quote:

ORIGINAL: bob97

Well you see wayward...that’s the problem. There is really nothing I can say for the most part that will change your mind. That is something the Holy Spirit will have to do. That is the essence of these theological debates that is so maddening. One person sees scripture one way and others see it differently and for the most part…never the twain shall meet. Oh we agree on the basics…that Christ is the Son of God and the only way to salvation but most other things are subject to debate. In Christ we have an unwavering faith, that He is the only way to salvation…that is way there is no other faith that holds true for us.

So if you are still researching the existence of one or more divinities or deities I’m afraid we would not consider you a Christian.

quote:

You ask the question regarding the meaning of the elect on another thread and my answer is those whom God has given the faith to believe in His Son as being the Messiah and salvation of those who believe.

quote:

If we were close in our discussion I would give you scripture to help guide you on your journey but it looks like we are quite far apart.

It would be my pray that God give you this faith and change your heart to accept Jesus Christ as the only way to salvation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bob97

Well you never know wayward...keep searching and you just might find yourself being called. God has time. I guess the question is, do you. But then if it doesn't seem important to you I'll not preach to you anymore.

Bob

quote:

ORIGINAL: falcnjet

Why does the God of the old testament seem so cruel at times? Ordering Saul to utterly destroy the Amalekites (including women, children and cattle). Ordering David to brutally murder all of his enemy army over a certain height. Etc. There were times, and not just a few, when God seemed arbitrary and heartless in His dealings with mankind. I like to know what some of you think about this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico

quote:

ORIGINAL: falcnjet

Why does the God of the old testament seem so cruel at times? Ordering Saul to utterly destroy the Amalekites (including women, children and cattle). Ordering David to brutally murder all of his enemy army over a certain height. Etc. There were times, and not just a few, when God seemed arbitrary and heartless in His dealings with mankind. I like to know what some of you think about this.

That's like calling Churchill cruel by wanting to completely destroy the Nazis. One shudders to think what would have happened if the allies had allowed Georing, Himmler, or a number of Nazis to live and thrive. God won't tolerate evil any more than he will allow himself to be mocked. So one has to see the depth and degree of his own sins before he's qualified to judge God.

quote:

ORIGINAL: falcnjet

Now you sound like you really are as honest a searcher for truth as any of us can be. Your post struck me as sincere.

quote:



What a great question this is. And I understand your point about culture's strong influence on religious beliefs.

quote:


For a person in your position, well, for any of us, it's a long and complicated road to understanding everything about this stuff. And we'll never understand it all. But it is more important than anything else we could spend our time on.

quote:

One has to really want the truth if they're going to arrive at it.

quote:


There is no way to thoroughly address these questions here. I'm sure thousands of books have been written about the various implications of it. So of course, I can't try.
I'll just tell you that I believe Christianity holds the correct world view because of the incredible reliablity of scripture.

quote:

Hundreds of prophesies fulfilled. Written by over 40 men over a 1600 year span on three different continents and in three different languages, yet with remarkable unity of message.

quote:


Futher, no other religion that I know of was founded by someone who claimed to BE God. Christ made that claim, and an honest person looking for truth has to deal with that.

quote:


Finally, I reject other religions because they conflict with the one that I have personal assurance is true. Other religions are excluded from being equal with Christianity because they are in direct conflict with it.

I know this is a general statement of belief and there are a lot of "what abouts" and "what ifs".

quote:

I'm sure I'll see a few in responses, but as I said, you've asked questions who's answers are deep and complicated.
As I said before, best of luck to you.

quote:

I wouldn't be here if it didn't seem important to me sir. I've given a huge part of my life to this subject, and I'll continue to do so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bob97

quote:

I wouldn't be here if it didn't seem important to me sir. I've given a huge part of my life to this subject, and I'll continue to do so.

Well keep on digging then brother and I hope the truth is revealed to you.

Bob

quote:

ORIGINAL: wayward1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico

quote:

ORIGINAL: falcnjet

Why does the God of the old testament seem so cruel at times? Ordering Saul to utterly destroy the Amalekites (including women, children and cattle). Ordering David to brutally murder all of his enemy army over a certain height. Etc. There were times, and not just a few, when God seemed arbitrary and heartless in His dealings with mankind. I like to know what some of you think about this.

That's like calling Churchill cruel by wanting to completely destroy the Nazis. One shudders to think what would have happened if the allies had allowed Georing, Himmler, or a number of Nazis to live and thrive. God won't tolerate evil any more than he will allow himself to be mocked. So one has to see the depth and degree of his own sins before he's qualified to judge God.

