacemakers.

Matthew 5:9 (King James Version)
9Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Again I never said I'm not a sinner but I'll let scripture speak for itself.

Romans 16:17 (King James Version)

17Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

So this is why I take my stand on this issue and the reason I stopped responding to the doctrine she's "teaching". I don't disagree with the scriptures you posted but this one is in fact on the money for not accepting correcting.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Which was refused. So as you see there is love through correction. And I think you posted scripture on that too.

I like to at this time to not pursue this admonition any more it serves no purpose to complement God's word. There's been enough damage done by all involved.

Again I never said I'm not a sinner but I'll let scripture speak for itself.

Romans 16:17 (King James Version)

17Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

So this is why I take my stand on this issue and the reason I stopped responding to the doctrine she's "teaching". I don't disagree with the scriptures you posted but this one is in fact on the money for not accepting correcting.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Which was refused. So as you see there is love through correction. And I think you posted scripture on that too.

I like to at this time to not pursue this admonition any more it serves no purpose to complement God's word. There's been enough damage done by all involved.

Never claimed you weren't a sinner. Not sure why you responded as if I had claimed that. We are all sinners, so I would never have questioned whether you were a sinner. I simply encouraged each of us to determine if God was pleased with the way we spoke to one another. Each of us must search our hearts and seek God's wisdom in that matter. I don't need you to say yay or nay. I expressed an admonition to all of us and you asked if I included you among those. I simply said that I have admitted my mishandling of how I spoke to people and Talgot admitted his. Lemon did not. You have said you'd admit it if you did, so I'm supposing since you have not admitted it, you think you haven't sinned in how you spoke to me or Lemon. If that is how the Spirit is leading you then there's nothing her or myself can say to change your mind. If you feel you have not been perfect in your words to us, then I encourage you to share as you said you would. I don't need you to. It is not for the person receiving the confession but for the confessor.

I realize you probably think I'm dragging this out with you. You were not sure what I was suggesting so I wanted to make it clearer. People who read this board have seen us all sin. I think it's important that they see confession and forgiveness too. Because that is really what Christ offered, life through forgiveness and if cannot model it amongst each other then we are not the city on the hill that we are charged to be. My wife and I try to model this with our daughter. If we are irresponsible enough to have a fight in front of her we try to also let her witness reconciliation and forgiveness and love. I wish my parents had shown that side of their relationship growing up. Things might have been different. So you see, I do believe this process serves to complement God's word. Redemption and forgiveness and mercy are key ingredients to God's relationship with us.

Martib,

I promised at some point to provide responses to the verses you provided back in post 1841. I wanted to provide something so far. For review, here's the post:

-----------------------------------------------------
1 Tim 2:1
1I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— 2for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time. 7And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles.

2 peter 3:9
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

You sounding more and more like tart but here's one on the blind I refer to but you can also do the same search I did

John 9:39
Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind."
-----------------------------------------------------

At this point I'd like to comment only on John 9:39. To really understand what it means you need to look at the whole chapter. A quick summary is that Jesus was asked who's sin caused a man's blindness, his parents or his own. Jesus said it was for the purposes of God. Jesus proceeds to heal the blind man's site by spitting in clay dirt, mixing it and rubbing it on the man. The meat starts when he is questioned by the Pharisees who think because Jesus healed on the Sabbath day that he is a sinner. Others didn't believe him so they asked his parents who, fearing being banished from the synagogue, said they should ask their son instead. First the man questioned if they wanted to be his disciples because they were asking him to retell the story. They felt they were so high as supposed disciples of Moses. The man responded that Jesus could not be a sinner because "God heareth not sinners". (that statement alone has serious implications but I'm not addressing that at this point). And then they cast him out. Later the man is before Jesus and confesses that Jesus is the Son of God and worships him. And then Jesus says 9:39. Lastly the Pharisees who hear him ask if they are blind. Jesus says because they think that they see, they remain in sin.

So the question is, is Jesus saying he came to save everyone? No. He is saying that those religious people who think so highly of themselves, lacking humility and recognition of their blindness, they are actually going to be made blind. They will not see the light. They will be made blind to Jesus. And those who are blind spiritually, but recognize that and worship Jesus, they will be given sight. This idea resonates throughout scripture where God opens people's eyes, gives them ears to hear, softens their hearts, etc. It's what happened to me back in middle school, praise be to God. It was not something I did of my own free will. I was given eyes to see. I did not invent them or create them or figure out a way to pry off the blinds. It was all God's doing.

Some may ask, well if this doesn't mean God wants all to come to him, then does it mean there is no free will? My response remains the same: this shows that God calls us, turns our hearts to him, removes the blinds, etc. That calling is certainly not involving free will. But I don't see it speaking about the rest of our lives. So no, I don't think this shows that there is no free will. It does show that some people are created to bring glory to God, even with a disease or handicap. I don't know if that means all, but it at least means some.

Sometime later I'll try and offer what I've been taught on the others. Haven't been yet, so that'll have to wait.

Lets get down to brass tacks here.

1. God never wanted to appoint a king over the people but the people wanted and demanded a king as those pagan nations had. Verse 7
What are you talking about? Every messianic prophecy is a promise from God for a king. The word messiah implies a king or a high priest but taken in context, the prophecies speak of the coming King of Israel.