Really? Did Churchill want the women and children and bovine Nazi's dead too?

quote:

ORIGINAL: wayward1

quote:

ORIGINAL: theo_book

quote:

(wayward1) I am most definitely a theist, but I don't grant tacit authority to other people for defining God.

At the outset though, I consider myself to be well within my rights to have some say in How god is defined. I have my definition. You have yours.

Well now. That certainly clears up the issue somewhat, for me at least.
May I forward a guess? My guess is that in your search for truth, you have read some books about the bible? And about God? Please correct me if I misspeak.

Yes I have read several books on this subject. Probably about 12, but I'd have to sit down and think about it.

quote:

That's like calling Churchill cruel by wanting to completely destroy the Nazis. One shudders to think what would have happened if the allies had allowed Georing, Himmler, or a number of Nazis to live and thrive. God won't tolerate evil any more than he will allow himself to be mocked. So one has to see the depth and degree of his own sins before he's qualified to judge God.

quote:

ORIGINAL: falcnjet
I think its more than God not tolerating evil. He tolerates a lot of evil.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico

quote:

ORIGINAL: wayward1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico

quote:

ORIGINAL: falcnjet

Why does the God of the old testament seem so cruel at times? Ordering Saul to utterly destroy the Amalekites (including women, children and cattle). Ordering David to brutally murder all of his enemy army over a certain height. Etc. There were times, and not just a few, when God seemed arbitrary and heartless in His dealings with mankind. I like to know what some of you think about this.

That's like calling Churchill cruel by wanting to completely destroy the Nazis. One shudders to think what would have happened if the allies had allowed Georing, Himmler, or a number of Nazis to live and thrive. God won't tolerate evil any more than he will allow himself to be mocked. So one has to see the depth and degree of his own sins before he's qualified to judge God.

Really? Did Churchill want the women and children and bovine Nazi's dead too?

Most of the bombing of Germany killed the women and children as well. No one is innocent. We were all born guilty. Heaven is not an entitlement just because we were born. It is a gift from God and a gift giver is the one who chooses to whom he will give.

quote:

ORIGINAL: theo_book



Thank you for your response. My point however, is that you will have to remember the source of your conclusions when you read books ABOUT the bible. If you read the bible, you only have to remember where in the bible you found your material. It simplifies matters, and gets one further into the issues much quicker.

quote:

Many folks consider something like "I don't understand what I'm reading, so I depend on others to tell me what it means." Of course THAT assumes the "others" understand it correctly.


And if you don't understand it, how can you depend upon the understanding of others who also may not understand it, but don't admit it?

quote:

If you read the bible, with a desire to understand it with a view to obey it, God has PROMISED he will give you understanding. Maybe not within a week, but then how long do you plan to live?

quote:

Read with humility, and a desire to understand, and depend upon God to show you the rest. Things will begin to "dawn on" you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wayward1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico

quote:

ORIGINAL: wayward1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico

quote:

ORIGINAL: falcnjet

Why does the God of the old testament seem so cruel at times? Ordering Saul to utterly destroy the Amalekites (including women, children and cattle). Ordering David to brutally murder all of his enemy army over a certain height. Etc. There were times, and not just a few, when God seemed arbitrary and heartless in His dealings with mankind. I like to know what some of you think about this.

That's like calling Churchill cruel by wanting to completely destroy the Nazis. One shudders to think what would have happened if the allies had allowed Georing, Himmler, or a number of Nazis to live and thrive. God won't tolerate evil any more than he will allow himself to be mocked. So one has to see the depth and degree of his own sins before he's qualified to judge God.

Really? Did Churchill want the women and children and bovine Nazi's dead too?

Most of the bombing of Germany killed the women and children as well. No one is innocent. We were all born guilty. Heaven is not an entitlement just because we were born. It is a gift from God and a gift giver is the one who chooses to whom he will give.

Women and children die in war yes, but there is a difference between accepting the ugliness of collateral damage and specifically ordering women and children to their death. The innocent Jewish women and children we were there to save gave the allies sufficient grounds for accepting collateral damage.

Perhaps you've heard of the concept of the "perfect weapon". It's basically used to hone in on the moral compass of political leaders in war. If the allies would have had a "perfect weapon" they would have chosen to use it over carpet bombing. US and "allied" efforts to develop precision weapons have gone on nonstop since Churchill's day and we now use GPS and Laser guided weapons that are much more expensive than conventional weapons, but they absolutely minimize collateral damage. Two new small order GPS guided bombs have been rushed to service by the US to further reduce collateral damage in Iraq.

Imagine the roles were reversed and it was a Muslim country that was the only remaining superpower on Earth. Do you think their leaders would react this way if it had been Christian terrorists who had blown up big buildings on their "homeland". Do you think they would send the best and brightest young men and women to carefully pluck the bad guys out of the streets. Do you think they would weep like our service men and women do when innocents are killed?

No, comparing God to Churchill simply WILL NOT cut it.

The leader's of Churchill's day, including Churchill (warmonger that he was) would have elected to use precision weapons to minimize innocent casualties if they would have had them available.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico

quote:

ORIGINAL: wayward1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico

quote:

ORIGINAL: wayward1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Carico

quote:

ORIGINAL: falcnjet

Why does the God of the old testament seem so cruel at times? Ordering Saul to utterly destroy the Amalekites (including women, children and cattle). Ordering David to brutally murder all of his enemy army over a certain height. Etc. There were times, and not just a few, when God seemed arbitrary and heartless in His dealings with mankind. I like to know what some of you think about this.

That's like calling Churchill cruel by wanting to completely destroy the Nazis. One shudders to think what would have happened if the allies had allowed Georing, Himmler, or a number of Nazis to live and thrive. God won't tolerate evil any more than he will allow himself to be mocked. So one has to see the depth and degree of his own sins before he's qualified to judge God.

Really? Did Churchill want the women and children and bovine Nazi's dead too?

Most of the bombing of Germany killed the women and children as well. No one is innocent. We were all born guilty. Heaven is not an entitlement just because we were born. It is a gift from God and a gift giver is the one who chooses to whom he will give.

Women and children die in war yes, but there is a difference between accepting the ugliness of collateral damage and specifically ordering women and children to their death. The innocent Jewish women and children we were there to save gave the allies sufficient grounds for accepting collateral damage.

Perhaps you've heard of the concept of the "perfect weapon". It's basically used to hone in on the moral compass of political leaders in war. If the allies would have had a "perfect weapon" they would have chosen to use it over carpet bombing. US and "allied" efforts to develop precision weapons have gone on nonstop since Churchill's day and we now use GPS and Laser guided weapons that are much more expensive than conventional weapons, but they absolutely minimize collateral damage. Two new small order GPS guided bombs have been rushed to service by the US to further reduce collateral damage in Iraq.

Imagine the roles were reversed and it was a Muslim country that was the only remaining superpower on Earth. Do you think their leaders would react this way if it had been Christian terrorists who had blown up big buildings on their "homeland". Do you think they would send the best and brightest young men and women to carefully pluck the bad guys out of the streets. Do you think they would weep like our service men and women do when innocents are killed?

No, comparing God to Churchill simply WILL NOT cut it.

The leader's of Churchill's day, including Churchill (warmonger that he was) would have elected to use precision weapons to minimize innocent casualties if they would have had them available.

First of all, no one is born innocent. But I find it interesting that those who can't admit they sin are the first ones to complain about God's wrath.

Secondly, God repeatedly warned men what would happen to them if they disobeyed God. They ignored Him. So since they didn't care enough about their own lives, God told them He would punish their children if they continued to disobey Him. Again, they ignored him as you probably do as well. So parents who love sin more than they love their children are the last people to complain about God not being loving!

Thirdly, God is showing us what he will do to those who disobey him. Yet people still ignore him and call him names. Even most animals know better than to bite the hand that feeds them. So when people still continue to mock God, they get what they deserve since God has repeatedly warned them what will happen to those who mock Him and His creation.

And lastly, God offers a complete free pardon to anyone who wants it. People don't even have to pay for their wrongdoings because Jesus paid it for them. So all people have to do is merely confess their sins and seek God's forgiveness for them. That's all they have to do. No earthly judge would give such a pardon. So if people refuse that free pardon, then they are completely responsible for their decision. Actions have consequences and no one gets off this earth scot-free. We reap what we sow. So people who can't admit their guilt are the last people to criticize God.

quote:

Carico:
God offers a complete free pardon to anyone who wants it. People don't even have to pay for their wrongdoings because Jesus paid it for them. So all people have to do is merely confess their sins and seek God's forgiveness for them. That's all they have to do.

quote:

(theo) My point however, is that you will have to remember the source of your conclusions when you read books ABOUT the bible. If you read the bible, you only have to remember where in the bible you found your material. It simplifies matters, and gets one further into the issues much quicker.

(wayward1) That's an interesting approach. Most of my "conclusions" are from other people's thoughts that's for sure. Most of us are like this without knowing it though. We simply don't have time to delve into matters ourselves. If we want to gain knowledge about more than one or two things then it's going to require us to trust the continued work of people who specialize in various fields. These people will have trusted people before them, vice starting over at square one with their research. No one really comes to their own conclusions on very much.

quote:

(wayward1) I imagine I've read every word of the New Testament at one point or another but not front to back in order. I've read the parts meant to have been the exact words of Jesus and I've found all of it to be quite beautifully poetic, but little more.

quote:

(theo) Read with humility, and a desire to understand, and depend upon God to show you the rest. Things will begin to "dawn on" you.

(wayward1) But see, when you talk to me like there's something that has "dawned on" you that hasn't "dawned on" me, don't you effectively condescend? I don't think you mean it that way, but isn't that what it is?

For example, if I said to you, "read such and such with an open mind and forget your current assumptions and perhaps things will begin to 'dawn on' you", wouldn't you take it as a slight? Wouldn't it feel like I thought I was smarter than you, and that there were things I had figured out that you hadn't yet figured out?

quote:

(wayward1)(post #2) I think your question deserves much attention and you are wise to ask. I find the God of the OT to be extremely difficult to understand when I work from the assumption that the being described therein created the heavens and the earth and man. I hesitate to consider it, but as a thought experiment, I once considered what God would be like if, rather than God creating man, man had somehow created God. It turned out that in my assessment, the traits we see in the OT are disturbingly like those traits a God created by man would be most likely to bear.

For me at least, when I read the OT under the assumption that man created God, there is very little trouble understanding His characteristics at all. In fact everything made perfect sense.

He displayed all of the human frailties we would expect of a God created in man's image, by man. He was jealous, vengeful, petty, egotistical, misogynistic, capricious and malevolent to name a few. I'm not suggesting this is what happened. I'm merely pointing out that from that assumption, the God of Abraham makes much more sense to me.

quote:

(wayward1) I think they are equal statements in that they both assume the person saying them knows more than the person hearing them. If the Christian position is always going to be, "keep an open heart and one day you'll know what we know" then I might always be pushed away by this default condescension that I could never get away with. If they won't take me seriously when I say "perhaps if you read what I've read , like I've read it, you'll be as wise as I am", then I simply have no reason to take them seriously when they say "perhaps if you read what I've read, like I've read it, you'll be as wise as I am".

quote:

(wayward1) Because it is "wisdom" that's at stake; supreme, ultimate, glorious wisdom, and if Christians have it, then I want it. My life means a lot to me, and so does my afterlife if I am to have one.

quote:

(Carico) I find it interesting that those who can't admit they sin are the first ones to complain about God's wrath.

quote:

(Carico) Secondly, God repeatedly warned men what would happen to them if they disobeyed God. They ignored Him. So since they didn't care enough about their own lives, God told them He would punish their children if they continued to disobey Him. Again, they ignored him as you probably do as well. So parents who love sin more than they love their children are the last people to complain about God not being loving!

quote:

(Carico) Thirdly, God is showing us what he will do to those who disobey him. Yet people still ignore him and call him names. Even most animals know better than to bite the hand that feeds them. So when people still continue to mock God, they get what they deserve since God has repeatedly warned them what will happen to those who mock Him and His creation.

quote:

(Carico) And lastly, God offers a complete free pardon to anyone who wants it. People don't even have to pay for their wrongdoings because Jesus paid it for them. So all people have to do is merely confess their sins and seek God's forgiveness for them. That's all they have to do. No earthly judge would give such a pardon. So if people refuse that free pardon, then they are completely responsible for their decision. Actions have consequences and no one gets off this earth scot-free. We reap what we sow. So people who can't admit their guilt are the last people to criticize God.

quote:

ORIGINAL: theo_book

(theo) I guess it depends upon how much value you place on your own soul, and how much importance you place on salvation thereof.

quote:



(theo) I do not believe a person can understand the new testament if he does not know the old. As for reading "the words of Jesus," I can only say that is a myth. It assumes the authors remember the words themselves and not just the message taught by the words. And since it is by inspiration of the Spirit, who know which is more important to him?

quote:

(theo) I fail to see where that is condescending. If I go on a public board and respond to someone's question, "Why is it that ...?" and you respond, how could it possibly be condescending?

quote:


(theo) How is it that your opening "You are wise to ask" is not condescending in the same way my statement "It will dawn on you," seems to be to you?